@af @bonfire yeah sorry I wasn't really clear... imo curating threads is a key topic in bonfire (and in social network in general I guess). Curate means a lot, and I guess the concept spans from adding specific features to improve the thread experience (like the possibility to add a title to the whole thread - so that is easier to understand a post scope when navigating the timeline, to sort the replies by most liked / recent / replied comments, to give the possibility to close a thread or vote the best answer (in that specific case when it is a meaningful action to do), to add backlinks to create a tree of relevant threads, etc).

But what if we include the possibility to add roles to users for threads? Eg. the thread moderator, the thread merger (which is responsible of cleaning the thread tree by merging together similar answers together), thread taxonomer (who is responsible of putting threads in their relevant topics), and so on

I guess somehow is about exploring the interconnections between social gardening , social networks and forums :)

uhm I feel i was more confused than before, let see if some more coffee helps 😅 😅 😅

@bonfire @ivan Because for various reasons – because we aren't in a downwards spiral where attention is scarce so/because we would fear reaching out for each other – this does feel as microblog, a comfortable spot between sharing cognitive resources – as a blogger – and looking up for your followers, like we do with our loved ones and this is even what Facebook was meant for, at first. Facebook and Twitter aren't social, as a sociology student I promise you that capitalism is an anthropological aberration, pioneers in my discipline have made the demonstration trivial, but in a social setting we share cognitive resources because we care for each other and Bonfire is the only online place where I can do this, where I can bond with my readers. (I'm glad my former blog had 200 readers, but I didn't know who they were.)

@bonfire @ivan Because for various reasons – because we aren't in a downwards spiral where attention is scarce so/because we would fear reaching for each other – this does feel as microblog, a comfortable spot between sharing cognitive resources – as a blogger – and looking up for your followers, in a "finite", curved, cluster model – a typical use case of social media, and an actual feature for a lot of people. In a social setting we switch from one "mode" to the other fluidly, we share cognitive resources because we care, so anyway, thank you for what you're doing, to me and my loved ones.

@bonfire @ivan Honestly a social network where most posts are edited in the XMPP way (last post only) or redacted does seem pretty cool. (It also implies that people won't desperately post to get their dopamine shot.) (We're nailing it, most credits go to Mayel and you of course, but thank you for letting us be part of it.)

@bonfire @ivan No, "redacting" as "hiding the post contents but keeping the metadata to keep the flow in the conversation. I'm not sure I understand what you mean but you've got all my attention.

@af @bonfire this would be really cool, a way to curate discussions so they stay relevant during time, rather than fading away with the timeline

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @Thursday @Dragan_Espenschied

here an attempt of an improved UI for boundaries, the main outcomes are:

• Reduce the permissions list toshow only the relevant ones for each activity type (eg. see / read / like / boost / mention / reply / edit (future one) / delete (future one) ...)
• Default the permissions to be the same for all the users/circles involved
• Let the user expand each verb to customise the permissions for the users involved (fig.3)
• replace the 3 icons that shows the permission states (can / undefined / cannot) with a more standard 3-toggle state

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @Thursday @ivan I would indeed merge them together. Otherwise you can easily end up with an AWS IAM system oder endless mix-and-match options like the NTFS file system exposes.

+bonfire Getting too metaphorical is risky. Personally I never go camping, and have no idea what campgrounds are.

I agree boundaries is not an ideal term, but not because it is abstract, it just doen't fit 100%. Bounded posts are not changing their shape, or growing or shrinking in size. They have certain rules about who can see and interact with them. It is like every post can be its own little forum. My suggestion would be rules or access.

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova @ivan how about using terminology of a campfire? Something like campgrounds for boundary? Users may be more familiar with the naming more than abstract nature of the word boundaries.

Circle I think makes sense. But due to social network nomenclature, maybe group or camp members would work better? If you want individuals to understand what they are using, similar verbs may be necessary for similar concepts. Otherwise, it can produce confusion regardless of the intention for simplicity or clarity.

@bonfire @Supernova @ivan For me, it's just the term 'boundary'  ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

@dajbelshaw @bonfire @Supernova interesting, tough creating a circle and assing permissions to them are 2 separated actions (and happens in different times and page)

Your suggestion is to merge them together?

@bonfire @Supernova Yeah, I think that 'boundary' is a confusing name (in terms of UX, at least) as opposed to 'circle' 😆

@dajbelshaw @bonfire I am also somewhat confused. I can add multiple people and circles to a boundary? I am not sure if I am supposed to use boundaries at sets of circles and people (a boundary for all I might want to share photos with) or if boundaries are more to specify groups that have certain permissions or abilities (can view not boost my posts).