Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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 "...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!