Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Limiting Spam posts, Trolls, Joe Jobs and other maleficence

by NovMonk (Chaplain)
on Feb 20, 2007 at 15:56 UTC ( #601121=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Limiting Spam posts, Trolls, Joe Jobs and other maleficence

I agree with CountZero: ++ for the thought behind the idea, but not the idea itself. I kind of like knowing which posts I should avoid (or view if I need a laugh.) Giving trolls incentive to change their names and come back as innocent, all-new users rather defeats that purpose. Plus, it clutters our rolls with (potentially) multiple false/ inactive accounts.

My thoughts, for whatever they are worth. And I must say, I, at least, learned a lot from some of the more serious responses to our latest Troll. Kudos to the patient monks who tried to enlighten him. It was not wasted effort.

Pax,
NovMonk

  • Comment on Re: Limiting Spam posts, Trolls, Joe Jobs and other maleficence

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Limiting Spam posts, Trolls, Joe Jobs and other maleficence
by blogical (Pilgrim) on Feb 20, 2007 at 16:18 UTC

    I think that's the best point I've heard yet, or rather, the clearest summary of it: not providing any incentive to create further bogus accounts. Thanks! ☺

    Now, if "dormant for x days" accounts with "negative XP below n" were simply dableeted as zombies... oh nevermind.

      not providing any incentive to create further bogus accounts.

      I disagree. I've never heard of this phenomenon happening beyond a few very unusual cases. Trolls, in general, aren't after XP. In fact, many are happy to see their XP sink to plutonic lows. Some appear to have taken pride in the rate of their XP decline.

      Thus, if anything, forcing them to abandon their accounts after reaching some negative XP threshold might be more of a disincentive.

      A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

        I was thinking about this and what if we just limited the amount of XP that a person could go down? It is highly unlikely someone who is serious would try to inch their way back into good graces from a score of -100 XP or so.

        Lets say once they reach -100 XP they cannot go any lower. It would deny those individuals the enjoyment of getting a descending score.

        If they did not care about XP and just wanted to troll then a cap would not anything to change their behavior, positively or negatively.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://601121]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (2)
As of 2022-05-25 04:42 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you prefer to work remotely?



    Results (84 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?