This is the only approach I can see that will not leave open the possibility of a mirror that unhides deleted items—you simply integrate that mirror into the website.
I’d think that making the hidden section available via a button would trigger those who do not want to be reminded of bad comments. Perhaps make it a flag in the URL?
I’d like to see an option to instead read hidden comments not at the end of the thread, but inlined, marked, to where they would be if not hidden.
Of course there’s no reason to split the reader experiences between what the author wants and everything-goes. Let anyone submit metadata on any post, build filters out of the metadata for the community, and use any filter to choose or highlight what they see. Example filters:
Anything goes.
That filter which the author has chosen for me, or if none that which they use to view this post.
Posts which I have not deemed ban-worthy, by people I have not deemed ban-worthy.
That which the Sunshine Regiment has deemed worthy of highlight or hiding.
Posts that fit in my filter bubble, having been upvoted by people who usually upvote the same sorts of things I do, or written by people who usually reply to the same people I would reply to.
An author could choose what filter they would suggest to the user if the Sunshine Regiment attached the front page tag and then the Sunshine Regiment can use that to decide whether to attach it.
Karma would play no role in this beyond being another piece of metadata.
This is reminiscent of Usenet-style killfiles, only fancier. I think anybody designing a discussion site could learn a lot from Usenet and newsreaders.
This is the only approach I can see that will not leave open the possibility of a mirror that unhides deleted items—you simply integrate that mirror into the website.
I’d think that making the hidden section available via a button would trigger those who do not want to be reminded of bad comments. Perhaps make it a flag in the URL?
I’d like to see an option to instead read hidden comments not at the end of the thread, but inlined, marked, to where they would be if not hidden.
Of course there’s no reason to split the reader experiences between what the author wants and everything-goes. Let anyone submit metadata on any post, build filters out of the metadata for the community, and use any filter to choose or highlight what they see. Example filters:
Anything goes.
That filter which the author has chosen for me, or if none that which they use to view this post.
Posts which I have not deemed ban-worthy, by people I have not deemed ban-worthy.
That which the Sunshine Regiment has deemed worthy of highlight or hiding.
Posts that fit in my filter bubble, having been upvoted by people who usually upvote the same sorts of things I do, or written by people who usually reply to the same people I would reply to.
An author could choose what filter they would suggest to the user if the Sunshine Regiment attached the front page tag and then the Sunshine Regiment can use that to decide whether to attach it.
Karma would play no role in this beyond being another piece of metadata.
This is reminiscent of Usenet-style killfiles, only fancier. I think anybody designing a discussion site could learn a lot from Usenet and newsreaders.