I have recently become aware of a recent 4um controversy that has apparently caused a schism in the forum and I would like to offer one possible solution to the problem for the forum to consider. On the one hand, bozoing inhibits exchanges between posters (and might be abused via registration of fake ID's just to run up the bozo count on targeted posters and make them think that they are more generally disliked than they really are).
On the other hand, bozoing allow users to disassociate themselves from posters who they would rather not be associated with (for whatever reason).
Christine recently opted to balance these two goods by lowering the per-poster bozo count to 10 (believing that this would encourage more interaction and discourage bozo abuses via fake IDs, while still allowing a reasonable freedom to disassociate). Unfortunately, posters who had had more than 10 posters bozo'ed could no long disassociate with the number of posters that they wished to as a result and opted instead to disassociate themselves from the forum entirely.
So, the basic problem is this: can the forum allow users to disassociate themselves from other posters as they like while, at the same time, serve its purpose, which is to foster free and open exchanges between posters who do not necessarily agree politically?
I think the answer might be yes, if, that is, the forum's poster-to-poster interactions were more like real life.
As it stands now, the forums' interactions are not like real life because bozoing is cheap for the bozoer and of weak effect on the bozoed. This is so because, unlike real life, the persons being bozoed do not know who is bozoing them. This fact greatly diminishes the social repercussions of bozoing and being bozoed.
In real life, on the other hand, if someone choose to not speak to (or associate with) someone else, both parties know it. Hence, for the bozoer, there are social consequences (or costs) to disassociating that must be considered (as well as the benefits). And for the bozoed, the costs of being disassociated from are fully known and weighed against the benefits of continuing their present mode of social interaction, allowing them to adjust their behavior accordingly (or not).
If 4um operated more like a real life, posters would know exactly who was bozoing them. This would eliminate the incentive for some to inflate bozo-counts via the registration of fake IDs, since the bozoed would then know that they were being falsely bozoed. This would also result in an optimal level of disassociation (and forum interaction) because:
1) the bozoers would bear the full social costs (as well as receive the benefits) of disassociation, and
2) the bozoed would know the full social costs (as well as the benefits) of their own posting behavior, and could moderate their behavior accordingly.
In sum, I suggest that the number of bozos be unlimited but that the bozo'd know not just the bozo count but also exactly who has bozoed them. I would also keep PM communications open between the bozoer and the bozoed, because, in real life, even those who have disassociated have the possibility of changing their mode of relating and reassociating later on a better basis. These changes I believe would lead to an optimal level of forum interaction (and disassociation).
Poster Comment:
What do ya think?