Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Discussion of Warning System
#21
It looks as if some spammers got banned -- way off-topic commercial messages.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#22
I need some help.  We have a chronic abuser of the system, generating new accounts continuously and starting many new threads with bare links, followed by the same messaging, over and over.  Up to this point, I've been using the Major Warning tool, and banning after 4 repeat offenses, only to face another new account in minutes to hours.  

I have the option to ban as soon as the account appears, but that seems very preemptory.  What are the opinions of the other members.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#23
(03-14-2021, 10:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: I need some help.  We have a chronic abuser of the system, generating new accounts continuously and starting many new threads with bare links, followed by the same messaging, over and over.  Up to this point, I've been using the Major Warning tool, and banning after 4 repeat offenses, only to face another new account in minutes to hours.  

I have the option to ban as soon as the account appears, but that seems very preemptory.  What are the opinions of the other members.

Repeated postings are suspect in themselves, but even I try to adapt something I see as relevant in multiple places to fit the different threads. 

The offense is not the making of provocative posts. We all do that. The problem comes with those who make provocative posts and do not engage in meaningful discussion. Something that said "America is doomed because it is a bankrupt police state" doesn't even make sense. Heck, Nazi Germany was a bankrupt police state that solved its problems to the extent that the Leadership thought possible by invading and looting other countries. This is like a bank robber using proceeds of a robbery to solve his economic distress. 

Copyright violations might be cause for removal. All of us may stretch Fair Use, but at least we do so in the intent of fostering discussion. But even in my case I attribute. If people end up subscribing to material to which I link, then I am delighted. But this said, I typically make commentary (except on obituaries)and strongly encourage discussion. Some of my efforts have gone nowhere, which I consider a pity.  

I try to be rational to the extent of my limitations and informed to the extent of my access to information. The offender creates word salad. A possible solution might be to analyze the material for copyright violations. If it appears in some other blog without citation by the appropriator, then it is not fair use.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#24
(03-15-2021, 02:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-14-2021, 10:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: I need some help.  We have a chronic abuser of the system, generating new accounts continuously and starting many new threads with bare links, followed by the same messaging, over and over.  Up to this point, I've been using the Major Warning tool, and banning after 4 repeat offenses, only to face another new account in minutes to hours.  

I have the option to ban as soon as the account appears, but that seems very preemptory.  What are the opinions of the other members.

Repeated postings are suspect in themselves, but even I try to adapt something I see as relevant in multiple places to fit the different threads. 

The offense is not the making of provocative posts. We all do that. The problem comes with those who make provocative posts and do not engage in meaningful discussion. Something that said "America is doomed because it is a bankrupt police state" doesn't even make sense. Heck, Nazi Germany was a bankrupt police state that solved its problems to the extent that the Leadership thought possible by invading and looting other countries. This is like a bank robber using proceeds of a robbery to solve his economic distress. 

Copyright violations might be cause for removal. All of us may stretch Fair Use, but at least we do so in the intent of fostering discussion. But even in my case I attribute. If people end up subscribing to material to which I link, then I am delighted. But this said, I typically make commentary (except on obituaries)and strongly encourage discussion. Some of my efforts have gone nowhere, which I consider a pity.  

I try to be rational to the extent of my limitations and informed to the extent of my access to information. The offender creates word salad. A possible solution might be to analyze the material for copyright violations. If it appears in some other blog without citation by the appropriator, then it is not fair use.

OK, but I'm still looking for guidance on handling this repeat offender.  If there is no perceived offense, then (s)he can just blather on.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#25
(03-15-2021, 09:22 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(03-15-2021, 02:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-14-2021, 10:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: I need some help.  We have a chronic abuser of the system, generating new accounts continuously and starting many new threads with bare links, followed by the same messaging, over and over.  Up to this point, I've been using the Major Warning tool, and banning after 4 repeat offenses, only to face another new account in minutes to hours.  

I have the option to ban as soon as the account appears, but that seems very preemptory.  What are the opinions of the other members.

Repeated postings are suspect in themselves, but even I try to adapt something I see as relevant in multiple places to fit the different threads. 

The offense is not the making of provocative posts. We all do that. The problem comes with those who make provocative posts and do not engage in meaningful discussion. Something that said "America is doomed because it is a bankrupt police state" doesn't even make sense. Heck, Nazi Germany was a bankrupt police state that solved its problems to the extent that the Leadership thought possible by invading and looting other countries. This is like a bank robber using proceeds of a robbery to solve his economic distress. 

Copyright violations might be cause for removal. All of us may stretch Fair Use, but at least we do so in the intent of fostering discussion. But even in my case I attribute. If people end up subscribing to material to which I link, then I am delighted. But this said, I typically make commentary (except on obituaries)and strongly encourage discussion. Some of my efforts have gone nowhere, which I consider a pity.  

I try to be rational to the extent of my limitations and informed to the extent of my access to information. The offender creates word salad. A possible solution might be to analyze the material for copyright violations. If it appears in some other blog without citation by the appropriator, then it is not fair use.

OK, but I'm still looking for guidance on handling this repeat offender.  If there is no perceived offense, then (s)he can just blather on.

Mr. Ragnarok faced this same offender, which I had pointed out to him, and he ended up just banning each new version of him when he came on. Also, he got rid of a lot of the spam threads he starts that no-one participates in. This libertarian spammer does not engage in discussion, and does not respond to our replies much less learn anything from them. So, I don't think it's preemptory at all. It is a tedious job, but I recommend banning him as soon as it is obvious who he is, and that is very easy to tell. I think he was coming on less often, after a while of the way Ragnarok kept banning him. Best wishes, and thanks for being the moderator.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#26
(03-19-2021, 12:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Mr. Ragnarok faced this same offender, which I had pointed out to him, and he ended up just banning each new version of him when he came on. Also, he got rid of a lot of the spam threads he starts that no-one participates in. This libertarian spammer does not engage in discussion, and does not respond to our replies much less learn anything from them. So, I don't think it's preemptory at all. It is a tedious job, but I recommend banning him as soon as it is obvious who he is, and that is very easy to tell. I think he was coming on less often, after a while of the way Ragnarok kept banning him. Best wishes, and thanks for being the moderator.

I've been pretty strict so far, and have killed many accounts and even more threads.  Thanks for the support. I'll continue in the same vein.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#27
(03-15-2021, 09:22 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(03-15-2021, 02:03 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-14-2021, 10:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: I need some help.  We have a chronic abuser of the system, generating new accounts continuously and starting many new threads with bare links, followed by the same messaging, over and over.  Up to this point, I've been using the Major Warning tool, and banning after 4 repeat offenses, only to face another new account in minutes to hours.  

I have the option to ban as soon as the account appears, but that seems very preemptory.  What are the opinions of the other members.

Repeated postings are suspect in themselves, but even I try to adapt something I see as relevant in multiple places to fit the different threads. 

The offense is not the making of provocative posts. We all do that. The problem comes with those who make provocative posts and do not engage in meaningful discussion. Something that said "America is doomed because it is a bankrupt police state" doesn't even make sense. Heck, Nazi Germany was a bankrupt police state that solved its problems to the extent that the Leadership thought possible by invading and looting other countries. This is like a bank robber using proceeds of a robbery to solve his economic distress. 

Copyright violations might be cause for removal. All of us may stretch Fair Use, but at least we do so in the intent of fostering discussion. But even in my case I attribute. If people end up subscribing to material to which I link, then I am delighted. But this said, I typically make commentary (except on obituaries)and strongly encourage discussion. Some of my efforts have gone nowhere, which I consider a pity.  

I try to be rational to the extent of my limitations and informed to the extent of my access to information. The offender creates word salad. A possible solution might be to analyze the material for copyright violations. If it appears in some other blog without citation by the appropriator, then it is not fair use.

OK, but I'm still looking for guidance on handling this repeat offender.  If there is no perceived offense, then (s)he can just blather on.

Nulla crimen sine lege.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#28
(03-19-2021, 04:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-15-2021, 09:22 AM)David Horn Wrote: OK, but I'm still looking for guidance on handling this repeat offender.  If there is no perceived offense, then (s)he can just blather on.

Nulla crimen sine lege.

Yes, but this is not a court of law. It's a private forum, with members free to act in their own best interests.  My major concern is the never-ending thread generation, consisting of a bare link.  Some are actually worth discussing, but the shear volume pushes other threads far down the history list.  If (s)he would stop that, i would allow the ranting.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#29
(03-20-2021, 09:54 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(03-19-2021, 04:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(03-15-2021, 09:22 AM)David Horn Wrote: OK, but I'm still looking for guidance on handling this repeat offender.  If there is no perceived offense, then (s)he can just blather on.

Nulla crimen sine lege.

Yes, but this is not a court of law. It's a private forum, with members free to act in their own best interests.  My major concern is the never-ending thread generation, consisting of a bare link.  Some are actually worth discussing, but the shear volume pushes other threads far down the history list.  If (s)he would stop that, i would allow the ranting.

Of course. It might not be illegal to swear and fart, but do too much of those in a store, and you will be escorted out. To assess whether one wants to discuss the material one must read it, and in some cases the discussion of an isolated deed of some local politician (the "Senator" is some cranky State Senator from some obscure bailiwick where the population is very different from America as a whole) or someone's local contribution as a "letter to the editor" of some small-town newspaper. On occasion one might find a literary gem, but that is far from predictable.

The difference with me is that I try to make people want to respond.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#30
(03-19-2021, 01:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(03-19-2021, 12:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Mr. Ragnarok faced this same offender, which I had pointed out to him, and he ended up just banning each new version of him when he came on. Also, he got rid of a lot of the spam threads he starts that no-one participates in. This libertarian spammer does not engage in discussion, and does not respond to our replies much less learn anything from them. So, I don't think it's preemptory at all. It is a tedious job, but I recommend banning him as soon as it is obvious who he is, and that is very easy to tell. I think he was coming on less often, after a while of the way Ragnarok kept banning him. Best wishes, and thanks for being the moderator.

I've been pretty strict so far, and have killed many accounts and even more threads.  Thanks for the support. I'll continue in the same vein.

You're welcome. There's still lots of threads to delete!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#31
(03-21-2021, 05:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-19-2021, 01:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(03-19-2021, 12:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Mr. Ragnarok faced this same offender, which I had pointed out to him, and he ended up just banning each new version of him when he came on. Also, he got rid of a lot of the spam threads he starts that no-one participates in. This libertarian spammer does not engage in discussion, and does not respond to our replies much less learn anything from them. So, I don't think it's preemptory at all. It is a tedious job, but I recommend banning him as soon as it is obvious who he is, and that is very easy to tell. I think he was coming on less often, after a while of the way Ragnarok kept banning him. Best wishes, and thanks for being the moderator.

I've been pretty strict so far, and have killed many accounts and even more threads.  Thanks for the support. I'll continue in the same vein.

You're welcome. There's still lots of threads to delete!

If the thread is active and getting responses, I try to leave it in place ... try being the operative word.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Discussion of moderation policy Kinser79 15 7,652 05-16-2016, 12:50 AM
Last Post: Kinser79

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)