Knowing the internet, I know that once this site becomes super active, we will get some trolls and spammers in here. We need to have an easy to use troll/spammer elimination system. My suggestion would be to have a total up/down vote count for each profile, covering all their submitted content and forum posts (This number should also be kept secret from everyone on the site). Once this number reaches a certain negative number, the account is locked and an email is sent to an administrator asking them to review the actions of that profile. If the administrator finds that the person is trolling or spamming the forum or submitted content, they can then delete them. If not, they can unlock it. If the number keeps going down, then the account can be permanently deleted by the system for sheer unpopularity at a certain level. I think this way can keep the boards and such clean of spam, trolls, and simply unpopular content.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 321 reads
STAY AWAY FROM DA VOODOO!
As a side note, I think instead of deleting posts flagged as offensive, we should instead allow each user to choose whether they see offensive posts or not. That way, if someone doesn't want to see offensive posts, they have every right to have them hidden. On the other hand, if someone welcomes it, or doesn't mind it, they can see them without having other peoples views of "offensive" offending them. I think that's the REAL win-win situation with that.
If that's already being done, then do pardon me, I haven't marked any posts as offensive yet.
I find trolls to be want of other's wind to fan their flames. When given little they soon tend to move on. In the many years I've founded and run different Internet communities I've usually been able to hold to a single rule, Respect, as mentioned by others here. Debate is always a delight rather than mere argumentative fights. With an open system based on freedom trolls will come yet, with mutual respect and a tolerance of their antics, they also will go. The challenge I see is the immediate thoughts of needing this definition and that...this rule and that...this enforcement and, yepper, you get my drift. Let them troll the waters of liberty and they will find they have little to feed upon and...just maybe...they themselves will be hooked by the freedom and respect.
GCWood
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/March-of-Liberty
http://libertyshaven.com
I'm new here, but I'm just a little fuzzy about why this forum was created (not really).
So... what you are advocating is democracy...I mean mob rule. Right? If the mob doesn't like what you say or how you say it, the wolves will have lamb chops for dinner? That's what it sounds like.
An honest discussion will involve passionate people who disagree and will do their level best to convince each other why they are wrong. Therefore some posts will be heated, occasionally.
I never was a fan of mob rule. I cam to this forum on the advice of someone in a local meet-up. I may rethink this decision.
There is a difference between constructive criticism/heated debates and trolling. A troll will say just about anything to get a reaction out of someone and is easily spotted. I reasoned with DanieltheTechie using much of the same logic you used in your post, and he seemed to have seen the error of his ways by his response. He changed his original opinion to fit more of a republic form. Where the general public (us) vote down people we think are trolls and then a moderator will look at it and determine if their comments are appropriate or not. I'd say if they are not insulting a specific user or being overly aggressive, it should be allowed. Of course, we would have to determine what "overly aggressive" means. Perhaps define it in some forum rules, but I digress.
I completely agree with you that an honest discussion is what we want here so we should go the extra step to encourage it by up-voting even views that oppose our own, as long as it is constructive, honest, and adds to the discussion.
I hope in your rethinking, you decide to stay because we need level headed people such as yourself to help this keep this project going. I hope I have made my point well enough to convince you to stay.
Please feel free to respond here or private message me if you would like to discuss this further.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
Best thing to deal with trolls is to send in your gnome warlocks!
*snicker* A Wow reference there...
I tend to agree that trolls have to be put up with or what is the point of saying "free speech". It may be nice to have an "ignore" button for some profiles.
DSC
I agree that we are going to have some sinister people on here making stupid, un-constructive remarks, and those remarks should be removed and those users punished; but we have to be careful about that last part of your last sentence. Who is to determine what is unpopular content? Certainly it should be the responsibility of the users. But even still, shouldn't we welcome opposing view points to this site? Isn't the need for a fair and balanced media outlet the void that Break the Matrix is trying to fill? If this website is successful and it spawns radio shows and t.v. shows, as it plans, then it will hold a great power. With power comes the temptation of corruption. If BtM is corrupted, then it will be no better than Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc...
So I'll reiterate, opposing (or unpopular) view points are not necessarily bad, as long as they are constructive and not combative. If we can have an honest and open debate in the comments, it will only serve to better educate and broaden our minds. We must allow stories that will challenge our beliefs and use the discussion that comes from them to reaffirm our principals, or if we find that we have been wrong, be honest with others and ourselves and change our beliefs.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams
I agree. Most of the ranking systems that have been used on the internet have only allowed groups of people to sensor what they dont want the public to know. That is why American works best as a republic, rather than a democracy. There are many profound subjects today that effect the Human race that many sub-consciously are terrified of, and for good reason. However by ignoring these subjects puts us all in peril.
I think it is also important to define what 'spamming' is. Technically I could fall under that classification, due to the 'frequency' of my posting. However we have very little time, and I dont have time to follow the many fragmented perceptual concepts that arisen that we call PC.
I think we need to think about the principles we are preaching here as well. Few rules, small government, less control, free speech, etc.... As long as people can follow general rules of respect, and Human decency, then the less people pointing down from on hight the better in my opinion.....
If you read my post, you'll find that I'm specific about what determines a troll. It's not the number of posts you make, but the level in which your posts are voted. For example, let's say at -100 net votes on all your content is the "troll level". When your total vote count reaches that level, your name is sent to a moderator (or multiple moderators) for a review of content. The moderator(s) will decide if your content meets or doesn't meet the definition of a troll:
"someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion." -Wikipedia
If you are found to meet troll criteria, you are banned from the site. If not, nothing happens. This way, unlike Facebook, if you post multiple items in a certain time period, you are not locked or banned. It will be a user-driven troll detection system. That is why I asked for a vote down on content in another post. If people post content and forum posts relevant to the site and the discussion, then people will vote their post up. Even if you get voted down in one post significantly, if you post other items that are relevant and people vote them up, it counters the down votes. My logic behind this is that the user community here will most likely vote down most, if not all of a troll's posts and content. This will get them down to the "troll level" very quickly, where the moderator(s) will make the ultimate decision. Also, this should cut down on forum posts like, "Please ban (insert name here)" on the forum, keeping forums clear.
Now, this is the question that I'm currently having a problem with, concerning what happens after the first troll level: is the "troll level" an increment (taking the above example, having -200 or -300 net votes get your name sent to moderators again, and again, and again) or have a veto level (taking the above example again, at -1000 net votes or so, the user, having passed all the moderators, gets deleted automatically). I suggested the latter because I didn't want to swamp moderators with names of people to review, thus causing fatigue.
However, after clearing up my suggestion, what to people think? Is a user-driven troll detection system a good idea? And, of the two ideas in the paragraph above, which will work better? Or, would a combination of the two work best?
"That is why I asked for a vote down on content in another post. If people post content and forum posts relevant to the site and the discussion, then people will vote their post up"
That is always a subjective issue. Who will determine what is relevant. What is even relevant here?
For instance I have been researching for some time many subjects in which the general population is mostly ignorant to, and have found that these subjects; or at least the effect of these subjects, not only are relevant, but pose a risk to the entire population of the planet either directly, or indirectly.
Now I think that there should be measures to stop people from posting porn links, and to stop TRUE spamming. However I think that there is an agenda to filtering out content in which does not suit our conceptual/perceptual reality. And any way you slice and dice it, this already existing model of technique already exists online in many places, and it still leaves open the possibility of information censoring and manipulation.
Much like democracy is flawed by marginalizing the 2% of the population. (I know that is a loaded statement, but our country is actually a republic, or at least used to be)
I have heard statements that such content will destroy what people are trying to accomplish here. Which leads to the question of what are people really wanting to accomplish here?
It seems to me that in some respects people are wanting to replace the old ways, with new old ways.
We are all tired of the government controlled media, but dont want to know whom or what is behind the curtain. Maybe that is why the powers to be have gotten away with what they have for so long, for people dont really want to know the truth, just a false reinforcement of the lie that has the wrappings of truth.
I see what you mean, and I agree. But I still like the idea of people with X number of down votes being checked by admins for spamming and trolling. This seems very efficient and user driven. Maybe every X votes the person will be checked.
I sometimes get ideas and run wild with them. This is one of those times. :)