Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A Sad Day For Kuro5hin

By Tex Bigballs in Meta
Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 10:47:04 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

Link

In case it gets deleted, evidently on the somethingawful forums there was a long four-page thread telling people to register accounts to vote up the SPEWS article to the front page.


After reading net.admin.net-abuse.email and some of somethingawful.com's forums, I can certainly empathize with SA's frustration.

In a nutshell, Richard Kyanka, the guy who runs SA chose "New Horizons" as their web hosting company.

Apparently, New Horizons is also the home to spammers and other unsavory types on the internet. So the people who maintain the SPEWS anti-spam service decided to blacklist all the sites hosted by New Horizons.

So evidently, the forum members of SA decided to invade the nanae newsgroup and, apparently due to their diplomatic shortcomings they managed to piss off all the powermad regulars on the group.

I guess they then decided to make their case with K5 after that, and that's where we came into the picture. Someone on SA's forums thought that NANAE people were voting down their article, so they decided to get all the forum members to vote it up.

As far as the SPEWS issue goes, who cares? It's somethingawful's problem. God knows we have our own problems on K5, and that IS THE SITE'S RIDICULOUS SLOWNESS.

In any event, it's no secret to anyone that the openness of the article voting process can be exploited, and we have just seen that in action. So rusty, maybe it's time we put some sort of safeguards on article voting like perhaps a certain number of comments required before being allowed to vote? If anyone has a better suggestion please suggest it.

The article that got voted to the front page wasn't a bad article. It could have used a little more editorial work, but considering the method it got voted up by, it could have been a lot worse.

Next time we might not be so lucky. Are we going to let K5 so easily whore out front page articles to any other community that has enough members willing to spend the minute required to register an account(s) to vote up an article?

Props to Michael Moore and ti_dave for their detective work.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Link
o nanae newsgroup
o Michael Moore
o ti_dave
o Also by Tex Bigballs


Display: Sort:
A Sad Day For Kuro5hin | 322 comments (310 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
+1 fp if this is true (2.80 / 5) (#1)
by circletimessquare on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:17:39 AM EST

post the messages, flesh this out with a few more sentences, and get this story up front quick right next to the current spews story

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

I'm trying to save the pages in case they delete (3.75 / 4) (#3)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:21:28 AM EST

the thread. Plus I'm at work and there's other stuff I should probably be doing...

If someone else wants to write this VERY NECESSARY article then I'll take this one down, otherwise I'll write it later on today.

[ Parent ]

Saved Pages (3.75 / 4) (#7)
by Jarad on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:56:23 AM EST

I have the HTML of pages 1-5 saved. If you need them, say the word.

[ Parent ]
It's true (4.16 / 6) (#6)
by Jarad on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:36:01 AM EST

Follow the link he gave (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=644293) and scroll down past the "Pay us money" bit.

aardvarko
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/4/222054/6295
Register for a kuro5hin account, if necessary, and vote TAK's article +1 (Front Page). Thanks.

The Sandwich
Do this please. The fags on NANAE are actively trying to vote it down so it gets pushed into oblivion.

aardvarko
Props to jpixton, earlaker, Joyrider

Monkey-Of-Death
Done and Done

aardvarko
We're positive!

MMAgCh
Done.

Yvershek
Voted

killsbugsdead
Voted.
edit: Voted again.

Winkie
Done
there are some huge idiots there.

...and so on.

Don't know what the kuro5shin admin can do about this though other than nuke the story.

[ Parent ]

Yes, hurry. (4.00 / 2) (#21)
by David Hume on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:04:22 PM EST

Please complete this and get it out of the editing que ASAP. As soon as you do (and I again have access to a computer), I'll +1 FP this. This is a situation where timeliness is more important than correcting minor imperfections.
The is-ought problem.
[ Parent ]
See also: (4.80 / 10) (#2)
by Michael Moore on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:21:12 AM EST

this diary.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
I knew it (4.62 / 24) (#5)
by President Saddam on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:21:49 AM EST

There were strange new dupe accounts voting that story up instead of the regular old dupe accounts.

---
Allah Akbar

Please do not pull it! (3.20 / 5) (#8)
by i on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 10:11:37 AM EST

The article itself is crap, but the discussion is both entertaining and educational, and so is the fact of ballot stuffing.

Disclaimer: I voted +1FP.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

Not really worried about the article (4.66 / 3) (#9)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 10:25:21 AM EST

but obviously rusty needs to do something to make sure that people can't just register dozens of dummy accounts just to vote up an article supporting their "cause"

[ Parent ]
possible solution (5.00 / 3) (#264)
by tzanger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 12:01:57 PM EST

restrict voting for new members until a 1 day, 5 day, or maybe even 1 week "new user" period... all benefits of being a new user, including looking at the edit/voting queue, but no ability to vote anything but 'abstain' until the cooling off period is complete.

[ Parent ]
New users (2.50 / 6) (#14)
by MethodLoser on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 05:19:13 PM EST

One moment. This article is complaining that somethingawful, by posting a link to an article on kuro5hin, is doing a bad thing by bringing in new users. I fail to see your argument, as no one was creating multiple accounts to vote up the article, there were just new users that happened to be interested in a certain article joining the site. Are you saying that you don't want new users to Kuro5hin?

It shouldn't be a matter of quid pro quo (4.87 / 8) (#16)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 05:35:47 PM EST

Which is to say, that let's be generous and suppose that maybe 3 or 4 people of the dozens or so that registered accounts last night solely to vote that article up actually do stick around for some period of time longer than a week.

Is it worth it to K5 to allow our article voting process to be completely hijacked in exchange for a handful of new users?

Put in those terms, I don't think that's a deal most users here would be willing to make.


[ Parent ]

Are they really new USERS? (4.42 / 7) (#60)
by b1t r0t on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 10:24:32 PM EST

Are they really new users, or just new accounts? If someone comes here and creates an account, whether for the purpose of posting a single article, or voting up a single article, and never comes back, how does that help K5? All it does is add extra useless records to the K5 databse.

-- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.
[ Parent ]
Tex, someone on NANAE ... (4.23 / 21) (#17)
by pyramid termite on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 05:40:18 PM EST

... out and out suggested that people register here to vote down the article and SA is simply doing the same. It's not a sad day for K5, it's a great day - two seperate groups of bitterly opposed people actually think we're important and intelligent enough to debate their controversy with them.

Little do they know ... But seriously, there's going to be some interesting new members from both groups coming from this. And I think it's significant that we've voted (and yes, I mean WE) for this article - Slashdot, Voice of the Nerds has ignored it. I don't know of any other sources on the web that have covered this.

It's what's known in the news world as a scoop. A net.controversy that was covered here first. It's a feather in Rusty's cap. He'd be mad to delete it.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
Two wrongs don't make a right (4.87 / 8) (#18)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 05:57:27 PM EST

If working voting safeguards had previously been implemented, then neither the NANAE people, or the SA people would have been able to "stuff the ballotbox", as it were, and legitimate members of the community could have voted on the article.

As I said in the article, the SPEWS article is fine. Fair is fair, leave it be.

My point is that we shouldn't ignore this little experience, and we certainly shouldn't dismiss it as a "positive thing"

Are you suggesting, that we should leave the doors wide open for any other online community that wants to railroad us into publishing another one of their pet peeve articles?

If we choose to do nothing, then I guarantee it happens again.


[ Parent ]

Jesus says (4.00 / 3) (#22)
by tranx on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:04:56 PM EST

?To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other as well.?


"World War III is a guerrilla information war, with no division between military and civilian participation." -- Marshall McLuhan
[ Parent ]

And look where it's got him. (2.00 / 1) (#130)
by dublet on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:28:53 AM EST

He's dead regardless.

Badger. Badger. ←
[ Parent ]
You left your cinema seat (5.00 / 3) (#142)
by tranx on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:19:41 AM EST

at the crucifixion scene, didn't you?


"World War III is a guerrilla information war, with no division between military and civilian participation." -- Marshall McLuhan
[ Parent ]

I did wait for the credits [nbsd] (2.00 / 1) (#144)
by dublet on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:23:06 AM EST

  sarcasm
       n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used
           sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the
           stupid" [syn: {irony}, {satire}, {caustic remark}]


Badger. Badger. ←
[ Parent ]
Here! (none / 0) (#162)
by tranx on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:23:55 AM EST

Hit this other side.


"World War III is a guerrilla information war, with no division between military and civilian participation." -- Marshall McLuhan
[ Parent ]

Actually, he's not (none / 0) (#296)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 10:13:27 PM EST

But you will be. He rose, remember? As may you, but you have to do one little thing first...

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Sir... (5.00 / 1) (#295)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 10:12:23 PM EST

We Christians are outnumbered by the zoroastrians here.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

You mean, if Rusty does nothing ... (4.75 / 4) (#23)
by pyramid termite on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:06:44 PM EST

... don't you? Tex, before this started there were 46,000+ members of this site. At one point only 8 of them would have had to vote this down to reach the -20 level. It didn't happen, did it? We already chose to do nothing, didn't we? (Actually, I voted +1FP.)

If people are more active in the voting process then they were this morning this won't happen again, will it? Rusty's the only one that can change the voting rules to tilt towards the "community" that's been here awhile. But why should he bother when we're collectively failing to express our opinions as a community?

It's OUR fault. WE let them do this. If you want to lay blame, you put it right on us.

If I see an outside invasion like this that I don't agree with I WILL vote no. And I will vote YES if I think it's valuable. And I will NOT complain if the invasion succeeds against my wishes because that would mean the rest of the community didn't care enough.

This isn't a Scoop problem or a site problem, it's a social one. And having been in more newsgroup flame wars than you can shake a stick at, I think this is a fairly small deal. We will assimulate them and they will be Kurupt.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Judging from Michael Moore's logs (4.80 / 10) (#29)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:19:59 PM EST

I don't think the K5 community would have stood a chance against the SA forums. In fact, if Lowtax (or someone else influential to that community) wrote a message saying "Everyone vote up three more articles to K5's front page", you had better believe there would be three more SA articles on K5's front page even if we had notice of it a week in advance.

If it is elitist to suggest that someone should have to wait a day or two, or post a certain # of comments to enjoy the privileges of the community, then I say let us be elitist.

Lastly, K5 isn't going to assimilate anything. The people that registered accounts solely to vote the article up already have a community, the SA forums.

Also, I wouldn't flatter ourselves into thinking that they were gracious enough to post their article to K5 because we're such an intelligent, enlightened bunch of people that were going to take an interest in, and debate their little matter.

How many other web communities can you name that would just roll out the red carpet, and allow someone else to put an article of theirs up on the front page, for probably at least a week?

Face it, SA were the nazis, we were france, and they just marched down our streets and raped our women.

[ Parent ]

Actually that is why I posted it here (4.50 / 2) (#32)
by The Artificial Kid on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:34:01 PM EST

Also, I wouldn't flatter ourselves into thinking that they were gracious enough to post their article to K5 because we're such an intelligent, enlightened bunch of people that were going to take an interest in, and debate their little matter. That is why I posted it here, and this is also where I brought the last item I wanted to try to broadcast to an intelligent audience (a joint article posted under llamasex's name, concerning CNN transcripts of Hans Blix's report to the UN).

[ Parent ]
Fair enough (4.66 / 3) (#33)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:39:01 PM EST

For the record, I think it would have got voted up anyway. Just the method involved fast-tracking the process concerns me is all.

[ Parent ]
I doubt it (2.75 / 4) (#34)
by The Artificial Kid on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:55:41 PM EST

As someone noted on NANAE it came within a dozen votes of being sent to oblivion.

However it had a lot of positive votes along with the negative votes. I haven't studies kuro5hin voting patterns in any depth, but to me this leaves open the possibility that it was at leas e moderately worthy article that was being voted down for ideological easons (although I'm obviously biased).

[ Parent ]

I think you got points deducted (4.83 / 6) (#36)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:10:28 PM EST

because there a couple punctuation mistakes. (For example the opening sentence in one of your paragraphs wasn't even capitalized)

Then there are some people that look to see if a user submitting an article has posted many comments or diaries and vote on that.

Also, could be some people just don't like something awful.


[ Parent ]

He has those little grammatical mistakes a lot... (2.00 / 2) (#80)
by Saepiroth on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:43:19 PM EST

But he's still probably one of, if not the, best debator(s) on SA.

[ Parent ]
debator? (4.00 / 2) (#116)
by Abominable Abitur on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:11:36 AM EST

or circular logician?

"Terrorism is only a viable "political activist" method for marginalized nutjobs, bottom line. The backlash that it causes makes it intractable for any reasonable ideology. Which is why you don't generally see wild athiest suicide bombers in america's streets." - lonelyhobo
[ Parent ]
As an old campaigner (4.50 / 6) (#35)
by pyramid termite on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:10:05 PM EST

I don't think the K5 community would have stood a chance against the SA forums.

There's 15,000 of them and 47,000 of us. It's a pity it costs 9.95 to join - if it wasn't for that, I would gladly join you in a counter-invasion to meow down their streets and Fluffyize their women. I'm a veteran of many newsgroup wars, Tex. What happened today here or in NANAE was nothing, believe me.

You know what I think? You're scared of the new trolls on the block.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
actually (4.66 / 3) (#37)
by makaera on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:12:56 PM EST

There are probably only about 15000 of us, since the average user probably has about three accounts, though some definitely have more.

"Ninety rounds in there," Joel Andrews said. "If you can't take it down with 90 rounds, you better turn in your badge!" -- from Parent ]

And so the average user ... (4.25 / 4) (#43)
by pyramid termite on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:49:33 PM EST

... can vote 3 times. Uh-oh. Doesn't that mean the average user is a ballot-box stuffer?

Maybe Rusty should ban everyone from voting.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
no (4.00 / 1) (#62)
by makaera on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 10:41:37 PM EST

It means that the average user has multiple personalities, so you never know who's going to show up on any given day. And some of the accounts are dormant or were developed for a particular comment. But there have been accusations of using multiple accounts for ballot stuffing for as long as I've been here, so this shouldn't really be a surprise to Rusty.

"Ninety rounds in there," Joel Andrews said. "If you can't take it down with 90 rounds, you better turn in your badge!" -- from Parent ]

Never believe user numbers (4.75 / 4) (#38)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:13:10 PM EST

by the last UID registered.

As for the rest of it, you act like I'm bitter at SA. I'm not... in fact I like somethingawful. I just think we should make sure something like this doesn't happen again.

When someone robs your house once, you make sure to lock the doors next time right?

[ Parent ]

This isn't a house, dude ... (4.00 / 2) (#44)
by pyramid termite on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:51:32 PM EST

... it's a PARTY!! Lighten up. I welcome the somethingawful crew to K5 because I like somethingawful too. I never miss a Photoshop Phriday.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Are you suggesting... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by laotic on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:21:25 AM EST

a $15 entry fee? Retroactive? :)

Sig? Sigh.
[ Parent ]
wow (4.50 / 2) (#51)
by reklaw on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:22:04 PM EST

There's 15,000 of them and 47,000 of us. It's a pity it costs 9.95 to join

15,000 x $9.95 = $149,250.

Surely not.
-
[ Parent ]

The 9.95 is a recent thing, I think (nt) (none / 0) (#57)
by pyramid termite on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:59:11 PM EST


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Surely so! (4.66 / 3) (#77)
by Saepiroth on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:38:08 PM EST

Combined with merchandise, basic forum accounts, platinum accounts, custom titles/avatars, and a varitey of other account upgrades, SA is actually a wholly self-financing business. They even have enough income to pay the frontpage contributors and forum administrators for their work and time.

[ Parent ]
that... (4.00 / 1) (#90)
by reklaw on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:28:55 AM EST

... is pretty amazing. Not to mention that it puts the whole SPEWS thing in a slightly different light (for me, anyway) -- I'd be quite pissed if I was making that much money and I couldn't communicate with my customers.

Wonder if they'd take me on as a frontpage contributor? I have a GCSE in English, you know! Grade A, too. That's gotta be worth something.
-
[ Parent ]

That'd be cool. (2.00 / 1) (#123)
by BinaryTree on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:53:41 AM EST

K5 would be improved.

[ Parent ]
The danger of being an open, democratic society (4.60 / 5) (#24)
by xL on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:07:43 PM EST

is that the majority will always go for bread and games, once they figure out how to vote for it. Being open and being traditional at the same time is impossible. If you want to preserve 'traditional K5 values' against alien invasions, you have to define a 'minimal standard' of abiding to the traditional K5 values. Seems to me that will invoke slashdot-style karma-whoring or other workarounds, traditions be damned. Once you reach critical mass, there is no stopping the all-devouring bell-curve popping its ugly head around the corner.

History has taught us that the only way to turn the tide is a violent change of regime, elimination of dissidents and, most of all, a behind-the-curtains cabal to keep the puppet dictator in check. I will do the finances.

[ Parent ]

One more note, Tex - (4.33 / 3) (#26)
by pyramid termite on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:09:53 PM EST

You didn't vote. You can't bitch.<br.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I didn't vote either (wasn't online) (5.00 / 5) (#28)
by Stick on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:16:02 PM EST

But I assure you, I can bitch.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Same here (none / 0) (#294)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 10:07:02 PM EST

I mean, come on, if I don't shut off my computer and drink, where will I get those diaries?

Not only that, but the bastards at work actually make me work once in a while, can you believe that?

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

I slept through it! (4.83 / 6) (#30)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:20:21 PM EST

By the time I woke up this morning it was already FP'd!

[ Parent ]
Oh wow (5.00 / 13) (#19)
by Keith Harper on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 06:41:54 PM EST

two seperate groups of bitterly opposed people actually think we're important and intelligent enough to debate their controversy with them.

Did this line evoke images of two cowboys fighting over a prostitute in a saloon for anyone else?


[ Parent ]

No, more like (none / 0) (#293)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 10:05:16 PM EST

The Crips and Bloods fighting over a crackwhore

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

It wasn't a good thing (4.75 / 4) (#63)
by KilljoyAZ on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 10:51:39 PM EST

Somehow I doubt more than a couple of the people from SA or NANAE will stick around once comments on the SPEWS article start dying down, or that more than a handful even commented on that article. It's the k5 equivalent of carpetbagging and not something that should be applauded. Would you be happy if someone posted a story on the front page of foxnews.com telling people to vote down an article critical of News Corp.? I don't think many people here would.

===
Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
[ Parent ]
Re: (4.00 / 1) (#81)
by Saepiroth on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:47:29 PM EST

I actually intend to be one of those exceptions. I had not heard of this site before now, and I find it interesting.

[ Parent ]
Oh, no it's not. (4.00 / 2) (#68)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:06:11 PM EST

There is no upside to this situation. On the one hand we've got a group of people known to commit DDOS attacks when they've been insulted and, er..., I ain't exactly Miss Manners. On the other side we have "Photoshop Phridays" and the implicit fear that if I piss off Lowtax, I might find 300 "variations" of my clown face plastered all over the web....

I'm gettin' all twitchy just thinking about it.


--
His men will follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiousity.


[ Parent ]
But we've got (1.00 / 1) (#183)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:08:12 AM EST

various people (Armaphine, Phil the Canuck, Liad, DU,etc) experienced in various Evil Sysadmin Tricks who could do serious damage to BOTH sides. If that were necessary...

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Lets retaliate (3.50 / 6) (#20)
by Stick on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 06:54:17 PM EST

Ideas?


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
Got one! (4.85 / 27) (#25)
by Stick on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:07:57 PM EST

Lets submit them to more spam blacklists.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
You mean like... (2.50 / 2) (#145)
by laotic on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:25:48 AM EST

let's piss off more dudes like those from SPEWS by spamming them? Well, that would put us in the same trench as SA!

Yeah, let's do that, we'd finally be fighting for a noble cause with the worthy kannigets of Something Awful :)

Sig? Sigh.
[ Parent ]
See (4.00 / 1) (#152)
by synaesthesia on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:08:58 AM EST

here.


Sausages or cheese?
[ Parent ]
mmm. I don't get it... (none / 0) (#180)
by laotic on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:03:33 AM EST


Sig? Sigh.
[ Parent ]
There's some funny stuff on that forum though (4.05 / 17) (#27)
by Stick on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 07:11:49 PM EST

For example:

"Voted FP. I forgot I had this account, mostly because K5 is the most ludicrously stupid bunch of useless twats ever to emerge from the primordial sludge."

That was said by someone who paid a tenner to use a forum! It's probably fuffy grue now that I think about it, dirty shemale.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n

The irony (4.14 / 7) (#39)
by Tatarigami on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:32:13 PM EST

K5 is the most ludicrously stupid bunch of useless twats ever to emerge from the primordial sludge."

No sir, I can't imagine anyone wanting to filter out their email. Can you?

[ Parent ]

You're not filtering "their" email (5.00 / 6) (#40)
by The Artificial Kid on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:36:24 PM EST

You're filtering the email of the people who run the forum at which "they" post.

Furthermore "they" don't care if you filter "their" email, they only care if you block "their" email from passing on to its intended recipient simply because you harbour a personal grudge against "them".

[ Parent ]

You're absolutely right (4.75 / 4) (#110)
by kjb on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:30:09 AM EST

The owners of the servers blocking the IP block somethingawful.com is in should be forced to accept email from them.

--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

And what part of this whole ordeal (4.00 / 4) (#136)
by RipCurl on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 05:25:10 AM EST

That SA is not being blocked because of any grudge agaisnt them. SA is part of a BLOCK because of their stupid ISP who harbors spamemrs and uses SITES like SA as human shileds so that their spamming customers can continue abusing the net? Because New Horizons is a host to a known spammer; that Cogentco is leasing space to an ISP that is doing nothing about their known spammer?

Why can't SA just pack up and leave? There are much more reliable hosts out there than can eaisly handle their "load" (damn its only a forum fer crying out loud ) and are probably cheaper than NH / Cogentco. If they leave, Cogentco altogether, all their problems could be solved.

And its stupid of any site to commit to a contract that they didn't hav a lawyer go over.

[ Parent ]

Why can't they just.... (4.00 / 4) (#140)
by squigly on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:09:28 AM EST

Why can't SA just pack up and leave?

Why can't SPEWS simply add a hole for SA?  This should surely involve adding a few entries to a list.

If they leave, Cogentco altogether, all their problems could be solved.

Unless their new ISP starts habouring spammers.

[ Parent ]

This is what would have happened, normally. (3.33 / 3) (#164)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:29:29 AM EST

However, then they decided to mailbomb NANAE. This is a sign of being a pro-spammer organization, one would say. The SPEWS people have probably come to the conclusion, based on their own actions, that they're one of the spammers their ISP harbours.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Who mailbombed NANAE? (3.00 / 2) (#199)
by squigly on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:45:34 AM EST

However, then they decided to mailbomb NANAE.

Who?  SA themselves, or their users?  

Did you email their service providers to complain about them?

This is a sign of being a pro-spammer organization, one would say.

I'd say its a sign of being anti-SPEWS.  

The SPEWS people have probably come to the conclusion, based on their own actions, that they're one of the spammers their ISP harbours.

I guess they have this right.  Nevertheless, this makes them childish morons, and the fact that SPEWS is an unaccountable list run by childish morons simply suggests that nobody in their right mind should use this list.

[ Parent ]

Mailbombing is bad. (3.66 / 3) (#223)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:25:53 PM EST

And many NANAE readers have scripts set up to auto-notify abuse addresses.

SPEWS is a voluntary list. The only reason it - or any other RBL list - has any power is because sysadmins use it. It's effectively accountable to those sysadmins. It works because it saves sysadmins time - and their employers money. If you think SPEWS is inaccurate, well, feel free to set up your own service, and see if any sysadmins use it. It's plainly obvious to anybody with a clue who's run a large mailserver for more than about three weeks that RBL is a necessity.

FWIW, I don't use RBL. But I've never had more than about five people on my mailserver, so it's not worth the hassle. But if I had a thousand people, yeah, I'd do it. And if I was CMU or some other huge email network, then, yeah, I wouldn't dream of life without it.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

In that light... (4.00 / 1) (#246)
by andamac on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 12:52:52 AM EST

Who is blocking SA? SPEWS themselves? Or their users? On that line, perhaps various ISPs who use SPEWS could be convinced to clear any SA blocks.
~~ Word starry. Word.
[ Parent ]
SPEWS only makes the blocklist. (4.50 / 2) (#254)
by haflinger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 07:40:54 AM EST

ISPs and other people with firewalls download the blocklist, and their firewalls implement the SPEWS blocklist. Participation is wholly voluntary (like other blocklists).

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
SPEWS is blocking IPs (1.00 / 1) (#305)
by squigly on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 12:13:55 PM EST

The SPEWS administrators know that by adding an IP address to the list, it will be blocked.  If adding an IP address to the list causes it to be blocked, then SPEWS blocks emails.  Otherwise, you may as well argue that the sysadmin doesn't block emails either.  He simply downloads and runs the blocking software that uses SPEWS.  

On that line, perhaps various ISPs who use SPEWS could be convinced to clear any SA blocks.

Perhaps they could.  Perhaps the people who run SPEWS could also remove it from the list.  

[ Parent ]

Well then (none / 0) (#309)
by andamac on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 12:15:46 AM EST

The SA writers know that by listing a site as the Awful Link of the Day, it will get spammed. If posting an Awful Link cause the link to be spammed, then SA spams. And so on.

Either both are responsible for the consequnces of what they do, or neither is.

[ Parent ]

Intention is important (none / 0) (#311)
by squigly on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 05:25:52 AM EST

When did SA start posting links in ordere to get them spammed?

[ Parent ]
Does intention matter? (none / 0) (#314)
by andamac on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 05:53:33 PM EST

Unless they are completely blind, they know it happens and they continue to do it.

However I'd say that blaming SA entirely is misplaced. But it is inconsistant to absolve SA and yet rage against SPEWS. Which was where I was going with this in the first place.

[ Parent ]

It's not inconsistent (none / 0) (#316)
by squigly on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 04:50:51 AM EST

SPEWS exists to block IP addresses.  The website tells you how to use SPEWS to block emails.  There is no benefit to the list other tyhan if you use it to block emails.  If people stopped using it for that purpose, it would become totally pointless.

SA does not exist to get people spammed.  That is an unfortunate side effect, but not the intention.  I would expect that if there was a way of linking that did not have this unfortunate side effect, then I'm sure they would do so.

[ Parent ]

You're talking intentions again. (none / 0) (#318)
by andamac on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 07:08:25 PM EST

I don't think they're as important as the outcome.

However occasionally the SA authors say something like "hey plz don't fuck around with this one you only get us in trouble" (recently, in fact) so there's the difference right there.

But even then the equivalent is not to remove SPEWS entirely, but for them to put up something like "hey guess what you might be blocking completely harmless sites if you use our lists". Only then you'd run into the problem of sysadmins not caring, which was quite aptly demonstrated by the google group.

[ Parent ]

I resent that statement (4.88 / 9) (#46)
by pyramid termite on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:54:01 PM EST

I emerged from recycled sludge - my parents couldn't afford primordial sludge. Fucking elitists.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
You had sludge? (4.80 / 5) (#65)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:02:28 PM EST

Damn. In my family we made do with mud. And we liked it!


--
His men will follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiousity.


[ Parent ]
Mud? Luxury. (4.75 / 4) (#153)
by motty on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:10:04 AM EST

We had rocks. Which we had to break up ourselves, using only our heads.
s/^.*$//sig;#)
[ Parent ]
Stick! (none / 0) (#168)
by tps12 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:35:12 AM EST

I thought you were dead.

[ Parent ]
Sour grapes is never pretty (none / 0) (#320)
by mayo on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 11:03:18 PM EST

"Voted FP. I forgot I had this account, mostly because K5 is the most ludicrously stupid bunch of useless twats ever to emerge from the primordial sludge."

Damn, sounds like somebody got a 1 on their first k5 comment and ran away crying never to return. How sad. It's a pity, he was doing really well with the above insult until he used "primordial sludge". I mean really, I've never even seen primordial sludge but if I ever do I will be sure to bathe in it for a bit to better match the above description.

[ Parent ]
Solution: (3.40 / 5) (#41)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:44:15 PM EST

one solution is to make K5 a sovereign nation: we'll issue passports and national ID cards and only letting those who were grandfathered in to the country to receive the benefits. Hey, we have it so good here that we need to raise the barrier for entry and control immigration in to this site.

Or we can live up to the high minded ideal of an equal and free democratic system, where everyone--foreign and domestic-- are treated identically with special privileges granted only to the developers (forgetting for the moment the incredibly minor right to manage 0 comments).

It's sort of the age old question of what rights do we grant to immigrants and illegal citizens. While the current system may lead to abuse, it's a type of abuse that K5 encourages: that is, if people are interested they'll vote it up and if they won't they'll vote it down. In this story's case, the interested population was a bit larger than just K5: it included the population of SA and NANAE, too, and they each could vote as is their right. NANAE failed to shoot down the story, and that's their rotten luck for not taking advantage of a right that was equally available to them.

Maybe there was just more interest in the side that wanted to vote it up? Isn't that the intention of voting in the first place?

-Soc
I drank what?


I wouldn't look at it in terms of SA versus NANAE (4.85 / 7) (#45)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:51:52 PM EST

First, because I'm really not so sure NANAE was committed to registering accounts just to shoot down the story. And if they were, certainly not as much as SA was.

As I said, SA has some good points, and I'm not trying take anything away from TAK's article.

That said, where would we draw the line?

For example, suppose NAMBLA's forums (not sure if there are any) or how about the KKK's forums, or anyone else really, decided there was a topic that was REALLY REALLY important to them, and blitzed K5 to get it on the front page.

Keep in mind that article pushed down every other front page article that was voted up primarily by regular K5 members.

If you would be okay with that, then I certainly encourage to vote that way.

If you think K5 is here just to let other forums barge in and take over the discussion if it's important enough to them, then believe me it will happen.

In my mind, I think it cheapens the community. That's just my opinion, though.

By the way, you don't think all those SA people just registered one account each, do you?

[ Parent ]

let's generalize terms a bit more. (4.75 / 4) (#48)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:07:21 PM EST

rather than terms of the KKK forum or anything, is this really any different than any special interest. Let's up the stakes a bit.

Suppose a group of 100+ trolls got together and coordinated a coup on K5. At 5PM EST turmeric will post an article to the queue, and the troll army with synchronized watches jump in and immediately 150 +1 FP's get registered. Whammo. Front Page. Time: 30 seconds. The server is still smoking from the speed of it.

This can all happen internally to the K5 community. It's not just carpetbaggers. Is this case materially any different than the one we just experienced? No. But the thing is, I trust in human behavior to provide a balancing act. The trolls may do this for a little while just to prove they can, but the buzz wears off, and the activity goes away.

Could SA do this again? Sure. Would they? Probably not. It takes enthusiasm to stage these kinds of coups. What happened to SA is relatively unique so it's doubtful that there will be anything where little ol' K5 will matter to them ever again. Vote up an article on photoshop phriday? Not likely.

I don't like the idea of blanket protection by my government. Why would I ever want that from my community too? A little infraction from time to time doesn't ruin the society.

I say this on the belief that abuse like this occurs rarely. Time will tell on that, and I'll (un)happily eat my words and agree with you if things change. But one incident does not a crisis make. It's like this guy who crashed a Farmer's Market thing: one old guy went and ruined it for everyone of his age.

You wrote a good story though. Thought provoking. If I was in the habit of voting, I'd give it +1. We should be taking this attention with vanity that SA esteems us so highly.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Fair enough (4.83 / 6) (#50)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:20:41 PM EST

In fact, I do see your point.

It's certainly not a crisis, you're right. I'm not trying to say it is, nor am I trying to blow this way out of proportion.

I think, at some point though, we have to say K5 is our place, and take some pride in it.

If an article by tumeric got spammed to the front page overnight, I wouldn't care, because tumeric is a long standing and established (and very prolific) memeber of the community.

Obviously, if you don't have any pride in this place, then you don't care what gets posted here and who takes advantage of the system.

What I saw this morning was the fact that anyone can come in here, anytime they want, and in a massive coordinated effort, in effect take over our place for their own interests.

I know that sounds overdramatic and corny but that's how I perceived it.

[ Parent ]

FWIW (4.00 / 1) (#237)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:21:13 PM EST

I'm not comfortable with this precedent either.

But I think there's things about which we can both be proud. Occasionally a dull or non-story may make it to the front page, but I take extraordinary pride that there's occasionally the rare article that talks about a subject neither of us would ordinarily have considered. That's one thing I love about K5, and it's openness encourages that.

The other thing, though, is that K5 manages to generate these under it's current system, even if you accept that we have a vulnerability that we both see. For this, we can take pride in K5 and --at the risk of being equally over dramatic and corny-- humanity in general. The pessimist would say K5 thrives in spite of it, but I think we can say that K5 thrives. Period. And "it" is not a "in spite of", "despite" or "even though" consideration. K5 thrives because people are responsible and want K5 to thrive.

K5 succeeds because people aren't jerks for the most part. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But then again, I'm an angry "Glass is half full, you god damned fucker" kind of guy. Optimistic misanthropy, you could say. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
There's a difference between a Troll and a SA Goon (4.66 / 9) (#64)
by siobibble on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:02:14 PM EST

That is, a troll actually has some dignity. A troll takes pride in having their own story go up to front page by the very community they are mocking. No self-repsecting troll would coordinate and vote themselves to the front page. That would cross the line between trolling and floodcrapping. Anyways, it wouldn't be a troll that way. The threat from trolls isn't that high.

SA Goons, OTOH, are morons that SPECIALIZE in floodcrapping (SEE: their daily moronic exploits whenever an "Awful link of the day" has a guestbook or forum). Their expertise is disrupting communication and causing destruction. In fact, their organized actions look very much like a DDoS. I disagree when you said that SA could not do this again. They do this shit every day, we're lucky that it wasn't a total peice of garbage that got placed on the front page.

[ Parent ]

What about trusted user status? (2.60 / 10) (#42)
by skyknight on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 08:49:06 PM EST

If trusted user status is to connote anything meaningful, making it a requisite for voting on articles might be a great idea. This would serve a two-fold purpose. First, it would safe-guard against the kind of story related democracy abuses that Tex has so rightly impugned. Second, it would serve as a strong motivation for users to maintain their trusted user status, thus making people think twice before posting idiotic comments, lest they lose the coveted privileges that come with it.

To my understanding, the only thing that TU presently does for you is to let you see hidden comments, and to zero other people's comments. Whoop-dee-doo! While that's nice, it's really not that big a deal, and thus creates no motivation to maintain TU status.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
trusted user status is fairly meaningless (4.62 / 8) (#49)
by eudas on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:10:39 PM EST

trusted user status only means anything if people rate sensibly.

people do not rate sensibly - they rate binarily. they only rate 5 or 0/1 -- therefore, trusted user status is trivial to attain.

the shortest path to trusted user status is to write funny little one-liner posts that people laugh at and 5.

trusted user status is therefore, as i mentioned above, trivial and therefore useless as a successful guage of user's worthiness to vote on articles.

by requiring trusted user status you do raise the bar, but unfortunately only by a meaningless, miniscule amount.

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]

I disagree, sir (4.60 / 5) (#53)
by llimllib on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:33:16 PM EST

I don't think it's a "miniscule" amount. Could all of the SA forum "goons" (as their site puts it) have voted up such an I-could-care-less article to the front page if they had to attain TU first? I think not. Although I agree that TU is easy to get, it's not meaningless, and you must at least post some comments to get it.


Peace.
[ Parent ]
That may be all that's needed (4.60 / 5) (#54)
by scruffyMark on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:36:17 PM EST

Locking the front door doesn't keep out determined burglars - the skillful ones would pick the lock, those less skillful would break a window. But we still lock the door, because probably 90% of burglars aren't determined.

Same goes - this won't stop someone registering a couple dozen accounts, posting trivial comments for a few days, and using his other accounts to mod them up, till they get trusted status. That is quite labour intensive (I suppose you could write a set of scripts or something, but still)

It would stop what this was - the mass "vote early, vote often" mobilization of a community with an axe to grind, and no inherent interest in k5 beyond getting a story posted right now. They would join, log in, find they couldn't vote, lose interest.

Now, I say this not having trusted user status, and I do rather like being able to vote on stories. Maybe I don't post enough oneliners

[ Parent ]

Maybe voting should in fact be binary... (4.87 / 8) (#55)
by skyknight on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:37:54 PM EST

I've recently started posting on Perl Monks and I like the comment rating system they have. You vote either "++" or "--", basically indicating whether you thought the comment contributed to the discussion, or was detrimental to the signal/noise ratio. Also, you are allocated a fixed number of votes per day, and the votes don't carry over from day to day. This has the effect of making users actually think before they vote, as opposed to merrily mod-bombing people, or engaging in frivolous "high fives".

I agree that TU status in its current form is not much of a bar, but I disagree that it is miniscule. It wouldn't stop someone who is determined to gain TU for nefarious purposes from attaining it, but think about it from the perspective of the current violation... If you were one of the people from the newsgroup who helped get it posted, wouldn't you find having to post several days worth of witty comments a much more significant barrier than just filling out a form, checking your email, and then pulling down a menu and clicking a button? It wouldn't be a perfect prohibitor, but nothing is perfect. It would, however, be fairly effective, and that's the thing for which we should be striving.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
I think we need discussion on that option NT (4.33 / 3) (#73)
by Shovas on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:22:42 PM EST


---
Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
---
Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
[ Parent ]
Good luck... (none / 0) (#188)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:17:26 AM EST

It took something huge to get a meta article posted. They almost invariably go down in flames due to disinterest. This is a big deal because there is a story on the front page now that perhaps shouldn't be. In a couple of weeks it will be forgotten, and then this will happen all over again. It's hard to affect change here. Believe me, I've tried, with the overwhelming response from people that I was engaging in meta-wankery.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
love.pm (3.50 / 2) (#76)
by jettero on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:34:38 PM EST

I love the perl monks way... I also really like the experience levels. I ranted about it once a while ago... Oh, and I +5'd ya.

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:04:49 AM EST

As awesome as the PM system may be, it works because of the specific nature of the forum. On a site like K5, DesiredUserName's response to a diary entry of mine might end up playing out. Perl Monks is a site for a language that has a motto of "There Is More Than One Way To Do It"; K5 is a site where users have the motto "Anyone Who Isn't Me Is An Idiot, And Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Gay".



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
++ troll; ++ jokester (none / 0) (#197)
by jettero on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:38:16 AM EST



[ Parent ]
got my new sig:) (none / 0) (#307)
by metalgeek on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 06:52:02 PM EST

thanks for the sig

"K5 is a site where users have the motto 'Anyone Who Isn't Me Is An Idiot, And Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Gay'." skyknight
[ Parent ]
Huah! (none / 0) (#308)
by skyknight on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 08:20:22 PM EST

You're welcome.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Possable problem (3.00 / 1) (#127)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:23:17 AM EST

Only problem with making it binary, is that it could give people the wrong impression, and they might start down-voting a comment that is OK, but just not good. Right now, a lot of comments are simple left at 'none'. Of course, I spose you could have an Abstain option or something.

Maybe even, er, something descriptive like slashdot, but without the score.

[ Parent ]

People will always get the wrong impression... (none / 0) (#182)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:07:56 AM EST

and will try to exploit a democratic system for the benefit of their own personal causes, to the detriment of the system as a whole. I feel like a James Madison quote is in order...

...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Correction... (none / 0) (#234)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:50:24 PM EST

Some people will always get the wrong impression.

I agree, but I think you're making this a case of all or nothing, that the voting system has to be perfect.
Subtle GUI differences give the user a different impression of what they are supposed to do. Having a plus or minus might say to them "agree or dissagree" or "like or don't like". However, if you have an option to vote it down labeled as "flamebait", "troll", or "missleading" etc, then it makes it more obvious when to use it.

Scores alone don't really contribute much. I rather know why people don't like a comment.
Perhaps the score would just be how many of each modderation had been applied, but not have an acctual number score (like when you view a single comment on slashdot, and it breaks down the modderations applied to it). Only problem is getting all that info into a small, or easly accessable place, but I'm sure were're smart enough to figure out a solution to that.

Yes, it will be abuse, but would it be any more abused than it is now?

[ Parent ]

Yes... (none / 0) (#235)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:56:04 PM EST

hence this comment from this morning.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Flawed logic (4.00 / 1) (#58)
by Talez on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 10:03:05 PM EST

Second, it would serve as a strong motivation for users to maintain their trusted user status, thus making people think twice before posting idiotic comments, lest they lose the coveted privileges that come with it.

People vote comments up or down based purely upon their opinion. The controversial comments are always 3.0-4.0 since the detractors all give it "2" or something like that.

In short, making trusted user a prerequisite for voting would be a mere obstruction in the way of stacking membership. Post a comment and get 50 of your mates to vote it 5. Instant trusted user.

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est
[ Parent ]

Not so much flawed logic as you would think... (none / 0) (#192)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:28:23 AM EST

This isn't an argument against using TU status for queue voting privileges, but rather an impugning of the voting system in its current form. What might be a more sensible thing would be to explicitly label the vote options signal/noise/abstain or something along those lines, indicating not your agreement, but rather contribution to a discussion. This would be radio buttons or a pulldown. In addition to this, you might also have a set of checkboxes to indicate one or more of funny/insightful/troll/off-topic/whatever. This would help to make a distinction between voting on whether the comment is signal or noise, and voting on whether you agree or disagree with the poster, find it humorous, etc.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
I don't know T.U. status comes and goes (none / 0) (#166)
by HidingMyName on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:34:34 AM EST

I don't have a lot of anecdotal evidence to go on, but T.U. status is kind of ephemeral. Since I use only one K5 account, I have just one data point. Please don't take this as a whining, but I don't really understand how T.U. status is awarded/revoked (yeah I read the FAQ, but the scoring algorithm appears to have behavior I don't understand). I don't care about T.U. status too much since I didn't often 0 rate comments and most hidden (rated below 1) comments have ratings that I usually agree with.

A lot of the time here on K5 I'm a trusted user, but currently (for the last 2 or 3 weeks) I'm not. From just glancing at my ratings since May, I'd say I'm probably well above 4.0 in my average comment rating, yet I'm not currently a T.U. Granted, I was away a bit in June (work related travel and vacation), but the T.U. status expired about 2 weeks after I got back.

[ Parent ]

I have a diary on this topic. (none / 0) (#175)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:54:33 AM EST

It's kinda silly, and about a year old, so the system may have changed somewhat. Anyway, here it is.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Time-weighted average... (none / 0) (#178)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:59:45 AM EST

That's the key phrase. From the FAQ...

[Mojo] is a time-weighted average of comment ratings, in order to set the "initial" rating for each comment. The idea is, when you post, your comment will start out with a rating equal to an average of your previous ratings, from the past X weeks (with a max Y comments looked at), with newer comments counting more heavily than older ones.

It's very much like the "top" command in Unix which gives you a printout of top cpu/memory using processes, in that top averages usage for the last few seconds, as that is the kind of metric that is meaningful to a sysadmin. Likewise, the K5 admins have parameterized the system, setting X and Y to some unknown values that they think are best.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Nah, I'm not buying it (none / 0) (#322)
by HidingMyName on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 10:42:16 PM EST

My ratings were consistently good and I lost TU TU does not come back for me very quickly at all when I lose it (I still don't have it back after almost 3-4 weeks). Perhaps if I had accounts where I gave myself 5s, then I'd be back on track, but its not worth it.

[ Parent ]
SA proved a point (4.16 / 18) (#47)
by godix on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:00:18 PM EST

The point was their mail should be blocked for being assholes rather than being on the same ISP as spammers but still they were quiet influencal in forming my opinions of SA, their users, and the blocking issue.

Actually, I tell a lie, I've always considered SA a somewhat dumbed down version of Stileproject (which itself is a dumbed down Rotten). Their recent actions didn't form my opinions, just reinforced existing opinion.

"Fuck... may be appropriate in certain venues... (Florida Elections Commission, speed eating contests, public defender offices) and may be inappropriate in

Rotten, (4.75 / 4) (#105)
by it certainly is on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:17:00 AM EST

which is itself a dumbed down version of Jerkcity, which is itself a gayed up version of Red Meat, which is itself a coherent version of Pokey the Penguin ...

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

on the other hand (4.50 / 2) (#126)
by Delirium on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:18:33 AM EST

Their website is fairly humorous. Or has been at times in the past.

They also coined the word "asshat" and invented the odd grammatical usage "is teh suck", which is a great service rendered unto mankind.

[ Parent ]

On the third hand (1.00 / 1) (#200)
by CaptainZornchugger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:55:23 AM EST

They're responsible for the "All your Base" meme.

Death is too good.


Look at that chord structure. There's sadness in that chord structure.
[ Parent ]
Blame mankind, not us (5.00 / 1) (#203)
by The Artificial Kid on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:11:51 AM EST

We gave mankind a gift and watched it ruined.

[ Parent ]
It was OK here because it was voted up... (4.27 / 11) (#52)
by compnski on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 09:23:14 PM EST

What would happend if a group of users decided to mass vote down an article. It wouldn't take that many, only like 30 if they were fast enough. I don't know about people creating multiple accounts, but a determined person could create a slew of accounts and vote down articles that they had a personal bias against. In this case, since the article got posted I don't think there is a problem, but people supressing articles is more worrisome.
Plauged by spam? Spamdam is an easy to use frontend for creating sendmail aliases to filter spam.
See the Fiction section (3.00 / 3) (#146)
by jonathan_ingram on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:35:09 AM EST

people supressing articles is more worrisome
This already happens. See the comments and the voting patterns on every story in the Fiction section. I imagine that most of the people who mass-downvote Fiction stories are also the most indignant at having some other group mass-upvote.
-- Jon
[ Parent ]
Fiction-hating is popular, not a conspiracy (5.00 / 3) (#207)
by grout on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:57:11 AM EST

I haven't seen any sign that the fiction-haters are an organized clique. I personally vote down most fiction because if I wanted to read bad fiction I'd go to the *.creative (spit) groups on Usenet.

The SA Goons invaded as a coordinated mass (which doesn't mean they aren't welcome going forward, of course). Not the same thing at all.
--
Chip Salzenberg, Free-Floating Agent of Chaos

[ Parent ]

+1 FP (3.00 / 9) (#59)
by Skull Punk on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 10:08:26 PM EST

I thought the original article had a right to be easily accessed and read. Sure, spam is a nuisance, but could those trying to block it go too far? What is the line between stopping spam and disrupting the usual workings of the Internet? It was important that these sort of questions be raised.

This article also deserves the +1 FP because it provides balance to the other article, something you don't see a lot of these days. My feeling is that the voting mechanism shouldn't be changed and that the community should have greater leeway to vote up or down an article. No system is going to be perfect and we have to accept that, not to mention it's harrowing to try and modify social tendencies through software (ie. writing in code that gives only trusted users the power to vote).

Ultimately, we just have to be more critical in the future when it comes to voting.



"Our thoughts clear; we fool ourselves" -- Solitude Aeturnus
This could or could not be a bad thing... (4.37 / 8) (#67)
by StormShadow on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:03:44 PM EST

... I mean this does bring in new members. That would be a positive thing. But it is very possible the people brought to the site are not the type you would want. Looking through the comments in the SPEWS article, I doubt that these are the people we want lurking on K5.

But what can you do? I guess limiting voting to members with a few comments would be a tiny roadblock but not a big one. A group like this could just put random comments and get over that. Perhaps a time limit of 24 or more hours? Maybe 36 hours to coincide with the length of time articles may lie in the voting queue? That would prevent people from gettig an account purely to vote up/down a story in voting.


-----------------
oderint dum metuant - Cicero
We aren't killing enough of our [America's] enemies. Re-elect Bush in 2004 - Me
12/2003: This account is now closed. Password scrambled. Its been a pleasure.


a 36 hour probation before voting is a great idea (4.00 / 1) (#69)
by expostfacto on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:14:08 PM EST

this would completely halt spur-of-the-moment vote spamming like this case seems to be and at least make pre-meditated ones a bit tougher.
--
Carnage Blender: over 50 million battles served
[ Parent ]
SPEWS is not wearing a halo (4.10 / 10) (#70)
by Shovas on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:18:39 PM EST

Many anti-spam organizations are becoming absolutely nazi in their approach to blocking spam. When it comes down to it, I will block IPs where spam comes from, not cascading down an IP range.

Since SPEWS feeds are proliferating through RBLs out there, it seems more and more of the bad of SPEWS is coming out.

We need a better solution. Perhaps a centralized Bayesian service. Hmm...perhaps something I could provide myself, as I'm in the internet service industry.
---
Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
---
Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
Distributed Bayesian is the only way (4.00 / 2) (#95)
by qbwiz on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 01:05:21 AM EST

As has often be said, one major advantage of Bayesian filtering is that there is no central repository of information about what is spam.  Spammers could take advantage of the information and alter their messages accordingly so that they would get by. With Bayesian, each user has individual rules, and so it's harder to slip messages by.

Of course, this ignores the fact that most spam emails are similar (that's how filtering works), and that all types of spam are generally sent to all users equally.  This implies that most Bayesian filters behave almost identically, and so a spammer could use his own bayesian filter, trained on whatever spam he gets (and has sent), to decide the formatting and content of his new spam, the same as with any other system.

[ Parent ]

Not identical (4.50 / 2) (#99)
by artis on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 01:40:52 AM EST

Individual filters aren't trained on spam only, what ham you receive will impact your filters in unpredictable ways.
--
Can you know that you are omniscient?
[ Parent ]
Also... (4.00 / 2) (#125)
by Jarad on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:05:03 AM EST

It also does nothing to actually stop the cost of spam. The receiving mail server still has to accept the entire email before it can be filtered. RBL's allow mail servers to block the spam at the connection level, so they never have to pay for the bandwidth or storage of receiving the spam.

[ Parent ]
Filtering does help at one level. (none / 0) (#172)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:39:14 AM EST

It reduces the amount of long-term storage needed. Most users go a significant amount of time between logins these days.

I hesitate to speculate on how many terabytes of HD space is taken up on Hotmail's servers by spam sent to old, unused accounts.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

There's a drawback to Bayesian filtering... (5.00 / 3) (#129)
by Dimensio on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:25:02 AM EST

...it requires that the ISP download all of the mail in the first place. One of the major motivating factors for eliminating spam is the cost of processing it. If you just deny the spammers access at the router level, you eliminate much more of the cost than letting them in and deleting their mail after the fact.

Why am I responding? The first comment in this thread was a concession of defeat with the invokation of Godwin's Law.

[ Parent ]
correction (none / 0) (#171)
by tps12 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:37:57 AM EST

Godwin's Law states that a comparison to Nazism or Hitler is inevitable in any Internet debate, given enough time. It makes no judgement on the "winner" of the argument.

[ Parent ]
There's a corollary to Godwin's Law. (none / 0) (#174)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:52:31 AM EST

Basically, it states that the objective in any online flamewar is to get your opponent to invoke Godwin's Law. The first side to invoke Godwin's Law automatically loses.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
IAWTC (en tea) (none / 0) (#190)
by tps12 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:19:12 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I Am Not A World Trade Center? [nt] (none / 0) (#217)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:26:16 PM EST



Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
i agree with this corollary (none / 0) (#259)
by tps12 on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:38:41 AM EST

That is, shouting "Godwin's Law!" and claiming victory is exactly the sort of dirty debate tactic that Hitler would use.

[ Parent ]
oh. you misunderstood. i will rephrase. (5.00 / 1) (#266)
by haflinger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 12:56:31 PM EST

the corollary is, the first side to call their opponent a nazi has lost the debate.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
i think you were unclear (none / 0) (#267)
by tps12 on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 02:56:17 PM EST

Anyway, if that's what you mean, then I completely disagree. If the first person to call the other a Nazi loses, then all I need to to win a debate is to act like a Nazi. Only a fascist would approve of such rules.

[ Parent ]
I'm not arguing for the corollary... (5.00 / 1) (#272)
by haflinger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 06:20:51 PM EST

I'm just stating it. ;)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Concession of defeat? I don't get it... (4.00 / 1) (#236)
by Shovas on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:13:15 PM EST

Who conceded defeat? Me? I never knew that idea about Godwin's Law(although I knew _of_ the law)

I really only meant to say that RBLs are unsatisfactory to some people, in that they have negative impacts on some people who have different views. The only end-users of RBLs that like them are the ones that have no opinion on whether to block all a host's IPs or just the one IP that spammed.

My problem is, our upstream's upstream is known to host one spammer(who, I'm getting the idea spammed once and ever since the upstream has been trying to resolve the worsened reputation). Since SPEWS feeds into RBLs, the entire host's block(s), are getting blocked by more people. I don't spam. Everyone but one on the host's roster is known to be a good netizen, as it relates to spam.

It bugs me that 2^10 degrees from my upstream's upstream, I'm negatively affected by it.

We need a better solution than what are little more than tiny democratic benevolent dictatorships, in the form of RBLs and SPEWS.
---
Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
---
Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
[ Parent ]
It's ironic (1.47 / 19) (#71)
by Lankiveil on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:20:23 PM EST

That almost two-thirds of the votes on this story, which condemns supposed ballot-stuffing and electoral fraud, are FP posts.  I guess it's okay to vote up some stories, but not others?

Cut the hypocrisy guys.

47327 Lankiveil (nt) (4.54 / 11) (#72)
by Michael Moore on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:22:21 PM EST



--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Answer (4.55 / 9) (#74)
by KilljoyAZ on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:25:52 PM EST

I guess it's okay to vote up some stories, but not others?

Yes.

===
Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
[ Parent ]

I see (4.33 / 9) (#79)
by CFK on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:41:20 PM EST

Hi, you must be new here.  The issue isn't that a lot of people voted it up, but that the SA forum goons seemed to hijack the voting system.  Many articles get voted up quickly.  However, not so much by users with no comment history and with consecutive UIDs.

Welcome to k5, though.  I hope you will stick around and prove us all wrong.

[ Parent ]

We followed the rules, so I don't see a problem. (2.45 / 11) (#100)
by Lankiveil on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 01:41:34 AM EST

Well, yes, I admit that I came in from SA and voted it up as the first thing I did.  This is because I agree with The Artifical Kid's article, and wished to see it hit the frontpage of the site, in an effort to bring some publicity to the unprofessional nature of SPEWS and NANAE.  I did so within all the established rules of kuro5hin, so I don't really see what the problem is.

As for the site, I've stumbled across it a couple of times in Google searches and the like, but never paid much heed to it.  Now that I can have a proper look at it, it looks a bit more like Slashdot, except with less zealotry, and more actual content.  There seem to be a lot of trolls (like Michael Moore, KilljoyAZ, etc), but that's pretty much true of any open community.  I'll probably stick around and keep reading the frontpage though, what I've seen has been most informative and interesting.

[ Parent ]

Trolls like Michael Moore and KilljoyAZ, hmm? (4.40 / 10) (#103)
by Rahaan on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:01:25 AM EST

The two who pointed out that your uid is evidence that you voted this story up with little consideration to voting guidelines?

I count at least four people in that SA forum declaring that it was being voted down by some kind of NANAE conspiracy or that SPEWS "fucked with the wrong people" - not that it was just a shitty article.  Which it was.  I only wish I had stuck around after pressing the 'spam' button (as it was far far too similar to an ad - the mod queue is not a free advertisement bin) so I could have -1'd it before the influx of SA voters strongarmed their agenda through.

You're talking about 'professional' and courteous behavior, yet you and your peers totally disregard the spirit of this site by voting up an article on false premises, often multiple times by their own admission.  Childish behavior.  What would your actions be if k5 were to block SA IPs in an order to maintain the nature of this site, send a demolition squad to blow up the servers then clamining victory over the SPEWS/NANAE conspiracy?

Please, sir, don't come back.  We won't miss you.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

Voting Guidelines (1.91 / 12) (#121)
by Lankiveil on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:43:52 AM EST

I've said it once, I've said it again - what is wrong with a bunch of new people voting up an article they agree with?  Seriously, a whole bunch of you fanatics are whining like a baby about it, but nobody can tell me why you shouldn't be allowed to do it.  Come on?

If people were registering multiple accounts, then that might be grounds for complaint, but given that the SA forums were hardly at a peak time when the thread in question was posted, I've no doubt that rustling up 95 individuals who wanted to approve the article would have been no trouble.  In essence, it changes nothing.

In summary, fly away, troll.

[ Parent ]

*sigh* (3.50 / 4) (#154)
by EiZei on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:18:42 AM EST

> I've said it once, I've said it again - what is wrong with a bunch of new people voting up an article they agree with? Seriously, a whole bunch of you fanatics are whining like a baby about it, but nobody can tell me why you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Come on? I do have a problem with it if some people just register their accounts, vote +1 FP on some biased crap article, maybe post a trollish comment and dump their accounts, it does NOT contribute to the community. Just because the voting system allowed everyone to vote, it does not mean that you can start spamming it and yell at the same time "ITS NOT AGAINST TEH RULES LOL". Thanks to you that may change in future though.

[ Parent ]
Oops. (NT) (none / 0) (#155)
by EiZei on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:19:07 AM EST



[ Parent ]
eh (4.60 / 10) (#176)
by tps12 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:54:42 AM EST

This is an issue of courtesy, not one of what is technically permitted by the "rules" and software. In fact, registering multiple accounts is even permitted, though many find it distasteful to use more than one to vote on or rate the same article or comment.

To draw an analogy, it's physically possible and legal to go to a party full of people you don't know (with a friend, say), and make tasteless jokes, rude comments, and generally be loud and obnoxious. Afterwards, you shouldn't be surprised if people think that you're an asshole, and try to figure out a way to keep you out of the next party. If you do the same thing, but bring a bunch of your boorish friends along with you, you should not only not be surprised by an angry response, but you should expect it.

So yes, nobody's broken the rules. That doesn't change the fact that a story more suitable for the Diary or Ad sections was voted to the front page by a gang of inconsiderate, discourteous vulgarians who took advantage of the open nature of the site for their own selfish reasons.

I'm not upset that the story got voted up (at least, no more than I am about a good 80% of front page stories), and I don't think the site needs to add features to prevent this from happening again (as Slashdot demonstrates, people will find away to abuse anything you give them). I do have a very low opinion of these newcomers, however. You all have a lot to do to earn any sort of trust and respect from most people here. Not that I think you care.

[ Parent ]

It is obvious (4.42 / 7) (#205)
by Rahaan on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:20:14 AM EST

Why are you casting doubt on people registering multiple accounts?  It happened.  Trying for plausible deniability is not going to win any points.
Voted.

edit: Voted again.

killsbugsdead fucked around with this message at Aug 06, 2003 around 11:39

That's a post by killsbugsdead on the somethingawful thread in question.  Do you see nothing wrong with this picture?

If you do not see how this is against the spirit of this site, then no argument will persaude you, but it should be clear to a rational person.  This site is intended to promote discussion and has a system in place where users can vote on which articles are to be displayed.  A bunch of people show up at the site, never posting comments, writing stories, or doing anything other than voting on an article (which, in all probability, they did not even read) and then disappear from the site, never to be seen again - unless, of course, someone else posts a plea on SA for a story to be voted up.

Of course, the ones who do stay and post are just people like you trying to drag people like me into your anti-SPEWS cause, which is irksome if not irrelevant.  Yourself and others have wrongfully noted that the story was being voted down because of some kind of NANAE furor, which is off-base; it was just a poor story.  Voting down on it is not an approval of the actions of SPEWS, it is a sign of good taste.  Perhaps if you could wrap your brain around the idea that some people thought the article just sucked, and were not involved in your petty and childish fight, you would see what's going on.  Seriously, man, if this is all you're going to bring to K5 - a politically lobby and a bunch of whines about NANAE - you and your brethren can just leave right now.  You're boring.

Perhaps if the original post in the thread had been phrased differently and was not just a plea for votes, or perhaps if the SA people who signed up for accounts here showed a modicum of real interest in or knowledge of the site, this would not have been a problem.  But as it stands, with the original post being not very indistinguishable from "go register an accnt and vote it up now quick plzthx" and considering that many of the people who voted on it did not even think to look at the FAQ, or learn how voting actually works, or even read the goddamn article - it is deplorable.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

Well, great (3.75 / 4) (#219)
by CFK on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:30:30 PM EST

If by "established" rules of Kuro5hin you mean how the software actually works, then yes, you acted within them.  However, k5 is also a community where certain types of behavior are tolerated and certain types aren't.  In general people frown upon a large group of people organizing and doing whatever it takes to get an article pushed to the front page.

The article would have been voted down, not because k5 was unsympathetic to SA, but because by k5 standards it just wasn't a good article.  The SA forum folk circumvented this quality-control system, as anyone who has never been to this site before might have.  It just so happens (gosh, what a coincidence) that dozens of other users just happened to join at the same time and just happened to all vote +1 FP.  Hmm, suspicious.

It would be great if you stuck around.  You said you liked the informative and interesting articles.  Well, we get those articles by putting the whatever is in the queue through all sorts of Hell.  -1, too US-centric, -1, too many typos, -1, fiction, or whatever.  All these controls were circumvented by the SA forum people, and consequently a story that wouldn't have made it by regular k5 standards was pushed to the front page.

You wanted sympathy?  Well, a lot of k5 users are angry or annoyed with SA users right now.  You did more harm than good by more-or-less <i>invading</i> this website.

I don't mean for me to sound overly harsh, and certainly don't want you to leave.  The surest way for you to come to understand is for you to stay.

[ Parent ]

Yes, you followed the rules. (5.00 / 3) (#256)
by haflinger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 07:45:47 AM EST

This article is a meta article. It suggests that perhaps the rules should be changed for the future.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Trolls... (none / 0) (#289)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:50:36 PM EST

Ah, but OUR trolls have class. Tex, for one, is a master at the craft.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Nah, it would be a sad day for K5 (4.22 / 9) (#75)
by it certainly is on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:27:27 PM EST

if a user with a vulgar username like, ooh, Hymen Restoration Surgery, Tex Bigballs or Semprini, got voted FP. Then everyone in the world would see that K5 publishes INDECENTLY named people!

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

time for karma? (2.71 / 7) (#78)
by towerssotall on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:40:46 PM EST

Much as the karma system on /. pisses me off when i get modded down simply for saying things that some view as anti-american (I'm as good a friend as america has in the world but some dob't realise it), Perhaps some way of measuring a users credibility before giving them privileges is called for?

"the fate of Charles the First, hath only made kings more subtle
- not more just."

- - Thomas Paine

Read the FAQ (none / 0) (#187)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:17:04 AM EST

There's this thing called "trusted user", and the zero rating.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
I think it says a lot for k5 (4.00 / 5) (#82)
by LilDebbie on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:47:44 PM EST

That two groups would go through the trouble of rallying their respective troops to sway the results of a story posted here. People care about our opinions, k5 rocks!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Let's rewrite this to make a point... (4.84 / 13) (#85)
by skyknight on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:16:46 AM EST

I think it says a lot for [random hot girl] that a bunch of guys would go to the trouble of raping her. Guys really want her, she rocks!



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Touche [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#233)
by LilDebbie on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:35:17 PM EST



My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
no (4.00 / 4) (#179)
by tps12 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:03:09 AM EST

Rape is a violent act, not a sexual one.

I agree, though. These people weren't interested in our opinions. They were interested in spreading their side of (what should be) a private dispute to as many people as possible. Purely selfish.

[ Parent ]

Please explain. (4.25 / 3) (#196)
by President Saddam on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:37:00 AM EST

Rape is a violent act, not a sexual one.

So why is castration such a successful treatement for recidivist sex offenders?

---
Allah Akbar
[ Parent ]

because (5.00 / 1) (#198)
by tps12 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:42:14 AM EST

Testosterone contributes to violent behavior? It's well documented (or at least commonly believed) that a man intending to rape someone will not respond positively if that person gives him the option of consensual sex. The psychological purpose of rape is to do violence to and assert power over another, not for sexual gratification.

I guess you could say that all violent tendancies are really caused by sexual urges. I wouldn't argue. It's an interesting possibility.

[ Parent ]

It's not, not especially. (3.33 / 3) (#253)
by haflinger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 07:36:34 AM EST

At least, I've never seen statistics on it that made it look better than the normal rate of recidivism.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
This Is Sad (3.21 / 14) (#83)
by strepsil on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:51:15 PM EST

It feels like my parents are fighting, and I'm shut in my bedroom listening to it.

I haven't posted here on K5 for over a year now, but I've got some fond memories of this place. I think it just went off in a direction that didn't interest me any more, so I bailed out for a bit. This was about the time I joined the SA Forums. Yes, I'm a Goon and I'm proud.

So what the fuck do I want to say here? I have to say something, I think. I've spouted off about SPEWS and blacklists in general a few times on SA recently, but mainly I've just been watching this huge shitfest turn into one disaster after another and cringing every time it takes a new turn.

For starters, let me just say to those people who see SA as nothing but a haven of trolls and crap artists that you are wrong. The SA Forums has one of the most intelligent, creative and entertaining communities I've ever seen in my life, on or off the Internet. The registration fee is a stunningly effective barrier to idiocy.

Likewise, the SA folks need to stop and read around on K5 for a bit. OK, I'm about a year out of date, but there was some stunningly good stuff here in the past, and I'm sure there is now. SA has more laughs, but there's no shortage of good discussions on this place. It's not to everyone's taste, I know that, but that doesn't make it bad.

Of course, I think we all need to take a good look at the SPEWS folks, who are probably having a huge laugh right now. They're still out there pushing buttons, and aren't getting any of the bad press.  

OK, I need to get back to work. I just needed a little rant. How about we stop, take a couple of steps back and try this again - SA, this is K5. K5, this is SA. You'd find a lot in common if you'd stop and talk for a second.

I'm getting back in my box now.

Bollocks (2.83 / 6) (#93)
by Stick on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:53:49 AM EST

I bet they all smell like fish.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
well, hey, you know... (4.00 / 1) (#112)
by reklaw on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:34:27 AM EST

...it gave us all something to discuss.

I'm pretty sure most of the people who comment only do so because they enjoy arguing... uh, debating. As for SPEWS, I think they've got quite a lot of bad press both here and over at Fark, even if it's a little doubtful that that'll make any difference to anything.
-
[ Parent ]

A fascinating insight to SA (3.85 / 14) (#84)
by it certainly is on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 11:56:39 PM EST

Judging purely from the sarcasm laden frontend, I believed SA to be some paragon of satire, cruelly mocking lame home pages and Dragonball Z forums. Woe am I, on the inside they're just as bad as all the other PHPNuke boarding 16 year old numbskulls on the internet. It's like watching autistics laugh at spastics.

I like the post that reads "they might be on to us lol". It's a good example of everything that's wrong with the internet.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

Hey ... (4.00 / 5) (#87)
by strepsil on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:23:20 AM EST

At least at SA we have people who can spell "LOL".

Seriously, have you looked at any other popular forums out there lately? Mile-high signatures, illiterate rantings and randomly scattered punctuation? SA is an intellectual haven by comparison.

[ Parent ]

We mock things like Dragonball Z forums because... (4.00 / 4) (#147)
by dorquemada on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:36:03 AM EST

...they frequently contain geeky Japanophiles who possess a seemingly limitless ability to mangle Japanese. You know, like transliterating "Kyzer" as "Kiza" instead of "Kizaa" and then stringing up the katakana for said misspelling on one's home page.

[ Parent ]
LOLZORZ HAHA GOOD 1 (3.40 / 5) (#156)
by it certainly is on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:21:41 AM EST

I wrote キザ instead of キザー!. A crime against decency! What you say!!!

Meanwhile, SA is still running a unthreaded Nuke-esque BBS full of l33t d00dz with little pictures and big text next to all their comments.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

What do you mean by "unthreaded"? [nt] (4.00 / 2) (#202)
by The Artificial Kid on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:06:26 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Threaded vs unthreaded. (5.00 / 2) (#258)
by it certainly is on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 08:21:13 AM EST

Usenet, Scoop sites like K5, Slash sites like Slashdot and OSDN chums, and a few others are topic-based, threaded discussion forums. On any given topic, you can see the full order of who replied to whom. It usually allows you to skip a lot more of the context (you can quote less of the replied-to message), yet it's still perfectly readable.

PHPNuke sites, PHPBB sites, sites like Fark, SomethingAwful, Prospero, etc are topic-based, unthreaded discussion forums. All comments on a topic are in a flat list, usually in the date order they were posted. It makes it harder to read a "thread" of discussion without all the other posts getting in the way.

You also get topicless, threaded boards like B3ta or Popbitch. These are weird. You get the threading, so it's easy to see who's replying to who, but the only criteria you have for looking at them is time based. You have to remember the time and date of top level posts if you want to find a discussion again.

Finally, you get topicless, unthreaded boards. Also called guestbooks.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

No surprise here! (3.37 / 8) (#86)
by tsk1979 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:22:46 AM EST

Well, K5 is based on democracy. In any democratic system there will be people who will vote but not pay taxes, vote and do crime. Pay a part in electing leaders, even thourgh they are a drain on the system. Tex's is going off track in complaining about this. Every society progresses when the number of contributing members is more than the trollers and the drain! So Tex, if K5 is a good society it will last otherwise it will degenerate. Policing and making strict policies will only delay the decline. In reality there are only 2 ways, the dictatorship of /. and the full freedom of K5! I think K5 can take such hits occasionaly. Think of the good side, we got new members and not all of them need to be the drain. Many may be positive contributers!

Hat Trick! (2.40 / 5) (#88)
by Dinner Is Served on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:24:03 AM EST

Tsk Tsk, Kuro5hin. This article is somewhat justified, as it's cleaning up the mess that other people made. But a brief look at the front page section shows that 3 of the worst stories in history have been consecutively voted up. Just how much GNU have you people been smoking for the past few days?


--
While I appreciate being able to defend against would-be rapists who might suddenly drop in from the sky, I don't appreciate not being able to see the Northern Lights. -- mfk
I mean, c'mon. "Tea!?" (5.00 / 2) (#89)
by Dinner Is Served on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:25:43 AM EST


--
While I appreciate being able to defend against would-be rapists who might suddenly drop in from the sky, I don't appreciate not being able to see the Northern Lights. -- mfk
[ Parent ]
agreed (3.50 / 2) (#91)
by reklaw on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:29:39 AM EST

The Tea story was crap.
-
[ Parent ]
I voted it +1 FP (4.00 / 1) (#148)
by nebbish on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:40:13 AM EST

Because I like tea and enjoyed discussing its finer points. It was well written and contained some interesting new info. Its a matter of taste, there happened to be more people who wanted to talk about it than not. Get over it.

And don't you think front page articles hang around too long anyway? The rate of comments posted goes down rapidly once they have left voting, and practically stops altogether after a few days. Yet front page articles regularly sit there for a week or more - and its not difficult to find the archived ones at the left hand side of the page.

Im generous with my voting because of this. I don't think a faster turnover would be a bad thing.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

i like tea (none / 0) (#185)
by tps12 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:14:57 AM EST

I almost voted it up based just on the fact that I like tea. I think I voted it down in the end, or abstained, because it was really just a rehash (or summary, even) of the contents of the tea drinkers' Usenet FAQ (what do they talk about there, anyway? The art of tea drinking?) or the front pages of online tea shops.

[ Parent ]
If I had known (none / 0) (#206)
by nebbish on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:39:38 AM EST

it was really just a rehash (or summary, even) of the contents of the tea drinkers' Usenet FAQ

I didn't know that. I could argue that he has brought it to wider audience, but I won't. I would have voted it down had I known, probably to section.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Hey, articles like Tea (none / 0) (#209)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:00:02 PM EST

are one of the things I like about this site. You should have seen the Pancakes we had...


--
His men will follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiousity.


[ Parent ]
good job tex (3.72 / 11) (#92)
by circletimessquare on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:41:31 AM EST

you'll have your own drudge report in no time ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Apologies (4.22 / 31) (#94)
by zackparsons on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:56:16 AM EST

Hi, I'm Zack from Something Awful, the guy who originally posted on our front page about SPEWS and the guy who advocated our users posting off-topic at NANAE on Usenet. I still firmly believe in fighting SPEWS but I would like to apologize to Kuro5hin.org for subverting their voting process just to get a story we felt was important on your front page. Neither myself nor other admins at Something Awful advocated this, but I have to admit that I was pleased to see it posted all the same.

However, I assure you that should this happen on Something Awful in the future I will personally do my best to prevent our users from overly affecting voting here on Kuro5hin.

Great site by the way, I dig it a lot more than Slashdot and it seems much less biased.

Wow. (3.04 / 25) (#98)
by mewse on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 01:37:22 AM EST

Congratulations. You've subverted Kuro5hin's voting process and thereby made Something Awful and their users look like the childish sort of people who don't care about the consequences of their actions, as long as they get what they want. And you've subverted NANAE's purpose in Usenet, and made Something Awful and their users look like the childish sort of people who don't care about the consequences of their actions, as long as they get what they want.

You should feel proud.

With every action you've taken, I've found myself more inclined to add Something Awful to my blocklists manually, just so that I won't have to worry about them moving to a provider who isn't covered by SPEWS.

Congratulations.

mewse

[ Parent ]

Childish? (3.90 / 10) (#101)
by Lankiveil on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 01:47:03 AM EST

There is a discussion going down right now on NANAE about posting the credit card numbers of those who posted there in support of SA.  Now, I'm sure that we both know that they're bluffing, but this doesn't exactly imply that the NANAE guys are the most mature guys out there, now does it?

[ Parent ]
NANAE? (2.70 / 10) (#102)
by mewse on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 01:52:31 AM EST

What does the discussion on NANAE have to do with anything?

Do you not agree that intentionally spamming and disrupting the operations of USENET and Kuro5hin is a childish act? Or is the act of intentionally disrupting something in order to gain attention only bad when SPEWS does it?

Incidentally, thanks for rating my prior comment a 1. I say again: Childish.

mewse

[ Parent ]

Bad apples (3.16 / 6) (#106)
by Lankiveil on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:20:43 AM EST

Okay, lets have an analogy.  I don't know how many people are regulars around NANAE way, but lets assume that there are 300 regulars, plus another 200 that occasionally read the place.  Now, we know at least one person was involved in a DDoS attack against Something Awful, an illegal and immature act.  At least three people were discussing the best way to reveal private information about persons who were critical of them.  So, there are at least three people in NANAE that are immature jerks.

Now, does this mean that everyone in NANAE is a tosser?  No, it does not.  I'd say that most of the people in there are just there to get spam off their networks.  It's ridiculous to assume that they're all guilty of DDoSing by association, wouldn't you agree?

Now, extend this same line of reasoning to SA.  I'd say, as a conservative estimate, about 5000 active SA Goons.  A few of them engaged in anti-social acts against NANAE, this fact is not in dispute.  Does this mean that the entire population of that forum are immature children?  No, it does not.  I wasn't involved in any bombing of a Usenet group, and I have been civil and followed all the rules set out here during my time at kuro5hin.  The majority of other SA Goons have followed these rules.  As I said in another comment, a bunch of like-minded individuals simply voted for an article that they wanted published.  I fail to see how this is "intentionally spamming and disrupting the operations of ... Kuro5hin"

Before you also make the ridiculous claim that the SA admins also encouraged this, a quick read of the discussion over there will show that at several points, both Rich Kyanka and Zack Parsons explicitly instructed individuals and the forum not to launch any form of DoS attack against SPEWS or anyone else.  Furthermore, a few people per month routinely get their subscriptions cancelled without refund for attempting to incite the SA forums into "invasions".  Only someone wholly misinformed would assert that any form of immature activity was encouraged or ordered by the SA administration.

[ Parent ]

Zack encouraged it. (3.50 / 6) (#111)
by RipCurl on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:31:07 AM EST

Now, we know at least one person was involved in a DDoS attack against Something Awful, an illegal and immature act. At least three people were discussing the best way to reveal private information about persons who were critical of them. So, there are at least three people in NANAE that are immature jerks.

You and your ilk haven't proven that. You are assuming that it was Nanae visitors but you know you forget that SPAMMERS also visit NANAE and do everything in their power to make NANAE users look bad. Of coures, this would never come across someone so blinded by their own cause. First time I posted to NANAE, by posting email address was scraped and used 40 min later in a spam run. There are also some anti-spammers that go about doing things their own way, but blaming all NANAE for the actions of the few?

Unike your Zack Parsons who encouraged the abuse? Here on k5 as well as Usenet.

At least 3 immature jerks in NANAE yet there was more than 100 immature jerks who flooded NANAE because of Zacks inflamatory post.

Now, does this mean that everyone in NANAE is a tosser? No, it does not. I'd say that most of the people in there are just there to get spam off their networks. It's ridiculous to assume that they're all guilty of DDoSing by association, wouldn't you agree?

Yes it would, but its been shown that Zack was the one who instigated the attack and the padding of k5's article. And your forum members also GLOATED about attacking NANAE and padding k5's voting process.

Now, extend this same line of reasoning to SA. I'd say, as a conservative estimate, about 5000 active SA Goons. A few of them engaged in anti-social acts against NANAE, this fact is not in dispute. Does this mean that the entire population of that forum are immature children? No, it does not. I wasn't involved in any bombing of a Usenet group, and I have been civil and followed all the rules set out here during my time at kuro5hin. The majority of other SA Goons have followed these rules. As I said in another comment, a bunch of like-minded individuals simply voted for an article that they wanted published. I fail to see how this is "intentionally spamming and disrupting the operations of ... Kuro5hin"

Yet you guys gloated about it on your forums. I dont see the "three" NANAE jerks gloating about what they did to SA. Zack encouraged it, ZACK instigated it; and he CONDONED it. So there is no correlation to what happened to SA vs what YOU guys did to NANAE.

Before you also make the ridiculous claim that the SA admins also encouraged this, a quick read of the discussion over there will show that at several points, both Rich Kyanka and Zack Parsons explicitly instructed individuals and the forum not to launch any form of DoS attack against SPEWS or anyone else. Furthermore, a few people per month routinely get their subscriptions cancelled without refund for attempting to incite the SA forums into "invasions". Only someone wholly misinformed would assert that any form of immature activity was encouraged or ordered by the SA administration.

Did you read what Zack just posted. HE admitted to encouraging it. Only AFTER it was shown what his minions were doing that he posted a "retraction" .

quote:
Hi, I'm Zack from Something Awful, the guy who originally posted on our front page about SPEWS and the guy who advocated our users posting off-topic at NANAE on Usenet. I still firmly believe in fighting SPEWS but I would like to apologize to Kuro5hin.org for subverting their voting process just to get a story we felt was important on your front page. Neither myself nor other admins at Something Awful advocated this, but I have to admit that I was pleased to see it posted all the same.

However, I assure you that should this happen on Something Awful in the future I will personally do my best to prevent our users from overly affecting voting here on Kuro5hin.



[ Parent ]
Holy cow. (4.42 / 7) (#115)
by RobotSlave on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:08:22 AM EST

A PBPR with both italics and bold! At the same time!

You, sir, are an argumentative force to be reckoned with, truly.

[ Parent ]

You're either misinformed, or a liar (2.33 / 3) (#119)
by Lankiveil on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:37:58 AM EST

At least 3 immature jerks in NANAE yet there was more than 100 immature jerks who flooded NANAE because of Zacks inflamatory post.

No, I'd guess no more than five people from SA.  Based on the fact that you had to spoof your header to get a post on there.  I couldn't be bothered doing it, and neither could many others.  What you think was hundreds of people was in all likelyhood a couple of individuals speed-flooding the place with spoofed usenet headers (or whatever they're called.  I don't know a great deal about the technical details of Usenet).

Yes it would, but its been shown that Zack was the one who instigated the attack and the padding of k5's article.

Where?  Have you even read what Zack said, or the thread in question?  I'll post it for you again, in case you missed it:

Neither myself nor other admins at Something Awful advocated this, but I have to admit that I was pleased to see it posted all the same.

However, I assure you that should this happen on Something Awful in the future I will personally do my best to prevent our users from overly affecting voting here on Kuro5hin.

Additionally, Zack (or any of the other admins) did not even arrive in the forums thread until well after the article was being pumped up.  I have to wonder why you're selectively applying the facts here in order to swing people against SA.

You and your ilk haven't proven that. You are assuming that it was Nanae visitors but you know you forget that SPAMMERS also visit NANAE and do everything in their power to make NANAE users look bad.

I do confess it's possible, but it's hardly likely.  You might just as well say it was the NANAE guys who voted up the article in order to sling mud at SA.  There's about as much evidence for one as there is for the other.  To say that it was spammers is sort of like blaming the boogeyman for stealing the last biscuit out of the jar.

There are also some anti-spammers that go about doing things their own way, but blaming all NANAE for the actions of the few?

This is precisely my point.  Don't go blaming the goons for the actions of a few morons.  We're a good bunch, and knew about the whole SPEWS thing long before it spilled over into this.  We were all searching for a peaceful, amicable solution to the problem to start with, it was only after the obstinate, arrogant nature of SPEWS prevented that did things turn nasty.

padding k5's voting process

I've asked this several times, and not gotten a response, what precisely is the problem with a whole bunch of like-minded individuals coming together and acting within the rules of kuro5hin.org to get a story we approve of published?  Unless of course you'd like this site to stay the private domain of you and your SPEWS-buddies, and wish to censor any dissenting opinion.

[ Parent ]

Ask Zack why he advocated the abuse? (3.20 / 5) (#135)
by RipCurl on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 05:18:41 AM EST

At least 3 immature jerks in NANAE yet there was more than 100 immature jerks who flooded NANAE because of Zacks inflamatory post.

No, I'd guess no more than five people from SA. Based on the fact that you had to spoof your header to get a post on there. I couldn't be bothered doing it, and neither could many others. What you think was hundreds of people was in all likelyhood a couple of individuals speed-flooding the place with spoofed usenet headers (or whatever they're called. I don't know a great deal about the technical details of Usenet).

Uhuh, so I'll believe your 3 then when you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the "three" who allegedly DoS'ed SA by providing evidence of the incident, and when Zack/Lowtax has filed a compalint with the FBI on this matter. But its apparent than either 5 or 100 of your members contributed to 1400 posts in NANAE alone in 16 hours; making that "more" useful group useless to those that need to check it; or the VERY ones who needed to post a question about a block that apperaed in a SPEWS record or an admin who has booted a spammer and wanted to make sure that everyone knew that spammer was gone.

Yes it would, but its been shown that Zack was the one who instigated the attack and the padding of k5's article.

Where? Have you even read what Zack said, or the thread in question? I'll post it for you again, in case you missed it:

Uh, did you read his reply to this article? Did you conveniently ignore the four or five threads on SA that covered your members gloating about how they spammed/trolled NANAE?

Neither myself nor other admins at Something Awful advocated this, but I have to admit that I was pleased to see it posted all the same.

Oh, and what about his admission above; that he advocated the abuse? Or his scathing article about how HE wanted the "contact' email address to SPEWS to sign them up for SPAM lists? That is encouraging the abuse in my opinon. ONLY after many of the posters were being reported to their ISP's for the flood; Shall I quote you his reply found right on ths thread?

Hi, I'm Zack from Something Awful, the guy who originally posted on our front page about SPEWS and the guy who advocated our users posting off-topic at NANAE on Usenet.

Additionally, Zack (or any of the other admins) did not even arrive in the forums thread until well after the article was being pumped up. I have to wonder why you're selectively applying the facts here in order to swing people against SA.

Which forum? SA's. The fact that they dont even monitor what is being published in their forums nor did they stop their forum members from paddign the votes and no so much as say "hey stop it, let the article stand on its own merit". Not it had to take the minions of his website to come here to try and push their problems onto others. The problem is spam, sweetie, and until you and your ilk understand this, no matter what you do ,will NEVER change how SPEWS works, or the admins who CHOOSE to use SPEWS operate.

I do confess it's possible, but it's hardly likely. You might just as well say it was the NANAE guys who voted up the article in order to sling mud at SA. There's about as much evidence for one as there is for the other. To say that it was spammers is sort of like blaming the boogeyman for stealing the last biscuit out of the jar.

Why? NANAE has been slandered in the past. The group as a whole has been the subject of attackes by spammers. Spammers have even falsified their identities to seem as if they were a NANAE regular; Its alot easier to belive that a spammer is behind the DoS on SA than a person who has better things to do with their time.

There are also some anti-spammers that go about doing things their own way, but blaming all NANAE for the actions of the few?

This is precisely my point. Don't go blaming the goons for the actions of a few morons. We're a good bunch, and knew about the whole SPEWS thing long before it spilled over into this. We were all searching for a peaceful, amicable solution to the problem to start with, it was only after the obstinate, arrogant nature of SPEWS prevented that did things turn nasty.

SPEWS? What arroagnt nature of spews? I see noithing arrogant. They share the exact same freaking thing I feel about spam. IF ISP's dont want to be responsible for their networks or their customers behaviour, then I and my customers who pay me to keep their email inboxes free of spam have no willingless to keep in contact with them.

So, why can't you offer an alternative?

 

padding k5's voting process

I've asked this several times, and not gotten a response, what precisely is the problem with a whole bunch of like-minded individuals coming together and acting within the rules of kuro5hin.org to get a story we approve of published? Unless of course you'd like this site to stay the private domain of you and your SPEWS-buddies, and wish to censor any dissenting opinion.

ask your members why they only signed up to vote that specific article up. They are the only ones who can answer that question



[ Parent ]
With this kind of logic: (2.75 / 4) (#201)
by The Artificial Kid on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:04:07 AM EST

>You and your ilk haven't proven that. You are assuming that it was Nanae visitors but you know you forget that SPAMMERS also visit NANAE and do everything in their power to make NANAE users look bad.

You need never be blamed or take responsibility for anything. How does that feel? Pretty good, I imagine.

[ Parent ]

Interesting analogy. (3.71 / 7) (#114)
by mewse on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:58:08 AM EST

Only someone wholly misinformed would assert that any form of immature activity was encouraged or ordered by the SA administration.
Zack himself had something different to say, four levels up in this very discussion:
Hi, I'm Zack from Something Awful, the guy who originally posted on our front page about SPEWS and the guy who advocated our users posting off-topic at NANAE on Usenet.
But that's not my point. My point was this:
Do you not agree that intentionally spamming and disrupting the operations of USENET and Kuro5hin is a childish act? Or is the act of intentionally disrupting something in order to gain attention only bad when SPEWS does it?
And I'm mostly interested in Zack's response, although any response from a Something Awful regular would be nice (and would certainly help the site's credibility more than these continued 1-ratings to my frank queries). But I want to know the thought process that says that what Something Awful administrators urged their users to do is any different from what SPEWS (allegedly) did.

[ Parent ]
I don't want to enter a subject for my comment (2.00 / 5) (#122)
by Lankiveil on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:49:21 AM EST

Do you not agree that intentionally spamming and disrupting the operations of USENET and Kuro5hin is a childish act? Or is the act of intentionally disrupting something in order to gain attention only bad when SPEWS does it?

Yes.  I said that above, and it was pointed out in the original article.  However, from my time posting in some Usenet groups, you'd have to say that posting off-topic is hardly a rare occurance.  Like I've pointed out a million times, if SPEWS had a contact method, then this needn't have happened.  Unfortunately, their only avenue for contact, according to their FAQ, was to post in NANAE.  Which some people did.  I don't know what was posted, but knowing the unique skills of some of our members, it was probably quite vile.  In that case, yes, that was uncalled for.

It still doesn't affect the original fact that Zack never said "hey, spam this newsgroup with goatse!!1!".  He simply provided a link, and encouraged people to post off-topic to gain your attention.  And it worked beautifully, I must say.

[ Parent ]

Hm. (5.00 / 8) (#128)
by mewse on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:23:43 AM EST

He simply (...) encouraged people to post off-topic to gain your attention. And it worked beautifully, I must say.
So that would be an answer of "it's only bad when someone else does it". That's all I wanted to know, thanks.

mewse

[ Parent ]

NANAE ratios. (3.66 / 3) (#169)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:35:28 AM EST

I would suspect significantly less than 300 regulars.

However, I would also suspect a large number of lurkers. NANAE is routinely read by thousands of people who administer email servers. The normal Usenet ratio, BTW, is about ten lurkers per poster, I believe; unlike on k5, where a much larger percentage of readers also post.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

SA Regulars (3.50 / 2) (#186)
by DrEvil on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:16:59 AM EST

There are currently 17,457 registered SA forum members and usually almost 2,000 members logged in at once throughout the course of the day. This doesn't even take into account the people who are not logged in. That's significantly more than 300 members.

[ Parent ]
Literacy. (3.00 / 2) (#218)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:29:43 PM EST

I wasn't talking about SA, whose size has already been established. I was discussing NANAE.

BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if NANAE's lurker quota (which is basically impossible to measure, due to the nature of Usenet) is in the tens of thousands. Most/many email sysadmins read NANAE because it's really useful to know what's happening out there. It's like Linux trolls reading /. - gotta keep up.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Misinformed (3.40 / 5) (#107)
by RipCurl on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:21:52 AM EST

And as with the SA minions who do not bother to "research" the "incident' you speak of is results from a SPAMMERS OPEN public available form that can be found by going to its site where people have submitted their Cofnidential CREDIT Card information to purchase "online advertisments". The CC numbers are OPEN to the public. The postings in NANAE is to alert us that new victims have been exploited; many of us have called those who signed up on this spamemrs faulty form to let them know that all their information is publically available. ; one company didn't even know that one of his workers had purchased using a Company credit card without permission to do such a thing ; and thankful that this was shown to him

Before critcizing, maybe you guys need to learn how to research?

[ Parent ]

CC#s??? (none / 0) (#288)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:38:52 PM EST

Am I, muchagecko, and Q the only people on the whole fucking internet that are old enough to drink???

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

geez (3.57 / 7) (#109)
by reklaw on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:29:04 AM EST

First of all, the guy apologised and said he'd try not to let it happen again, did he not?

Secondly, you can hardly accuse Something Awful and its users of being more childish than the regulars in news.admin.net-abuse.email -- go and take a look at it. People post there asking to be delisted from SPEWS and are met with outright ridicule, or replies like "well you shouldn't use [insert major ISP], some people spam from it -- AND SPAM IS TEH EVIL!!!".

They're really just power-crazed geek loons who've taken spam-fighting as an article of faith the same way Slashdot (to use his example) does with Microsoft-bashing. No point can be made without it being twisted into their strange little world.

I'm glad that the article was posted here at k5, because I'd never heard of such a thing happening before. It was hardly an abuse of the voting system when that system was specifically designed to be open and accountable rather than elitist.
-
[ Parent ]

Google works. (2.00 / 2) (#165)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:31:32 AM EST

I used to read NANAE, not post.

Please show me examples. I can't imagine NANAE regulars ever using the phrase "TEH EVIL" under any conditions.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

it wasn't... (1.00 / 1) (#213)
by reklaw on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:20:56 PM EST

... a direct quotation. What I mean is that they take a simplistic view where spam = evil and so anyone with even a tenuous link to it is fair game.
-
[ Parent ]
Okay. Now quote examples. (3.00 / 2) (#220)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:40:46 PM EST

As I said, I used to read NANAE a fair bit. The norm I would ascribe to that group would be "spam == useless, irritating, abusive, waste of our time."

Evil would be reserved for higher problems.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Hi Zack (4.73 / 15) (#161)
by motty on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:20:56 AM EST

I've been reading SA for years. It's one of the few things that can still have me literally crying with laughter. I think it's one of the best humour sites around, with some of the funniest writing.

So what I don't understand is why you are glad the article about the spat with nanae made it to the front page of k5. Although it was written by someone trying to defend SA, they didn't do a particularly good job. The article made unfounded accusations of DDOS attacks, displayed ignorance of what nanae and SPEWS actually are, and spread the word about the flooding of the nanae news group by some SA forum members, giving enough pointers to information to allow anyone to go and find out more about it.

I'm no mailserver admin, so when I want to find out about that kind of stuff I go and read what the full-time heavy duty mailserver admins have to say about the world of mailserver adminning. People like the nanae people. Turns out those people are unanimously of the opinion that SA does seem to be hosted with a company that has a bizarrely benign attitude towards spammers and spamming and a long history of having its IP numbers listed in lists of known spammers.

Which is the real problem. When absolutely everyone whose job it is to know exactly who the spammers are tells you that you are being hosted by spammers, you are probably being hosted by spammers. You might not like the fact that a lot of people whose job it is to run the internet have made the decision to block known spammers, but they have. They're busy guys, with a whole internet to run out there, and it's hard to blame them for doing their bit to stop spam by setting their computers to 'don't spread spam'. If your host is a spammer, then every email you send falls into the category of 'looks like it comes from a known spammer'. That's a bad category to have your email fall into. The answer is to stop being hosted by spammers.

Dealing with the being-hosted-by-spammers problem by setting highlights from the SA forum crowd loose on nanae was like trying to cure a bee-sting by coating yourself in honey and rolling in ants. Then you all came to k5 and said 'Hi. Come and see what we just did to ourselves.'

And you're glad?

Is there no likelihood of you guys either changing provider or getting your host to change its ways - the former being the one of those two that is going to be physically possible to achieve before the heat-death of the universe.

Just a thought - you don't need to apologise to k5 at all, as far as I'm concerned - maybe it'll have brought in some new readers along with the fly-by-night one-vote accounts. While you're apologising though, you might think about apologising to nanae.

Whatever you do, good luck sorting it out. I hope you do. I'll miss SA if it goes.
s/^.*$//sig;#)
[ Parent ]

Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#287)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:36:29 PM EST

So, if you don't want to be car bombed, stay out of Isral and the UK?

Isn't this kind of why the two towers came down on 9-11? Now look at the real casualties of the "mideast peace process"- we Americans are losing our rights!

Lets hope Rusty has more balls than George&co and ignores this attack on K5's WTC.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

I'll go with what motty said (4.50 / 2) (#221)
by pyramid termite on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:42:56 PM EST

You really don't need to apologize to K5 at all - remember, this is the home of turmeric, World Champion Troll, who's had his semi-coherent, wacked and wonderfully entertaining articles voted up plenty of times. I voted for the story - it was flawed, but the discussion was good and some light needed to be shown on this problem - no one else is covering it.

However, an apology to NANAE would be good. There might be a FEW people gentlemanly enough to accept it there. I'm afraid the rest of them are experts at playing the outraged victim over relatively trivial things, such as a bunch of posts they don't like - although they're not as good as Windego the Feral or Big Daddy Zeus was ...

A lot of the NANAE people love playing with trolls and dissenters. I wish that S.P. would come back ... Hmmmmmmmmm ...

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Well, for my part... (2.50 / 4) (#239)
by localroger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:42:16 PM EST

...Nobody here is blameless, but if anybody's blame is excusable, it's SA's.

You were wronged. Absolutely and without doubt, and the NANAE response to your complaint is unprofessional and unforgivable in a venue where it can cause serious commercial loss. While I like spam about as much as I like toe fungus I find myself liking this group of jerks even less. It doesn't really matter what your people did in their newsgroup; your legitimate complaint was ignored. That is inexcusable.

That said, the SA contingent didn't comport itself with much dignity. Two wrongs don't make a right, and certainly three or four don't. Thanks for at least recognizing that we were wronged by the tactics your guys used, please do what NANAE/SPEWS refuses to do and learn from your mistake.

Meanwhile, I wish upon every one of the NANAE fuckers that they wake up named David Nelson and learn firsthand what it means to be on a list you can't get off of for no damn reason anyone can comprehend.

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min
[ Parent ]

I don't agree. (4.66 / 3) (#247)
by 64 bit PCI serial ATA card on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 01:03:45 AM EST

You were wronged. Absolutely and without doubt, and the NANAE response to your complaint is unprofessional and unforgivable in a venue where it can cause serious commercial loss. While I like spam about as much as I like toe fungus I find myself liking this group of jerks even less. It doesn't really matter what your people did in their newsgroup; your legitimate complaint was ignored. That is inexcusable.
I think this entire SPEWS for and against argument uses too many analogies, but I'll throw one into the mix. SA's actions are essentially like this:

SA has their car stolen. The police in SA's town are rather heavy-handed and marginally oppressive folk. The SA people walk into the police station. As soon as they walk into the station, then immediately whip out a can of spray paint and start spray painting "SOMEONE STOLE OUR CAR" all over the walls and even the officers who happen to be present. Then they put the can away, walk up to the desk seargent and go "Hi, I'd like to report my car was stolen."

What do they expect? Do they expect the police to say "Wow, we're real jerks and perhaps our oppressive nature harms people into doing these things!" after that?

SA was mildly wronged. Any competent admin could have simply set up an external secure mail server on a non-SPEWS affected IP block for SA's mail traffic. Had SA just quietly switched to doing that and made a comment about SPEWS, nothing would have come of it. But instead of choosing to try and solve the problem, Zack and the forum morons licking his boots decided to behave like children and spam usenet. Brilliant strategy guys, go into a group of mail admins who fight spam, and then spam them. Their responses are a bit petulent but perfectly justifiable given their character and position.



[ Parent ]
My understanding (2.50 / 2) (#257)
by localroger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 08:04:51 AM EST

...is that they didn't break out the spray paint until it was quite clear the "police" had no intention of listening to them.

Anyone maintaining a list like SPEWS has a moral obligation to have a well-publicized appeal procedure. There is another very simple solution, which is that SA should have been able to show the specific IP's they use, and in the absence of proof that those specific IP's were used for spam to have them de-listed. Regardless of who was wronged this time or what SA did afterward such a process should exist.

The exact same thing is what is wrong with the air travel no-fly list, and why it is an evil thing we should not tolerate either.

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately... (4.50 / 2) (#261)
by 64 bit PCI serial ATA card on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 11:24:40 AM EST

...such an open appeals procedure cannot coexist with the SPEWS list as it stands. The SPEWS list is on the far right of anti-spam campaigns, so to speak, they take the extremist view that they need to harm the entire ISP in order to get them to eliminate their spammers.

If ISPs could immediately get their non-spamming IP blocks removed by going "look, these blocks don't spam, see?", the SPEWS list and methodology would be no better or more useful than any other standard RBL. ISPs are eventually removed from SPEWS, the time period associated with blocked IPs acts as a preventative measure to ensure the ISP doesn't allow spammers onboard again. In the past, RBLs acted as neutral tools designed to simply prevent spam. Since this hasn't prevented spam, the philosophy has begun to shift towards a more punitive design which actively punishes companies and ISPs that allow spam to go unchecked.

My point of view is that I don't agree with SA's actions in this instance, and find them disappointing because I enjoy SA for the most part and don't like seeing it go downhill. SA is a community, but it's also a business, and the actions of Zack and his "fire brigade" have damaged the business, which hurts the community.

I don't agree with everything SPEWS does, their philosophy is sound but their implementation needs some work. However spamming NANAE is not the way to get SPEWS to change the way it does things. Posting an informative yet humorous story about it on SA's front page would have accomplished more, because from what I saw of the NANAE replies to the spam, a good chunk of its members also happened to read and enjoy SA.

[ Parent ]

Hostage-Taking (3.00 / 3) (#273)
by localroger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 06:33:37 PM EST

The SPEWS list is on the far right of anti-spam campaigns, so to speak, they take the extremist view that they need to harm the entire ISP in order to get them to eliminate their spammers.

I see, since threatening you won't do the trick we'll threaten your customers, whether they have anything to do with our complaint or not. Yes, this has historically been a very effective technique. It is also evil. It is not an acceptable solution to this or any other problem.

As for SA's reaction, frankly, if a critical service like my e-mail was suddenly turned off for some bullshit reason that had nothing to do with my own behavior and it turned out there was no appeal, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off too. Recognize that this is a wrong thing, and that adding it to another wrong thing does not make a right.

I disagree that a reasonable appeal would be unworkable. It is a simple matter to start by targeting the ISP en bloc as SPEWS did, but then accept appeals only from customers who can establish their bona fides. That isn't rocket science. It wouldn't even be hard. It would still be effective because most spammers don't bother establishing a large business presence on an IP that's destined for inevitable blockage. It just takes giving a shit about the innocent people who are in the line of fire.

Frankly, if I had a business that lost much money because of this kind of antic I would dedicate a major effort to destroying NANAE and SPEWS on general principles. That is probably the sentiment (in less coherent fashion) that drove the SA counterattack.

If you go around attacking innocent people -- and randomly (from their point of view) DOS'ing their mail is definitely an attack -- you will eventually reach the person who reacts not by slinking away but by righteously defending their turf, whether their turf is worth defending or not. To not recognize that aspect of human nature is not just evil, it's extremely stupid too.

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min
[ Parent ]

What? (5.00 / 1) (#297)
by 64 bit PCI serial ATA card on Sat Aug 09, 2003 at 01:48:21 AM EST

You see into this far too deeply. SPEWS' actions are not "evil". Overzealous or irresponsible in some fashion, perhaps. But not "evil", which is a word whose definition is rooted in the concepts of religious zealotry.

And such zealotry is what has fueled the "internet war" between SA and SPEWS to a good degree, SA's users follow their leaders blindly into battle because SA is very important to them, as it acts as a source of social interaction.

The NANAE contingent does not act out of zealotry or out of social need, they simply act based on their belief that they are doing what is right.

If I had a legitimate business at no fault, which was losing money as a result of this action, I would find quick workarounds for the problem, because I'm a good businessman. SA has never been a very profitable business, and it is not a viable business model, nor has it ever been. Therefore their response falls in line with their business practices and previous business history. You don't go on pointless harmful crusades on principle if you want to keep your business afloat.

SA claims their IP was blocked on July 20. It took them until now to wage this pointless campaign. What were the admins doing in the intervening timespam? Sitting around huffing DMT and watching kaliedascopic beetles dancing backwards on the walls? Wallowing in their own filth? It sure took them a long time to react to this supposedly "horrible evil threat to their livelyhood". They could have set up an external relay within one day and not skipped a beat.

The issue, to me, is not a matter of principle, but a matter of common sense, of which SA has demonstrated none thus far.

[ Parent ]

Admirable gesture, but... (4.33 / 3) (#245)
by 64 bit PCI serial ATA card on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 12:49:23 AM EST

...your word, based on past actions, is not worth an awful lot, Zack. You have a track record of trying to organize things like this. Remember SLUTS? Your failed attempt to organize troll brigades out of SA forums members to incite wars between other forums?

You've done this before, and you'll continue to do it again, over and over. Your actions and the public face you display are negatively affecting SA in general and just making things harder for those on SA who advocate more mature solutions to problems presented than spamming usenet. You're bringing lots of attention to SA from people who shouldn't be paying attention to it. The people on usenet have it right, you're just shooting SA and yourself in the foot with every single post you make on the matter.

I'll believe your word when you step down from your forums administrator position on SA as a price for bungling the entire SPEWS issue so completely that you've permanently damaged SA's reputation and commercial viability, what little it had. You and the other site admins have permanently banished people from the forums in the past for doing far less.

[ Parent ]

What you guys missed- (5.00 / 1) (#286)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:26:04 PM EST

If the story sucked (and I didn't see it, I was grappling with some meatworld shit) with, as was said, innacuracies or bad writing, the edit que would have fixed that- people point out mistakes, typos, whatever, and you can fix them.

Once fixed, I have no doubt whatever that the real K5 users would have voted it FP. All you accomplished was to piss people off.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

storm in a tea cup (4.36 / 11) (#96)
by semaphore on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 01:08:23 AM EST

i have three comments.

firstly, why is the way this article got voted up inherently worse than any of the other dodgy things that go on in/on k5? i consider trusted user accounts, and duplicate accounts to be more dodgy than what happened here. this article will scroll off soon enough. dup accounts make it possible to kill or promote an article. trusted user accounts invalidate the whole comment moderation scheme and stroke a couple of bunnies. we won't start on the k5 kabal because it doesn't exist.

secondly, i assume that the voting was correct according to the present k5 process. and even if dup accounts were used, there's nothing to bitch about unless this is not an isolated instance but the beginning of the end of mankind and k5 as we know it. do we have a problem? imo, we only have the ones we have always had and lived with so far.

finally, k5 should be flattered that someone thought it was somekind of a platform.


-
"you want enlightenment? stare into the sun."


I don't know about flattered... (4.33 / 3) (#104)
by zackparsons on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:03:52 AM EST

...but I agree with your main point that K5 should avoid the sort of elitism of Slashdot. I've never been a hardcore wirehead so I don't frequent sites like either but at times Slashdot reads like an anti-Microsoft blog written by a fired employee.

I'm sorry again if our site strong armed your voting process, but I think the fact that you were able to point out that we did means it wasn't compromised. Some of your users may be offended by the fact that we did this, others might not be, but if everything is out on the table I don't see that it's a big deal in terms of your voting process being at fault.

[ Parent ]

It's not a personal thing about SA. (5.00 / 3) (#159)
by haflinger on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:06:57 AM EST

It's a problem in general. The article in question is not that bad; the problem is, what if, say, a group like Adequacy were to turn up and start votebombing?

Oh wait, that already happened. Never mind. Maybe I should say "a group like Adequacy but better organized" instead. :)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

They love it (3.12 / 8) (#170)
by Keith Harper on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:36:17 AM EST

This is precisely the kind of thing that keeps bringing people back to kuro5hin. The kind of writing that is appreciated here is either about voting of one kind or another, or about rating things. You haven't disrupted the flow of discussion on the site. This is more or less standard fare. Kuro5hin makes more sense if you think of it as a bunch of late-adolescent guys who are motivated by their fascination with technology and their unspoken resentment for women, who've gotten together to vote for each other's blogs.

[ Parent ]
Late adolescent? (none / 0) (#285)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:21:37 PM EST

Look at the pictures! If those folks are "late adolescent" then they've been doing some heavy partying since puberty!

And where did I get that damned gray in my hair????

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

A proposal (2.61 / 13) (#97)
by Detritus on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 01:17:31 AM EST

I propose something similar to Slashdot's moderation system. Though I do not even have a Slashdot account, I'm interested in how Internet communities work and it seems that Slashdot at least has the right idea. I don't know if what is described in the FAQ I linked is really implemented.

Allow only the 90% oldest accounts to vote on stories; judging by the growth rate of K5, it would take only a few months before a new user becomes fully-privileged. The plan has other benefits, such as giving a new user time to become acquainted with the site.

If K5 is to be truly democratic, model it after a democratic country well known to us all. Grandfather in current users, and let new users ("immigrants"), wait a bit before receiving their "citizenship," or right to vote.

I am opposed to the proposal that only trusted users vote: some people simply cannot live up to the quality standards of K5, but that doesn't mean they should not be allowed a voice in matters. (Disclaimer: I am not a trusted user.)

I know that this does nothing about regular users' dupe accounts (which will be allowed to marinate plenty of time, as regular users stick around by definition), but do we really want to do something about those?

Kings and lords come and go and leave nothing but statues in a desert, while a couple of young men tinkering in a workshop change the way the world works — Havelock Vetinari

Voting.. (4.00 / 4) (#124)
by driph on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:54:07 AM EST

The problem with allowing, as you suggest, the oldest X% of accounts to vote on stories is that the way around it would be to make even more dupe accounts in order to crank up the user numbers. Not a very effective method, and much less so once total user count gets a bit up there, but still.

Personally, I think the idea of a "grace period" before being allowed to vote after registering a new account is a good one. It's a minor change, it's not overbearing and would give new users the chance to see how things work before they dive in.

--
Vegas isn't a liberal stronghold. It's the place where the rich and powerful gamble away their company's pension fund and strangle call girls in their hotel rooms. - Psycho Dave
[ Parent ]

Some of us (2.00 / 2) (#189)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:18:11 AM EST

have been suggesting something like that for years...

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
-1, giving props (2.85 / 7) (#108)
by DJ Glock on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:26:42 AM EST


*** ANONYMIZED ***

Kuro5hin's own problems (3.33 / 6) (#113)
by rapha on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:44:07 AM EST

You say Kuro5hin is "ridiculously slow".
Other people, too, say that.

So why the heck is Kuro5hin just as fast as any other site is for me??

Honestly, the only thing I experience from time to time is a notice of rusty that he was conducting some kind of server maintenance. It could be worse.

- Raphael


---
NIETS IS ONMOGELIJK!

That's because (4.66 / 3) (#117)
by jungleboogie on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:13:01 AM EST

You are not using it during the day (work day eastern/mountain/central/pacific time). If you use it during the day then you will realize that it's slower than all fucking hell. It took on average about 1-3 minutes per page to load anything useful.

[ Parent ]
Re: That's because (none / 0) (#212)
by gidds on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:16:15 PM EST

average about 1-3 minutes per page

Ah. My browser times out after 2 minutes. I kept trying, but as far as I could tell the site was completely down for most of the day. (Even now: 50 seconds to preview this post...)

Andy/
[ Parent ]

Heheh :-) (none / 0) (#313)
by rapha on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 10:00:42 AM EST

You obviously haven't been reading my diary.
I do read K5 at work.
Could it, however, have anything to do with my living in Germany then?


---
NIETS IS ONMOGELIJK!

[ Parent ]
1-3 minutes? (none / 0) (#315)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 06:05:40 PM EST

That actually sounds pretty fast for K5 during the wrong time of day!
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
I strongly disagree. (none / 0) (#321)
by TVoFin on Wed Aug 13, 2003 at 03:29:20 PM EST

You are not using it during the day (work day eastern/mountain/central/pacific time). If you use it during the day then you will realize that it's slower than all fucking hell.
Hmm. I use Kuro5hin mainly during my free time, i.e. roughly 1700-2300 UTC+2 (or +3 during DST). My calculator says that that time matches quite well with the American working day. And for me, kuroshin loads fuckin' fast. Dunno why.

IB, life, sleep -- pick any two. --Anonymous IB senior.
[ Parent ]

heh (4.00 / 2) (#120)
by khallow on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:41:46 AM EST

So why the heck is Kuro5hin just as fast as any other site is for me??

I think you missed the war, that's all. Pretty funny in a way. K5 was crawling. Then we find out that the K5 equivalent of a major war was going on the whole time. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

I've been locked out (none / 0) (#284)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:17:14 PM EST

Both at home and at work, my browser timed out trying to get to the site. It just started back up earlier today.

Maybe it's got to do with what part of the world you're in, or what ISP you're using, or something similar?

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Uur... (none / 0) (#312)
by rapha on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 09:59:23 AM EST

So what was this war all about?
I mean, like, I'm reading K5 nearly daily and didn't seem to see anything the like.


---
NIETS IS ONMOGELIJK!

[ Parent ]
Make ratings weighted (2.00 / 7) (#118)
by donime on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 03:32:46 AM EST

I don't understand the inner working of K5, but assuming there is some sort of Karma like on the Other Site then there might be easy solution that /. has missed and maybe K5 has too.

The karma of a new user means that the ratings they give (to anything incluing posts to the front page) are worth close to zero.

Someone that has posted a few articles and had them voted up gets a higher public approval, and as such the ratings that they give are worth more.

Do it like Cisco do it on their routers! (3.40 / 5) (#131)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:28:56 AM EST

Let's modify scoop and give each class of user a different "administrative distance" or "believability" and weigh their votes based on this metric.

This would be an interesting idea. Say we setup each class of user to have a different voting "weight", somewhat like this:

  • new users with no diaries and no comments wouldn't be allowed to vote 1
  • new users with diaries could be like RIP, with an administrative distance of 120.
  • new users with diaries could be like OSPF, with an administrative distance of 110.
  • new users who've reached a certain threshold of comments could be like IGRP with an administrative distance of 100
  • older users who reach a certain percentage of comments and diaries could bye like External BGP and have an administrative distance of 20
  • rusty would be like a static route to a next hop or be like a connected interface and have a default administrative distance of 1
Then you'd run a calculation (using their administrative distance) to work out what their vote should be. Obviously, the bigger the number you have, the less your vote would count.

C'mon, it wouldn't be horrendously difficult or make Kuro5hin even slower than it normally is! If Cisco can get their routers to do it, then so can rusty.

Maybe we could then team up with slashdot moderation system. Hmm. On second thoughts this is a bad idea - we'd have to work out how to do proper route-redistribution and I don't think this would be possible. We'd have downed posts, congestion and much more flapping than normal if we did this.

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

1. there would have to be a special exception for drduck so that he could vote, I suppose.


---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

If you want Slashdot... (5.00 / 5) (#141)
by Nova Reticulis on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:19:01 AM EST

...you know where to get it :P

Internet is not a charity for morons who can't run a well planned business
[ Parent ]

Technology and Cuture, from teh trenches (nt) (none / 0) (#150)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:06:26 AM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
My solution. (4.57 / 19) (#132)
by hulver on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:47:23 AM EST

Do nothing.

Seriously.

So, a bunch of people voted an interesting article to the FP. Maybe some of those people will stick around? Maybe not.

If it starts happening regulaly then do something.

For now, just leave it alone.

If you start putting more barriers in the way of people, less people are going to stick around. What's a new user going to think. They've just created their nice shiney new account, they get to see the moderation Q, then get told. Sorry, go away you're too new to vote. We don't trust you. Post some comments that people like and stick around a bit and we might let you vote.

They're not going to stick around.

--
HuSi!

Isn't it working? (3.66 / 3) (#137)
by gr00vey on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 05:38:35 AM EST

I mean, if that many people wanted the article to go up, doesn't that imply the voting system is working? At least they weren't apathetic, which is usually the problem with democracies...

[ Parent ]
apathetic, which is usually the problem... (none / 0) (#283)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:14:11 PM EST

"apathetic, which is usually the problem with democracies"

I think you and the people you are listening to are wrong. People who stay away from the polls on election day are mostly NOT apathetic- they think they are voting "none of the above".

Notice that when you have two shitty candidates, you have shitty turnout, but two equally qualified candidates, especially with different opinions on the issues, there is a much larger turnout.

Run Hitler against Stalin, how will your turnout turn out?

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Or don't show the link to the submissions page (1.33 / 3) (#177)
by CwazyWabbit on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:59:34 AM EST

Why would a new user consider it a right to vote when they can't zero comments? Just let the link appear when whatever condition has been met, the same as with TU.
--
"But here's the thing: if people hand me ammunition, what kind of misanthrope would I be if I didn't use it?" - Sarah-Katherine
[ Parent ]
Taking the Wrong Approach (3.00 / 5) (#133)
by cafemusique on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 04:52:12 AM EST

Isn't the way to prevent this simply to have enough active K5 members to prevent other communities from influencing the result?

Of course, I'm just new here, so what do I know?

My vote is for a 48-hour time limit (4.93 / 15) (#134)
by R Mutt on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 05:01:02 AM EST

I'd agree the best solution to this is to prevent new accounts voting on stories for a time limit. I'd suggest 48 hours though: give a story 36 hours in the edit queue, then 12 hours to get through voting.

I'm not particularly bothered when it's just the SA crowd: they don't tend to push a particular agenda, and if anything their trolls are rather less vile than ours.

The problem is that once these holes have been exposed once they tend to be used a lot more often. Things would get annoying quite quickly if Free Republic or Indymedia or Christdot or various other groups started doing this kind of thing...
----
Coward... Asshole... from the start you kept up the appearance of objectively posting interesting links.

I'm not sure this will do much (4.66 / 3) (#248)
by ToastyKen on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 04:11:41 AM EST

All SomethingAwful would have to do then is to tell their voters to sign up.. then post an article only a couple of days later and then get everyone to vote it up with their now activated accounts.

I agree that would probably serve as a deterrent to some extent, but considering the point is to deter ORGANIZED vote-bombing in the first place, I'm skeptical.

[ Parent ]

I think I have a solution most elegant! (4.67 / 40) (#138)
by Nova Reticulis on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 05:45:37 AM EST

Very simple. Forbid the newly registered users to vote on all articles that were already in the queue at the moment the account was created. It will not interferre with our usual voting process but will prevent vote bombing by new users.

Internet is not a charity for morons who can't run a well planned business

That is indeed a very excellent solution. (3.66 / 3) (#139)
by danni on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:01:44 AM EST

Notify rusty immediatley.

BTW Is this Tex's first FP? If so I offer my congratulations to him.

[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0) (#281)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:09:14 PM EST

I prefer his humorously trolling diaries. But this one is good, too!

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Now I KNOW you're an admin ... (2.87 / 8) (#222)
by pyramid termite on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:53:42 PM EST

... two days at this site and you're already telling us how to run it.

Wait til someone from somethingawful tries to post something inane (to us) such as a hentai review or some satiric ranting that's not up to turmeric's standards. You will see just how fast and awesome the K5 community can be in Dump This Stupid Article Mode. I've seen articles die in five minutes. You seem to think it's easy to post an article here - it ain't.

And SA regulars - we have a diary section. Everyone gets a diary. You can post ANYTHING you want there. Have fun with it.

There is NOT a problem at K5 - don't fix it.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Duh (3.50 / 4) (#224)
by Nova Reticulis on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:26:25 PM EST

I am not "two days here". I have been lurking for a long long time, and I have a couple of other accounts I dropped. But thanks for the recognition! :-)

I know exactly how turmeric can be an ass. You don't have to remind me *cough cough*

And, in closing, vote bombing *is* a problem. Those are forged votes by non-existent users that will never come back or participate in discussion. In essence, this entire deal was crafted by aardvarko (or something). Notice how I am not against AK's original article - I voted it up myself - but like all hell I'm against forged votes.

Forgers assert that they have a right to be heard. Here's a refreshing slap to the face: no one has a right to be heard.

Internet is not a charity for morons who can't run a well planned business
[ Parent ]

Then I suggest you code a browser ... (3.50 / 2) (#225)
by pyramid termite on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:32:40 PM EST

... that can tell forged votes from real ones. Good luck.

By the way, you couldn't have voted +1FP on that article (which was a commendable action) if your proposed rule had been in place. But I forget that lumping the innocent in with the guilty is something you agree with. Even when you screw yourself, right?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Stop being a dumbass and make some sense (2.50 / 4) (#228)
by Nova Reticulis on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:42:01 PM EST

If you're trying to accuse me of registering a new account for the sole purpose of voting up the article let me remind you that I couldn't have seen while it was in the editing queue because I didn't have access to it in first place. I do have another account or two on K5 but that sort of invalidates your newbieness argument if you were to make one, doesn't it? And no, I don't use those anymore, for anything, including obvious vote forging.

The mechanism I proposed is simple, works, and does exactly what it's meant to do: stops vote bombing.

Now stop acting dumb, you know damn well that an account that was registered while article was in the queue and had no single comment and only one vote is obviously a forgery. And it doesnt take brains to write a perl script to weed those out. Hell, I'd crontab it.

Internet is not a charity for morons who can't run a well planned business
[ Parent ]

Wow (4.20 / 5) (#230)
by pyramid termite on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:55:56 PM EST

If you're trying to accuse me of registering a new account for the sole purpose of voting up the article let me remind you that I couldn't have seen while it was in the editing queue because I didn't have access to it in first place.

Unless you read the threads that were posted about it in NANAE while it was still in moderation.

By the way, do you know what the word commendable means? It means praiseworthy and worthy of complimenting.

In short, I gave you praise and a compliment for your voting and you jump down my throat for it. Is it any wonder NANAE inhabitants are percieved as such arrogant fuckheads?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the commendation (3.80 / 5) (#232)
by Nova Reticulis on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:21:01 PM EST

But it doesnt in any way cancel that rather unpleasant implication of yours that I showed up here for the sole purpose of messing with the article, and a subsequent accusal in hypocrisy (did I read it right?).

Internet is not a charity for morons who can't run a well planned business
[ Parent ]

By the way ... (4.00 / 2) (#226)
by pyramid termite on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:35:49 PM EST

... A Proud American just used the queue to ask us if we had ever kissed a guy and what was it like? (And that's just about all he wrote.) It was gone in 10 minutes. See what I mean?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Duh... (none / 0) (#280)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:06:54 PM EST

You have 76 comments and 1 diary. Lurking doesn't count, nor do your dead (killed by Rusty for abuse?) "other" (troll? crapflooder? child molester?) accounts.

Your real name doesn't even matter, or count, unless your real name is "Nova Reticulis".

You insult our intelligence, son.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Calm down (4.40 / 15) (#149)
by andymurd on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 06:50:49 AM EST

Well done Tex Bigballs
This article is the best way to respond to the SA vote skewing. Your research and the discussion generated has brought out many of the good things that I come to K5 for. Who'd have thought it?

Something Awful Voters
I'm sure many K5ers sympathise with you in your struggle against SPEWS and the article was worth submitting to the queue. Rigging the vote wasn't the best way to win friends though.
Also, congratulations are in order for having the balls to post in this article explaining your actions. Those of you who decide to stay, welcome, have fun, etc.

NANAE Posters
There have been allegations that some of you tried to skew the vote against the SA people. Would any of you like to refute/confirm these rumours here?

K5 Regulars
This is a precedent that worries a few people but lets not get carried away. If the article queue gets abused like this many more times, there have been some excellent suggestions that could frustrate people attempting such things in future. I don't think that radical changes are necessary right now - but we can be vigilant in the future.

I guess it boils down to the fact that an online poll was rigged. The response from K5 is much more interesting than the vote rigging.

Bollocks (1.44 / 9) (#216)
by Nova Reticulis on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:25:03 PM EST

I personally voted this +1FP so that the people can see what a disgusting lying sacks of shit SA advocates are. And I believe I succeeded in achieving just that.

Internet is not a charity for morons who can't run a well planned business
[ Parent ]

Still waiting... (2.66 / 6) (#244)
by DFu4ever on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 11:53:13 PM EST

From what I remember, the SA voting attack was in response to the threats that the article would be voted into the ground. SA people aren't stupid, and they don't tend to pull stuff like that unless directly provoked. I don't find the idea that their detractors provoked them all that hard to believe in this case. Immense egos are floating around out in this big old internet that up till a couple days ago I was not familiar with. Now I am gonna remember the poorly thought out idea that is SPEWS so I can relay info about it to those people I know that it would matter to.

[ Parent ]
I don't remember myself... (4.25 / 4) (#250)
by Nova Reticulis on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 06:24:49 AM EST

...or anyone from NANAE lurking around here threatening to vote the article it down, or so I know. Normally the article should have been voted down because it's full of outright lies and inconsistences (and the author even apologized for that), but NANAE people (or at least me) wanted to have it voted up.

Internet is not a charity for morons who can't run a well planned business
[ Parent ]

Google archives NANAE. (5.00 / 1) (#251)
by haflinger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 07:08:22 AM EST

Please find the posting on NANAE that threatens to do this. I've looked, & I can't find it.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Threats? (none / 0) (#279)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:02:19 PM EST

Look, every single article submitted to K5 gets those "threatening" remarks, including all 5 I have submitted, and also including the 3 of 5 that were rejected, and the 2 of 5 that got FP.

When did Lowtax start hanging with such wooses?

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Holy Shit. (3.85 / 7) (#151)
by Akshay on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:06:49 AM EST

I'll have to add this to my historical news stories collection; very subtle, but a great sense of drama, poise and action.

More than anything else, I find it interesting how a few lines of code and some database space have created a sense of community among two different groups, both among the SA folks, who "vote-bombed" the story in, and among the resident K5 regulars, who, obviously, resent such an intrusion.

To our SA friends here on K5, a warm welcome. You guys have made your point; I really hope that you'll now not vote en masse.

As for K5, things will obviously have to change. Sorry, no way we can let pressure groups decide on our menus.

A sad day, indeed.. (3.57 / 7) (#157)
by ignatiusst on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:43:38 AM EST

Whenever any organization begins a grass-root effort to create an atmosphere where their collective voice can be heard - that is a sad, sad day.

By the way, thanks for the unannounced link leading off the story.. Nothing like coming into work and, first thing out of the gate, trying to surf to somethingawful.com..

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift

Yes (4.50 / 2) (#158)
by iasius on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:06:42 AM EST

linking to something and and calling the link just "link" is one of the prime evils because you just cannot find out where the link leads before you click on it. Sarcasm aside, he should have called it "link to the somewhatawful forum" or something like that. It's just a tad bit late for that.


the internet troll is the pinnacle of human evolution - circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
Hang on... (2.00 / 1) (#193)
by nebbish on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:30:06 AM EST

Im using IE, and by holding the mouse pointer over the link I am told that it links to the somethingawful forum, without having to click on it. From what I can remember this is the same for Netscape and Mozilla too.

What are you two using?

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Opera (4.50 / 2) (#210)
by iasius on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 12:16:15 PM EST

and yes, I can find out the target the same way (that's why I wrote sarcasm ;)). It took me 23!! minutes to load this page. Talk about K5 slowness.


the internet troll is the pinnacle of human evolution - circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
Doh! (none / 0) (#249)
by nebbish on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 04:41:22 AM EST

Just re-read your comment. Thought that was a bit odd for a techie site! That'll teach me...

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

nobody's perfect (none / 0) (#278)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 08:58:24 PM EST

But it is pretty poor form.

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

I'd just like to note that (1.59 / 22) (#160)
by BinaryTree on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:12:54 AM EST

SomethingAwful rules and Kuro5hin sucks.

That is all.

:rolleyes: (3.40 / 5) (#163)
by jpixton on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:28:00 AM EST

HURR HURR SOMETHINGAWFUL RULES AND KURO5HIN SUCKS LOLOLOL

Seriously, grow up.

[ Parent ]

You think I was trying to be funny? (2.60 / 5) (#167)
by BinaryTree on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:34:46 AM EST

I was expressing an opinion.

If you decide to take offense, that's your problem.

[ Parent ]

My opinion: (4.50 / 4) (#173)
by Michael Moore on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:45:18 AM EST

Michael Moore rules and BinaryTree sucks.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
I am an American. (3.50 / 3) (#194)
by BinaryTree on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:30:29 AM EST

And as an American, I believe in American society. The sucking tendencies present in noting that BinaryTree sucks is a reflection of the times we live in. We are raised in a culture of sucking behavior, and so we teach our children to suck. The Bush administration has carried out more sucktastic behavior during one term than the suckers of the world have carried out in the last fifty years. Should it surprise us that BinaryTree sucks, when we are all taught that it is an acceptable, even necessary aspect of modern society?

[ Parent ]
I can't believe you looked that up (none / 0) (#195)
by Michael Moore on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:35:25 AM EST

But it was pretty cool.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
:rolleyes:? (1.00 / 1) (#238)
by DJ Glock on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:31:52 PM EST

this is not vBulletin. if you can't communicate on the same level as the rest of us ("us" being adults), leave.

*** ANONYMIZED ***
[ Parent ]

oh (2.33 / 3) (#241)
by waar on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 11:06:36 PM EST

rly

[ Parent ]
Disclaimer (none / 0) (#243)
by jeremy on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 11:16:53 PM EST

The preceeding opinion is BinaryTree's own opinion and does reflect the opinions of SomethingAwful.com, Somethingawful Enterprises, SANethosting, its officers, directors, employees, and shareholders.  SomethingAwful assumes no liability for direct, indirect, punitive, consequential, special or incidental damages, accident, injury, loss of property, income or life due to use or misuse of comments, suggestions, procedures, modifications, enhancements, repairs or information presented on Kuro5hin.org.  All rights reserved.

[ Parent ]
Disclaimer... (none / 0) (#277)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 08:56:07 PM EST

Keep out of reach of children. Do not use near fire of flame. Do not eat. Not responsible for sudden drug abuse, melted genitals, rabid canines, or terrorists.

Oh wait, maybe K5 IS responsible for "Teh Terrorists", my bad

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

So leave. (none / 0) (#276)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 08:53:39 PM EST

Lowtax can use the money. BTW, how is old Lowtax doing these days? I haven't talked with him since Planet Quake and Planet Crap. Haven't been to either place, or SA for a long time either.

Of course, ppl quit going to my old quake site, too...

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

certain number of comments required to vote? (5.00 / 6) (#184)
by Joe T on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:08:13 AM EST

That's a bad idea in my opinion. Given the choice betwean months of work thinking up, say, a hundred insightful posts or an hour writing space wasting "me2!" replies a hundred times, I think a significant amount of people would just take the easy way out.

Not just # of comments (none / 0) (#275)
by mcgrew on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 08:51:48 PM EST

If "trusted users" zero your comments, iinm you lose the ability to vote.

Once in a childish pique of anger at a troll, who had said some disgusting things about my daughter and I, I lashed out. I asked my diary readers to "kill" him, and threatened to not post any more diaries (and I guess folks must think my diaries are mostly ok). Within an hour, his Trusted User status was gone. He apologized to me and pleaded with me to "call off my dogs" (which I did- I am embarrassed that I lashed out at his troll like that).

Of course, it's obvious I wasn't the only one he pissed off, or I would have likely been "killed" myself.

But if you look at the way K5 works, an hour writing space wasting "me2!" will get your TU status taken away faster than you can say "crapflooding".

"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
[ Parent ]

Relax... (4.50 / 8) (#191)
by wiredog on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:21:54 AM EST

it's just a website.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

Next time they'll be sure to check their ISP (3.18 / 11) (#204)
by simul on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:14:29 AM EST

To see if it's a organization of theiving bastartds ... first.
  • Boycotting companies based on their decision to support child labor is OK.
  • Boycotting companies based on their decision to use ISP's that support SPAM is OK.

    Especially when they follow up their decision with an attack on kuro5hin, NANAE, and every other public forum.

    No one has to use SPEWS. They choose to use it. It's a choice made knowing FULL WELL that many firms who did not originate spam would be blocked.

    Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks

  • You know, that isn't true (4.00 / 2) (#231)
    by The Turd Report on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:05:05 PM EST

    Lots of admins that use 'relays.osirusoft.com' don't know that it is a big compilation of other lists. From the name, it would seem like it was just a listing of relays. Thankfuly, when contacted about non-spam mail being blocked, they will change to a better zone to use.

    [ Parent ]
    Do a search on SPEWS on NANAE. (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by haflinger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 07:43:47 AM EST

    Any admins who don't know what SPEWS does are pretty dumb and incapable of Googling.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    No one should use SPEWS (none / 0) (#282)
    by jbuck on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:10:32 PM EST

    If anyone out there wants to use an RBL, pick anyone but SPEWS. You want to make sure that your data supplier is responsible, and SPEWS isn't: they block innocent parties and don't make reasonable efforts to correct their own errors.

    [ Parent ]
    What a trainwreck. (4.54 / 11) (#208)
    by Tirade on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:59:30 AM EST

    I'll preface this by saying that although I registered about five minutes ago, I've been a regular lurker at k5 for at least six months - whether that counts for anything I don't know, but I want to make clear that I'm not some goon that's here to crash the party.

    The spat between SA and SPEWS has become quite nasty, and unfortunately it looks like it won't be resolved any time soon. SPEWS certainly won't back down. I've had enough of analogies and comparisons that have gone on in the SA vs SPEWS articles - invariably people start arguing about how far down the street the SA retard accessory store is from the spammer crackhouse, etc. So instead here's a simple rundown of what I think happened, and why I support the measures SA took.

    I know that Zack didn't order the strike on NANAE as the first of the emails began to bounce. I'm assuming that he figured out the cause of the problem, poked around the SPEWS website and realized that the only possible way of communicating with them is through the NANAE newsgroup. Maybe he even asked to be delisted - I haven't bothered searching, but I've seen the way in which people who ask to be removed from SPEWS. Almost without exception self-righteous, condescending diatribes with a slight sprinkling of nerd revenge and without a hint of apology for seriously screwing over an innocent, declaring "This is not our problem. It is yours."

    The invasion of NANAE was a bit childish, but pales in comparison to the return DDoS attacks in two ways. Firstly, it was relatively harmless. Annoying as hell for NANAE regulars for a few hours, but not causing any serious damage or loss of service. Secondly, it made noise, something that Zack by himself could not hope to have made. I certainly took notice. Hell, before this thing kicked off I didn't know SPEWS or any other email filtering collective existed. In contrast, the DDoS attacks on SA were not only

    As far as the whole entry of k5 into the whole mess goes, I'll just say that I think I would have chosen k5 as the place to submit an article (were I more motivated), as it's always had a good mix of topics. I'm glad the article got voted to the front page, even though I think it could have used a little polish (sorry TAK - too much "somethingawful said this, NANAE said that, somethingawful said something else"). Despite the methods used to get it to the front, it's a good topic and has fuelled some interesting debate here at k5. It's a shame that the shitflinging between goons and NANAE users spilled into the comments, because I'd really like the broader topic of spammers, spam blockers and people caught in the middle to be thrashed out on k5.

    So there it is. I think I'm most annoyed at the blatant display of power abuse shown by the SPEWS members that respond to legitimate gripes in the NANAE forums with "Don't use spammer-friendly hosting". SPEWS has the power to cause serious financial troubles to anyone who is inadvertantly added to the blacklist. Spammers couldn't give a fuck if half of their emails bounce, but when each email sent concerns a legitimate business transaction, a 30 to 40 percent bounce rate can cause financial ruin. The utter disdain SPEWS shows to these people is sickening, basically treating them as collateral damage from their crusade against spam.

    I'm assuming that eventually SA will cave and switch hosting, or find alternate arrangements to send outgoing mail - I don't know, I'm not a tech and have no real idea how these things work. I'm not naive enough to think that posting here will make a shred of difference in the long term to either the way SPEWS operates or the attitude of the NANAE regulars. But I thank Zack for dealing with the problem the way he did. It's been an education.

    Why you're wrong (3.56 / 16) (#215)
    by Nova Reticulis on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:22:23 PM EST

    1. Zack didn't "ask" to get delisted. SA's fault.
    2. NANAE members did not facilitate DDoS attacks of any kinds. We (TINW) consist of well trained and highly ethical network administrators. NANAE linear morale says certain things about "fighting abuse with abuse". There is no proof there were any DDoS attacks, let alone coming from NANAE posters. Not SPEWS fault.
    3. Refusal of service is not a denial of service. Not SPEWS fault.
    4. SPEWS is not just a list, but also a voluntarily cooperation of admins. You can not tell them what mail to block and what not. You can argue that they might not understand the operation and purpose of SPEWS, but you will be flamed off very quick. Therefore, criticism is useless. Not SPEWS fault.
    5. SA called for, coordinated and promoted net.abuse openly and shamelessly. As a result, many SA forum members lost accounts. SA's fault.
    6. SA failed to execute due diligence at choosing a peer. SA's fault.
    7. SA issued a cartooney and by such forever earned entries in firewalls of thousands of sites, mine included. SA's fault.

    That pretty much sums up the entire argument, despite of the FUD SA tries to promote. There were no DDoS attacks; there was no decent attempt on SA's part to clarify the situation; SA behaved unprofesionally and disgusting unleashing the goons on NANAE and threatening with bogus legal action. SA got their ass kicked as a result of their own arrogance.

    Internet is not a charity for morons who can't run a well planned business
    [ Parent ]

    Why YOU are wrong. (2.62 / 8) (#263)
    by harik on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 11:58:41 AM EST

    3. NANAE members did not facilitate DDoS attacks of any kinds. We (TINW) consist of well trained and highly ethical network administrators. NANAE linear morale says certain things about "fighting abuse with abuse". There is no proof there were any DDoS attacks, let alone coming from NANAE posters. Not SPEWS fault.
    Yes, because no anti-spammers EVER get frustrated and use immoral means to achieve their goals. You (TINY) are all perfect people, incapable of doing any wrong.

    Back in the real world, The admins at SA could see the packet flood, and the rest of us sure as hell could see the slowdown. Of course, since you're right and we are wrong, what REALLY happened is there was a convieniently timed fiber cut causing sub-optimal routing, and R-lo and gang decided to blame it on a DDoS. Right? So I'm sure that there's a report of a backhoe error causing router instability on NANOG. Right?

    Here's a hint: When someone does NOTHING wrong and gets shafted for it, it's not their responsibility to play nice by your arbritary rules. EVERY FUCKING PROVIDER HAS A SPAM PROBLEM. Secondly, here's another hint: When you have a contract with an ISP, it costs YOU money to get out of it. Either directly or in legal fees "prooving" they are in breach beacuse some random guy on usenet said so. The spammer pays the higher monthly rate without a contract, knowing they'll get dropped anyway. End result of blacklisting a spammer's IP: The spam stops, the spammer moves. End result of blacklisting the ENTIRE CLASS B: Spam stops, spammer moves, THOUSANDS OF OTHER BUISNESSES GET FUCKED OVER WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING WRONG.

    Since nobody reads a comment without a stupid, ill-concieved metaphor, here's the one I use to explain to users why their email is blocked. Drugs are bad, m'kay? So if a drug dealer moves into a house down the street from you, I'll level 3 square miles. Obviously, you should have moved to a drug-free neighborhood. What? That other neighborhood ALSO has a drug problem? Well shit! I've got more napalm for them, too!

    Needless to say, nobody likes to hear that. Still, it's better then the alternative: "I don't know why your email is being blocked. You should ask this group of people (we don't know who they are) that maintain a blacklist. They might tell you, or they may tell you to fuckoff. Please don't hangup on me and go to another IS<click>".

    You can see why I compare email blockers to terrorists and drug dealers. I do my part to combat the problem but fuckheads STILL list my mailserver. I'm an open relay! Because a dialup customer got trojaned and started sending mail through my system. Fucking YAY. Yes, it's obviously good administrative policy to not allow your own customers to send email because they might get trojaned someday.

    [ Parent ]

    So, what did the FBI say? (4.66 / 3) (#265)
    by dougmc on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 12:31:16 PM EST

    Back in the real world, The admins at SA could see the packet flood, and the rest of us sure as hell could see the slowdown.
    So, you saw the packet flood. So, being a responsible network administrator, you logged them, and called the police or FBI to report the DoS attack, right? So what did they say?

    The FBI probably won't take you seriously unless you can claim a large dollar figure loss, but you did at least try, right?

    And providing access to the logs might help convince people that you were attacked, and others may actually work on tracking down where it came from, if possible.

    [ Parent ]

    are you nuts? (none / 0) (#306)
    by ph0rk on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 12:17:03 PM EST

    What on earth makes you think the FBI would give two shits about what essentially boils down to one or more groups of bickering children?

    If you want something done about a DOS, you need to track the packets -while they are flooding- to find the real source, and deal with their provider.

    If some or all of the traffic is spoofed, packet logs won't get you squat, and any law enforcement agency or security group would be quick to point that out to you.

    .
    [ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
    [ Parent ]

    FUD goes on... (4.00 / 1) (#310)
    by TVoFin on Mon Aug 11, 2003 at 02:48:22 AM EST

    EVERY FUCKING PROVIDER HAS A SPAM PROBLEM.
    Not so. Every provider will get a bad apple sooner or later, but responsible provider kicks the spammer/proxyraper/relayraper/bulletproof-hoster out. Irresponsible providers don't kick them.

    Not to be out-metaphored, here's my variation: You live in a neighborhood of rented homes, same landlord for everybody. Adjacent neighborhood complains to your landlord that your next-door neighbor is trafficking drugs. Landlord does nothing. Complaints continue. Landlord does nothing. Adj. neighborhood decides that they don't want to do anything with the trafficker. Still trafficking goes on and landlord ignores complaints. Finally, adj. neighborhood throw their hands up in disgust and decide to dissallow everybody from your neighborhood.

    I'm an open relay! Because a dialup customer got trojaned and started sending mail through my system.
    Ouch. However, your server is classified as an open relay only if it indeed relays incorrectly (relaying mail to and from your customers is not incorrect relaying).
    Yes, it's obviously good administrative policy to not allow your own customers to send email because they might get trojaned someday.
    What I have done to prevent such problems (however, I'm not an ISP, only an admin for a moderately small net) is to virus scan every incoming mail (for e-mail nasties) and educate users to install virus scanners. My ISP does not (regretfully) do the former, but provides a virus scanner (free of charge) for its ADSL customers. Which is a good thing.

    IB, life, sleep -- pick any two. --Anonymous IB senior.
    [ Parent ]

    why is this being discussed here? (4.00 / 3) (#227)
    by GenerationIgnored on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:36:26 PM EST

    I mean, isn't there a whole ARTICLE for you to post your meandering just one space down?  

    what does this have to do with the voting queue?

    </grumpy old man>

    - Meet my demands or fear my dinosaur-ry wrath!!
    [ Parent ]

    The logic of SPEWS. (3.50 / 2) (#252)
    by haflinger on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 07:25:50 AM EST

    Most blackhole listing groups take a straightforward approach: They try to identify IP addresses of spammers (and open relays and proxies used by spammers), and add them to the blackhole list. This means that mail originated at those points will not be delivered, and thus spam will be greatly reduced. This is more efficient (in some ways) than spam filters (of which the best is SpamAssassin, I think) because with filtering technology, the mailserver still has to receive the email, store it, and process it before it can delete the spam. However, it's less discriminating: it just blocks the port.

    SPEWS is less discriminating than this. The SPEWS people take the approach that they want to force ISPs to remove spammers. So, when they get a complaint about some spammer, they initially ad that spammer's IP address to their blocklist and contact the ISP. If the ISP removes the spammer, the blocklist is cleared, and all is hunky dory. If the ISP does not comply, then they wait a while, and if still nothing is done, they start to escalate: adding random IP addresses from that ISP to the blocklist. Eventually the entire ISP will get into the blocklist. I believe this is where SA's ISP is, as SPEWS has a number of complaints about them. The basic theory is that spammer-friendly ISPs will tend to attract spammers, and lazy ISPs that have one or two spammers will see their customers getting cut off as significant extra motivation to boot the spammers. I found a flamewar on NANAE which helps explain what SPEWS does.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    Thoughts on voting systems and fraud (4.33 / 3) (#211)
    by jd on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 02:38:36 PM EST

    There's nothing you can do to prevent ballot box stuffing. I've looked at different systems you can use on a system like this, and even proposed some changes. Inevitably, all those schemes that might work are unusably complex, and those which are simple enough to use are wide open to abuse.

    Where votes make a real difference (eg: in the political arena), I'd say go for the complexity and do your best to educate. That's "mission critical", and it's better for a failure to do little all-round than to do a lot of harm.

    For a web discussion room, the reverse is true. Open, free discussion is everything, and there is little "harm" that can happen that can't be cleaned up after. The openness is much more important.

    not "stuffing", nor "fraud" (3.00 / 6) (#214)
    by bolthole on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 07:21:48 PM EST

    The kuroshin voting system was not abused. It worked exactly as it was designed to do. X number of people came in, and placed X number of votes, and the threashhold was hit.

    "ballot stuffing" implies creation of fradulent votes. This sounds like merely a case of "lobbying".

    [ Parent ]

    There was ballot stuffing (4.14 / 7) (#229)
    by Rahaan on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 08:42:09 PM EST

    if you take a look at the somethingawful thread, you'll see a number of people who voted more than once.  Lobbying in and of itself is also fairly anti-democratic in nature, but I'll leave that out of the argument for now.

    Of questionable nature is also the people who registered for an account just to vote the article up and will probably never come back - voting is supposed to be "members-only", for accountability, and they are only really members of the community in name.  If their only participation is to vote +1 on that article, never to return or comment or vote again, then it's not really working as intended.


    you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
    [ Parent ]

    What is a democracy? (5.00 / 1) (#271)
    by Squirrel Killer on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 05:31:10 PM EST

    Lobbying is actually pretty fundamental to a representative democracy. What do you think you're doing when you write, email, fax, or call your congressman? And before you complain about special interests, what do you think the EFF, EPIC, or any other tech-friendly organization is? Don't kvetch that the NRA, AARP, ACLU, NAACP, or NEA has made it possible for their members to make their voices heard in DC, make sure the group that represents you views has your support.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I get it now. (none / 0) (#291)
    by acceleriter on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 10:01:14 PM EST

    Democracy is only available to folks willing to pay fees to pressure groups for representation, since individuals' opinions are drowned out by lobbyist influence. And I'm supposed to think this is a good thing?

    [ Parent ]
    7 wolves and 1 sheep voting what's for dinner [nt] (none / 0) (#292)
    by it certainly is on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 10:03:26 PM EST



    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    SA De-bookmarked (2.28 / 7) (#240)
    by jonathan21 on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 11:03:48 PM EST

    I used to visit SA fairly often because their Photoshop Phriday used to be pretty good.  But the lameness has taken over and this was the last straw.  Mindless abuse of K5 is absolutely unforgiveable...

    SA's "goons" are out of my bookmark list.

    There is an issue here that no one has addressed. (4.14 / 7) (#242)
    by causticmtl on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 11:12:01 PM EST

    I used to visit SA quite religiously a few years ago. It was, at that time, my favorite website. The forums were intelligent, creative, and had a wicked sense of humour.

    One day they decided that they couldn't afford the bandwidth of the casual user visiting their forums. The amount of photoshopped images making their way to my computer was breaking their backs in bandwidth costs.

    "Fair enough", I told myself.

    I visited SA once every 9-12 months to get a Photoshop Phriday or a Comedy Goldmine or two and that was it. I never paid for registration because although SA was entertaining, I certainly didn't learn anything being there.

    What I find ironic is that SA is posting *here*, my new favorite website, almost as if they were following me as opposed to the other way around.

    I'm not a fan of SPEWS and never have been. Their policy is equivalent to saying that a nuclear strike into countries like North Korea or Liberia would be beneficial because "it gets the bad guys out" ... not very rational.

    Regardless of SPEWS, I find SA's actions on K5 quite amusing. When they had a free, open forum they restricted its access, forcing people to pay to read and post.

    Now, even Zack (and Lo-Tax and his users) feels it necessary to post on K5. Why? Because it is an honestly free and open forum.

    This is the best SA joke I've ever read.

    No one addressed it because it's not relevant. (none / 0) (#303)
    by mavrc on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 03:17:57 AM EST

    Maybe, just maybe, they felt the need to post here because Something Awful (and its associated forums) are dedicated to humor. You go there to be entertained. They wanted their situation to be seen by sysadmins and other intelligent, responsible folk, so they posted here. I question their tactics, but it had nothing to do with the 'open-ness' of their forum.

    [ Parent ]
    I went in the opposite direction... (1.00 / 1) (#319)
    by ThreadSafe on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 09:05:55 PM EST

    used to read K5 religously. Realised what a bunch of pathetic faggots most people on it are (even the popular ones like MisterQueue and Badger). Now I read SA every day and only visit K5 occasionaly for tech advice (The mastorbatory egos of most members tend to ensure quick responses to any questions asked).

    Make a clone of me. And fucking listen to it! - Faik
    [ Parent ]

    I am so mad (1.80 / 5) (#260)
    by Spencer Perceval on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:59:51 AM EST

    growl


    All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.
    new story (5.00 / 3) (#268)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 03:17:37 PM EST

    http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/32231.html?what

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    Article is a bit clueless (5.00 / 2) (#274)
    by RipCurl on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 07:46:00 PM EST

    As with any propaganda site; it doesn't give the full story; doesn't show research; and typical of media mindedness to "show" a big story.

    [ Parent ]
    It's kind of hard to get the full story ... (5.00 / 2) (#290)
    by pyramid termite on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 09:54:34 PM EST

    ... when one of the parties to the dispute has left no way to contact them. The end result is that Zack gets quoted at length and the SPEWS viewpoint is speculated about by undisclosed sources which can't speak authoritatively and therefore aren't given as much room in the article.

    If you want to say that The Register isn't known for deep reporting, fine - here's a Baltimore Sun article reprinted on the Chicago Tribune site. Note how the aggrieved innocent party has his side of the story told. Note how an anti-spammer who disagrees with the SPEWS method is talked to and his views made known. Note how other people at ISPs are interviewed. The FTC and the EFF are contacted by the reporter. Even the spam friendly ISP gets to have their side reported. The reporter even found another innocent victim - a county government and interviewed them.

    But SPEWS' side of the story wasn't told at all - why? Because the reporter had no one he could contact that speaks for it. And no - some guy on NANAE isn't going to count; reporters want to talk to authoritative sources who represent the parties in the story. If media coverage is going to spread it will be one sided - not because the media want to ignore SPEWS and the views of those associated with it, but because they can't TALK to them. And the only people who are going to be hurt by that are SPEWS.

    Lack of repsonsiveness can kill you in the media.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Clueless Journalists are more harmful (5.00 / 1) (#298)
    by RipCurl on Sat Aug 09, 2003 at 02:05:51 AM EST

    ... when one of the parties to the dispute has left no way to contact them. The end result is that Zack gets quoted at length and the SPEWS viewpoint is speculated about by undisclosed sources which can't speak authoritatively and therefore aren't given as much room in the article.

    What more do you want? a look at NANAS and NANAE as well as the SBL at spamhaus.org shows that Cogentco is knowingly hosting SEVERAL ROKSO listed spammers. What needs to be disputed? There is evidence that SPAM is coming from their servers; there is evidence that Cogentco is home to several known spammers who are sending spam and are still being hosted by them. What is there to dispute?

    Oh and ZACK gets quoted quite alot; ill advised and nothing factual. did he bother to point to the evidence file that got his block listed? Did he show that in the article? No, he makes wild accusations. When its been shown over and over again to him that HE is not listed; Cogentco WHO owns those IP"s that he is renting from them ; is the oen being listed because tehy have shown the REST of the net that they dont care what their customers do. 15 SBL listings at Spamhaus.org alone. Why does Cogentco have so many listings? Because they love spam; they want to be a spam supporting ISP and I have, and many others do not want to do business or accept anything from an ISP who contributes to the abuse of the net.

    Oh and nothing about how Spam causes the networks to shut down because of the load? Or cause service to be interrupted. So ONE guy is inconienced becaue he chose to do business with a spamming ISP (Qwest, shees, over 4,000 spam examples in NANAS alone) yet when a whole server goes down because of the spam overload, that's when people will come out and say " WELL They should have used filters!". Puhlease. its one way or the other. The ISP has an obligation to make sure service is running for their customers, even their own AUP's states that all email may not be delivered. And when custoemrs complain that there is too much spam, what is an ISP supposed to do? Eat the costs of the spam because they have to buy new servers for the space and pass on the costs to ttheir customers ( AOL members pay $3 extra a month because of the spam, times that by how many millions of members???) My RR cost when up $4 to handle the cost that spam causes because they now have to implement more time and space to handle the deluge?

    So again, what can an ISP do? Block the spam and let 90% of all the email through? or let 100% of email through, and have all the email be comprised of 60% of spam? For all their customers? Tell me what alternative is there?

    If you want to say that The Register isn't known for deep reporting, fine - here's a Baltimore Sun article reprinted on the Chicago Tribune site. Note how the aggrieved innocent party has his side of the story told. Note how an anti-spammer who disagrees with the SPEWS method is talked to and his views made known. Note how other people at ISPs are interviewed. The FTC and the EFF are contacted by the reporter. Even the spam friendly ISP gets to have their side reported. The reporter even found another innocent victim - a county government and interviewed them.

    But I dont see complaints from people who are being charged extra $$$ because ISP's now have to pass on the cost to their consumers. I can remember paying only $37 for my RR acct; I now pay $41. And this is all to do with implementing new services JUST TO fight the spam. Do consumres even understand that any where from $3-$10 of their monthly bill goes to fighting spam?

    But SPEWS' side of the story wasn't told at all - why? Because the reporter had no one he could contact that speaks for it. And no - some guy on NANAE isn't going to count; reporters want to talk to authoritative sources who represent the parties in the story. If media coverage is going to spread it will be one sided - not because the media want to ignore SPEWS and the views of those associated with it, but because they can't TALK to them. And the only people who are going to be hurt by that are SPEWS.

    For anyone with half-a-brain, the SPEWS record and their policies explain themselves quite clearly. The media deosn't have to talk to anyone and th "author" of that story didn't even do his research ( linking to two anti-spews site that hve been DEFUNCT for more than 8 months ), and didn't bother to look at the NANAS newsgroup for evidence of the spamming.

    Here for your enjoyment:
    Spews Cleanup

    Seems that an admin, who "doesn't like the way spews works/runs" got a the appropriate response from the NANAE regulars, and has taken steps to get himself delisted or have his blocks deescalated.

    Lack of repsonsiveness can kill you in the media.

    Articles written by clueless journalist have done more harm than the truth.


    [ Parent ]

    You don't understand journalism (5.00 / 1) (#301)
    by pyramid termite on Sat Aug 09, 2003 at 09:16:18 AM EST

    For anyone with half-a-brain, the SPEWS record and their policies explain themselves quite clearly.

    Reporters want to talk to people. Reporters don't want to be restricted to the 20 odd questions in the SPEWS FAQ, because they're professional question askers and can often come up with less frequently asked questions that provide answers that can be more insightful. But it's not going to happen if there's no one from your side to ask.

    And yes, there are clueless reporters. How do you propose to make them clueful, to tell them all the facts and figures, if you don't talk to them? Online journalists like the Register should be looking up some authoritative info and at least checking their damn links to see if they work. (I take the Register with a grain of salt.) Meatspace journalists can, but they always want to talk to someone, too. It's interactive. They find out things they won't find out from an FAQ.

    And if you deprive them of that, you're depriving yourself of getting your side of the story out.

    Articles written by clueless journalist have done more harm than the truth.

    They don't come to work in the morning and find clues in their desks. Judging from the Baltimore Sun article, the reporter would have been more than willing to get a "clue" from SPEWS if someone had made themselves available - but no one did.

    Look, the DMA and spammers are talking to the media, the FTC and other government entities, including Congressmen. They're showing up in business suits with briefcase full of papers and selling their brand of snake oil in smooth, reasonable tones. Some anti-spammers not affiliated with SPEWS are doing the same. Meanwhile SPEWS affiliated people are hiding under rocks pretending not to exist or posting support messages in NANAE that are often rude and talk about stuff like killing spammers. Real effective.

    So, who's going to be listened to? The people who show up and be counted. Clueless? SPEWS is flunking Public Relations 101 here - the media and government aren't going to listen to you unless you talk to them. And they're not going to bend over backwards looking for you so you can get your story listened to. That's just how it is.

    Get a clue yourself.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Hashcash (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by Golden Hawk on Fri Aug 08, 2003 at 04:31:44 PM EST

    http://www.cypherspace.org/~adam/hashcash/

    This thing works great in iip to prevent people from signing up too many accounts.
    -- Daniel Benoy

    no good (none / 0) (#304)
    by Kragg on Sun Aug 10, 2003 at 11:49:25 AM EST

    it is good for what they suggest - preventing someone sending out a million emails in a day (unless they have a horde of computers to calculate the hashes).

    It is no good for preventing a hundred people from SA skewing our voting results. The whole point of it is that it takes a few seconds to generate the hash, which makes mass account creation or mass emailing or mass anything by an individual that much harder. But it doesn't do anything about one hundred different people who all want to register a single account and vote.

    Still cool, though.
    --
    "How can one learn to know oneself? Never by introspection, rather by action. Try to do your duty, and you will know right away what you are like." -- Goethe, Willhelm Meister's Travels.
    [ Parent ]

    Yeah sure.. (none / 0) (#317)
    by Golden Hawk on Tue Aug 12, 2003 at 05:38:44 PM EST

    You're right..  But is that really a problem though?

    People vote for an article if they want to see an article posted..  If someone has to wait 3 minutes and 15 seconds on a pentium 4 to create a new account, I feel they earned the right to vote... wether or not their intentions are honorable, we're a community and we have to respect their opionions on which articles should get posted.
    -- Daniel Benoy
    [ Parent ]

    Are the rest of you SA case studies as well? (none / 1) (#299)
    by Rrotz on Sat Aug 09, 2003 at 03:16:34 AM EST

    My next Sexaholics Anonymous is next Wednesday, I dunno if I can make it....
    Independent Media Magazine www.indiemediamagazine.com Independent Media for Independent Minds
    Simple (4.16 / 6) (#300)
    by enderwiggin99 on Sat Aug 09, 2003 at 06:45:02 AM EST

    Add a 48-hour new account delay. The benefits are two-fold: 1)Discourages garbage accounts created for such situations. 2)Most articles are either forgotten about or never bothered with for voting while the period is in effect. If the issue is major enough, there WILL be diehards that stick it out. The diehards that stick it out, are most likely going to be rational. You eliminate the fanatical mofos who're only driven to be proactive when the task is trivial. These people make up a very large percentage of most movements.

    __Ender__
    Reverse-engineering the Universe from life until Zen.
    Seriously, (2.20 / 10) (#302)
    by Nigga on Sat Aug 09, 2003 at 11:58:35 PM EST

    How the fuck did this shit get to the front page? Fuck... pick any tex bigballs diary at random and that shit is 10 times better than this boring crap that makes no sense... fuck how i wish i could -1 this shit.... I think voting should continue after a story gets posted. Do a recall on this fucker like it ways gray davis.

    --------
    The fuck happened to Nigga?

    A Sad Day For Kuro5hin | 322 comments (310 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!