A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Quoting Rudi :
In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of
urc.

You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD
urc.moderated.

I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as
light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 2009-05-13, Mark wrote:

On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Quoting Rudi :
In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of
urc.

You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD
urc.moderated.

I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as
light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there.

I strongly support creating a separate moderated group.

Another advantage of doing that is to undermine accusations of
censorship (anyone can still post anything in the old group).

Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-05-13, Mark wrote:

On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Quoting Rudi :
In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version
of urc.

You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to
RFD urc.moderated.

I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as
light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there.

I strongly support creating a separate moderated group.

I disagree, moderated groups have a tendency of drying up and dying out. To
a certain extent, the trolls help to keep a group alive but too much troll
feeding destroys the group. When I get bored of the repetitive contrary of
some posters I just KF them for a while. It keeps the traffic down and it
means that I do not get unwittingly sucked in to pathetic arguments.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:35:36 +0100, Adam Funk
wrote:

On 2009-05-08, Ian Smith wrote:

On Fri, 08 May 2009, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-05-08, Ian Smith wrote:
...
Admittedly, this lets one bad post through per nym, but it greatly
cuts down the workload on moderators, and eliminates
moderator-induced delay. Nym-shifters need to work through step 2
every time they shift.

AIUI (in uk.religion.christian) the first few posts from a new nym
get manually moderated, and a nym that passes enough times
qualifies for automatic approval (until it gets dinged for abuse).
As you say, this eliminates nym-shifting, and makes it difficult
for known trolls to get through.

I think your description is correct, but I'm not sure it's necessary,
hence my suggestion that the process simply checks for an email-able
poster. You could check for an email-able poster and require at least
n manually approved postings to qualify for the 'assumed good' list.
I'd be more in favour of this the smaller the n. My suggestion
equates to n=0.

I think it would let through many more than one bad post per nym ---
as many as the abuser can get through the moderbot until a human
moderator notices and blocks the nym. Anyone can manage to string
together one sensible post in order to get a lot of bad ones through.

I would suggest two levels of automatic approval: to let a nym with
(for example) 5 approved posts follow-up and one with 10 approved
posts to start threads too.


yawn




--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On Wed, 13 May 2009 10:45:44 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Quoting Rudi :
In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of
urc.

You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD
urc.moderated.

I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as
light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there.


But a sensibly moderated group is not what the regulars want.

They would not be able to censor/prohibit posts from people who just
disagreed with them.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:55:48 +0100, Adam Funk
wrote:

On 2009-05-13, Mark wrote:

On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Quoting Rudi :
In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of
urc.

You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD
urc.moderated.

I'd vote for this. And I would suggest keeping the moderation as
light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there.

I strongly support creating a separate moderated group.

Another advantage of doing that is to undermine accusations of
censorship (anyone can still post anything in the old group).


Ah I understand - you are saying that "anyone" will not be able to
post in the moderated group.

So you would ban some people from the moderated group would you?


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On 13 May, 14:50, Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:55:48 +0100, Adam Funk
wrote:



On 2009-05-13, Mark wrote:

On 08 May 2009 14:48:16 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Quoting *Rudi :
In other words the new news group would provide a filtered version of
urc.

You'd only get a lot of troll-feeding. I think you'd do better to RFD
urc.moderated.

I'd vote for this. *And I would suggest keeping the moderation as
light as possible, otherwise no-one will post there.

I strongly support creating a separate moderated group.

Another advantage of doing that is to undermine accusations of
censorship (anyone can still post anything in the old group).

Ah I understand - you are saying that "anyone" will not be able to
post in the moderated group.

So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you?


Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will
be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on
certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets,
none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been
done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier
discussion" type message.

Rudi

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

snip


So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you?


Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will
be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on
certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets,
none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been
done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier
discussion" type message.

Rudi

Interesting.

It is not the point of "moderation" at all - it is however the point
of "censorship"

I think that you may be thinking of "censored" groups. I must admit I
have never heard of them (other than urc)

Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet group
which has a policy of banning named people.




--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On 13 May, 16:48, Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

snip

So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you?

Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will
be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on
certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets,
none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been
done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier
discussion" type message.

Rudi

Interesting.

It is not the point of "moderation" at all - it is however the point
of "censorship"

I think that you may be thinking of "censored" groups. I must admit I
have never heard of them (other than urc)

Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet group
which has a policy of banning named people.

-- * * * * * * * *

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. *To take the "primary position" : *to ride a bike *in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

If there were a moderated group in which someone were not allowed to
post they would not be censored as they can post in the unmoderated
one. However a blanket ban is probably unlikely - more likely is that
posts by what I will call "troublesome" individuals would individually
be passed to a human moderator who could pass them if they were on
topic and not boringly repetitious. It is up to the moderator to make
such decisions. If someone didn't like this they can go to the
unmoderated group, form their own group, or whatever. similarly if
other people don't like the moderator's policy they too can just stop
reading/posting on the moderated group and it would die.

Rudi

On 13 May, 16:48, Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

snip

So you would *ban some people from the moderated group would you?

Of course. That is usually the point of moderation. Sometimes it will
be a complete ban on certain people, sometimes it will just be on
certain posts. Sometimes a thread (e.g. yet another one on helmets,
none of which ever contribute anything new since that topic has been
done to death) will be terminated by the moderator with a "see earlier
discussion" type message.

Rudi

Interesting.

It is not the point of "moderation" at all - it is however the point
of "censorship"

I think that you may be thinking of "censored" groups. I must admit I
have never heard of them (other than urc)

Perhaps you can point out the charter of any moderated usenet group
which has a policy of banning named people.

-- * * * * * * * *

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. *To take the "primary position" : *to ride a bike *in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

So yes i was inaccurate when I said there may be a complete ban on
some people. Just that some people are likely to have most of their
posts stopped for being off-topic (as defined by the charter and the
moderators interpretation of the charter - that is the power of the
moderator), and if earlier threads that were on-topic degenerate into
off-topic threads they too can be stopped.

Rudi