Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Limit AM's Posting Rights

by ar0n (Priest)
on May 21, 2001 at 22:39 UTC ( #82044=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Recently we've seen an upsurge in Monk Junk. By that I mean, we've had a lot of Anonymous Monks posting messages that are either trolls, non-Perl questions (not even by a long shot) or in the wrong section. I won't link to any examples, for they are plentiful and most monks here know what I'm talking about.

I suggest we (and by 'we', I mean Iron Fist) allow Anonymous Monks only the right to post top-level1 nodes in Seekers of Perl Wisdom. The reasoning for this is simple: most AMs are hit and run; they ask a question, wait for the reply and don't come back (either that, or they register an account). They don't need access to other sections. Most - if not all - of the other sections are community-oriented. An Anonymous Monk would, for instance, have no reason to post to Discussions, since (s)he's not actually part of the community.

[1] They can of course reply to any node, but posting top-level nodes would be confined to SOPW.

ar0n ]

Comment on Limit AM's Posting Rights
Re: Limit AM's Posting Rights
by arturo (Vicar) on May 21, 2001 at 22:46 UTC

    Posts that end up in the wrong section are the least of the worries here, so the proposed fix doesn't seem to address the real problems. Most of those categories get posted there. And it's much easier for the average monk+ monk to move a post to the right section than it is to get a post deleted.

    Unless you're thinking restrictions allows for easier containment of the other problems? Still, it seems like an indirect approach.

(boo) This Is A Gated Monastery
by boo_radley (Parson) on May 21, 2001 at 22:47 UTC
    But as we've seen, we have means of tidying up the monastery and recycling that junk.
    It may be a pain to deal with, but I'd hate to limit sincere anonymous people just to "keep out the rabble". I recognise the problem, but I don't see this as an answer.

    +=0, though.

Re: Limit AM's Posting Rights
by Anonymous Monk on May 21, 2001 at 22:54 UTC
    I have recently posted a JAPH. Should i post such code in the future into SOPW? You can see from this, that I'm not hit and run, but I do value my privacy and want not yet to register. Or could an anonymous monk use the "remember me" to make an Remembered Monk? I didn't fool with it, because I don't know what happens or is supposed to happen.

      This is a completely ludicrous argument. You can call yourself 'aaaa' if you want anomininity. Posting as A.M. gives you no more and no less privacy as being a registered user. And in fact, you're more likely to get respect and help as a registered user than A.M.

      I have, in the past, felt that A.M. is an essential part of the Perlmonks community. However, my opinions are rapidly changing, as we get more exposure, and as a result, growth. I don't want to spend my time deleting nodes, editing posts, or chasing off trolls simply to support the A.M. posts.

      If you can't post your name on your work, you're weak and insecure, and need help, or you're looking for hit-and-run answers, rather than being willing to participate in a wonderful community.

      --Chris

      e-mail jcwren
        I think you don't know the marketing methods of companies. I assume of course, that I get my Password per e-mail and of course afterwards all the crap(spam) to the same address. That is my privacy-issue! Not the monks, who have only the web-access, but the Sysop who can do more - and if (s)he is a company drone will do.
Limit AM's Posting -R-i-g-h-t-s- Rate
by tilly (Archbishop) on May 21, 2001 at 23:13 UTC
    I don't think that AM is an issue.

    There are cleanup methods in place. The only thing that reasonably could need to be added to them is a rate-cap to how fast AM can post. Nothing to stringent, just a limit so that the volunteer-driven cleanup won't get overwhelmed with an automated script.

    Indeed a far bigger problem is the fact that there is reason to believe some anti-social moron has a collection of vote bots that are methodically downvoting various people. I don't see any good way to tell who, but I suspect a collection because the sheer number of votes that are apparently thrown around in a coordinated manner should be beyond the limits of any single saint...

Re: Limit AM's Posting Rights
by footpad (Monsignor) on May 22, 2001 at 00:15 UTC

    Like the others, I don't think this would deal with the problem effectively, for there is a simple, easy way around it: register a throwaway 'nym associated with a throwaway email account.

    Also, I'm not entirely certain the current situation is any worse than others we've seen over the past few months. As tilly points out, there is a problem that needs to be dealt with. I don't think limiting AM is the right solution.

    Certainly this morning's invasion was dealt with handily enough (and I thank the janitor that finished the clean-up). I can appreciate jcwren's sentiments; it's got to be getting tiresome to continually deal with some knee-biter who refuses to truly participate in the community. (Perhaps it might help to add a few more janitors, to help spread the pain?)

    If there is one person responsible for the recent activities, well, I suspect that the same technology that leads to votebots and to stats could be put to detective work. While I'm not fond of knee-jerk reactions in personality voting, I fully support any well thought and well-executed effort designed to "out" the perp.

    (Given that some suspect that the "PIQ" (perp in question) is at least level 6, perhaps we might consider raising the level requirement for NTC?)

    Interestingly, I stumbled over a link today outlining another community's response to a similar (though complete different) series of events. It's a long article, but raises some interesting issues regarding online communities and self-moderation. (Note: bits of it may be, er, difficult for some.)

    And, as an aside to the Anonymous Monk who refuses to register a 'nym due to privacy concerns, I fully appreciate the sentiment for reasons I won't detail. However, it is possible to participate more actively while protecting your privacy. Just don't leak any personal details in your posts or your home node.

    --f

Re: Limit AM's Posting Rights
by scottstef (Curate) on May 22, 2001 at 18:00 UTC
    Why not make people register? It takes all of 5 minutes or so to register. How easy is it to create an identity here?
    hmmmmm...
    Let's see go to hotmail, yahoo or some other place that offers free email, sign up for a free email account.
    Come to pm and register.
    I know people say they will get crushed with spam by registering, I don't know if this used to be true, however, I don't think I have ever recieved a bit of email from perlmonks since I joined. I think that if people feel like they belong, they are more likely take some responsibility for their postings. I also think they may start feeling their way around the monestary and learning what it has to offer. This will not help with trolls, as they can do the same things, but as a member, they may just post the @^$#$@ questions that every one always gripes about in the CB rather than creating a root node that is just noise.

    Speaking as someone that has jumped the gun and posted those $#$%%# questions that annoy everyone before searching%^)

      My opinion on the matter has been consistent all along.

      If AM or equivalent did not exist, I would never have joined. There are quite a few others here who joined after posting as AM, and I suspect that many of them would likewise not be here were it not for the availability of AM. Furthermore if AM was removed, I would see that as an active statement that this site is not intended to be helpful to all comers. In that case, I don't see why I should remain...

      Is that a good enough reason to keep AM in your eyes?

        Tilly, not to bait you, as you know I highly respect your opinion and abilities, I do disagree with your point. With the exception of the monks here that have made contributions to the Perl Community at large and comment towards it on their home nodes/posts or the people that link to home pages at large, how much do we really know about each other? Other than stuff that is posted on this site, I don't know much about the people here, and they do not know much about me. How is having a login going to change what people learn about AM, if you post a profile here, people can learn about you from it. If you don't post your info, people can't learn about you.

        Not trying to start a flame war.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://82044]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-12-20 17:34 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (97 votes), past polls