Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 53 of total 53 in this topic |
mwatsonphoto
Trad climber
Culver City, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:24pm PT
|
That's a lot of wacking at the puter.... ;-)
|
|
tornado
climber
lawrence kansas
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:27pm PT
|
Yeah, but some of the "climbing gods" ARE wacks.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
|
Nothing could be simpler except maybe string theory
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:32pm PT
|
overwatch, really, if you think this is complicated then there is no hope for the STForum, maybe I could have described is as if it were an episode of Survivor...
string theory? (I'm setting one of your "wacks," oh wait, I'm not DMT).
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:41pm PT
|
Ed,
Here's a couple of questions
1)How do you invision mitigating new accounts and "sleeper accounts" wacking users?
2)Are we wacking annonamously or can we see who's wacking who?
3)Could this result in waring clans wacking each other?
My comments are partially in fun but I think each contains a few issues that might require potential mittigation.
|
|
this just in
climber
north fork
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:47pm PT
|
ST meltdown day 2. The campfire analogy is hilarious. I have never been to a campfire that has even come close to resembling this forum. Maybe I've been doing it wrong all this time.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 12:51pm PT
|
IF you are going to whack, at least spell it correctly
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
|
"wack" vs. "whacked"? too serious, don't be wacked and please review "use and mention" from your Logic 101 course... (quotes mean something more than indicating dialog).
kev asks:
1)How do you invision mitigating new accounts and "sleeper accounts" wacking users?
two ways, you use up your quota of "wacks" by setting other users' "wacks" so once you've "shot your load" you're out of action for a while... you also have to "earn" the use of your "wacks" to set another's, in a scheme that requires some establishing criteria for earning the privilege, such as time and number of posts without being suspended, you've established a presence on the Forum, you get to have a say...
...sleeper accounts won't have the necessary number of posts to get the privilege... nor newly created accounts.
2)Are we wacking annonamously or can we see who's wacking who?
yes, anonymously, but perhaps the history of "wack" setting is kept for review by the site manager... this might reveal some problem one member has with another...
3)Could this result in waring clans wacking each other?
yes, this could happen... but defines the "sensitivity" of the STForum... if enough users want to wack the creator of a "boob thread" then they can without having to plead their case...
similarly, if all those skeptical of climate change want to wack the proponents of climate change, they could if they had the votes...
all this puts the matter to the "Ruling Justice" (RJ) for adjudication, without RJ having to field emails and all that... the default is that the posse disabled accounts stay that way until they are reviewed...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:17pm PT
|
well Lurky is here...
undoubtedly an anonymous troll who enjoys posting what ever because they can, without any consequences...
...but let's just say that 10 other SuperTopo Forum members didn't appreciate Lurky's exercising the right to post up anything, and triggered the account suspension, at least Lurky would know that the posting wasn't appreciated... and wouldn't be able to continue doing it without some review by RJ...
having done that, Lurky might get a reminder to play nice, with a reduced quota of, let's say 8...
and so on...
not so contrived...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:23pm PT
|
What if my pack of wolves didn't like your theoretical constructs and thus your post count was reduced, in your opinion, unjustly?
whether or not I think it is just, it would indicate the sentiment of the STForum established members. Were it to happen, it would indicate to me that perhaps this isn't the place for me to post...
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:29pm PT
|
Ed
I've contacted Cmac and asked that he wack Lurky and Duck face. . .
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
|
Lurky,
So you're saying that you prefer an authoritative system where the members are reduced to pleading to the site owner and manager to act?
In the age of analytics, wouldn't you prefer some method that actually indicates what the viewers of the STForum actually think? which they indicate by their votes...
...some clever analytic genius could even make something out of it.
You claim to be representative? how could you support such a claim?
The site is also run with the idea to keep the management of it to a minimum and assumes that the Forum members will "behave themselves."
You are certainly an example of someone who posts to intentionally provoke a response, and since we have no idea who you are, you can get away with it with no recrimination. I'm sure you like that feature too.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:41pm PT
|
Looks like Dr. F got the chop
Nice to see quick action!
Wonder how long before he re-creates himself?
10...9....8...7...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:41pm PT
|
why would such a system discourage the discussion? You are assuming that it would, but you don't have any really good argument.
While those you have mentioned don't really have an issue dealing with the random anonymous trolls and hecklers, how do you know that some others don't have an issue with that? Perhaps some system to make the discussion more "civil" would moderate the more extreme expressions of displeasure and create an even more awesome environment attractive to even more of the "climbing luminaries."?
Wow, Lurky, you're getting serious, only one gif posted to this thread, that has to be a record for you...
|
|
jpin
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
|
like the idea.
|
|
Roots
Mountain climber
Tustin, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
|
I think it needs to be modernized:
Wickity wickity Whack! Word..
seriously, just have a volunteer group (of about 3) that are designated moderators. They enforce the criteria set by the gods. It really can be that simple.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 01:58pm PT
|
"...users who make death threats and post XXX porn need to be dealt with..."
Ab-so-frickin'-loot-ly!
Can we start making lists of such offenders now?
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 02:08pm PT
|
scrubby saysThe typical flame wars cannot really be moderated,
Actually I think Ed's proposal might help with this. What proof do you have scrubby?
Ron,
I don't think you've really thought about what Ed's proposing - I don't think it would lead at all to makiing this place a ghost town.
Also not everyone has facebook, or wants facebook, or aproves of their handling of data wrt (with repsect to) privacy.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
|
Ron, why do you think that you'd be deactivated?
And why couldn't you find a way to discuss your issues without resorting to language which is considered offensive to members of the STForum?
If I used all my quota to suspend your account, I'm off the air for 24 hours... until the "wacks" expire... so it isn't without consequences. Not only that, the result of the suspension review could be a reprimand to me, also.
Perhaps the "wacks" would be limited to one per poster... so you had to have 9 others that shared your response... and not only that, but 9 other "established" members...
Once again, it is subject to review.
But I ask, why don't you find some way to express your position without being acrimonious?
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
|
WHO cares!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 02:17pm PT
|
You get what you give.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
|
Flame war?
We come in peace.
Take us to your moderator.
We have some great guacamole, guys.
As a sign of our good intent.
It's a distressing thing to see humans go after their own.
Good luck with the bots, and thanks for the discussion up to now.
May the Force be with us all.
Pax.
[Pox on Duck Face, though. Assbite!]
Mouse from Middle Earth
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 02:46pm PT
|
do I see a cat wearing a red beret in that picture?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 03:31pm PT
|
The good content vastly outweighs the bad. The world has its problems. I would not mind giving Ed's plan a try.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 03:49pm PT
|
The rules were a bit too complex/abstract for me to understand completely,
but I believe Ed is proposing something similar to a "feedback" system,
where if a user gets too many "negatives", they get suspended.
This system is apparently "democratic", i.e. every forum user is able to
vote/give a negative, and if they vote too many negatives they also get suspended.
It is somewhat like making everyone a moderator.
The main problem is that a malicious user creates multiple accounts,
so they "get a large number of votes", which defeats this system.
[Edit to add:]
Thanks to Ed for his response on the next page - new multiple accounts
would not get any votes (this was explained later in his "criteria" section).
So it already had the "trusted user" part built in.
I just didn't read that far, oops.
To be effective, a moderator has to be a "trusted user",
so they either have to be known to the administrator, or they need to
have a long track record (long time member + minimum post count).
I prefer khanom's list of suggestions from the other thread.
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 04:08pm PT
|
All this to prevent what? Is it really that big of a deal?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 04:24pm PT
|
Lurky,
So you're saying that you prefer an authoritative system where the members are reduced to pleading to the site owner and manager to act? ...wouldn't you prefer some method that actually indicates what the viewers of the STForum actually think? which they indicate by their votes...
I'm with Lurky (whoever s/he is), and several others who have said they're happy with things as they are.
Are there posters you don't like? Big deal. If you, or I, or anyone is unhappy with someone's presence here, well, as Ron Anderson pointed out, there is a blue button at the bottom of every page. Click on it and and your email goes directly to the boss.
My guess is that implementing a system like the one you propose will lead to lynch mob mentality and make this place worse, not better.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
|
Why not just ignore offensive people. If someone does something illegal take it to the legal system. If you know someone personally spit in his/her ear.
or ... the guillotine
|
|
Ezra Ellis
Trad climber
North wet, and Da souf
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 04:47pm PT
|
Sounds mass complicated, how bout you have to be a member for a month before being granted posting privileges ???
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 04:53pm PT
|
Clint writes:
The rules were a bit too complex/abstract for me to understand completely,
but I believe Ed is proposing something similar to a "feedback" system,
where if a user gets too many "negatives", they get suspended.
This system is apparently "democratic", i.e. every forum user is able to
vote/give a negative, and if they vote too many negatives they also get suspended.
It is somewhat like making everyone a moderator.
they are "complex" because they deal with the issue of malicious members, but they aren't that complex and in practice, the members don't need to know the intricate details to vote
all members could be voted a suspension by other members with a vote.
the system I propose doesn't give the right to vote to every member. A member get's the right to vote upon meeting some criteria. I'd propose time since joining combined with number of posts (in some combined metric) with no suspensions or figure in the suspension history as a negative.
The main problem is that a malicious user creates multiple accounts,
so they "get a large number of votes", which defeats this system.
the scheme described prevents someone from making new avatars to vote with, unless they've all been around a while and posting...
also, the votes expire in 24 hours, so unless the user acquires the triggering number of votes within the expiration time of the votes, they aren't suspended... although they would know (perhaps) they've been naughty
voters only have so many votes, when they place one they don't get to use it again until it expires, further limiting malicious users
it might also be a nice idea to only allow one vote against the another member at a time... requiring the vote to suspend be among different members
To be effective, a moderator has to be a "trusted user",
so they either have to be known to the administrator, or they need to
have a long track record (long time member + minimum post count).
I agree that the voters should be "established" but beyond that, I don't think I understand "trusted" they are different. But having multiple votes (like 10) from established members against you would be an extraordinary demonstration of having crossed the line.
as for "lynch mobs" I'd be very surprised that you could get 10 established members together to execute some agenda to suspend other members, even Ron...
not only that, the suspension is referred to the site manager to decide on what action to take, that action could be against the mob...
most threads would be completely unaffected,
a few nefarious posts could be dealt with by the established Forum members... and the result of the suspension review would indicate what the site owner and manager feel is acceptable, they would see what the members consider acceptable.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 05:32pm PT
|
that could work,
just thinking that would be less work for the site manager if the abhorrent posting was dealt with by the members.... I think the Grossman SPAMMER thread works a lot better than any algorithm, for more subtle spamming... climbers sell stuff on the Forum, would they be marked as "spammers" in some automatic system?
anyway... you could earn your way on, but this depends on the management, and doesn't avoid the problem of sub-50 post offenders. You have to let let the member post 50 posts before you decide? how is that different from the current rules?
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
|
I'm sorry Ed, but your plan reads like a "can-of-worms."
I think new member review by management may well be a simple & effective solution that doesn't cost management much, or cause yet more problems.
One suggestion I can offer! New members sponsored by an existing member (member in good standing for 6 months) get in without a review.
Namaste.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 06:35pm PT
|
I had a great conversation with Chris over a couple of beers a few years back and asked him about these issues. His policy was pretty clear and true. Ignore them and they will go elsewhere. If not then let me know the situation.
He mentioned at one point keeping thread titles purposeful, succinct and clear and when I mentioned the Death to Spammers Thread his face lit up and he said "Yeah, like that" with a big grin.
I started that thread to make the administration of this forum easier for the limited staff that have to spend time keeping up with the nonsense that shows up on the ST. If you have a beef with someone specific who is abusing the forum then capture a couple of rude bits and post them there so that they come to the attention of the administrators.
Ed- With all due respect trying to create something fair but cumbersome is going to take too much attention. The Death to Spammers Thread can easily become the dumpster for all ST ills, commercially motivated or otherwise. All that is required is a post and others can chime in if someone really needs the boot. It isn't hard to sort out the rude and less than entertaining that show up here in need of attention. If someone else already reported a jerk in progress then back them up. Three or four posts later the axe should fall is someone is really crapping in the pool.
I take a fair amount of time to try and get folks to post on the ST and I invite them with the assurance that they won't be abused by twits or otherwise heckled. I usually finish my pitch with a reassuring smile and say that "my kill rate is 100%."
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 07:20pm PT
|
Damn, Sketch...that's a pretty good idea.
Hopefully CMac & co. are listening.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
in the face of the fury of the funk
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 07:35pm PT
|
that looks like terrible guac, Mouse
__
ignore them and they will go elsewhere __
pretty worthwhile idea: even if they don't leave, you can just keep ignoring them. pretty simple.
|
|
MisterE
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 07:35pm PT
|
Sorry if I didn't read every post, Ed - things are getting spicey,
how about Whack-A-Wacko?*
that seems appropriate and relevant.
*Terms within quite undecided...
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 10:05pm PT
|
Like Ekat said..." Bull Whack "...
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 10:35pm PT
|
Brave Cowperson, it was colorful and guacamole is a sonorous word, IMO.
And BTW, IMO is terrible on Mexican food. Use real sour cream if I'm around.
Rotten behavior deserves no flan.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 10:46pm PT
|
Is this really a problem?
Maybe we should ask ourselves that first, before we start resorting to these measures. Been in calif too long, Ed?
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2014 - 11:43pm PT
|
water on the brain could be used to fill the lakes, no?
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 05:54am PT
|
Poor Ed, he thinks everything can be fixed or controlled.
Get Vinny.
Your system should be applied in reverse to rack up votes to move on to a "heaven" in the afterlife.
|
|
pb
Sport climber
Sonora Ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 06:57am PT
|
too whacky
|
|
Gerg
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 07:46am PT
|
.their only intent is to destroy the ST Website
soft-hearted Canadians, what you see is only the tip of the iceberg
??????
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 08:40am PT
|
Will we be able to turn the wack off?
If we want to turn the wack off can we 'wack off' more than one per day?
If we wack and 'wack off' repeatedly then does our wack potency get less.
Are some people's wack and 'wack off' potencies more potent.
I could do this all day.
Will others be able to see when I wack or wack off?
Can we see others wack and 'wack off' ?
Trawling much EH?
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 09:31am PT
|
I think I get it.........
Sort of an ST "death panel".
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 12:57pm PT
|
TheMaster
what is sillier?
adults discussing an issue, or anonymous trolls who fear what might happen if their identity were known heaping disdain on the discussion...
if this is all silly, why wear a mask?
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 01:26pm PT
|
^^^ you have been offered constructive criticism by real people and then ignored their ideas.
The owners of this site have been offered constructive criticism to fix the site along with free labor to get the job done and they ignored those offers.
Talking about this isn't silly, just a waste of time since nothing will come of it, but if you have nothing better to do then go ahead and keep discussing convoluted ideas that will never happen.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 03:27pm PT
|
This is actually kind of silly
That is being charitable.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 04:30pm PT
|
Ed,
I like your idea, all things being equal. Of course, they are not. The issue is dedicated, educated users able/willing to use the system appropriately. But if it is done, I'd happily accept it.
It sounds like it would take some work to set up. I've been the owner or moderator of a number of sites, and I don't know how you would do it, simply and easily. I'm sure the geekier would know.
However, I've seen a couple of solutions used, that worked immediately. On one physician only site, where the insults and profanity was FAR worse than here, they solved 90% of it by requiring posting under your actual name. Smaller volume that ST. Also, the Washington Post and a number of other major newspapers.
on some other busy outdoor sites, creating a panel of moderators has worked well. Except for something that met pre-existing criteria, such as mayhem, any moderator could flag and set aside a post, for review by the moderator group. Two thumbs down and it's off.
Advantage, that could be set up in about an hour on this site, and how it works would be clear to all.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 05:08pm PT
|
Please leave the campfire…
a proposal for campfire members requesting an abusing member to “cease and desist”
I outlined the system on the “DEATH TO SPAMMERS THREAD -…” here it has it’s own thread for a discussion and a development.
If we’re at a campfire and someone is having a bad day and is taking it out on others sitting around the campfire, the group might decide to act to induce that someone to leave. Usually a consensus opinion forms (with abstentions, of course) and a few are empowered by the many to act to send that someone away, or at least hush up under threat of being escorted away.
Here is a scheme, it’s not totally thought out in detail, but it would seem to be a start…
Members to the forum have a quota of what, for lack of a better term, I’ll call “wacks”. Let’s say you have a 10 wack quota (the exact number is unclear but you’ll see the tradeoffs as I continue).
Other users can set your “wacks,” and if you meet a set of criteria, you can use your “wacks” to set other user’s “wacks.”
The “wacks” have a 24 hour life time, once you set one, you don’t get it back for a day.
If all of your “wacks” are set by other users, your account is suspended for review by the site manager.
If you use up all of your “wacks” setting other users' “wacks”, then your account is suspended until the “wacks” are reset (a time not more than 24 hours).
All users have a quota for “wacks” set by other users.
Only user that meet some criteria get to use their “wacks” to set other user’s “wacks.”
What could those criteria be? that could be determined by the site manager, but some examples:
1) users specifically chosen by the site owner and manager;
2) users who have posted some number of posts and been members for some period of time (without having been suspended), you could even count posts towards the privilege that have climbing content…;
3) only climbing gods can set other users’ “wacks”
4) DMT.
This would allow the community of users to respond to offensive behavior around the campfire. It preserves the anonymity desired by some posters, but limits the temptation to be intentionally uncivil in the eyes of at least 10 other users.
If that limit seems too low, then it can be made larger, if too high, smaller.
One might alter the number to have an initially high threshold, but once suspension is triggered, reduces the subsequent number so that one is forced to be more circumspect in posting.
The dynamics are hard to imagine, and I suspect that the “wacking” would be limited (at least initially).
And yes, this includes all posts and posters…
|
|
| Messages 1 - 53 of total 53 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!