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

RE: Chatterbox abuse and possible remedies

by mt2k (Hermit)
on Jun 03, 2000 at 22:16 UTC ( #16208=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Chatterbox abuse and possible remedies

I completely agree with most of the users here.
The /ignore feature is absolutely a good idea, though it is sad to have to use it.
I don't believe that a /ban feature is needed at the moment, since it has only been one incident.
And if it becomes a more common occurance on this site (chatterbox abuse), which I don't think will happen, a /ban could be implimented.
Besides, how many users currently use this site? And only 1 abused the chatterbox? And now vroom is going through all this work because of one jerk?
I say leave it alone for now (keep the /ignore though) and see how everything goes.
One jerk shouldn't have this site putting up all kinds of new features to stop it.
And has masturbator even been here in a while? Seems jjhorner really scared the hell out of him! :-)
Summary: At this time, I think:
  • everything should be left as it is.
  • /ignore is great
  • /ban is not yet needed
  • If abuse of the chatterbox occurs, use /ignore.
  • If abuse of chatterbox increases too much, add a /ban feature.

    But then, this is just the opinion of a scribe :)

    • Comment on RE: Chatterbox abuse and possible remedies
  • Replies are listed 'Best First'.
    RE: RE: Chatterbox abuse and possible remedies
    by neshura (Chaplain) on Jun 04, 2000 at 03:44 UTC
      maleteen2000, I understand and agree with your points.

      The reason I don't believe in /ban is because it is the kind of heavy-handed action that just gets trolls going even more. /ignore is a peer-to-peer action, which does not tend to get a troll going with conspiracy fantasies. I noticed the other day that when you told masturbator that you were leaving the chatbox because he'd logged on, he immediately reacted with anger and name-calling -- but directed exclusively towards you and not the site in general. In contrast, a /ban reeks of a power play, and might focus a troll's efforts to taking down a site (not necessarily hacking it but at the least filling it with garbage and spam, forcing the moderators into escalation).

      Trolls can be pretty dedicated once they pick a target -- frankly, I'd rather the target be an individual user (endless /msgs) then the site as a whole. Then again, KM might disagree strongly.

      P.S. I also like the idea of a list somewhere of the uids i've /ignored -- otherwise i'll eventually forget who to /unignore.

      e-mail neshura

        Trolls can be pretty dedicated once they pick a target

        The name Purl Gurl comes to mind....

        btw--I agree about the list of ignored users. A box on the User Settings page would be cool.

    RE: RE: Chatterbox abuse and possible remedies
    by Ozymandias (Hermit) on Jun 03, 2000 at 22:47 UTC
      This would work, but I would make one more change; implement the /ban feature now. I agree we don't really need it yet, but we won't know ahead of time when we will need it. However, I think it might be better to use something other than a traditional "ban".

      I can think of two possibilities, either of which would work pretty well;

      1. Implement a /ban that lasts somewhere between 1 hour and 24 hours. (12 hours?) The /ban can be implemented by any bishop or higher. It's unlikely that any of our bishops will be judged unsuitable; if enough people complained about misuse of the /ban by any specific user, I'm sure vroom would be willing to block that user from the function.

      2. Implement the /ban on a voting system. If more than half of the current users (those listed in the "Other Users" box) /ban a user, that user is banned for 1 hour. The ban is short enough that most abusers won't be willing to hang around long enough to keep it permanent; the group here is, I believe and sincerely hope, not rotten enough to be able to implement too many unjust bans, anyway.

      What do you guys think?

      - Ozymandias

        If you were to incluse the /ban, as Ozymandias suggests, this is what I think:
        I like his #1 solution, and I think that is actually a GREAT idea.
        But I don't think that second one is suitable.
        You say, "If more than half of the current users (those listed in the 'Other Users' box) /ban a user, that user is banned for 1 hour."
        I notice that often, people tell me that the chatterbox is ut of their view when they have several windows open at once.
        So say there are 10 users logged on, but 6 of them are not using/seeing the chatterbox.
        This would render it impossible to ban a user, because only 4 users would /ban that user.
        But maybe if you were to say if 1/3 of the users /baned a user, THEN ban them.
        Just another one of my opinions :-)

    Log In?

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    Node Status?
    node history
    Node Type: note [id://16208]
    and all is quiet...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others surveying the Monastery: (9)
    As of 2018-03-22 16:08 GMT
    Find Nodes?
      Voting Booth?
      When I think of a mole I think of:

      Results (279 votes). Check out past polls.