|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote: Quoting Rudi : In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of urc. You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD urc.moderated. I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On 2009-05-13, Mark wrote:
On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote: Quoting Rudi : In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of urc. You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD urc.moderated. I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there. I strongly support creating a separate moderated group. Another advantage of doing that is to undermine accusations of censorship (anyone can still post anything in the old group). |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-05-13, Mark wrote: On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote: Quoting Rudi : In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of urc. You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD urc.moderated. I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there. I strongly support creating a separate moderated group. I disagree, moderated groups have a tendency of drying up and dying out. To a certain extent, the trolls help to keep a group alive but too much troll feeding destroys the group. When I get bored of the repetitive contrary of some posters I just KF them for a while. It keeps the traffic down and it means that I do not get unwittingly sucked in to pathetic arguments. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:35:36 +0100, Adam Funk
wrote: 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. yawn -- "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." |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:45:44 +0100, Mark
wrote: On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote: Quoting Rudi : In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of urc. You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD urc.moderated. I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there. But a sensibly moderated group is not what the regulars want. They would not be able to censor/prohibit posts from people who just disagreed with them. -- "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." |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:55:48 +0100, Adam Funk
wrote: On 2009-05-13, Mark wrote: On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote: Quoting Rudi : In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of urc. You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD urc.moderated. I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there. I strongly support creating a separate moderated group. Another advantage of doing that is to undermine accusations of censorship (anyone can still post anything in the old group). Ah I understand - you are saying that "anyone" will not be able to post in the moderated group. So you would ban some people from the moderated group would you? -- "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." |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On 13 May, 14:50, Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:55:48 +0100, Adam Funk wrote: On 2009-05-13, Mark wrote: On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote: Quoting *Rudi : In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of urc. You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD urc.moderated. I'd vote for this. *And I would suggest keeping the moderation as light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there. I strongly support creating a separate moderated group. Another advantage of doing that is to undermine accusations of censorship (anyone can still post anything in the old group). Ah I understand - you are saying that "anyone" will not be able to post in the moderated group. So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you? Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets, none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier discussion" type message. Rudi |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote: snip So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you? Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets, none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier discussion" type message. Rudi Interesting. It is not the point of "moderation" at all - it is however the point of "censorship" I think that you may be thinking of "censored" groups. I must admit I have never heard of them (other than urc) Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet group which has a policy of banning named people. -- "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." |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On 13 May, 16:48, Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT), RudiL wrote: snip So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you? Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets, none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier discussion" type message. Rudi Interesting. It is not the point of "moderation" at all - it is however the point of "censorship" I think that you may be thinking of "censored" groups. I must admit I have never heard of them (other than urc) Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet group which has a policy of banning named people. -- * * * * * * * * "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." If there were a moderated group in which someone were not allowed to post they would not be censored as they can post in the unmoderated one. However a blanket ban is probably unlikely - more likely is that posts by what I will call "troublesome" individuals would individually be passed to a human moderator who could pass them if they were on topic and not boringly repetitious. It is up to the moderator to make such decisions. If someone didn't like this they can go to the unmoderated group, form their own group, or whatever. similarly if other people don't like the moderator's policy they too can just stop reading/posting on the moderated group and it would die. Rudi |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group
On 13 May, 16:48, Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT), RudiL wrote: snip So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you? Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets, none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier discussion" type message. Rudi Interesting. It is not the point of "moderation" at all - it is however the point of "censorship" I think that you may be thinking of "censored" groups. I must admit I have never heard of them (other than urc) Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet group which has a policy of banning named people. -- * * * * * * * * "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." So yes i was inaccurate when I said there may be a complete ban on some people. Just that some people are likely to have most of their posts stopped for being off-topic (as defined by the charter and the moderators interpretation of the charter - that is the power of the moderator), and if earlier threads that were on-topic degenerate into off-topic threads they too can be stopped. Rudi |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
solution in search of a problem? | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 1 | October 16th 07 02:11 PM |
the Shimano 10sp/9sp alloy freehub problem again - a solution! | Bleve | Techniques | 19 | July 11th 06 02:37 PM |
the Shimano 10sp/9sp alloy freehub problem again - a solution! | Bleve | Australia | 14 | July 11th 06 02:37 PM |
I have a solution to the dope-detection problem! | Ryan Cousineau | Racing | 0 | June 30th 06 05:13 PM |
How many astronomers in this news group? | Marty Wallace | Australia | 30 | January 17th 05 11:41 PM |