what about limiting certain areas the site until someone has been a member "x" long? - Page 9

kindlekitten · 10-01-2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Something I was wondering about-- do the usernames of all the "one and done" spammers remain as part of the listed number of MobileRead members? Because that would skew the membership list by quite a bit.

you can check out any time you like, but you can never really leave...

Salgueiros · 10-01-2010, 05:30 PM

I have mixed feelings about this. I admit that some members are absolutely not interested in having any kind of enlightening discussion about certain topics. But I think that we, as democrats and citizens of democracies (in the majority at least) should be prepared to hear things that insult us and be capable of also saying things that might be considered insulting to others without fear of being censored.
I prefer to have a forum that includes a broader definition of freedom of speech, even though risking some heated discussions rather than being curtailed by political correctness or personal sensitivities. I think we lose more than we gain when we limit access.

I admit banning some members due to extreme behaviour, but i have seen threads being locked for reasons i find silly. People should argue till they have their fingers bleeding if that is their wish and they find someone else to match them. I don't see anything wrong with that. Visiting a certain thread is optional so you only go there and stay there if you want. Also if a particular forum member is specially obnoxious to someone else you can always ignore that member, or threads that member is involved. I don't see any need of extra protective measures from what i have seen so far here.

montsnmags · 10-01-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

how many of these spam postings are the one hit wonders that get on to market their goods and services vs. sock troll types?

SPAM is just that - one-hit wonders that get on to market their wares. "Sock troll" types are not part of the spam. I could count those too, but it would require opening every report-thread not prefixed SPAM and looking not just for sub-forum (listed in the same place in each thread), but for content, then determining if the member is a long-termer or a sockpuppet-troll or an angry or guideline-oblivious new member or...

Worldwalker · 10-01-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salgueiros

I think we lose more than we gain when we limit access.

I have no problem with turning threads over to the loudest; I'm one of them. Some of the people I've shouted down might disagree, but they can just learn to talk louder.

I don't think requiring a short waiting period -- remember, we're talking a few days here, not even as long as it takes to get an avatar -- before posting in troubled forums is limiting free speech. It's simple mechanics that affects almost entirely the serial re-reggers -- the people who get banned for abuse (the guy who declared he was going to post a copy of some pointless post in every single thread, for instance, and commenced doing so) and want to come back and continue abusing.

Freedom and license are not the same thing, or we'd be 4chan. People here are expected to behave in a civilized fashion, and 99.9% of them do. Delaying posting to the Lounge for a bit, like delaying having an avatar for a bit, won't affect most of the good people (maybe I'm just considering my own history, but I started asking technical questions; even now, I don't visit the Lounge much), and it will cramp the style of the serial re-reggers. Seriously, how many of our users reg only to post in the Lounge, and have to do it right away? I'd guess few if any. The social users start with the welcome section. The rest are off in the tech threads, or news. The Lounge isn't an instant priority for most people, and a slight delay will make it possible to intercept the known problems before they get to be problems.

neilmarr · 10-01-2010, 07:43 PM

Limiting access is not justified. Terminating accounts and deleting posts after three months' non-activity of 'members' under the twenty post mark is. Neil

montsnmags · 10-01-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilmarr

Limiting access is not justified. Terminating accounts and deleting posts after three months' non-activity of 'members' under the twenty post mark is. Neil

We do get people who register to avoid the non-member "nagging" screen, and others who enjoy the atmosphere and information but otherwise "lurk". While such could be an auditing measure (I think there's a "last signed on" time-and-date), I don't think it would serve the issue raised by the OP (new folk signing up and posting non-guideline stuff straight away, through ignorance, naïveté, trolling or sockpuppetry). Or am I missing something?

Cheers,
Marc

kindlekitten · 10-02-2010, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I have no problem with turning threads over to the loudest; I'm one of them. Some of the people I've shouted down might disagree, but they can just learn to talk louder.

I don't think requiring a short waiting period -- remember, we're talking a few days here, not even as long as it takes to get an avatar -- before posting in troubled forums is limiting free speech. It's simple mechanics that affects almost entirely the serial re-reggers -- the people who get banned for abuse (the guy who declared he was going to post a copy of some pointless post in every single thread, for instance, and commenced doing so) and want to come back and continue abusing.

Freedom and license are not the same thing, or we'd be 4chan. People here are expected to behave in a civilized fashion, and 99.9% of them do. Delaying posting to the Lounge for a bit, like delaying having an avatar for a bit, won't affect most of the good people (maybe I'm just considering my own history, but I started asking technical questions; even now, I don't visit the Lounge much), and it will cramp the style of the serial re-reggers. Seriously, how many of our users reg only to post in the Lounge, and have to do it right away? I'd guess few if any. The social users start with the welcome section. The rest are off in the tech threads, or news. The Lounge isn't an instant priority for most people, and a slight delay will make it possible to intercept the known problems before they get to be problems.

wow! thanks for getting it and maybe stating it so that others can get it as well.

when did the avatar limitation occur?

GeoffC · 10-02-2010, 05:28 AM

there's nothing wrong with debate, and it should be encouraged; it's part and parcel of life - fortunately. nothing wrong with it getting heated, as long as there is no deliberate stoking of flames and worst of all name-calling. some debaters just don't seem to understand the recognition that, no matter what their opposition says, there's no middle ground it has to be black or white, little respect for another's viewpoint.

but if a thread has to be temporarily or permanently closed it ought to be done with explanation. however members ought to accept that the mods have the right to interject (as mods) and bring some calm to troubled waters.

ardeegee · 10-02-2010, 06:45 PM

See, now THIS is an example of a pure troll:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...02&postcount=2

ardeegee · 10-03-2010, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardeegee

See, now THIS is an example of a pure troll:

Just got this PM from a moderator about this post:

"I would also draw your attention to this post in the Feedback thread:

This is not constructive, and would easily be considered by Moderators to be trolling in (an ongoing personal disagreement) itself."

And I want to say-- hell no, you are wrong, moderator. I was pointing out a troll post-- a blatant, intentionally offensive partisan political post as the first reply on an utterly unpolitical thread. It wasn't "not constructive" and it wasn't "trolling." You are wrong, and I'm not going to bow and scrape and claim otherwise.

GeoffC · 10-03-2010, 04:16 AM

I wish I could understand what #129 and #130 were on about - especially #129 (is that the correct link ?, by itself it is obviously taken out of context which confuses)

kindlekitten · 10-03-2010, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I wish I could understand what #129 and #130 were on about - especially #129 (is that the correct link ?, by itself it is obviously taken out of context which confuses)

nothing to see here folks, just move on...

tompe · 10-03-2010, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I wish I could understand what #129 and #130 were on about - especially #129 (is that the correct link ?, by itself it is obviously taken out of context which confuses)

The text seems to have been edited which is annoying since you cannot understand the comment about troll then.

ardeegee · 10-03-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

The text seems to have been edited which is annoying since you cannot understand the comment about troll then.

The original comment (to the question "what heats the Earth's core) was "the bloated corpse of Ted Kennedy." Which I fail to see how could be interpreted as anything other than a troll comment by anyone.

FlorenceArt · 10-03-2010, 09:51 AM

It looks like a joke to me. A stupid and offensive one, certainly. Not the first time I see something stupid and/or offensive posted here. Except that what seems offensive to me may not be to someone else, including the poster. Recluse seems to suffer from an inability to realize what effect some of his posts may have on others. Usually when this is pointed out to him, he tries to makes things better, as he has done in this case. His posts have made me angry a few times too, but I try hard not to post when I am angry, because experience has taught me that it will only result in making others angry at me, and possibly start an escalation in offensiveness and verbal violence.

If we start censoring every post that feels offensive to someone, pretty soon this board will be empty. This is the Internet. If you don't want to read anything that may make you angry, you should stay away from it, but that would be a shame, because it can be a wonderful place.

How about accepting that some things, some people here will make you angry, often without meaning to, and try to deal with it? I know it's not easy and I don't always manage myself, but I also try to learn from my mistakes. Attacking someone never solves anything, even when you feel you were attacked first. It just makes you an attacker and triggers an attack in response. Nothing is solved and everybody gets hurt.

10-01-2010, 05:30 PM	#122
Salgueiros Eudaimonia Posts: 898 Karma: 9164418 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Vancouver, Canada Device: Sony PRS T2, Sony PRS T3, Sony DPT-RP1	I have mixed feelings about this. I admit that some members are absolutely not interested in having any kind of enlightening discussion about certain topics. But I think that we, as democrats and citizens of democracies (in the majority at least) should be prepared to hear things that insult us and be capable of also saying things that might be considered insulting to others without fear of being censored. I prefer to have a forum that includes a broader definition of freedom of speech, even though risking some heated discussions rather than being curtailed by political correctness or personal sensitivities. I think we lose more than we gain when we limit access. I admit banning some members due to extreme behaviour, but i have seen threads being locked for reasons i find silly. People should argue till they have their fingers bleeding if that is their wish and they find someone else to match them. I don't see anything wrong with that. Visiting a certain thread is optional so you only go there and stay there if you want. Also if a particular forum member is specially obnoxious to someone else you can always ignore that member, or threads that member is involved. I don't see any need of extra protective measures from what i have seen so far here. Last edited by Salgueiros; 10-01-2010 at 05:53 PM.

10-02-2010, 06:45 PM	#129
ardeegee Maratus speciosus butt Posts: 3,292 Karma: 1162698 Join Date: Sep 2009 Device: PRS-350	See, now THIS is an example of a pure troll: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...02&postcount=2 Last edited by ardeegee; 10-03-2010 at 01:25 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to Find a 6" While Site is "Under Repairs"	jenifer.ezread	Astak EZReader	31	10-29-2010 11:54 PM
G.A. Russell wins "Become A Member" Contest	Robertb	Astak EZReader	18	05-18-2010 06:06 PM
"i stare at the computer for long periods of time"	jeremy_ahn	Writers' Corner	0	10-06-2009 04:25 AM
Fox News: Kindle may not "dominate" digital book market for long	astrodad	News	19	08-18-2009 04:30 PM

10-01-2010, 07:43 PM	#125
neilmarr neilmarr Posts: 7,215 Karma: 6000059 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Monaco-Menton, France Device: sony	Limiting access is not justified. Terminating accounts and deleting posts after three months' non-activity of 'members' under the twenty post mark is. Neil

10-02-2010, 05:28 AM	#128
GeoffC Chocolate Grasshopper ... Posts: 27,599 Karma: 20821184 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Scotland Device: Muse HD , Cybook Gen3 , Pocketbook 302 (Black) , Nexus 10: wife has PW	there's nothing wrong with debate, and it should be encouraged; it's part and parcel of life - fortunately. nothing wrong with it getting heated, as long as there is no deliberate stoking of flames and worst of all name-calling. some debaters just don't seem to understand the recognition that, no matter what their opposition says, there's no middle ground it has to be black or white, little respect for another's viewpoint. but if a thread has to be temporarily or permanently closed it ought to be done with explanation. however members ought to accept that the mods have the right to interject (as mods) and bring some calm to troubled waters.

10-03-2010, 04:16 AM	#131
GeoffC Chocolate Grasshopper ... Posts: 27,599 Karma: 20821184 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Scotland Device: Muse HD , Cybook Gen3 , Pocketbook 302 (Black) , Nexus 10: wife has PW	I wish I could understand what #129 and #130 were on about - especially #129 (is that the correct link ?, by itself it is obviously taken out of context which confuses)

10-03-2010, 09:51 AM	#135
FlorenceArt High Priestess Posts: 5,761 Karma: 5042529 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Montreuil sous bois, France Device: iPad Pro 9.7, iPhone 6 Plus	It looks like a joke to me. A stupid and offensive one, certainly. Not the first time I see something stupid and/or offensive posted here. Except that what seems offensive to me may not be to someone else, including the poster. Recluse seems to suffer from an inability to realize what effect some of his posts may have on others. Usually when this is pointed out to him, he tries to makes things better, as he has done in this case. His posts have made me angry a few times too, but I try hard not to post when I am angry, because experience has taught me that it will only result in making others angry at me, and possibly start an escalation in offensiveness and verbal violence. If we start censoring every post that feels offensive to someone, pretty soon this board will be empty. This is the Internet. If you don't want to read anything that may make you angry, you should stay away from it, but that would be a shame, because it can be a wonderful place. How about accepting that some things, some people here will make you angry, often without meaning to, and try to deal with it? I know it's not easy and I don't always manage myself, but I also try to learn from my mistakes. Attacking someone never solves anything, even when you feel you were attacked first. It just makes you an attacker and triggers an attack in response. Nothing is solved and everybody gets hurt.

Advert

Advert