A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

In article , Roger Thorpe wrote:

Even if I really believed that you were a woman named Judith Smith who
had been in some way mistreated or victimized by Guy, had an honest
misunderstanding about certain cycling issues and passionately held
beliefs on others I would still find your posts irritating and
destructive. Each time I read them I would still want to scream "Oh
bugger off!".
I am not alone in this.

If the main problems (judith and Nuxx) had not shown themselves quite
happy to indulge in persistent nym-shifting and forgery, then a killfile
would be a perfectly adequate answer to that problem.
As it is, it's hard to see how conventional moderation would be able to
help.

On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:37:53 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

snip


And how do you think statements like "The problems I see are
Judith,Nuxx..." contribute to the situation?


Even if I really believed that you were a woman named Judith Smith who
had been in some way mistreated or victimized by Guy, had an honest
misunderstanding about certain cycling issues and passionately held
beliefs on others I would still find your posts irritating and
destructive. Each time I read them I would still want to scream "Oh
bugger off!".
I am not alone in this.
Roger Thorpe


I'm awfully sorry about that.

Is there any particular aspect I could moderate for you?

How do you know that you are not alone in this?

Has there been another little e-mail exchange?

Is it a round-robin - can I subscribe?




--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On 10 May, 09:32, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 9 May, 18:35, "Adam Lea" wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)
The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. *The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
No it was going downhill before then. There was a troll infestation before
Doug came here, amplified by certain posters who kept responding to them
even when it was apparent the trolls were just trying to wind people up.

What motivated these trolls to attempt to wreck the newsgroup is not clear,
however I suspect some of the more extremist statements against motorists*
may have had something to do with it.

It is more likely to be extreme statements against cyclists by
motorists. Why would contributors to a cycling newsgroup be bothered
by extreme statements against motorists?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

How about the fact that most cyclists are also motorists?
And don't come back with your usual claptrap about 'real cyclists' &
'closet motorists'.

So you admit that motorists also infest and dominate the world of
cycling? My guess is though that they might not be in a majority
there, as they seem to be everywhere else.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
The problem is in not recognising there is a problem.

Doug wrote:
On 10 May, 09:32, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 9 May, 18:35, "Adam Lea" wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)
The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
No it was going downhill before then. There was a troll infestation before
Doug came here, amplified by certain posters who kept responding to them
even when it was apparent the trolls were just trying to wind people up.
What motivated these trolls to attempt to wreck the newsgroup is not clear,
however I suspect some of the more extremist statements against motorists*
may have had something to do with it.
It is more likely to be extreme statements against cyclists by
motorists. Why would contributors to a cycling newsgroup be bothered
by extreme statements against motorists?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
How about the fact that most cyclists are also motorists?
And don't come back with your usual claptrap about 'real cyclists' &
'closet motorists'.

So you admit that motorists also infest and dominate the world of
cycling? My guess is though that they might not be in a majority
there, as they seem to be everywhere else.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
The problem is in not recognising there is a problem.


I did not say that, you did in your usual attempt to try to twist thing
to your own agenda.
But I expect that all normal cyclists who may also use cars are glad to
know what you think of them.

--
Tony the Dragon

Judith Smith wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:37:53 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

And how do you think statements like "The problems I see are
Judith,Nuxx..." contribute to the situation?

Even if I really believed that you were a woman named Judith Smith who
had been in some way mistreated or victimized by Guy, had an honest
misunderstanding about certain cycling issues and passionately held
beliefs on others I would still find your posts irritating and
destructive. Each time I read them I would still want to scream "Oh
bugger off!".
I am not alone in this.
Roger Thorpe


I'm awfully sorry about that.

Is there any particular aspect I could moderate for you?

How do you know that you are not alone in this?

Has there been another little e-mail exchange?

Is it a round-robin - can I subscribe?

here's something you could do.
I will stop posting to this group if more than four regular users were
to ask me to do so.
Would you accept the challenge to do the same? you can pick a number
higher than four if you want.
Here's a chance for you to demonstrate your sincerity and good intentions.

Roger Thorpe

Doug wrote:

So you admit that motorists also infest and dominate the world of
cycling? My guess is though that they might not be in a majority
there, as they seem to be everywhere else.

Why do you assume that people who cycle and people who drive acars are two
seperate species?

You are a driver (in that you hold a driving licence) and you cycle, why
should other people be different?

In ,
Judith Smith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:22:39 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline
since judith came over a year ago.


Oh really - perhaps you could point to the one specific post from over
a year ago made by me which caused the decline of the group.

Some time after that,
I started a thread in uk.rec.cycling. I very soon attracted
the regulars who shot me down - often with insults.

But more usually with Facts.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
"Leverage" is *not* a verb.

On Mon, 11 May 2009 08:53:54 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

Judith Smith wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:37:53 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

And how do you think statements like "The problems I see are
Judith,Nuxx..." contribute to the situation?

Even if I really believed that you were a woman named Judith Smith who
had been in some way mistreated or victimized by Guy, had an honest
misunderstanding about certain cycling issues and passionately held
beliefs on others I would still find your posts irritating and
destructive. Each time I read them I would still want to scream "Oh
bugger off!".
I am not alone in this.
Roger Thorpe


I'm awfully sorry about that.

Is there any particular aspect I could moderate for you?

How do you know that you are not alone in this?

Has there been another little e-mail exchange?

Is it a round-robin - can I subscribe?

here's something you could do.
I will stop posting to this group if more than four regular users were
to ask me to do so.
Would you accept the challenge to do the same? you can pick a number
higher than four if you want.
Here's a chance for you to demonstrate your sincerity and good intentions.

Roger Thorpe


What an odd thing to post.

If you do not like my posts - then do not read them.

I will not take up your kind post - but thanks for the suggestion.

However - get Chapman to stop posting - and then I will do the same.

Let's go with that; please get it organised.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On Mon, 11 May 2009 10:46:35 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

snip


Oh really - perhaps you could point to the one specific post from over
a year ago made by me which caused the decline of the group.

Some time after that,
I started a thread in uk.rec.cycling. I very soon attracted
the regulars who shot me down - often with insults.

But more usually with Facts.


examples would be appreciated.

Indeed - they would back up your claim.

On the other hand if you have no evidence - then please just ignore -
I do understand.

(I admit that I have sometime been wrong - just like every other
poster on this newsgroup. When It has actually been point out - then
I have apologised; totally unlike the majority of other posters in the
is newsgroup)

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On 2009-05-08, Ian Smith wrote:

On Fri, 08 May 2009, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-05-08, Ian Smith wrote:
....
Admittedly, this lets one bad post through per nym, but it greatly
cuts down the workload on moderators, and eliminates
moderator-induced delay. Nym-shifters need to work through step 2
every time they shift.

AIUI (in uk.religion.christian) the first few posts from a new nym
get manually moderated, and a nym that passes enough times
qualifies for automatic approval (until it gets dinged for abuse).
As you say, this eliminates nym-shifting, and makes it difficult
for known trolls to get through.

I think your description is correct, but I'm not sure it's necessary,
hence my suggestion that the process simply checks for an email-able
poster. You could check for an email-able poster and require at least
n manually approved postings to qualify for the 'assumed good' list.
I'd be more in favour of this the smaller the n. My suggestion
equates to n=0.

I think it would let through many more than one bad post per nym ---
as many as the abuser can get through the moderbot until a human
moderator notices and blocks the nym. Anyone can manage to string
together one sensible post in order to get a lot of bad ones through.

I would suggest two levels of automatic approval: to let a nym with
(for example) 5 approved posts follow-up and one with 10 approved
posts to start threads too.