A message from our reader

答复

Although 2047 does have its Terms of Service (TOS) and Detailed Administrative Regulation (DAR), nearly all of them behaved as if those rules never exist at all, as they failed to invoke a specific article of either TOS or DAR, but barely immersed themselves in relentless value debates and cost benefit calculations, which reflected the fact they more or less lack the awareness of the terms.

• Our admins have never been trained as professional moderators
• A large portion of them have never been in any position of power
• Since this forum is mainly about politics, it's quite normal for people to have their own version of "freedom", "rights", "rule of law", etc.
• But I still need moderators, and I must allow them to talk freely, to give our audience a sense of free speech, even at the cost of displaying extreme carelessness / stupidity on certain issues regarding moderation.
• Cost benefit calculations/discussions is a good way to teach the moderators how government actually works in real world. No one sticks to the law unconditionally; politics/economics would be useless otherwise.

For controversial violations, the case shall be reviewed by a panel consisting of odd-numbered admins. The preliminarily blocked user is allowed to defend himself/herself, and other users can express their views for reference. Finally, the panel vote to decide the case. In other words, the authority of so called "vote ban" shall be exclusively granted to the admins so that uncertainty and latent manipulations can largely be eliminated.

No form of voting should be written into our rules. Vote-bans are, and should be, exceptions not norm.

Other than reasons explained above,

• one-person-one-vote is intrinsically flawed. Democracies chose it because it maximizes apparent fairness, so people would complain less.
• Fairness(among users or admins) is never what we're after as a private company. To survive in competition we have to maximize efficiency.
• We allow users to defend themselves so they can't complain about our process of being unfair.
• Yes votebans counts only admin votes. It's more a show of hands (as a political tool); the final decision is never based solely on the result of the vote.
• I have in the past and will in the future overrule from time to time to close the gap between what people vote for and what they actually want.

In my opinion, "institutionalization"/"rule by law" means no one except the site owner is above the law, namely terms. It requires all users to have an awareness of compliance with the terms and admins to exercise their authorities in accordance with the terms.

要从根本上解决这个问题，需要普及道德教育，甚至搞“社会信用分”。我们目前的处理方式是把缺陷品直接丢掉。

Institutionalization/rule by law brings more certainty and stability as it can restrain the admins' willfulness. By contrast, it seemed so weird that a user somehow was blocked by one admin and soon unblocked by another. And clearly stated and interpreted terms also bring predictability, so that users can better learn how to behave themselves.

已经有管理员因此事被处理。我个人给管理员的忠告是，在现实生活中行不通的做法，不要在2047使用。特权可以调动坦克，但碾不碎巴拿马文件。

Secondly, nearly all of your admins are good content generators, yet that never ensure them to be good admins. In my view, some admins are unqualified and incompetent to deal with blocking. At least they should be acquainted with 2047's TOS and DAR.

很多管理员作出过不参与站务的承诺。

对于什么人该封，意见上起决定作用的admin并非所有admin。由于这相当于降低了部分管理员岗位的含金量，我不会透露具体名单。

很多人认为政治就是制定一个规则，然后所有人按照规则走就行了，其实不是的。写在纸上的条文，effectiveness总是比不上政治家们在桌底达成的共识。将黑盒抽丝剥茧，会降低黑盒的effectiveness（例如近年的radicalization，以及最近论坛遇到的擦边球大师）；黑盒太多又会令人天然反感。我们就是要在中间取一个balance。

谢谢这位匿名提建议者。

我就是那种不擅长做管理的。我脾气大，不爱考据，不爱照章办事，总之就非常不适合。

反正我也不想当管理员，要不是去年小二不在了需要人守护2049，我也不想干。

我已经多次跟站长说，如果觉得我不行，就直接说，别拐弯抹角，大家好聚好散，用不着在多个无关帖子里挤兑人。

给你挂个管理员，然后又说你含金量不够，你的意见不起决定作用，我们另有秘密名单，嘿嘿，干嘛呢？

就算说的不是我，是其他任何管理员，都不想被放到这么一个尴尬位置上。所以，反正已经有那么多管理员了，大家能力都很好，不缺我一个，请站长收回成命，让我求仁得仁。

这真不是撒娇贴。

请不要对号入座。

@thphd <#134036>

哈哈哈：）

@消极

请祭出你的经典笑话 ：）

In other words, the authority of so called "vote ban" shall be exclusively granted to the admins so that uncertainty and latent manipulations can largely be eliminated.

The blocked user and any dissenting admin has the right to appeal. If either 1/3 of the admins or the site owner agree to take the appeal, then the case shall be reviewed and to be voted by all members of the admins. The case is decided only if the 1/2 threshold is met. Since admins are not always online, it may take a long time. (By the way, I noticed that some experienced admins were absent from both of the votebans on 天下无贼. Had they participated in, the result could have been different.)

赞，这位像是专业人士，我几天之前说的非常粗略和外行，但是大致意思和方向是不谋而合的。 @MasterChief <#133441>

管理员是参议院内阁，如果内阁成员1/3支持即可表明问题的严重性，就可以避免特殊情况的民意操纵。也可以用黄牌犯规量化评价体制，犯规到一定次数，比如5次到10次，下一次就是红牌罚下。民主原则是用来解决政治、立法、重大公共问题，不是用来解决具体的司法问题，具体个案的司法问题走司法程序。陪审团是一个很小的团队（例如挑选无犯罪记录的德高望重者），不是所有人民都参与。

@MasterChief <#134040> 管理员民主并不能避免下面这种情况：

2/3管理员投票认为川普是垃圾，1/3管理员投票认为川普是上帝，最终结论：川普是垃圾，然后1/3管理员出走。

从网站的角度，让1/3管理员出走的制度肯定不是好制度。我首先需要对网站的发展负责，其次才是对个别用户负责。

译者注：

DAR：2047论坛管理细则

TOS：服务条款

This is a private message from one of our readers.

这是一条来自咱们读者的私信

Dear thphd, I have been a read-only tourist of 2047 for a long time. I basically agree with your stand and trust your capabilities, but I still worried about the efficiency and robustness of your "rule of man" philosophy of forum management, so I am going to provide you with my "two cents" provoked by the recent debates on banning 天下无贼.

亲爱的thphd，很久以来，我一直是2047的「只读」观光客。我基本同意你的立场、信任你的能力，但是，我仍然为您「人治」这一论坛政治哲学的效率及稳定性感到担忧。受近期关于封禁天下无贼的辩论所启发，我将提出一点拙见。

Since publicly criticizing the admins violates Article 13-2 of Detailed Administrative Regulation of 2047 Forum(t/8055), I chose to PM you instead.

由于公开指责管理员违反《2047论坛管理细则（二读）》中第13条下第2点，我决定以私信代替。

On the Incident of 天下无贼

关于近期天下无贼事件

The debate on the identity of Wumao is entirely pointless, irrelevant and distracting, as it has nothing to do with the issue at all, since the terms don't stipulate that any user who makes pro-CCP claims on 2047 shall be banned.

既然《管理细则》中没有哪一项规定 用户若发表偏向共产党的言论即当封禁，因此关于「五毛身份」的辩论是完全无意义的，毫不相关，并且有干扰性，和问题本身没有关联。

As far as I am concerned, the existence of 天下无贼 is distasteful yet that alone is not enough to drive me away from 2047. However, what worries me most is that how poorly most of the admins and users performed in the debate. Although 2047 does have its Terms of Service (TOS) and Detailed Administrative Regulation (DAR), nearly all of them behaved as if those rules never exist at all, as they failed to invoke a specific article of either TOS or DAR, but barely immersed themselves in relentless value debates and cost benefit calculations, which reflected the fact they more or less lack the awareness of the terms.

就我而言，天下无贼这个用户令我不快，但是单凭这个用户是不够驱我离开2047的。然而，最使我忧虑的是本站大多数管理员和用户在辩论中展现的水平。尽管2047有自己的《服务条款》，以及《论坛管理细则》，几乎所有这些人都表现得像这些条款不存在一样，并且没能调用其中的任何具体规定，而是沉浸于无休止的价值观辩论和盈亏运算里。这反映了一个事实，即他们或多或少缺乏对条款的了解。

On the Practice of Blocking Users

论封禁用户

In my opinion, the relationship among the users and site owner is a contractual or contract-like relationship. Specifically, it's a two-way "donation", that is, the site owner grants the users to freely use the site's services as long as they comply with the terms (TOS, DAR and other policies and regulations), meanwhile the users voluntarily generate contents and contribute to the site traffic and popularity (though it brings no profit).

我认为，用户和论坛拥有者的关系是合约性的，或者说是类似于合约性的。具体而言，这是一种双向的「捐献」，即，只要用户遵守网站的规定，网站站长便给用户以免费使用网站服务的权利；同时，用户自愿输出内容，贡献网站的流量和人气，尽管这不会带来任何利润。

The DAR serves as part of the contracts, as put it in t/8055#102550 that the DAR is the product of agreement instead of legislation. Therefore, blocking accounts of users who breached the term, namely their contractual duties, can viewed as a unilateral cancellation of the contract and a necessary remedy taken by the site owner.

《2047论坛管理细则》属于合约的一部分，如 t/8055#102550 所说，DAR（《2047论坛管理细则〉）是建立在约定的基础上，而非立法。因此，封禁违反条款（即名义上的合同义务）的用户，可被视为一种单方面终止合同，以及站方采取的必要补救措施。

So whether a user should be banned is solely a contractual dispute. All of the debates concerned with such dispute shall be rule/term-oriented, as the only thing we need to address is what the term is (which article of the which term applies and how is it interpreted), instead of arguing what the term should be, needless to say to disregard the established rules/terms and replace them with the debaters' own values and whim.

所以用户是否被封禁完全属于合同纠纷。所有关于这种纠纷的辩论，应当集中于 条款/项 上面，我们唯一需要探讨的是「条款怎么说（哪个条款的哪一项适用？如何解释该条款？）」，而不是争论「条款应当说什么」，更不是以辩论者自己的价值观和猜想代替已确定的条款。

The practice of blocking a user is in essence more like the practice of judiciary rather than legislation, so it's not sensible to introduce polls (in your words, "voteban") to decide whether a user should be blocked. As we have already established rules, why bother resorting to direct democracy and adopting the ancient-Greek-time ostracism?

本质上，封禁用户更像是司法权的使用，而非立法权，因此通过公投（也就是“voteban”）决定是否封禁用户是不明智的。我们已经有了确立的规则，何必要求助于直接民主制和古希腊时期的贝壳流放法呢？

Furthermore, as it is a formal question and whose answer can only be correct or incorrect, there is no room for challenging the legitimacy of the final decision since all the user agreed to obey the terms at the first place, just like the court need no referendums to confirm the legitimacy of its adjudication.

此外，由于它（？）是一个严肃正式的问题，答案只能是「对」或「不对」，挑战最终决定之合法性是不应容忍的，就像法庭不需要以全民公决确认某裁决的合法性一样，毕竟所有用户都已经同意把「遵守规定」放在首位。

As for the value and utility debates, they should be reserved for the rectification procedure. All users can put forward suggestions to rectify the TOS and DAR (see t/7851#101203).

关于价值观和功利的辩论，它们应该被保留给 纠正程序。所有用户都可以提出关于《服务条款》和《管理细则》的整改建议（见t/7851#101203）。

Suggestions for Rules on Blocking (Article 12 of DAR)

关于封禁（《管理细则》第12条）的建议

I suggest to distinguish controversial violations (e.g. Article 9-1 of DAR, also see t/11778#133836) and uncontroversial violations (e.g. Article 9-6, 9-7 of DAR), and then take different approaches to deal with them in order to balance efficiency and fairness.

我建议明确区分有争议性的违约行为（如《管理细则》第9条第1点，以及t/11778#133836）以及非争议性的违约（如《管理细则》第9条第6点、第7点），并且以不同的方式处理它们，来寻找效率和公平之间的平衡。

Any admin has the discretion to block a user, but reasons of blocking must be provided, including at least one post link as evidence and the specific article of terms applied.

任何管理员都有封禁用户的自由裁量权，但是必须提供封禁理由、牵涉的具体条例，且至少包括一条其所发内容的超链接，来作为证据。

For uncontroversial violations, the decision of blocking take effect instantly.

对于非争议性的违约，封禁决定带来的效果可谓立竿见影。

For controversial violations, the case shall be reviewed by a panel consisting of odd-numbered admins. The preliminarily blocked user is allowed to defend himself/herself, and other users can express their views for reference. Finally, the panel vote to decide the case. In other words, the authority of so called "vote ban" shall be exclusively granted to the admins so that uncertainty and latent manipulations can largely be eliminated.

争议性的违约案件则应该被一个由奇数管理员组成的「陪审团」检查，允许被初步封禁的用户为自己辩护，允许其他用户表达ta们自己的观点来作为参考。最后，小组投票，判决案件。换句话说，「voteban」的权威应属于管理员的专属权力，这样一来，不确定性和潜在的操纵选票的可能性就会被很大程度排除。

The blocked user and any dissenting admin has the right to appeal. If either 1/3 of the admins or the site owner agree to take the appeal, then the case shall be reviewed and to be voted by all members of the admins. The case is decided only if the 1/2 threshold is met. Since admins are not always online, it may take a long time. (By the way, I noticed that some experienced admins were absent from both of the votebans on 天下无贼. Had they participated in, the result could have been different.)

被封禁的用户，以及任何持异见的管理员，拥有上诉的权利。如果三分之一管理员或者站长本人同意上诉，案件应该被再次检查，并且所有管理员都可以投票。只有票数达到全部管理员的半数时，才通过最终决定。由于管理员们并非长期在线，这一过程可能会持续很久。（顺便一提，我注意到有些管理员并没有参加关于天下无贼的voteban。如果他们参加了，结果有可能发生变化）

The site owner reserves the authority to overturn any case.

站长保留掀翻否决任何案件的权力

And I also recommend you to develop a collection of 2047 case law (e.g. t/11325#128378) as a complement to the terms, so that admins can more efficiently dispose of the similar cases while users can more easily learn the boundaries of speech on 2047.

我还建议，作为对规则的补充完善，建立一个2047判例集（如 t/11325#128378），这样瓜梨园就能更有效地处理类似的案件，同时用户想学习了解2047的言论边界时会更容易。

On the Institutionalization

论 制度化

As you mentioned in t/11778#133841 that what 2047 has is "rule of man" and all kinds of jurisprudence is rule of man in essence, it's not fitting for me to persuade you to adopt "rule of law". Therefore, I use "institutionalization" or"rule by law" instead.

如你在 t/11778#133841 里提到的，2047是人治，而且所有类型的法理本质上都是人治，我不适合说服你采用「法治」。因此，我以「制度化」和「依法治坛」代替。

In my opinion, "institutionalization"/"rule by law" means no one except the site owner is above the law, namely terms. It requires all users to have an awareness of compliance with the terms and admins to exercise their authorities in accordance with the terms.

在我看来，「制度化/以法治坛」意味着没有任何人（除非是站长）可以凌驾法律之上。所有用户都需要明白他们应当遵守条约，管理员需要根据条约实践权力。

Institutionalization/rule by law brings more certainty and stability as it can restrain the admins' willfulness. By contrast, it seemed so weird that a user somehow was blocked by one admin and soon unblocked by another. And clearly stated and interpreted terms also bring predictability, so that users can better learn how to behave themselves.

制度化/以法治坛拥有更高的确定性和稳定性，它可以限制管理员的任性。相比之下，若一个用户先是被某管理员封禁，然后又被另一个解封，那看上去也太奇怪了。清晰地列出、解释条例，还能使事情有更高的可预测性，这样一来用户能更好地了解该如何表现。

On the Admins of 2047

关于2047管理员

I have to point out that 2047 may have too many admins. And the more admins you have, the more difficult it might be for them to reach consensus.

我必须指出，2047有太多管理员了。管理员越多，ta们就越难形成一致意见。

Secondly, nearly all of your admins are good content generators, yet that never ensure them to be good admins. In my view, some admins are unqualified and incompetent to deal with blocking. At least they should be acquainted with 2047's TOS and DAR.

第二，几乎所有你们的管理员都是优秀的内容输出者，然而这一特性无法保证ta们成为好的管理员。我认为，有些管理员并没有足够水平，在处理封禁问题方面能力不够。至少ta们应该熟悉2047《服务条款》和《管理细则》。

</t/8055>

10.3 纯粹为赢得辩论而辩论，包括但不限于使用伪证、偷换概念、诉诸人身等；

12.2 账号违反10，对于老用户、活跃用户（管理员具有决定权），管理员将会私信通知。非老用户、活跃用户，或者私信通知后再违规的，将会被封禁。

既然出现了职业网评员，封禁事项是要重视起来了。对于他们的封禁理由需要统一。

必须提供封禁理由、牵涉的具体条例，且至少包括一条其所发内容的超链接，来作为证据。

这点需要经过培训，我认为还应该在被封禁用户的用户页面上显示出来。

很重要的问题：oplog有延迟。

这可能只是刚开始，大家做好准备。

封禁无贼的事让我很伤心，不是伤心于“该来的不来”“不该走的人走了”（credit to 消极），而是伤心于这个小社群缺乏宽容。

法治只是社会的一小部分，或者说社会的最后一道防线。当一个社会问题需要通过法治来解决的时候，其实形势已经很坏。举个不恰当的例子：十年前日本公共交通上的骚扰现象极其严重（我不知道现在情况如何），那么假如能把骚扰犯绝大部分都抓到，甚至开辟出合适比例的车厢只准女人乘坐，问题就解决了吗？或许有助于解决问题，尤其是第一条，但是当出现这样的形势的时候，事情已经很坏了。

无贼的问题就在于2047这个小社群里有一小半人坚决不容他，那么作为站长，驱逐无贼就是权衡利弊之后的唯一选择。出了这样的事，不论是增订制度也好，还是批评站长也罢，甚至就算反对驱逐的人用实际行动来抵制该决定，都不能解决根本问题：小社群里有一小半人坚决不容他。

房龙（Hendrik Willem van Loon）告诫人们要区分“社群的不宽容”和“个人的不宽容”，前者有害，后者是个人自由。不过，在2047这样一个小社群里，几个人的不宽容加起来就等于社群的不宽容。

宽容是有限度的。比如虫文门黑化之后那些言行，当然是突破了底线。可是无贼这样的情况竟然能让这里的小半人坚决不容他，我很伤心。当然这只是我的标准了。

Q1: The register page of 2047 said that "用户名需符合 ^[0-9a-zA-Z\u4e00-\u9fbb-_.]{2,16}$". It perplexed me a lot since insofar as I know no one adopt such a complicated username. I wonder if what you exactly want to express is that a password shall be as convoluted as that.

it's a regular expression.

Q2: The time of post in 2049bbs times is displayed in the form of "yyyy-mm-dd"(e.g. 2020-04-01), but I don't know why later it was changed into "mm-dd"(e.g. 12-01). Although currently we can easily tell whether a post was created in 2020 or 2021, things might be different at some point in the late of 2021.

older timestamps will show yyyy.

@钦明方泽忘了密码 <#134086>

无贼的问题就在于2047这个小社群里有一小半人坚决不容他，那么作为站长，驱逐无贼就是权衡利弊之后的唯一选择。出了这样的事，不论是增订制度也好，还是批评站长也罢，甚至就算反对驱逐的人用实际行动来抵制该决定，都不能解决根本问题：小社群里有一小半人坚决不容他。

我可以把MasterChief也封禁，这样这个事情就彻底结束了。

@thphd <#134088> 不论是MasterChief还是无贼，我都找不到容不得他们的理由。

@libgen <#134074>

很重要的问题：oplog有延迟。

故意设计如此，刷新即可。

既然出现了职业网评员，封禁事项是要重视起来了。对于他们的封禁理由需要统一。

封五毛理由可以直接写五毛

@钦明方泽忘了密码 <#134089>

不论是MasterChief还是无贼，我都找不到容不得他们的理由。

我有很多理由。理由不在于有没有，而在于其他人是否承认。

非常感谢这位reader.我觉得ta说的很多话，很有道理。

我也很想写一篇message，讨论规则的起源。

规则精神和效用主义，并非势不两立。从效用来考虑，论坛的规则不是遮羞布，而应该是一个激励机制。论坛不是政府，但规则确实类似于制度。理想状态下，好的规则/制度能够激励目标用户留下，贡献、分享、交流；在出现难以避免的矛盾时，则能提供一种共识和大多数人都能信服的解决方式。如果规则无法促进共识、缓解矛盾，反而增加矛盾，那说明规则需要进一步讨论，并不说明规则没有用。无贼的例子，以及其他的一些例子，让我认为本站需要反思封禁程序方面的规则。

虽然我身份是管理员，但我更多把自己视为一名用户。作为一名用户，我希望论坛的环境有一种可预测性和安全感，知道自己不会在付出心力和情感后，因为一些我无法预料的原因而遭到贬低或者排斥。

作为站长，自然有自己的目标，有成本收益分析函数；而要制定有效的策略，还需要知道目标用户的大致偏好。人未必会说出自己的效用偏好，也未必会说出自己的情感偏好。有些人如果觉得论坛的情感氛围不适，会淡出；正如有些人如果认为论坛的内容质量下降，会淡出。这些都是需要考虑的因素。

近期非常的烦，感觉自己被整个世界耍。一直都是2047的常客，以后只会偶尔来。

一直想说的，我本人比较胆小，没有说：虽然我很喜欢清华博士豆沙馅，可因为她自己出走封禁一个帐号就是不合理的。但是我没有公开反对。总之，这件事就留下了一个判例，即大多数人「不喜欢」一个帐号，是可以作为封禁理由的。

站长一直说2047主张人治，但是也没有放弃法治的意思。我觉得2047现在是个人治和法治的混合体，人治为主，管理细则有时参考。人治便于在大多人不喜欢某人又没有法的依据时直接将他驱逐，包括但不限于学猫叫和天下无贼，虽然我不赞成这样。

@爱狗却养猫 <#134107> “讨论规则的起源。”

写一本：极权主义的起源