Spam/Nuisance Posts

Mon, 7 July 2008, 12:26 pm

jeffhansen24 posts in thread

This is an open post to the administrator of the site. This site used to be a valuable tool for those of us in the theatre community to find useful information and share our thoughts with others. Of late, it has become a bitchfest. I would like to see posts retricted to signed up and verified members only. While this wouldn't stop completely the post hijacking that is currently destroying this site, it would mean that you would need to take the time to sign up a membership, which could subsequently be revoked if site rules are abused. Obviously this is not a panacea, but I think will help this site grow. I'm fed up with the crap! Jeff

Thread (24 posts)

Threaded Flat

jeffhansenMon, 7 July 2008, 12:26 pm

NaMon, 7 July 2008, 01:33 pm

We've already had this

We've already had this conversation. Labrug even posted a poll about restricting posts to registered members. A number of the comments made was that restricting it to registered members would perhaps reduce the amount of 'crap', but wouldn't get rid of it altogether. And in fact, if you paid attention to my scammer notice a few days ago, you would see that registering is by no means a way of detering bad users from doing bad things. We're all sick of the 'crap', but there's a huge issue of both freedom of speech/censorship, and the concept that what is a good post to one person isn't to another and vice versa. I'm all for more intelligent conversation mind, just that I don't think anything will counteract trolls and the like. They exist on every forum and every blog - they're just the virtual version of bored kids egging a house. Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

jeffhansenMon, 7 July 2008, 07:11 pm

I'm not in any way wanting

I'm not in any way wanting to restrict peoples freedom of speech. I just want to try and reduce the amount of rubbish that is appearing on this (and yes, most other) forums, but making people put their name to their comments. I drifted away from the site for a while, so must have missed Jeff's poll. My post was in response to the KTW cabaret thread. I'm not involved in that show, but the thread really annoyed me. It'a waste of my time to try and sift through the rubbish to find relevant comments. Do we just throw our hands in the air Naomi? Is it too hard? Are there not forum rules that preclude personal attacks? If not...there should be. I know the trolls are everywhere, but I don't have to like it, and I don't have to go quietly into the night. I want my civilised, reasoned forum back.

NaMon, 7 July 2008, 07:29 pm

"I'm not in any way wanting

"I'm not in any way wanting to restrict peoples freedom of speech. I just want to try and reduce the amount of rubbish that is appearing on this (and yes, most other) forums, but making people put their name to their comments." Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were: simply that other people might. Forum rules? I haven't seen any. Even if there were - who reads them? Stats show most people don't read Terms and Conditions on websites. I just think more regulation won't change people's habits or opinions. There's a reason why there's a moderation system on the site; so we can encourage intelligent debate and hide the lesser ones. Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

jeffhansenMon, 7 July 2008, 08:03 pm

Forum rules

I went for a search around the site, and under Disclaimer/Conditions of Use, I found, among other things, this...... "Participants in message board discussions are asked to respect this free community service and each other." What we are seeing on this site is a lack of respect for others. OK, that may be a very broad brush, but there it is in black and white. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. There are many long-standing, well respected members of this forum. OK....whilst we don't all always see eye to eye (what fun would that be) we can have a reasoned discussion without stooping to insult. What would be wrong with having a group of forum moderators who are able to remove posts that don't meet the standards expected of this forum? Am I trying to restrict freedom of speech? Yes and no. I want people to have to put their name to their comments, and those who continually abuse this forum to be removed. So, who gets to judge what's OK? Well....I'll put my hand up. I'm game. The moderator system needs to be open and accountable, with the mods name and reason for removing a post given.

Grant MalcolmMon, 7 July 2008, 08:08 pm

Worthwhile sentiments...

While I appreciate some of Jeff's sentiments, I'm not sure that we're exploring new ground here.

http://www.theatre.asn.au/poll/forum_posts

http://www.theatre.asn.au/comment/reply/31187/37988#comment-37988

As Na has correctly commented, a very recent incident where one person created six accounts using hotmail addresses and then used them to moderate posts up and down, amply illustrates that registration offers no barrier to abuse.

If you want to reduce the noise, it may be useful to try changing your "comment viewing options" to display only good comments or the best of the best. However, this is entirely dependent on people actually moderating comments... which hasn't been happening a great deal.

There are some further changes in the offing... an upgrade later this year will improve comment moderation allowing for comments to effectively be moderated out of view rather than just reducing to a title. Once again, the success or failure will rely on people actually moderating.

Cheers
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

jeffhansenMon, 7 July 2008, 08:20 pm

Previous thread

Thanks for your response Grant. I've now been back and read the thread. I was under no illusions that I would have been the first to raise the issue, or how onerus your task is administering the site. I was just mightily pissed off at the muppets (no offence intended Na) that hijack threads and post utter rubbish. I raise my right hand, and solemnly declare that I trust the administrators of this site to continue their good work. my 2 cents

NaMon, 7 July 2008, 08:29 pm

Digging around

Ah, you just proved my point: you had to dig for the T&Cs... which means the percentage of people who even see them, let alone read them, would be small. As for the moderators: they already exist. There are certain members, myself included, who have more capabilities than others. However, no one, I believe, has the ability to remove posts or threads outside of their own. Absolute power corrupts, and I personally don't like the idea that I could delete threads or posts without either: other people knowing about it; the reasons for it; or arbitration. But even that brings inherent issues - who decides who becomes a moderator, how do we go about ensuring moderators stay balanced in judgements, how do we force moderators to be active in posting reasons etc.? Furthermore, who has the time? With probably as many as ten new threads a day on average, and at least twice as many new posts, you'd have to moderate all of them. Wikipedia is notorious at the moment, because they have the same issues. Although you need to register to edit, etc., people have been abusing the editing/writing system, as well as abusing high moderator powers. How do we decide what constitutes a good post? We can all agree on certain things, like discussing an actor's body parts in a disrespectful way, but what about the issues that are just a matter of personal taste? You speak of the recent KTW thread... I've been following it too, but it's the usual banter about misunderstandings and offenses being taken from a review. Until humans are capable of both being unoffended and clear, precise communication with no error, I doubt anything will change. I'm not being defeatist here; but as Grant has mentioned, it's not just implementing rules, but about encouraging more participation. We're hardly encouraging participation by either restricting it or deciding for someone else what is or isn't offensive/annoying. Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

Grant MalcolmMon, 7 July 2008, 08:38 pm

Moderation and removal of posts

I'm happy to revisit this discussion again, as always...

Jeff wrote:
> I want people to have to put their name to their comments,
> and those who continually abuse this forum to be removed.

I'm not sure that I agree with either of these, nor are they realistic goals.

Short of requiring that people use a passport, driver's license, credit card or some such to register on the site - and it doesn't take much to guess what impact this would have on contributions - on the Internet no-one knows if you're a dog:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

If we can't identify people, we can't effectively remove them. They'll simply re-register.

Terrible thing, I know. But somehow we have to all learn to get along together.

:-)

> So, who gets to judge what's OK? Well....I'll put my hand up. I'm game.

Indeed.

Quite apart from being entirely impractical, given the volume of traffic on this website, I have had legal advice from a number of very well qualified, independent sources that judging what should and shouldn't be posted on the site would expose me, the individuals involved and others to unreasonable risk of liability.

This site accepts contributions from the public without any form of approval or moderation. Postings are the responsibility of the person posting, not my responsibility or the responsibility of any organisation associated with the site. If I, or anyone else, gets involved in removing even a single post on a personal whim, we become liable by extension for everything that we allow to remain on the site - all 60,000 posts.

I'd hasten to add this doesn't mean we simply lie down and accept that trolls can run amok. The moderation systems in place on the site, while not as good as they could be (will be, later this year!), do allow the community to vote posts up or down.

In your follow up post you mentioned "administrators of this site", I'd encourage every registered member to recognise that deciding what is worthwhile or rubbish is not something determined by some omnipotent anonymous figure/s. Your votes count. Please use them.

Regards
Grant

--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

NaMon, 7 July 2008, 08:44 pm

Couldn't say it better than that

Here here! And as an extension to my previous comment on Wikipedia: one of the founders of Wikipedia has created a new, similar site, but with one change. You have to provide proof (ie. credentials, contact info) of your identity before you can become a registered writer/editor for this site. You have to provide references (ie. someone already on the site must vouch for you), and you have to be checked out by person - rather than by computer check - before being allowed to contribute. There are obvious problems with that, as Grant said, you're then liable for the safety of that information... but also, it's incredibly easy to fake IDs and so forth. As proven by the thousands of online scams and hackers. Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

jeffhansenMon, 7 July 2008, 08:45 pm

Just throwing around some

Just throwing around some thoughts Na..... The number of posts and threads is exactly the reason you should have an open and accountable group of mods. Who are the mods? What are their powers and responsibilities? I don't see the problem with having forum 'police', so long as they are open and accountable. I must disagree with your last statement though. I think by not taking hold of the problem you/we are positively DIScouraging participation.

jeffhansenMon, 7 July 2008, 08:49 pm

I'm all for "why can't we

I'm all for "why can't we just all get along". I vote for that. Also....I have decided to excercise my right to declare certain posts "utter rubbish". :)

Bass GuyTue, 8 July 2008, 05:55 pm

"Sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me" etc...

jeffhansen proclaimed; "What we are seeing on this site is a lack of respect for others. OK, that may be a very broad brush, but there it is in black and white. R.E.S.P.E.C.T." He then had me singing Aretha for the rest of the day. :-p Sadly one of the things we have to endure in this wonderful free society we suffer through is the fact that some little twerps don't have any respect for anything other than getting attention. Attention Must Be Paid, and so on. Personally, if I'm being kind we should ignore these little brats (both young and old) and deny them the attention they seek. Personally, if I'm being unkind we should all earnestly wish fatal (and preferably painful) illnesses upon them. I hate people at the best of times, so I don't find it that hard... El "It ain't braggin' if you can back it up."- Jaco Pastorius

Walter PlingeThu, 10 July 2008, 05:08 am

I suspect the admin people encourage nusiance post

I suspect the admin people encourage nusiance post. I love Grant's "oh what are we going to do" BS when he knows full well he is never going to do anything. He and his bunch of cronies have being doing it for a long time Don't you think he would have done something about it if he was so genuine.

NaThu, 10 July 2008, 06:16 am

Did we encourage you to

Did we encourage you to post this nuisance post? (Oh, I suspect this is a rhetorical question...) Got any proof to go with that allegation, or are we just fishing? If you've ever met any of us - and I have met some of the regulars - you'd realise they're genuine, sincere, and bloody proud of their community. And I propose to you: what are you doing to change things on this site? Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

jmuzzThu, 10 July 2008, 09:48 am

I suspect Wake Up is a troll

Dammit Grant, you put together a bunch of cronies and I didn't even get short-listed? I'm hurt....really hurt

jeffhansenSat, 12 July 2008, 11:34 am

A couple of thoughts.....I

A couple of thoughts..... I don't recall ever seeing a "nuisance" post by a logged in member.....they all seem to be by walter. If there are hard and fast forum rules to abide by, and the site administrators reserve the right to remove posts that in their view breach the rules, how does that leave you open to litigation? I'm not suggesting posts be removed on a whim Grant, but only if they are judged to breach a set of forum rules. I'm a member of another site, which is quite willing to remove posts that breach their forum rules. OK, I'm not a lawyer, but using common (or uncommon, as it seems to be these days) sense, I can't see a problem. Anyway.....how can a Walter poster sue, as the post is anonymous?????

NaSat, 12 July 2008, 12:46 pm

You may not see 'nuisance'

You may not see 'nuisance' posts by another logged in member, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. Usually these posts are removed too quickly for the average member to see them. Also, can we define what you mean by 'nuisance'? Are we referring to spam or what? As for other people's sites, it differs on who is running the site and for what purposes. For instance, a company who offers forums as part of their business (ie. to encourage interaction between customers) is quite different from a site that is for and by the users. Businesses have much more freedom to create top-down rules, because it is after all, their reputation on the line, and can create their own rules according to their own tastes: and force their users to like it or go home. Here however, the user is in fact, the 'leader' (democracy rules) and a bottom-up system is in place. It's up to everyone to decide what is ok and what is not in our online community - and as such, harder to agree on both the rules and how to implement them. I think we're also missing an important part of the argument: this site has grown and changed over the years, and it's needs and wants have changed. Perhaps at one time it wasn't necessary or important to have a set of rules which everyone obeyed - the honour system was in place - and now the site and its members are so large, we need something a little more structured. We also need to recognise that the term 'site administrators' is wrong - purely because of the plural. Grant is the only administrator. There are a handful of moderators, who can do slightly more than normal registered users (see the spam lists for instance, or see what other pages members visit). However, we can do no more removal of posts than everyone else: vote, mark as spam, or report to Grant directly. I remove posts for instance, when they are clearly spam - moderate posts up or down depending on how useful they are to the community, and that's about it. Perhaps we need to create a set of 'rules' or guidelines, that help us decide what makes a good post/helpful post - but even then, we'd still have to get everyone to use it, and you can't force people to do it, no matter how you structure the site. For the last point, Walter can sue, because while the site does not post their real name (because they didn't put it in the field), the site still records important info about them, like their IP address. IPs can be traced back to city, state, country, and with a good court order, probably a lot more than that too. Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

jeffhansenSat, 12 July 2008, 03:52 pm

Well....I shall await the

Well....I shall await the site update when it occurs later in the year. I shall continue to vote posts down as I see fit, and encourage others to do the same.

Grant MalcolmSun, 13 July 2008, 10:47 am

Dealing with nuisances

jeffhansen wrote:
> I don't recall ever seeing a "nuisance" post by a logged in member.....
> they all seem to be by walter.

We can quibble over definitions of nuisance but members have frequently proved themselves just as capable of making nuisance posts.

If you're seriously suggesting that requiring registration is any part of a solution, you may want to read the earlier threads again and tell us what you think has changed.

There are rules. They are enforced.

What is needed is less talk and more action from the very people complaining.

:-)

Posts are being removed by the community - when the community uses the moderation features provided!

Every registered member has the ability to vote posts and comments up or down.

It is our way of collectively determining what we want to appear in our community. If a few people rate a post highly it will be promoted to the homepage. If more people rate a post as utter rubbish it will disappear from view. If there's significant disagreement, then whether it stays or goes will depend on the balance of votes from all members.

The community collectively decides what is/isn't appropriate.

I can't help noting that the people making the most noise on this website (and elsewhere) about removing posts have never used the facilities that are provided for this purpose.

...

Finally, just in the last week there were 62 auditions, productions, new companies and topics added to this website plus a further 152 comments.

With all this great work going on I'm astonished anyone has time to worry about a handful of pathetic posts.

Cheers
Grant

LogosSun, 13 July 2008, 03:45 pm

Well said Grant

I have recently posted "Utter Rubbish" on a couple of scurrilous posts and must have been the only one as the posts remained visible. Come on folks use your power to clean up the site your selves. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Walter PlingeSun, 13 July 2008, 06:48 pm

This site has absolute no

This site has absolute no credibility It is just a pathetic bunch of amateurs trying to be professionals. The owner of this board should be ashamed of himself. Make it members only. you bunch of cunts.

Walter PlingeMon, 14 July 2008, 12:24 pm

spam/nuisance posts

could not,at least,obscenities be banned and posts removed that contain them. Otherwise thanks for a great site.

NaMon, 14 July 2008, 02:00 pm

What's obscene? You're

What's obscene? You're missing the point: sign up and moderate obscene posts down. If you go back and look at the longer threads, you'll find some of them have been moderated down. Even then, can we define what's obscene? Should we start labeling things as 'M 15+'? Besides, as Grant points out, there's just so many posts you can go through with a fine-tooth comb. Something that's obscene could be in context (quoting a play for instance, as part of a review) and perfectly acceptable. We can't train automatic computer screening of obscene words and make it context sensitive. Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne

← Back to Billboard Bulletins