Any other proposals to slow the worst trolling?

[What Exit?]

We would have liked to leave images on for PMs but I disabled them right after the tubgirl attack. This and the mod election leads me to a proposal to beat around and a non-binding poll.

I'm thinking of a two tier system where users are restricted from IMG tags until they've been on the board for a while and have a certain post count. I would also suggest add some limits to PMs and a few other tweaks. Not egalitarian at all but it would put off the worst trolls at least and might prove useful in future elections. It also might cause more harm than good.

Should we have such a system? Would 100 posts be too high? Would 2 weeks be too long? Is this a really dumb idea? Does it have some merit but just needs to be beat up a bit?

The way the elections would work is a special forum that only the established posters could vote in. All could read and post but I believe I can tweak settings to restrict voting fairly easily. Part of the theory is that lurkers are less invested in the things we put to vote and it is no hardship to be excluded.

[Fenris]

Wait--what?

You need to fix your poll options Jim. You can't answer "Yes" or "no" to an either/or question. If I vote "yes" am I voting that Yes, it's worth pursuing? or "Yes, it's a bad idea".

[Fenris]

Note that my post made sense before the poll was repaired.

[What Exit?]

Note that my post made sense before the poll was repaired.

He lies. I would never have made the mistake he says I made.


:wink:

[beebs]

I voted maybe.

Is it a good idea? Sure, sounds reasonable.

Is it worth pursuing? I don't know. How much work would it be for you(s) to set something like this up?


All hail Giraffe,
beebs

[Fenris]

I don't like the idea--either someone is a member or isn't. Look at the grief that SDMB is getting from having special rules for "members" vs "guests".

I don't mind tiered titles but I don't like the idea of restricting low-post members' access.

[What Exit?]

Is it worth pursuing? I don't know. How much work would it be for you(s) to set something like this up?

I don't think it will be to hard, but I have not put a lot of time into investigating it yet. I think there are some automatic tools to do it. Worst case is it is no harder to maintain than the title system.

I don't like the idea--either someone is a member or isn't. Look at the grief that SDMB is getting from having special rules for "members" vs "guests".

I don't mind tiered titles but I don't like the idea of restricting low-post members' access.

This is all in reaction to Tubgirl type attacks though. As a minimum level to turn [ IMG ] tag back on in PMs we need to come up with something. I don't like the idea either, but trolls like to pull really stupid stunts.

[Fenris]

Yeah, but any troll who wants to do that can put in the couple of hours of effort to get a minimal post count and the downside is that you make newbies feel unwelcomed and like second-class citizens.

I'd say, just leave the IMG tag off in PMs, but allow attachments. That way if you want to send your BFF a Lolkat, they have to click on the attachment to open it and can do so in a safe place.

[XJETGIRLX]

Hell to the NO.

[The Logos]

Offhand I agree with the measures proposed by Fenris, but am still open to argument.

[Sarahfeena]

I would probably just kill the image tags in PMs. Is that a feature that's really going to get a lot of use,anyway?

[Baldwin]

I would probably just kill the image tags in PMs. Is that a feature that's really going to get a lot of use,anyway?

Ditto. (I wouldn't normally post just to repeat what somebody said, but since it's a poll, it seems appropriate.)

[Glazer]

We have a few members who signed up in the first week of this board. And still have less than 20 post. Do we realy want to drive our lurkers completely away be restricting posting privliges.

[What Exit?]

Yeah, but any troll who wants to do that can put in the couple of hours of effort to get a minimal post count and the downside is that you make newbies feel unwelcomed and like second-class citizens.

I'd say, just leave the IMG tag off in PMs, but allow attachments. That way if you want to send your BFF a Lolkat, they have to click on the attachment to open it and can do so in a safe place.

That is where we are right now, You can PM links but the IMG tag is off.

Hell to the NO.

Understood, but the argument why might have helped.

Offhand I agree with the measures proposed by Fenris, but am still open to argument.

I don't have a strong argument except that there was regret in having to turn of the IMG tag for PMs and it is too easy for trolls to abuse the PM system if they are on.

I would probably just kill the image tags in PMs. Is that a feature that's really going to get a lot of use,anyway?

I don't think so, it would be nice, but not really important.

Ditto. (I wouldn't normally post just to repeat what somebody said, but since it's a poll, it seems appropriate.)

It is appropriate for a poll.

We have a few members who signed up in the first week of this board. And still have less than 20 post. Do we realy want to drive our lurkers completely away be restricting posting privliges.

I see this as the main problem. This also rules out changing any future elections I think.

[XJETGIRLX]

Hell to the NO.

Understood, but the argument why might have helped.

Because it creates unneeded complexity and it's stupid.

[featherlou]

I don't care for the idea of two-tiered memberships for the reasons already stated. We have two separate issues here; one is trolls PMing nasty pictures, and the second is voter fraud (for lack of a better term). I think you've fixed the first by turning images off in PMs, and I think we still have work to do on the second.

[prr]

Is there a reason the mods couldn't exempt certain posters with a low post-count who have clearly demonstrated that they're not trolls or miscreants of any sort from the minimum post count? I would vote YES for a minimum post count, and I set that minimum rather high. It's not as if not being able to post images is essential, or censors you in a harsh way, and most of our regulars have a couple of hundred posts at least, even me, who doesn't post here a lot. (I've been taking my meds regularly, and am now free of the delusion that everyone must be converted by force to atheism by next Wednesday noon.)

[McNutty]

For voting, I think requiring a minimum post count is fine. In in interest of knowing how many votes this would have eliminated, I just did a little SQL querying: of the 613 votes in the mod election, 229 of them were cast by accounts with less than 50 posts. 179 of them had less than 20 posts, and 134 of them had less than 10 posts.

The argument that we'd be disenfranchising legitimate lurkers seems overly-worried to me. Do we have very many actual lurkers (as in, people who visit the board often enough to give a damn about our vote, yet never post)? I have a hard time seeing this place being very much fun if you don't post; it's not like the SDMB where there is an unlimited stream of stuff to read. Besides that, we want to encourage people to post, right?


As for images in PMs, I like the idea of everyone getting access to the same board features regardless of any tiers. And I really don't think images in PMs are important. It seems like some people think the private messaging thing needs to be like some kind of full-blown email client, but I just think of it as a simple mechanism to contact another poster privately. If you want to trade pictures or whatever else, just take it to regular email.

[Winston Smith]

Hell to the NO.

Understood, but the argument why might have helped.

Because it creates unneeded complexity and it's stupid.

I feel the same way about bras.

[XJETGIRLX]

For voting, is there a way to weight votes by post count? So that way, people with say, more than 100 posts are weighted more heavily than someone with only 10 or 12.

[XJETGIRLX]

[quote=Winston Smith]

Understood, but the argument why might have helped.

Because it creates unneeded complexity and it's stupid.

I feel the same way about bras.[/quote:2slluwhf]

Agreed. Let's do away with them, too.

[WhyNot]

Damn you, McNutty, for putting me in the position of having nothing to say other than, "what he said." :wink:

[pedescribe]

For voting, is there a way to weight votes by post count? So that way, people with say, more than 100 posts are weighted more heavily than someone with only 10 or 12.

I like this idea even less than the original one. With the first one, you're creating a group of SCC, but with the reason of trying to dodge trolls. But I can't think of a single reason to weight votes by post count except to bat away the opinions of the new and lurky.

[What Exit?]

For voting, is there a way to weight votes by post count? So that way, people with say, more than 100 posts are weighted more heavily than someone with only 10 or 12.

I think I like this less than the clear cut line. It still allows trolls and still leave lurkers feeling like second class netizens.

As to the PMs. I really only brought this up as I think we need to leave the IMG tag off and I see no other way around this but a two tier membership system.

But lets keep knocking it about.

[McNutty]

perhaps the code that converts the [IMG] tag into an <img> element could also change the url to a picture of Jim's kitten if the poster has less than 50 posts.

[Tamerlane]

I have a hard time seeing this place being very much fun if you don't post; it's not like the SDMB where there is an unlimited stream of stuff to read.

Eh. I scroll through quickly to read items of interest, then move on to somewhere else, sometimes in just a few minutes. I have some mild interest in the community as an offshoot of the SDMB. I post rarely, but I have posted images and I did vote.

Will I storm off, pissed and outraged at the restrictions placed on me due to a low post count? No. But I'll be slightly miffed and possibly even a little huffy. Privately - I probably wouldn't post about it .

[What Exit?]

Eh. I scroll through quickly to read items of interest, then move on to somewhere else, sometimes in just a few minutes. I have some mild interest in the community as an offshoot of the SDMB. I post rarely, but I have posted images and I did vote.

Will I storm off, pissed and outraged at the restrictions placed on me due to a low post count? No. But I'll be slightly miffed and possibly even a little huffy. Privately - I probably wouldn't post about it .

Thank you for the feedback. It does help. Usually the lurkers are the toughest members to get to post an opinion and I suspect you speak for many.

[Myglaren]

I voted yes. I don't see a problem in having a probationary period for new posters. Lots of boards won't allow a post until you have been a member for >24 hours.

Same with images in PMs. It is supposed to be a simple messaging system. I agree with McNutty that anything more advanced should be via standard email.

Also I imagine that email is more easily scanned by anti-malware programs, therefore one degree safer for the recipient.

[JohnnyClyde]

I voted no. Many people have talked about a clique-ish atmosphere here, and I think adding layers and tiers would reinforce all that. I do think images should be turned off in PM's. And I agree with what Tamerlane said.

On edit - The post above mine (sorry - forgot who wrote it. I thought I'd be able to see it in the edit window) mentioned a 24 hour waiting period - isn't there one for this board? My membership had to be approved before I could post.

[Exy]

We have a few members who signed up in the first week of this board. And still have less than 20 post. Do we realy want to drive our lurkers completely away be restricting posting privliges.

It's not restricting posting privileges, at least not a lot. Nearly half the people here didn't see a need for image posting everywhere, and now it's a civil rights issue?

I think it's a good idea, Jim, although I'd set the bar at more like a week and 25 posts, or something. It strikes me as a decent balance between the freedom and the horrible fascism we know you long to impose upon us.

[PrecambrianMollusc]

The tubgirl thing was resolved quickly through methods already available - admittedly a bit of work for someone.
What was the flap over the mod elections?
Creating two tiers is just more ammunition for those who are determined to find fault in anything that is done in the name of moderation to bitch and moan some more about how unfair etc this place is.
If someone is determined to be an arsehole - post count restrictions won't stop them. This is a structural change that won't fix the perceived problem and will generate a lot more noise in the process.

The two biggest issue that have come up recently both revolve around images (NSFW in chat and the tubgirl PM). I think it would be worthwhile re considering where image posting is allowed. Prehaps restrict them to threads - this gives the user a little more control over what they choose to see.

[Myglaren]

I don't see it as two tiers, rather a probationary period to allow new members to get the feel of the board. I expect the majority will lurk for a while and do that anyway but it does seem to me to be a reasonable deterrent for spammers and trolls. Once the probationary period is over, be it a set time or a limited postcount, then new members have the same status as all others.

I can't see where cliquishness would come into this.

[featherlou]

Well, we tried a 30 post limit before being allowed to post images, and that kind of blew up in our faces this weekend. Do we want to add a couple of days' wait on to that, or just give the whole thing up as a lost cause?

[Exy]

Well, we tried a 30 post limit before being allowed to post images, and that kind of blew up in our faces this weekend. Do we want to add a couple of days' wait on to that, or just give the whole thing up as a lost cause?

hey yeah if it is not absolutely bulletproof it is worthless to even consider trying a rational policy requiring a few posts first

[featherlou]

My point was that the first thing we tried failed kind of miserably, and I think the general consensus is that we will get trolls just like the rest of the internet. I guess the three choices are:
1. Keep just the 30 post limit.
2. Add a time limit too.
3. Forget the whole thing as being unwinnable.

My vote is for adding a time limit, and if that doesn't work, chuck the whole mess as futile.

[Exy]

My vote is for adding a time limit, and if that doesn't work, chuck the whole mess as futile.

wait i thought there always was a time limit

there should be a time limit

[What Exit?]

My vote is for adding a time limit, and if that doesn't work, chuck the whole mess as futile.

wait i thought there always was a time limit

there should be a time limit

There is a short time limit between posts. There is no time limit in terms of wait a few days and 30 posts before you can use the IMG tag. I don't think it is worth the mod as it is so easy to defeat but we'll see what gets batted around.

I would like to see more mods with at least limited Admin powers.

[featherlou]

What about more of a schedule for mods so we always have one on duty? That would have possibly prevented Saturday's crapfest - a mod would have seen the idiots counting down to their thirtieth post.

[What Exit?]

What about more of a schedule for mods so we always have one on duty? That would have possibly prevented Saturday's crapfest - a mod would have seen the idiots counting down to their thirtieth post.

Well, you know we did drop down to only 6 mods recently. 24x7 coverage is no longer possible. As it was, we were always light on weekends, especially late. I don't think it is actually possible to get 24x7 coverage.

[Zuul]

This is likely going to be an unpopular suggestion, but remember when we did an IP ban against a troll using an anonymizing proxy server? I say do that again. Every time.

Yes, people use them to gain access from work. There are potentially other ways around that, though, which don't leave gaping security holes. Oh, and yes, people with socks who want privacy use them to hide their IP addresses, even though mods aren't supposed to be looking at IPs anyway.

As long as trolls can sign up with as many accounts as they like, they will continue trolling.

[WhyNot]

Or, as an even more unpopular suggestion, we could get rid of the image feature. This was pretty much what we were worrying our little heads over and told wouldn't happen when images were enabled in the first place.

[Chimera]

You know, I like the idea of democratically voting for what we want and don't want on this board, but there's one huge gaping democracy destroying flaw in the idea;

People with multiple socks.

Hardly does any good if, say, 30 people vote for a good idea, only to have a half-dozen trolls, pollyannas and others outweigh the real votes with their phantom votes.

We may as well throw all voting open to "vote as often as you like".

Or maybe rethink the whole "voting on board issues" thing.

[Feirefiz]

I never posted all that much, although initially my post rate was about twice as high as on the SDMB and I already started more threads here than in more than five years over there. In recent weeks I have all but stopped posting.
Unfortunately there is a reason for that.

I appreciate your effort to be as permissive, inclusive and democratic as possible as well as your faith in the maturity and goodwill of the posters. Nevertheless they have been failures.

There is no coherent response to the perennial troll(s). Actually there isn't much in the way of well-defined policy on anything. Rules and policies are changed regularly, often in response to a poll. The prerequisites for holding such a poll seem a bit nebulous. There is neither a quorum nor any safeguard against multiple votes. Yet these polls are treated as binding - except when they aren't because they are modified or redone.
This board needs at least a minimal "constitution" i.e. clear and respected guidelines for decision-making and responsibilities.
That might enable you to make unpopular decisions and I think those will be necessary. I can make specific proposals but actually I think the exact measures are secondary.

Don't try to please everybody.
Please, please start offending people.

[Zabigail]

I don't care for the idea of two-tiered memberships for the reasons already stated. We have two separate issues here; one is trolls PMing nasty pictures, and the second is voter fraud (for lack of a better term). I think you've fixed the first by turning images off in PMs, and I think we still have work to do on the second.

As for the second, is there a way to allow moderators to see who all voted in a poll, so they can weed out the sock votes? I don't know that there is a way to lock out socks from polls or not. Maybe put all the confirmed socks into a user group that is blocked from polls, if that is possible?

[Zuul]

I don't care for the idea of two-tiered memberships for the reasons already stated. We have two separate issues here; one is trolls PMing nasty pictures, and the second is voter fraud (for lack of a better term). I think you've fixed the first by turning images off in PMs, and I think we still have work to do on the second.

As for the second, is there a way to allow moderators to see who all voted in a poll, so they can weed out the sock votes? I don't know that there is a way to lock out socks from polls or not. Maybe put all the confirmed socks into a user group that is blocked from polls, if that is possible?

As far as I know, there is no way to do this. Beyond that, I think it would be a bad idea for mods to be able to see such things and weed out certain votes. That's just begging for some sort of abuse or accusations thereof.

I do agree with Feirefiz on this, and have been saying as much for a while now: our biggest problem around here is bending over backwards to try to be accommodating.

[Glazer]

There are only two ways to deal with trolls.

First we can continue on as we have. Every time someone gets they're jollies by trolling this board we can reward them by pulling our hair and beating our chest. Yelling what can we do. And change our rules, limit our access and drive away a few more posters. Wile we create all the drama the trolls could ever want.

Or we can change our outlook. Children will be children, assholes will be assholes and trolls will be trolls. It's the nature of the internet. When someone breaks the rules stick them in room 101 if they are some one who post normally at other times. Or just ban the account clean up the mess and carry on with our lives. We chose our mods because we trust you to use your judgment. Eventually the trolls learn that we're no fun and will move on to easier feeding grounds.

[Zabigail]

I don't care for the idea of two-tiered memberships for the reasons already stated. We have two separate issues here; one is trolls PMing nasty pictures, and the second is voter fraud (for lack of a better term). I think you've fixed the first by turning images off in PMs, and I think we still have work to do on the second.

As for the second, is there a way to allow moderators to see who all voted in a poll, so they can weed out the sock votes? I don't know that there is a way to lock out socks from polls or not. Maybe put all the confirmed socks into a user group that is blocked from polls, if that is possible?

As far as I know, there is no way to do this. Beyond that, I think it would be a bad idea for mods to be able to see such things and weed out certain votes. That's just begging for some sort of abuse or accusations thereof.

I do agree with Feirefiz on this, and have been saying as much for a while now: our biggest problem around here is bending over backwards to try to be accommodating.

Well, that's why I also said "Or make a user group for confirmed socks and ban them from voting on polls". That might be possible? Would help prevent voter fraud...

[runner pat]

What about more of a schedule for mods so we always have one on duty? That would have possibly prevented Saturday's crapfest - a mod would have seen the idiots counting down to their thirtieth post.

Well, you know we did drop down to only 6 mods recently. 24x7 coverage is no longer possible. As it was, we were always light on weekends, especially late. I don't think it is actually possible to get 24x7 coverage.

Would it be possible to give limited access to volunteers on the off hours who could do clean up duties?

[What Exit?]

[quote=runner pat]

What about more of a schedule for mods so we always have one on duty? That would have possibly prevented Saturday's crapfest - a mod would have seen the idiots counting down to their thirtieth post.

Well, you know we did drop down to only 6 mods recently. 24x7 coverage is no longer possible. As it was, we were always light on weekends, especially late. I don't think it is actually possible to get 24x7 coverage.

Would it be possible to give limited access to volunteers on the off hours who could do clean up duties?[/quote:3ofbhv5k]
Maybe, I like this idea. I was joking about having actual Junior Mods in chat. It might be a good idea.

[McNutty]

Or we can change our outlook. Children will be children, assholes will be assholes and trolls will be trolls. It's the nature of the internet. When someone breaks the rules stick them in room 101 if they are some one who post normally at other times. Or just ban the account clean up the mess and carry on with our lives. We chose our mods because we trust you to use your judgment. Eventually the trolls learn that we're no fun and will move on to easier feeding grounds.

I agree with this, and also suggest that the judgment can be harsher for relatively new posters. No sense worrying about whether this person who appears to be a troll might be a valued poster based on no track record. We shouldn't be worried too much about treating someone unfairly if they don't bother to contribute to the board for a while before testing the mods' patience.