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]
Why sponsored users won't work.

By Ta bu shi da yu in Op-Ed
Tue May 18, 2004 at 08:57:32 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

No new users have been able to create accounts since the infamous "Photoshop Rusty's wife onto a porn image" incident. I wasn't here for this wonderful little piece of K5 history, but when I did come back imagine my surprise at seeing Rusty's solution!

To put my viewpoint forward quite simply: Rusty's idea of user sponsorship just isn't going to work.


Why won't it work? There are a few reasons, but let's first review what Rusty has in mind:

The idea is this: someone creates a new account. They go through the normal email confirmation. At this point they cannot do anything. Before you have the privileges of a user, you must get an existing user to sponsor you. That just means that some user with the ability to sponsor others goes to a page and enters the new user's nickname. These two are now associated, and if a user gets kicked off the site, their sponsor does too.

Our hypothetical new user, after being sponsored, is now a full user of K5 in all senses but one. They can post comments and diaries, they can submit stories, they can vote and rate comments. The only thing they can't do yet is sponsor other users. The criteria for this are adjustable, but I'm leaning toward a requirement of 60 days of sponsored membership and 40 positively-rated comments before you can sponsor others. Yes, that is a high bar. I think it should be pretty high. Also, you will be restricted to a maximum of something like two users sponsored per week.

I really believe that this is a flawed and unfair system. Here's why:

1. Lack of incentive to join Kuro5hin.

Why would anyone want to join? Firstly they've got to go thorugh the hastle of finding a sponsor. Then, before you become a full user you have to make sure that you post comments where you get rated highly. I just don't see people wanting to come to a website with such restrictions, it's far too much effort.

2. The sponsorship model is inherently flawed against the sponsor.

Rusty has already told us that he "can't stress enough the point that if someone you sponsor does something to get themselves kicked out, you get kicked out too". Excuse me? In other words, you go to the effort of sponsoring someone, they act up and get kicked off and you get kicked out too? What happens if you've had an argument with that person, then that person decides be a prick and starts to really play up with the site - unleashes an unholy crap-flood, trolls and baits members (in a not funny way), widens pages, mod-bombs everyone (not that this is such an issue anymore...), junks up the story queue and fills up the diary page with 15 diaries that consist entirely of spaces and carriage returns. Sure they get kicked - and rightly so! - but then so does the sponsor.

Placing the responsiblity of policing someone else's behaviour is not only stupid and foolhardy, on K5 it's actually impossible. Unless you are an editor, you can't delete an account, remove stories or comments, nullify user accounts or in fact do anything that effectively disciplines a sponsored user. If sponsored users can't be disciplined, then existing users who dare to sponsor a newbie will run the risk of being kicked from K5 for something they didn't do!

Really, this aspect is troubling. I realise that Rusty has had to discipline users in the past by using his good judgement, but when users got privileges taken off them, or they were kicked off the site, it always affected only them. It never effected an innocent third party.

Now effectively how long are you going to be a user's sponsor? Forever? A year? Six months? Three weeks? Two weeks? How long is a current user going to have to keep checking on a user to see if they're playing up? Can you revoke a sponsorship if you don't like the person any more? If so, will they still be able to participate, or will they need another sponsor?

For this last question: If the answer is "Yes", then I'd argue that this is unfair to the sponsored user because then they're beholden to their sponsor and are thus not truly independent on this site. After all, if they got sponsored by someone who doesn't like their viewpoint, then they could have their sponsorship taken away, and this might influence the way they contribute to the site. In this case the balance of power is weighted to highly towards the sponsor.

If the answer to the last question is "No", then what's the point of the sanctions against the sponsor? All that will happen is that new users create an account then existing users sponsor them. Then, the existing users "unsponsor" themselves from that user. In other words, the system then becomes pointless.

You see the problems I'm already finding so far?

3. The sponsorship system will unfairly affect some people.

Let's face it, not everybody who joins Kuro5hin knows someone already on the site. Kuro5hin is fairly cosmopolitan, and many new users who have the potential to contribute greatly to the site have not known anyone at all. Kuro5hin is a community of users, but let's not forget that the reason for this is because of the free flow of ideas between different people. It didn't become a community until people started interacting for it was only after people started having conversations that relationships were formed!

How are those people who have the potential to contribute towards Kuro5hin yet don't have a friend on the site going to get a sponsor? Remember, they can't post to the site until they get a sponsor, and given the sanctions that existing members will face I know I'm definitely not going to sponsor a user who I don't know.

Say for instance Salam Pax, the "Baghdad Blogger" decided he wanted to join the K5 community. Now he's a fairly interesting character, and would I'll bet a few very interesting article on Iraq would be soon on the story queue - obviously he would nicely balance out the views on this site. But who's going to sponsor him? There really is a good chance nobody knows him on this board. It would take a gigantic gamble for someone to sponsor the user.

I'd also like to point out that nobody would have sponsored me on this site (take this as you will). I somehow doubt that MichaelMoore, debacle, Baldrson, jjayson, Egg Troll or drduck would have been sponsored by anyone had they viewed their comment histories. Yet every one of the users I've noted here has contributed something to Kuro5hin - no matter whether you've agreed with them or not!

4. No one has defined what bad behaviour is on this site.

What exactly is the standard that we are going to hold new users to? So far I've not seen any really concrete rules of conduct for this site. Will we get one of these? Do we want one of these???

The need for a definition would not be so important if a user's behaviour only affected their own ability to be a member of Kuro5hin. The need for a defintion is critical if the sponsor will be kicked off the site as well as the user he/she's sponsored!

Now this leads me onto another issue: who's going to be doing the judging of whether a user has committed a K5 "crime"? I know that if I sponsored a user and they started behaving in a way that had the potential to get them kicked I'd want to have a say about their behaviour. If I knew I was going to get kicked off the site also, even though I'd done nothing wrong, I'd most certainly want to defend them! It sounds wrong, but I like this site, so I wouldn't be defending their stupidity because I liked it or approved of it, I'd be doing it for self-preservation reasons alone.

5. Critical flaws in Rusty's plan that make all my previous points moot.

It's not hard to work around the new system. Here's what you do:


  1. An already registered user creates a new account, then sponsors that account.
  2. This new account is used to create a whole set of new dummy dupe accounts.
  3. New accounts are used to cause trouble. Rusty kills the account, along with the accounts sponsor.
  4. Original account is still intact, go back to step 1 and watch as Rusty plays cancel account whack-a-mole and never fixes the problem.

The only way around this problem is to link up those people who sponsor accounts, then link the accounts that this new user sponsors, etc. Then when abuse happens and you need to kill off the accounts you can then kill all users in the chain. Which of course means you lose half of K5. Hey, maybe this isn't such a bad idea! (j/k)

Furthermore, what happens if a user gets canned, and the sponsor also gets canned. What happens to the people the sponsor sponsored as well as the people the misbehaving user sponsored? Do they then become unsponsored (with all the implications that entails), or does their sponsor then become a special "parent" user, much like the Unix way of handling processes? Truly, the whole madcap idea is beginning to unwind...

Let me just finish this off by saying that I understand the motivations behind why Rusty proposed this new sponsorship system. People have come into this free and open environment, which has only the smallest number of restrictions, and have basically tried to pull the system to pieces. Some have done this by prodding at the edges (even some times ago I witnessed rmg's great page widening debacle) or through sheer nastiness (posting Rusty's wife's head on a porn picture is just plain evil). Clearly, those who abuse the system need to be dealt with, and measures must be put into place to try to curtail such abuses on Kuro5hin. It's just I don't think that Rusty's proposed sponsorship model is the solution.

Rusty: sorry mate. Find a better way!

Sponsors

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

Login

Poll
Rusty's sponsorship system is:
o Good, he should implement it. 6%
o Has potential, but needs lots of details ironed out. 16%
o Bad, it should not be implemented. Find another way to stop abuses. 76%

Votes: 152
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o has in mind
o Also by Ta bu shi da yu


Display: Sort:
Why sponsored users won't work. | 237 comments (180 topical, 57 editorial, 1 hidden)
Not to mention, reason # 1, (2.60 / 5) (#2)
by For Whom The Bells Troll on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:15:13 AM EST

no more new advertisers!

---
The Big F Word.
A timely article, +1FP (2.30 / 10) (#3)
by nebbish on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:15:39 AM EST

Though personally I think rusty isn't even going to bother implemeting the sponsership system - it'll stay as it is now until it dies. He can't be bothered.

You might want to look at this diary of Tex's from some time back, which could of course be an elaborate troll, but then again maybe not. Also my take on what went wrong.

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

Tex's diary (none / 2) (#15)
by gazbo on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:16:45 AM EST

Yes, ballot stuffing is mentioned in the patch.  However, ballot stuffing has existed for ages - if you look at the patch (assuming you know how to read them) you'll see that it was already in there before that patch was written.  Even if it weren't, it's not too hard for someone with DB access to run the single UPDATE query required to make it say whatever he wants.

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

Not techy enough to be able to tell :-) (none / 1) (#27)
by nebbish on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:44:53 AM EST

Hence me saying it could be a troll for all I know. I just wanted to bring the possibility to ta bu shi da yu's attention really.

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

It's a good point... (none / 2) (#30)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:55:26 AM EST

... however I actually have enough faith in Rusty to believe that it was other factors that caused the poll results.

I do find it interesting that there is a "vote-stuffing" poll, but I'm willing to believe it's an administrative interface for fixing up stuffed up polls. After all, as gazbo said, it wouldn't be that hard to alter poll manually with a database command anyway.

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

Thanks :-) (none / 2) (#21)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:40:19 AM EST

I don't think that drduck was the cause of the ratings change however. Sure, people complained about him (I complained directly to Rusty at one point also), but if you look at his rating style he was actually always pretty fair.

No, it's other people who mod-bombed that caused the problems. I think abietate did at one point, same with SilentChris. It was those people who forced the change (for better or worse), not drduck.

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

Let's put it this way (none / 0) (#173)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:55:45 PM EST

Look at the poll results for this article (basically the same question), seeing as how rusty is too lazy to even stuff the ballot box anymore.

Even though rusty has always been obscenely lazy and neglectful of the site, it's only very recently that he's finally come clean and totally admitted that he has a "fuck it" attitude.

I think for most of the k-bots on the site, like the author of this article, there is a good deal of refusal to accept the hard, cold truth. The only thing stopping K5 from getting better is rusty's childish pride and stubborness. All he has to do is hand the site over to people who are willing to give a fuck, and the problems will be solved.

But I suppose that means potentially sharing some of the advertising/subscription revenue and with rusty greed is always the first priority. That's why he would rather run the site further into the ground then part with any of his (non) hard earned paypal cash.

[ Parent ]

The author of this article disagrees with you. (none / 2) (#188)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu May 20, 2004 at 04:35:29 AM EST

I doubt I'm not accepting the hard, cold truth of it. I think the hard, cold truth of it is that for the amount of money rusty gets from this site it's probably not worth the crap he gets day in and day out.

Personally I think the problem is with people. Give them something interesting and innovative, then give them free reign on it with little disciplining and they'll enjoy stuffing it up. Hence Kuro5hin.

Anyway, just my $0.02.

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

Oh please (none / 2) (#190)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu May 20, 2004 at 08:41:22 AM EST

Millions of people run community forums and deal with the oh-so-bad crap. If rusty is too thin skinned to grow a pair, then he never should have took the job in the first place.

As long as k-bot apologists keep making excuses for rusty he'll keep pretending that his pussy hurts too bad to fix his own website.

The fact is that he's chronically lazy, pure and simple.

[ Parent ]

Yeah? (none / 1) (#192)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu May 20, 2004 at 09:11:05 AM EST

Well, "millions" of webboard operators haven't been so open as Rusty has been, and most of those operators haven't had to deal with all the crap that goes on on this site.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Don't confuse idealism for neglect (none / 2) (#193)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu May 20, 2004 at 09:30:04 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Simple solution to the signup problem (2.33 / 6) (#5)
by simul on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:32:01 AM EST

Simply allow people to sign up without sponsorship and place their applications in a queue.

Existing members can then vote up or down their application.

Members who vote for someone are considered "sponsors"

The application should ask 3 essay-response questions. Total response length should be limited to 300 words.

We can even *vote on the questions to ask*.

Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks

*splutter* (3.00 / 4) (#7)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:39:27 AM EST

But then we'll never get another circletimessquare!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
To me this is why the whole system is knackered (2.50 / 4) (#13)
by nebbish on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:56:56 AM EST

We need trolls. A certain amount of trolling is good. We need people to disagree with too. Really the only way is responsible and systematic administration, through delegation to site users - see here - and also an acceptance that sometimes things will go wrong.

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

Ah yes... (none / 3) (#16)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:23:09 AM EST

... but then when you apply some much needed discipline, my how the users whinge!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
RULE WITH AN IRON FIST (none / 3) (#23)
by nebbish on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:42:01 AM EST

And they will soon respect you.

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

ohmigosh (none / 1) (#31)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:57:17 AM EST

STALIN IS BACK FROM THE GRAVE!!!!!!!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Explain that. (none / 0) (#68)
by kitten on Tue May 18, 2004 at 03:55:59 PM EST

We need trolls. A certain amount of trolling is good.

Where did you get that idea?
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Trolls (none / 1) (#92)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 06:34:48 PM EST

Trolls tend to lighten up a site (if they're good enough) and stop people from taking themselves too seriously.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
that's not trolling (none / 0) (#159)
by Wah on Wed May 19, 2004 at 11:47:17 AM EST

although some seem to want to try and define it as that.  If someone has an entire account dedicated to trolling, that account should be targeted.

The 'if their good enough' trolls, are just users who occasionally rip on people, the actual trolls are users who do so maliciously.  It's the difference being trolling and being a troll.  

The problem is that when a site grows beyond a certain size, it is impossible to differentiate between the two without some sort of additional assistance.  This is bad, as trolling can be tolerated, but trolls cannot, if you catch the distinction.  And 'tolerated' has levels of distinction, and more gradients are needed than 'free' and 'banned'.

A rap-sheet based on some of the 'time out' critieria mentioned elsewhere, and available on a user's info page, would be useful.
--
Help us cross the digital divide, yo.
[ Parent ]

Sorry, but I disagree. (none / 0) (#187)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu May 20, 2004 at 04:31:50 AM EST

Some accounts are dedicated to trolling, and they're funny for it.

Check out egg troll.

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

yea great stuff.... (none / 0) (#194)
by Wah on Thu May 20, 2004 at 10:15:12 AM EST

...butt then again I haven't been a teenager for years.

Maybe what we really need is a "K5 for Kids" so that those who still find humor in saying the word 'penis' can have a place to hang out and entertain each other.
--
Help us cross the digital divide, yo.
[ Parent ]

OK, so some of it is purile. (none / 0) (#195)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu May 20, 2004 at 10:21:34 AM EST

But plenty of his stuff is extremely funny!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
that's fine (none / 0) (#198)
by Wah on Thu May 20, 2004 at 04:25:35 PM EST

good for him, most of it is not.  In my 'perfect k5', his account would appear purple to me.  Not the 'true blue' of a regular user, or the 'flaming troll red' of a nasty ass troll, but somewhere closer to the middle.  Enough to be harmless and easily ignored.
--
Help us cross the digital divide, yo.
[ Parent ]
Help me bomb google. (2.33 / 15) (#8)
by sllort on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:42:21 AM EST

Right now a Google Search for Total Disaster shows k5's newuser page as the third hit. I'd like to thank everyone who's helped get us this far.

Please, take some time out of your day to link to Total Disaster and get us to #1.

Because I'm feeling lucky!
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

How amusing. (none / 3) (#11)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:48:49 AM EST

Fedora Core 2 is in second spot...

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Yes they were only recently knocked out (none / 3) (#12)
by sllort on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:51:41 AM EST

Though I will gladly hand back the title to the richly deserving Fedora Project if & when k5's disaster is over. For now, though, it belongs pointed here.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
indeed (2.53 / 13) (#14)
by dimaq on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:11:46 AM EST

what k5 needs is a constant stream of new blood - which is impossible with a requirement of prior knowledge

And it is just a childish knee-jerk reaction. (2.46 / 13) (#36)
by cmoyer on Tue May 18, 2004 at 11:21:24 AM EST

That's what is the funniest part of the whole sponsorship proposal.  Someone used photoshop, apparently hitting really close to the bone (perhaps she used to pose nude or whatever the picture showed), and rusty has decided to take his ball (and sponsors money) and go home.

I'd have put it a bit nicer than that (2.57 / 7) (#39)
by nebbish on Tue May 18, 2004 at 11:26:46 AM EST

But you are essentially right. Part of administrating a site like K5 (shit, part of life)is accepting that things will go wrong sometimes and not wrecking everything because of it.

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

His actions (2.25 / 4) (#44)
by Ward57 on Tue May 18, 2004 at 12:21:23 PM EST

seem completely reasonable to me.

[ Parent ]
Hi Rusty (2.14 / 7) (#58)
by Dr Phil on Tue May 18, 2004 at 01:52:50 PM EST

Dupe account #36 added to the list.

*** ATTENTION *** Rusty has disabled my account for anti-Jewish views. What a fucking hypocrite.
[ Parent ]
at least you have to admit (none / 3) (#45)
by phred on Tue May 18, 2004 at 12:21:35 PM EST

rusty's policies _did_ avoid the proverbial "groupthink". I don't think anybody else posted the link, although James kinda sorta did.

[ Parent ]
Actually.. (none / 0) (#133)
by Kwil on Wed May 19, 2004 at 02:27:21 AM EST

..part of administering a site like K5 is that the administrator gets the priviledge of deciding what he or she will accept.

When you consider that an option Rusty didn't take is simply "trippng over the plug", I think you should consider that before dictating what an admin "should" do, you go click on some of those links at the bottom of the page here and roll your own Scoop site for a while.

Heck, then you'll have every right to determine what you as administrator should do, and I'll support your right to make those decisions.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 0) (#141)
by nebbish on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:41:21 AM EST

That's like saying setting your car on fire is car maintenance just because it's your car.

Of course rusty can do what he wants, it's his site, but running it into the ground is not administration.

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

Well.. (none / 0) (#164)
by Kwil on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:54:58 PM EST

..so long as your not endagering anybody by doing so, I really don't see how it's anybody elses right to tell you that you can't set your car on fire if that's what you want to do.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
no (none / 0) (#208)
by Delirium on Fri May 21, 2004 at 03:57:45 PM EST

When you solicit tens of thousands of dollars in donations from people under the pretense of running a site competently and setting up a Collaborative Media Foundation (CMF) to support it, and do none of those things, you are soliciting money under false pretenses.

[ Parent ]
He didn't though. (none / 0) (#209)
by squigly on Fri May 21, 2004 at 04:42:17 PM EST

At least not according to my memory of events.

He solicited tens of thousands to keep this site running.  It was only after the pledge drive that he voluntarily decided to set the place up as a not for profit.

[ Parent ]

it wasn't to keep the site running (none / 0) (#212)
by Delirium on Sat May 22, 2004 at 05:11:52 AM EST

The site was and is hosted on donated servers using rackspace and bandwidth donated by a colocation facility, so costs literally nothing to run. The donations were so rusty could draw a personal salary from kuro5hin that would allow him to work on and improve the site rather than finding other employment, something he failed to do.

[ Parent ]
Old hat. (2.70 / 10) (#41)
by Surial on Tue May 18, 2004 at 12:08:00 PM EST

I've voted this down because all of your points were adressed in the original article. I can see the point (I'd still vote it down anyway, but, I would see the point) if that's all there is to it, but it's much worse: Most of your concerns were answered in the original story posted by Rusty. You didn't rehash any of that.

I guess I will.

1) -I- get kicked if someone I sponsered is an ass?

Yes. But recourse is available. Also, you -CAN- 'police' your own sponsers because you can retract your sponsorship automatically and immediatly. You also get a warning first. Warnings are sent to both sponsor and offender. You can retract your sponsorship after that warning if you like.

2) If you sponsor an account and let that account sponsor somebody else...

Yes, but, Rusty isn't stupid. He can see the 'sponsor' tree same as the moderators. Trends would be pretty obvious. Incidentally, this is the same reason that continually sponsoring new accounts and retracting your sponsorship just in time not to get kicked is eventually doomed to fail. After so many retractions, some mod is going to pull your trusted status, or at least give you a warning to put an end to your track record of retracting your sponsorship after a user you've sponsored becomes an ass - 90%+ of the time.

Heck, such checks can even be made automatically to help the mods.

3) It'll be -really- hard for new people to post!

Actually, there are options to modify the original proposal so it isn't -that- bad for new accounts, but Rusty specifically indicated he thinks K5, at this point, has plenty of members and wants to see what happends with just the sponsorship thing. Now, I can imagine that you don't like this, and I can very much imagine sponsors not liking this, but that's what Rusty wants specifically. The sponsorship system as proposed will do what he wants it to do.

4) We'll have to miss out on all the sport-trolling and other creative uses of extra accounts. (The 'I'm addicted to K5ARP argument). [I know you didn't mention this, but it comes up sometimes.]

That's bull. A currently trusted user can make as many accounts as he wants, personally sponsoring them. They just can't cross the line anymore. I doubt this is a problem. K5's mods and Rusty have proven time and time again that the line is very hard to cross - and that in general, the person behind the account deserves to get kicked off the site.

As far as the great sea of endless anonimity that is the internet is concerned, I find the sponsorship perfect. The only major flaw is new users, but, as I mentioned, solutions can be found - and Rusty doesn't -WANT- to find them at the moment. We could perhaps petition Rusty to change his mind, but perhaps it would help to resubmit this, rehash all arguments including the solutions, and ask K5 about a fairly easy to implement and understand model that does give new accounts a chance to reach trusted status.
--
"is a signature" is a signature.

Tired topic (1.00 / 7) (#43)
by undermyne on Tue May 18, 2004 at 12:13:25 PM EST

rusty doesn't give a shit, it will never change.

"You're an asshole. You are the greatest troll on this site." Some nullo

There is no way to stop all abuse (2.50 / 6) (#46)
by lukme on Tue May 18, 2004 at 12:28:08 PM EST

The sponsership idea clearly won't work, and can be gotten around by the method you describe. In fact all of the methods I have seen described to put a stop to this type of behavior fail, some worse than others. The problems described here are the same that we experience in real life. In real life we either fine individuals or send them to prison. Neither of these notions hold in this type of community, there is no currency nor is there a real prison.

PS: All of this hassel over a picture. Just doesn't seem worthwhile.


-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
it was the tits (1.66 / 6) (#49)
by phred on Tue May 18, 2004 at 12:32:15 PM EST

had the photoshopper gave her a decent pair we wouldn't have the mess we do now, but he gave her a pair of ugly tits.

Thats my theory anyways.

[ Parent ]

*sigh* (none / 2) (#93)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 06:42:01 PM EST

Mate, I would have reacted the same way, had it been my wife in the picture. It's not over-reacting, no sir. Actually I'm surprised Rusty didn't track down the users and sue them for villification!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
in that case (1.25 / 4) (#108)
by reklaw on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:06:40 PM EST

You, sir, are an oversensitive cockmonkey.
-
[ Parent ]
Clearly... (none / 1) (#118)
by zaxus on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:54:16 AM EST

you are not married.

---
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today." - Spider Jerusalem, Transmetropolitan


[ Parent ]
no (none / 0) (#144)
by reklaw on Wed May 19, 2004 at 07:31:39 AM EST

but I'm engaged.

Same thing goes --- someone posting a photoshop of my girlfriend wouldn't make me overreact like that.
-
[ Parent ]

Care to put it to the test? (none / 0) (#146)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed May 19, 2004 at 09:14:46 AM EST

Post a pic of your girlfriend for some troll to use and I'll believe you.

[ Parent ]
now why would I do that (none / 0) (#160)
by reklaw on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:29:37 PM EST

The other reason that I wouldn't overreact is that the situation wouldn't come up -- because I'm not silly enough to put pictures of myself, my family or my girlfriend on the internet.
-
[ Parent ]
Wait until you're *married* before you speak. (none / 1) (#151)
by toulouse on Wed May 19, 2004 at 10:45:19 AM EST

That's the whole point, and the reason I've never criticized rusty for his reaction. Sure; I criticized him like hell over the sponsorship scheme, but not his immediate reaction.

Apparently; the pic was from one of rusty's wedding photographs. It's your fucking wedding day. You know: one of, if not the, most important day(s) of your life. The one you're going to bore the living piss out of all your kids, friends, and relatives about until you die. The one you're supposed to look back fondly upon forever more. What the solipsistic, turdly little sociopath who made the picture did was take an enormous greasy shit in rusty's memory pool: poisoned the whole reminiscence angle. I believe the pic came from one of rusty's friends' sites - which would be doubly fucking annoying if you were rusticles because it's not like it was you who put it 'out there' anyway. His reaction was well within the limits of "fair enough", IMO.

If you want to blame someone for rusty's ennui, blame the photoshopper. If I was rusty, I wouldn't bother either.

Having said that: I do think that having no new users is terrible for the site. I'd much rather have the originally-proposed sponsorship scheme (much as I criticized it) than an outright lock-in.


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


[ Parent ]
I'm not married (none / 1) (#153)
by Cro Magnon on Wed May 19, 2004 at 10:51:14 AM EST

I wouldn't have had any problem with any action Rusty took against the guy that did that, including getting his ass thrown in jail. The problem is, Rusty is penalizing K5 for that person's actions.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree with that [nt] (none / 0) (#155)
by toulouse on Wed May 19, 2004 at 11:11:08 AM EST


--
'My god...it's full of blogs.' - ktakki
--


[ Parent ]
Stuff you need to deal with to accomplish goals (none / 0) (#148)
by lukme on Wed May 19, 2004 at 09:39:15 AM EST

Anytime you push yourself into the pulic spotlight, you have to deal with people pushing your buttons. Lets face it, rock stars, movie stars, politicians all have to deal with the photoshoped tabloid photos. Are we in K5 really any different than the general population?

Perhaps I got this viewpoint from my parents. Both were in realitivily visable jobs as state and county employees. Both at times recieved death threats, as well as my mother recieving a call from the "other" woman. Keep in mind, all of the death threats were reported to the police. Bottom line, there is a proper way to deal with situations.




-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
[ Parent ]
This will kill k5, thats for sure.... (1.92 / 14) (#51)
by thekubrix on Tue May 18, 2004 at 12:55:45 PM EST

This place is turning into a private blog, which is not only gay and stupid, but is indicitive of just how lazy and selfish Rusty truly is.....

He simply doesn't have the time/desire to run this site anymore and not trusting others to delegate powers has crippled this site, and now with this idiotic sponser system it will truly be the end of this site.....

What the godamn fucken hell is wrong with you? Are you afraid of sucess? FEAR OF FAILURE? You're failing right now. Why don't you go take a look at a place I often visit, its called slashdot. They manage to control the trolls and have loads of people. Now look at this place.......its just a matter of till no one even wants to post, much less join.........stop being a lazzy ass and DO SOMETHING. Seriously, how hard is it to delegate responcibility? You obviously aren't doing a godamn thing, or at least not showing us.....

+1 FP +1 FP +1 FP (none / 3) (#59)
by Dr Phil on Tue May 18, 2004 at 02:04:27 PM EST

That's right, +1 FP.

*** ATTENTION *** Rusty has disabled my account for anti-Jewish views. What a fucking hypocrite.
[ Parent ]
Here is what the **TRUE** problem is....... (2.80 / 5) (#53)
by thekubrix on Tue May 18, 2004 at 01:09:43 PM EST

You can make suggestions about how to ideally fix this site's "problems". But what good does that do? Lets assume your idea or anyone elses is found to be ideal and the best solution for this site. Ok. Great. Good job. Good for you. Now what?

Do you HONESTLY think anything is going to change here? When a site gets as big as this WAS, you simply need more management and collaborative efforts. We have seen NOTHING of that. And its not going to change. I've seen this before in companies I've worked for and in the news. For a few, letting go of some power or being told you are wrong, can be so unnerving that absolute destruction is the only route. But to them they don't see it as such. They only see threats from  outsiders that want to take power away from them, not members that want to help the organization. They don't see good ideas, they see conspiracy against what they know as being not only the right way but the ONLY way.

Don't expect anything to change. Its simply not in the heart of this site. A radical change would have to occur, and quite frankly.....the emperor is as naked........

Reenactment of solutions equally likely to appear (2.29 / 24) (#54)
by K5 ASCII reenactment players on Tue May 18, 2004 at 01:12:29 PM EST

              /|  OK, so's us Easter Bunnies can't hack Perl.
       /\    / |  Yous want I should set yous up wids the
      /  \  //||  Tooth Fairy?  Dat mad honey'll cure your
      |/\ \// /   troll problem. To you, man, only $70,000.
        / ~ - \  / 
        | d b  |
       {{{ o }}}
         \ UU / 


I wouldn't have joined under sponsorship (2.88 / 9) (#55)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue May 18, 2004 at 01:22:06 PM EST

I didn't know anyone here when I first joined K5. The reason I first visited is that someone at the other site pointed out K5 had nicer HTML design, so I checked it out and agreed.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gone to the trouble to find a sponsor. I just wouldn't have joined.

As evidence of this, a little while ago I signed up at a site that required a five day waiting period before one could post comments. Although I originally intended to come back after five days, I just never did. I don't even remember the URL now.

I've submitted a number of stories that have been well-received by K5's members. I think that sponsorship would lose us many valuable members in the future, just as it would have lost my membership in the past.

I appreciate Rusty's problem, and I know it's a difficult problem to solve. The problem needs a solution, but I'm pretty sure sponsorship ain't it.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


Ditto for me (none / 2) (#73)
by bmph8ter on Tue May 18, 2004 at 04:18:59 PM EST

It would really be a lot of trouble to register like this. I mean what am I supposed to do, just spam an existing member and hope that they sponsor me? WTF?!

[ Parent ]
A solution is... (none / 1) (#112)
by tftp on Tue May 18, 2004 at 11:23:09 PM EST

to vote on users, not just on their writings. If enough diverse users click on some "go to hell" button, the user will be banned for some time (a week, a month etc.) And it will take some very coordinated effort to use this as an attack against an innocent.

This idea belongs to Stanislaw Lem, of course.

[ Parent ]

Oversimplification. (none / 0) (#132)
by Surial on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:58:00 AM EST

You're forgetting some crucial stuff here.

 1) There are actually enough real trolls, overzealous sport trolls, and just people out to prove a point (one could say that these, too, are trolls, as that's the original noble purpose of the troll as some claim) to get some accounts autobanned. Still, easily solved by merely making it a suggestion to the mods. But that would introduce a fairly large personal twist that might not go over well.

 2) What's to stop somebody from continually making new accounts? As #1 proves, you need a sizable amount of 'ban this account!' clicks before you can take any serious action.

Frankly, I don't know if sponsoring will work, or if ANYTHING will work, but I do know that without fairly significant limits on new accounts, it definitely won't serve any useful purpose.

The sponsoring thing is hard to game, and hard to bypass.

--
"is a signature" is a signature.

[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0) (#158)
by Wah on Wed May 19, 2004 at 11:36:48 AM EST

yes.

the entire problem is the lack of a negative feedback response for negative behaviour.  It takes a near felony (rusty didn't post that pic of his wife, it was taken, or so he says...) to get banned...and there isn't much less of a punishment than that.

When a community grows beyond a certain size, a legitimate and enforced cetral authority of some type is necessary for advancement.  If a site is based on the concept of discussion, rules must be enforced against users for violating that principle.

"Time out" is a good one, as the child-like metaphor holds solid.  A few days, a weeks, a couple weeks.  Some sort of accelerating scale, plus an autogenerated email explaining the 'outage'.
--
Help us cross the digital divide, yo.
[ Parent ]

Why it won't work (1.50 / 4) (#56)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Tue May 18, 2004 at 01:51:13 PM EST

Because he's never even going to implement it.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
On the Other Hand (2.87 / 8) (#63)
by Mysidia on Tue May 18, 2004 at 02:50:39 PM EST

Having sponsorship might be slightly better than not allowing any new users at all. Not much, but by slightly

The point is with new users locked out of discussion, the site is not an open forum anymore, now it will be elitist... just like MetaFilter. So much for the ideals of collaborative media.



Experiment (2.75 / 4) (#121)
by cgenman on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:00:11 AM EST

Which brings us to the crux of the issue.  If this is going to be an experiment, why not experiment?  In the time that we've been left hanging, the system could have been rolled out, checked, abused, and fixed.  Or abandoned.  Or embraced.  Who knows how the population would react.  Obviously we don't, as nobody has tried this noble experiment yet.

Rusty, you claimed you had the switch ready and just needed to throw it.  Throw it and find out what happens.  It's better than just letting things atrophy.

-
- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

+1FP, Rusty bashing (1.07 / 13) (#65)
by mycospunk on Tue May 18, 2004 at 03:24:38 PM EST



Um... (2.40 / 5) (#90)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 05:58:27 PM EST

... if that's what you think, then you've just voted wrongly.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
crap (none / 3) (#67)
by omghax on Tue May 18, 2004 at 03:55:19 PM EST

i voted this +1 FP before I saw that he used the word "cosmopolitan" in the body. if an op could change my vote to -1, it would be appreciated. thanks

I put the "LOL" in phiLOLigcal leadership - vote for OMGHAX for CMF president!
I accidently voted -1, dump (none / 2) (#70)
by phred on Tue May 18, 2004 at 04:00:10 PM EST

if anybody was going to vote -1, could you instead vote +1 fp? Thanks!

[ Parent ]
Why it may not be as bad as you think (3.00 / 4) (#76)
by SocratesGhost on Tue May 18, 2004 at 04:32:36 PM EST

As someone already pointed out, you're only repeating the arguments adressed in Rusty's original post. Cogently written, but ultimately redundant. Depending on the responses, I may be voting this down.

Rusty has always seen K5 as an experiment. In what? In whatever Rusty wants.

My theory right now is that he may be intentionally starving the site so that the complainers grow away and find someplace else to troll. At that point, the site may have the dedicated and the concerned as opposed to today' reckless and disagreeable. After all, since you cannot even sponsor new accounts right now, the destructive accounts have been less active.

Having starved the site enough, he can then implement new users sponsorship with a core set of dedicated users to "seed" the membership ranks. While some trolls will come back, there will be some who stay away forever. At least, that's my theory.

-Soc
I drank what?


Letting the bad users disappear (none / 2) (#119)
by cgenman on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:56:26 AM EST

The problem is that if you abandon a site, you leave only the "Hardcore" users, which may include some very eloquent speakers, but also includes the kids who only want to be disruptive and the people who aren't savvy enough to find an actually active discussion.

It's like the old Dilbert comic.  

"Our company isn't right-sizing.  It's bright-sizing.  That's where all the bright people leave."  
"Ha Ha Ha."
"Hey, we all brought bananas again today."

-
- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

It could go either way (none / 0) (#167)
by SocratesGhost on Wed May 19, 2004 at 04:07:24 PM EST

If you already know the results, you don't need to run the experiment, do you?

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
that's not what he claimed (none / 0) (#207)
by Delirium on Fri May 21, 2004 at 03:56:11 PM EST

Rusty did not claim this site as an experiment, and did not solicit tens of thousands of dollars in donations under the guise of a personal experiment. If that's what it actually was, I would like my money back, and I'm sure some others would as well.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (2.66 / 9) (#80)
by ZorbaTHut on Tue May 18, 2004 at 04:37:03 PM EST

(This comment was originally posted as a reply to this one, but I decided I wanted it to be topical, so I'm reposting it here.)

As much as I feel you might be trolling here, I agree. I used to be behind Rusty - I mean, he had a good site, he had to be doing *something* right. Now, though . . . there's no feedback, there's no information about what he's doing, there's nothing but the occasional arbitrary unexplained judgement. He asks questions and doesn't listen to the responses, he breaks promises (where's our monthly update, rusty? could it be you're not going to do it? if not, why not *admit it*?), and all evidence shows that while he'll make grand proclamations, he won't actually implement anything.

I'm fine with democracy and open decisions. This isn't that - we don't hear anything about the decisions, and much of the site is closed. (For example, banned users, with reasons.)

I'm fine with a dictatorship - but Rusty doesn't do enough work for a dictatorship to function.

I don't know what this is we have right now, but it clearly isn't working, and I doubt it's going to be changed anytime soon. (Rusty, if you think I'm wrong, go ahead and reply to this. Let's have a statement about what you're working on and when it'll be done, and let's see you stick to it.)

To be honest, this whole thing's reminding me a lot of John Romero.

the oldest child theory... (none / 0) (#106)
by kpaul on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:58:02 PM EST

parents are real strict with their first kid (website) but with the second (DKos?) and other children, they're less restrictive.

i don't know - that just kinda popped in my mind.

i don't find myself on k5 as much anymore either to be honest. i do miss it, though.


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]

+1,FP (1.44 / 9) (#94)
by Hide The Hamster on Tue May 18, 2004 at 07:00:33 PM EST

Yet another piece in a particular chronicle of "why democracy doesn't work". Cheers!


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

This has been said before (none / 3) (#98)
by esrever on Tue May 18, 2004 at 08:54:47 PM EST

And done to death.  Several of the points you raise have already been anticipated by Rusty and already made moot by various comments he has made, including your last one.

I agree with you that user sponsorship isn't the answer, but we didn't need yet another article pointing it out and rehashing the same old arguments, sorry, -1  :-(

Audit NTFS permissions on Windows

s'ok (none / 2) (#100)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:02:04 PM EST

Many of my points haven't been answered however. Apparently there will be a new system that fixes many of the issues detailed, but unfortuneately many will remain.

I hadn't been here in a little while (having only come back from time to time to read new stories), but I figured a summary of what I don't think works is in order. I've sectioned it as Op-Ed because it's my opinion, and evidently many people agree with me because it's on the front page.

It looks like people still care about this site, and don't mind me rehashing a few of the old arguments against the sponsorship system.

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

A summary of what I don't think??? (none / 1) (#103)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:14:39 PM EST

Where did that come from? Dangnabbit!

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Rusty hasn't answered those issues adequately [nt] (none / 0) (#115)
by Mysidia on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:28:06 AM EST



[ Parent ]
bah (1.14 / 7) (#99)
by the77x42 on Tue May 18, 2004 at 08:56:01 PM EST

the whole reason this site isn't working is because you are all british!


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

enough time (none / 3) (#101)
by vqp on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:03:45 PM EST

has passed since the proposition, do whatever you want Rusty. We can even sacrifice some goat if that please you.
Do *something* to allow new blood enter this site. We are in need of kuroteenagers.

happiness = d(Reality - Expectations) / dt

FRESH FISH! FRESH FISH! FRESH FISH! -nt (none / 0) (#111)
by Kasreyn on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:46:26 PM EST

nt
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
duh (none / 2) (#104)
by reklaw on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:54:08 PM EST

Welcome to two months ago.
-
Indeed. (none / 2) (#109)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:17:59 PM EST

Two months has passed and still a new system hasn't been put into place. Instead K5 is left with this vague idea that we'll be "sponsoring" users sometime soon.

Heck, I know I won't be sponsoring anyone! I have no intention of risking my membership due to the actions of some other user.

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

hah. (none / 3) (#105)
by kpaul on Tue May 18, 2004 at 09:55:53 PM EST

you come and the next day get a FP ;)

i haven't even been able to get a measly MLP thrown into section for months ;)


2014 Halloween Costumes

Hey :-) (none / 1) (#107)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:04:29 PM EST

Cheer up, I'll more than likely give you a +1/+1FP if you post a story: I like your writing style.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
oh it's (none / 3) (#110)
by myrspace on Tue May 18, 2004 at 10:22:03 PM EST

just a matter of time, just a matter of time...

An alternative solution (none / 2) (#113)
by gusnz on Tue May 18, 2004 at 11:31:20 PM EST

I believe that with this whole sponsorship-of-new-accounts idea, we're barking up the slightly wrong tree.

As many users have already pointed out, this will likely greatly reduce the amount of new people arriving at K5 (from historical levels, of course). However, instead of sponsoring new accounts, why not sponsor rating privileges?

Here's how it'll work. New accounts sign up normally. They can post comments. However, they cannot moderate; either that, or they can moderate, but only grant ratings from 1 to 3, or similar.

Next, decree a bunch of trusted users. These may be all existing active accounts, or a select few accounts that are known and trusted by the administrators. These accounts are granted full moderation privileges (rating from -1 to 3) and so can rapidly hide new troll comments.

Bring in sponsorship at this point. These trusted accounts can sponsor other accounts under the rules proposed by Rusty, with the only change being that rating ability instead of commenting ability is granted to the new users. Of course administrators can revoke these privileges from specific accounts in case of blatant abuse, identically to the normal proposed scheme.

The benefit of this is that you don't totally firewall the site; new users have an impetus to sign up and contribute comments and stories. Users would rather risk temporarily losing rating privileges than their entire accounts, and would be morelikely to sponsor new accounts. Yes, this select-raters scheme is remniscent of The Other Site's approach to moderation, but then again given the troll problem Over There, we could perhaps learn something...? And if the idea failed, you could always rapidly convert over to the sponsored-commenting approach using the same sponsorship tree, as the code would be pretty much identical (I assume).

Ideas, flames and modifications to this idea are welcome...


[ JavaScript / DHTML menu, popup tooltip, scrollbar scripts... ]

Well (none / 1) (#114)
by Mysidia on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:23:46 AM EST

Being able to -1'ing comments wouldn't help against things like diary entry abuse...

And abuse of the edit queue.. which trolls could still do from multiple accounts with impunity, I guess...



-Mysidia the insane @k5
[ Parent ]
Yes, you'd still have edit queue abuse... (none / 1) (#124)
by gusnz on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:20:30 AM EST

...but that's rarely cited as an example of the "problems" that K5 suffers -- in some ways the occasional controversial article is a good thing. Most get voted down as-is. You could always extend my scheme to allow/disallow article voting privileges, if it became too much of an issue.

Diary abuse is another problem. Yes, it's a pain, but perhaps some "vote to hide this diary from the front page" feature would be a better way of solving that. Diary-writing could always be another granted privilege to trusted users, too. I still feel that we should allow new accounts to signup and comment, if nothing else...


[ JavaScript / DHTML menu, popup tooltip, scrollbar scripts... ]

[ Parent ]

have you ever considered (none / 1) (#116)
by crazycanuck on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:46:01 AM EST

that this is exactly what rusty wants?

when's the last time rusty was seen around here?

There would be an easier way... (none / 1) (#127)
by D Jade on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:29:44 AM EST

Like say, shutting down the site altogether.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Listen (1.28 / 21) (#117)
by smg on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:48:42 AM EST

Like it or not, this sponsorship thing is the only way rusty will ever allow new members to K5. After persistently emailing him about this, he finally replied to me about a week ago. Apparently he is purposefully letting things quiet down until the end of the coming summer.

He will introduce the sponsorship thing after summer, but he's definitely not going to go back to open membership. Here's the email I got:

From: "Rusty Foster" <rusty@kuro5hin.org>
To: REDACTED
Subject: Re: New Membership

Steve Harris wrote:
> I'm not complaining or anything, but I think it's in
> everyone's interest if you at least explain what is happening with
> regards to membership - is it ever going to be opened again, and will
> the sponsorship system be implemented?

Ok, I might as well answer this.

Membership will definitely be closed over the coming summer at least.
Summer has never been the best time of the year for K5, so it's no
huge loss. And the longer membership is left closed, the more
certain disruptive trolls lose interest in the site.

When and if K5's membership is re-opened, I will follow the plan for
managed growth that I outlined in the March site news. K5 will never go
back to fully open membership. Sorry, that's just the way it is, and
I'm not willing to debate this issue.

Of course, I think people are greatly exaggerating the problem.
Remember there are 50,000 existing members in the database. Most people
who wanted a K5 account already have one.

That should answer your questions

-- R
--
Rusty Foster : rusty@kuro5hin.org : http://www.kuro5hin.org

<SNIP>

That's all I know.

Well, that's dumb. (none / 2) (#120)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:59:12 AM EST

But it is his site, and I'm still free to disagree with him.

By the way, I'd just like to take this moment to point out that if some stupid morons hadn't pushed him to this point, Rusty never ever would have had to have implemented such a policy.

Basically this just proves to me that people are essentially stupid. They get given heaps of freedom and then they abuse it, leaving things shit for everyone else.

I hope the trolls are happy now. They've done what they set out to do: cause Rusty to snap and wreck K5.

And I can't believe I'm saying this.

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

Interview from 2002 (3.00 / 4) (#129)
by cgenman on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:36:52 AM EST

An interesting read from Dot Com Scoop, 2002.

--

K5 is several different things, I think, that all have a common thread running through them. The common thread is "community."... It's not very obvious to an anonymous reader, but the new user would quickly discover story voting, and realize that behind the scenes, the stories are written and chosen entirely by people just like themselves. There isn't a core group of people controlling what is published and what isn't -- it's all done by any user who wants to have a hand in it.

...

I adhere firmly to the perl Virtue of Laziness, and the less I have to do myself, the better. So anyone can submit a story, anyone can vote for stories, and their votes directly decide what happens to a submission. Anyone can comment, and anyone can rate any comment to try to come to some kind of overall "quality" ordering. Because of the way it works, there really is no one at the helm, unlike Slashdot. It goes where people collectively want it to go, which will never please everyone, but by definition will please the majority of people most of the time.

...

DCS: And finally, in a word, describe what K5 will be in 2005.

Rusty Foster: Stable.

-

- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

Liar (2.75 / 8) (#125)
by rusty on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:25:01 AM EST

I didn't write that.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Thanks for clearing that up. (none / 2) (#130)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:45:36 AM EST

I guess I'd like to ask if you really are going to go ahead with your plans for user sponsorship?

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Oops, sorry (1.12 / 8) (#143)
by smg on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:52:13 AM EST

I forgot I was supposed to keep it on the QT.

Please zero the original post everyone, thanks.

[ Parent ]

Actions speak louder than emails (none / 1) (#191)
by jrincayc on Thu May 20, 2004 at 09:10:14 AM EST

I believe that you did not write that email, but as someone lacking the ability to see inside your head, it seems like that is what you think.

If that is not what you think and are planning, then please tell us.

Rusty, Thank you for creating this great site. I have enjoyed visiting it for years, and do not wish to see it die. I would prefer sponsored users over no new users, if that is the only choice you see fit to give out.



[ Parent ]
Since you're obviously reading (3.00 / 6) (#203)
by arafel on Fri May 21, 2004 at 10:29:55 AM EST

And you didn't write that, could you take 5 minutes to explain to everyone just what you are going to do? That would seem the best way to end all the speculation, anyway.
Paul
[ Parent ]
Managed growth? (none / 1) (#126)
by D Jade on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:25:08 AM EST

Personally, if I had to have gone through a sponsorship process when I signed up to this site, I wouldn't have bothered.

I'm not really a big contributor, and most of the time I usually make a fool out of myself. But at least I can contribute and say what I like. Although, I wouldn't go to all of the effort to get sponsored just to have a say.



You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
My view. (1.20 / 5) (#122)
by pwhysall on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:07:31 AM EST

I have a simple solution to the problem of new user signups: open them. Now.

I'm an adherent to the "iron fist in a velvet glove" school of website management[0]. It's really simple: be a dipshit[3], get deleted. Other than that, be happy and post your stuff[2].

[0] I'm just an editor; I can't do anything but edit stories. I have no admin rights[1].
[1] ...yet. Muahahaha. Etc.
[2] Well, I'd delete the diary section en masse if it were down to me, but apparently I'm in the minority on this one.
[3] At this point I should point out that there are plenty of other websites that will accommodate dipshittiness if your dipshit-quotient proves too great for K5.
[4] I love footnotes, me.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown

"at this point I should point out" (none / 0) (#123)
by pwhysall on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:08:16 AM EST

Ugh. Drink more coffee next time.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]
The problem with your post (none / 0) (#174)
by Orion Blastar on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:56:11 PM EST

is who decides if someone is being a dipshit or not?

It is all, after all, relative to the observer.

Some things are obvious dipshit material. Crapflooding, posting photoshoped pictures of Rusty's wife, flaming someone, spamming, etc.

But suppose someone made a political statement that the person who decides who is a dipshit or not, does not agree with? "Oh this person supports Bush and the war in Iraq; therefore, he must be a dipshit!" Thus the person who chose the wrong side of a political debate loses their account. Or perhaps they posted to promote their favorite computer platform "You know, I do not have that kind of problem with my Mac." and the person who decides who is a dipshit or not decides this person is a dipshit for choosing a Mac? Until the person making the decision is only left with people who think just like they do on K5, virtually banning or censoring everyone that doesn't think the same way they do.

Yeah plenty of other websites that will accommodate dipshittiness. Define dipshittiness and maybe I can find out if that statement is true or not. Most web sites do clearly post the rules of conduct, unlike K5 and other web sites I care not to mention that either don't post the rules, have unwritten rules, or have very vauge or unclear rules.

For those that are true dipshits, I advise you to:

#1 start up your own web site.

#2 Download and install a blogging, forum, scoop engine, whatever to express your views in.

#3 If you violate the TOS of your ISP that provides the hosting and bandwidth, well sucks to be you. ;)

If you encounter #3, consider making changes to your online personality to avoid being enough of a dipshit to get into trouble.

In an unrelated incident, I did make my own forum, on my own web server, but I am not going to post the address here. People smart enough to know where to look can find it. Dipshits will be dealt with, and we do have a bad word filter that will make flamelords look rather silly. ;)
*** Anonymized by intolerant editors at K5 and also IWETHEY who are biased against the mentally ill ***
[ Parent ]

I've always hated those filters. (none / 0) (#210)
by parliboy on Fri May 21, 2004 at 06:20:43 PM EST

Moderated a small game show board running Yabb a few years ago. We couldn't discuss Pyramid with the filter turned on, because it would cause us to refer to the original host as "Thingy Clark". God, I hated that thing.

----------
Eat at the Dissonance Diner.
[ Parent ]

LoL (none / 0) (#232)
by Cro Magnon on Mon May 24, 2004 at 11:49:47 AM EST

On one website, I couldn't talk about my wristwatch! It also thought I was being racist when I talked about rich tycoons. For awhile, I went out of my way to include those words in conversasion just to show up how stupid the filter was.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
maybe it's time for rusty to nominate mods (2.71 / 7) (#128)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:30:43 AM EST

in the past i have done nothing but defend rusty from the endless whining about kuro5hin

but this whole no new user thing is indefensible

ok, some trolls pissed him off with photoshop, but he really has to get some thicker skin, because closing new membership on the site is an overreaction to that insult... i don't in any way want to minimize the insult that was inflicted on rusty by that troll, but i do want to insist to rusty that his reaction to the insult is overinflated

maybe the community he started is getting bigger than rusty... would rusty consider selling this site?

is there a way a bunch of us can pool some cash and buy it from him?

or maybe he can open up admin and policing and decision-making and future site design to some supertrustworthy users?

cripes, all of his problems can be solved by just bitchslapping some accounts into limbo... so they grow back like weeds, bitchslap them into limbo again... it's called being a webmaster for a reason... you need to be master of the house, and it is not a job that can be automated or neglected

i mean really, all of the problems rusty has with kuro5hin can be solved with some simple ip banning... or if the troll is that special combination of teenaged fucktwit and technical astute, well then, we have a case of permanent war and bannination going on against such an ubermensch... well bring it on fucktwit teenager, we have more than enough interested users here on kuro5hin to keep the parapets permanently staffed at a ratio of 10-1 against teenaged fucktwits

and really, thats the whole point: rusty, you've created a wonderful site, you have a ton of interested and dedicated users interested in the health of the site, it is time to pierce that veil and put the site in the hands of some supertrustworthy users, unmotivated by ideology or personal vendetta, to skim the bottom of the muck bucket and slice off the balls of the really, really asocial sociopaths here on kuro5hin

pierce the veil rusty, put to work and harness what you have created: dedicated, intelligent, impartial users who would be happy to play moderator and bitchslap the really scummy characters here into void

i mean really, for those scum where ip banning wouldn't work: how many l33t psychopathic trolls on kuro5hin that can run around ip banning can there be out there really? a handful? it would be a trivial daily or weekly exercise to purge their endless new accounts, that about 100 qualified individuals here would happily volunteer for


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

Very well said [nt] (none / 1) (#139)
by nebbish on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:24:30 AM EST


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

i realized a problem though (none / 3) (#140)
by circletimessquare on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:31:07 AM EST

most people have accounts with isps that dynamically allocate ip addresses

ip bannination would never work

additionally, a number of users in the same company sitting behind the same firewall might suffer for the sins of one... depending upon how ip addresses visible on the intarweb works for them

i'm a retard


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

[ Parent ]

Simpler Solution (none / 0) (#131)
by bugmaster on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:48:45 AM EST

Actually, I think Rusty has already implemented a much simpler and effective solution. He simply shut down the "new account" functionality, then turned around and went off to do whatever it is that he now does. This way, k5 is guaranteed to die a gradual, natural death sometime in the near future. No fuss, no muss, no trolls. Well, also no k5, but I don't think Rusty cares at this point -- and neither does anyone else, really.
>|<*:=
Better system (none / 0) (#134)
by Highlander on Wed May 19, 2004 at 02:28:27 AM EST

See for A bit better system

Also, there should be a way for sponsors to atone for a bad score, they should not be kicked off immediately.

Moderation in moderation is a good thing.

Top 1. Reason why it won't work. (3.00 / 6) (#135)
by enterfornone on Wed May 19, 2004 at 03:33:08 AM EST

The fact that we still haven't seen it implemented yet. This fact, along with the fact that there is currently no way for new users to join at all, is not only stopping new users joining, but driving away current users and more importantly advertisers. How many non-google ads have you seen lately?

I'd like to give Rusty the benifit of the doubt that it will work, but if he waits too long before implementing it there won't be much point, the damage will have been done.

Anyway a better system than sponsership would be a system of probation, where you can create an account, post for a certain period and based on your ratings are either accepted or kicked.

Another idea perhaps would be to vote up new users like stories are voted up.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.

who cares (none / 3) (#136)
by the77x42 on Wed May 19, 2004 at 04:23:15 AM EST

the site is dying. it's because of the new stupid rating system. i used to like to post intelligible comments to see how high my ratings could get. i liked being able to see the hidden comments. now i log in to see if i can search.

this is what should happen:

  1. the site goes back to the way it was two years ago
  2. rusty doesn't take internet geeks so seriously



"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

Tinfoil Hat (2.30 / 13) (#137)
by The Central Committee on Wed May 19, 2004 at 04:49:35 AM EST

Has anyone else noticed that both Metafilter and Kuro5hin have both closed to new membership and that Rusty and the creator of Metafilter are supposedly working on some new collaborative media project?

I think its plausible that Rusty engineered the whole incident to give him an excuse to slowly kill off Kuro5hin so the new mega K5-MeFi website will become popular.

You personaly are the reason I cannot believe in a compassionate god, a creature of ineffable itelligence would surely know better than to let someone like you exist. - dorc

You, sir, get a 3 (none / 2) (#138)
by nebbish on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:21:12 AM EST

Just for the title of your comment

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

I wish we had some information (3.00 / 4) (#145)
by squigly on Wed May 19, 2004 at 09:02:56 AM EST

Clearly, rusty is either:
  • Busily working on a new system to allow new members.
  • Totally jaded with the site, and ignoring it.
  • Busy, and not able to fil us in on progress
  • Unable to allow new members for some other reason.
  • Unwilling to allow new members for some other reason.
The thing is, it would be nice if we could be told.  Otherwise, all we can do is sit here and speciulate on why rusty is apparently killing K5.  At the moment, we're likely to come to fairly negative conclusions.

Dude! (none / 1) (#147)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed May 19, 2004 at 09:19:03 AM EST

You just covered everything that Rusty could be doing...

On slashdot you'd be given a +1 Informative for this.

Warning: I got bitten by slashdot, so I'm now officially going to bag it. It won't do anything, but it'll feel good!

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

Hmmmm.... (none / 1) (#161)
by squigly on Wed May 19, 2004 at 12:37:50 PM EST

On slashdot you'd be given a +1 Informative for this.

Well, I realise it was a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but that's no reason for this sort of insult.

[ Parent ]

On slashdot.. (none / 0) (#172)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:43:39 PM EST

... this isn't an insult. Says heaps for slashdot, huh?

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Don;t take me too seriously (none / 0) (#176)
by squigly on Wed May 19, 2004 at 06:44:25 PM EST

Just an observation that many Slashdot moderators seem to lack information to know what's informative.

Perhaps I should have added a smily

[ Parent ]

Welcome :-) (none / 0) (#183)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu May 20, 2004 at 04:14:12 AM EST

Please, join the ranks of people who dislike the influence that slashdot has on the general tech public.

But just to show you how much I agree with you, here's an example of the general cluelessness of slashdot moderators. Check out the responses and gauge whether it's informative or not.

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

What if (none / 0) (#157)
by Sesquipundalian on Wed May 19, 2004 at 11:27:48 AM EST

he's actually on a secret mission helping George Bush's megaclone army camped out on Mars.

I mean, did it ever occur to you that he might be busy?


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
[ Parent ]
Who cares? (none / 3) (#149)
by theR on Wed May 19, 2004 at 09:40:37 AM EST

Anyone who cares what happens with new membership is an idiot, because this site has been dead for a while. Almost no good articles, trolls that suck, comments that suck, and a site owner that doesn't care and has more important things to do than tend kuro5hin. Hell, I barely can get motivated enough to post this comment.

By the way, you don't have to be a member of kuro5hin to photoshop a picture of rusty's wife, so what the fuck is he accomplishing by limiting or ending new account creation?



You care. (none / 1) (#154)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed May 19, 2004 at 11:08:48 AM EST

You still post here, right?

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
validates Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution (none / 1) (#150)
by demi on Wed May 19, 2004 at 10:43:52 AM EST

In an undeveloped state such as that on kuro5hin.org, the rise of a petty bourgeois democracy cannot be carried out by the bourgeoisie itself; only through a movement of the proletariat, inspired by the socialist perspective, can social unity and democratic revolution be realized.

I like the article, but you're wrong. (none / 1) (#152)
by sllort on Wed May 19, 2004 at 10:50:42 AM EST

  1. An already registered user creates a new account, then sponsors that account.
  2. This new account is used to create a whole set of new dummy dupe accounts.
  3. New accounts are used to cause trouble. Rusty kills the account, along with the accounts sponsor.
  4. Original account is still intact, go back to step 1 and watch as Rusty plays cancel account whack-a-mole and never fixes the problem.

You didn't read the original article, thereby omitting step 5, and you didn't read between the lines, thereby omitting step 6:

  1. Root (godfather) parent of any offending account gets wiped off the earth.
  2. Any other root-level accounts that Rusty knows are owned by the same person get wiped off the earth.
You need to read the one about the lobster.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
You know, (none / 1) (#156)
by Sesquipundalian on Wed May 19, 2004 at 11:24:18 AM EST

If Rusty really wanted to shut down the site, photoshopping a picture of his wife would be the perfect excuse.

I mean what, people have been making insulting compo-photos of people since about five minutes after the camera was invented, so what gives? This site has been up since '99 and nobody thought of photoshopping an insulting picture before? Do you people really believe that?

If he actually posted the picture himself, does anyone want to get a class action suit going over the $70K he took last year? Used as an excuse for quitting, it seems like an actionable fraud to me.

Ahhh, who am I kidding? It'd never work! He's probably used some of the money to get hisself a fancy new lawyer to go with his new job.


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
gullibility (none / 1) (#171)
by Norwegian Blue on Wed May 19, 2004 at 05:23:53 PM EST

Are you contrasting the conservative variety of gullibility to the liberal variety? People who run a site even remotely like this one really aren't spending their time cooking up clever rip-offs. I think you're displaying a nasty type of naivity.

[ Parent ]
Best solution to collaborative news sites (none / 0) (#162)
by rho on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:17:36 PM EST

Don't use them.

No, really--it's the difference between a newspaper and some guy with a mimeograph machine. The easier it is to express yourself, the larger the number of jackholes you're going to see take advantage. While you may not like the slant of your local newspaper, it is somewhat more difficult to get ink on the op-ed page; therefore, the quality of the ink that you do get tends to be higher. Because a live human controls what gets printed, he can slant the news, certainly, but he can also mold the paper so it attracts a certain kind of audience. Which may include jackholes, but can also be a very literate, discerning audience.

I say give sponsorship a try. It may work, it may not. When you're running a free mimeograph machine, it behooves you to make it harder for loons to operate, so every wild-eyed idea is worth trying. Yet, for all the great ideas, Slashdot and K5 still don't produce any real content themselves--they just congregate it.

(Oh, I know that K5 does have articles that are home-grown. But they're automatically considered amateurish pap, or parrotted groupthink, unless they have prolific links to "real" sources to back them up. I wouldn't accept a K5 story at face value, and neither does the rest of the world.)
"The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw

This isnt a news site<nt> (none / 2) (#163)
by GenerationY on Wed May 19, 2004 at 01:27:47 PM EST



[ Parent ]
You forgot your apostrophe in "isn't" (none / 2) (#166)
by rho on Wed May 19, 2004 at 03:51:12 PM EST

Golly, there goes your entire argument! Man, sucks to be you. What's funnier is somebody 3'd you.

That thing that just passed overhead? Yeah, that was the point. Too bad you missed it, it was a good one.
"The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw
[ Parent ]

Toys. Pram. Waah (none / 1) (#169)
by GenerationY on Wed May 19, 2004 at 04:49:42 PM EST

Chill out. This isn't a news site. It says at the top of the page "Technology and culture from the trenches" not "News for nerds, stuff that matters".

You point was factually incorrect and your analogy mistaken.

In particular:

Slashdot and K5 still don't produce any real content themselves--they just congregate it.

Slashdot by definition works that way. If you were genuinely expecting it to produce its own content then the jokes on you. K5 does produce its own content, bar MLPs which are a special case. Some articles here will be topical, but not all of it by any means. After all, sometimes what is in the news is interesting. Sometimes someone will write about an idea they've had or an event in their own lives and that is interesting. This is the normal way conversation goes in most groups isn't it? Some stuff topical, some in jokes, etc. Take a look at Porco Rosso's 'humble chicken' article. No news there. No "congregate"ing going on there. A few external references, but all factual media require that.

If you can't be bothered to look at the site itself and the articles it contains for more than five minutes, can I suggest that reading the FAQ can be a short-cut to knowledge?:

Kuro5hin.org is a collaborative site about technology and culture, both separately and in their interactions.
Kuro5hin.org is a community of people who like to think. This is a site for people who want to discuss the world they live in. It's a site for people who are on the ground in the modern world, and who sometimes look around and wonder what they have wrought.
It's also a site for people who need a laugh now and then.

You seem to need a laugh more than most. Have a beer and relax. You either got it wrong or perhaps its just a troll that missed the mark. It happens. No big deal.

[ Parent ]

I was hoping (none / 0) (#225)
by rho on Sat May 22, 2004 at 02:50:55 PM EST

I was hoping that by now you had read all the way to the end of my comment. Down at the bottom, where I said, "Oh, I know that K5 has homegrown articles..."

K5 isn't a news site, its content is just largely driven by the news--certainly the front page is. By similar argument to your own, Slashdot is not a news site, since it has (used to have?) articles by Jon Katz and book reviews.

Yeah, I know--we're now into a syntactical argument of surpassing dullness involving edge cases and generalizations. Congratulations--you started it, asshole.

Whether K5 is a "news" site, or not, is largely irrelevant. The fact that it's collaborative and driven by amateurs with too much time on their hands (let's face it--if your opinions were worth paying for, you wouldn't be posting them on K5 for free) means that a great deal of crap will float the odd gem or two. The whole comment focused on the difference between an editor shaping the argument and groupthink. You could have addressed that issue. You could have argued that newspapers weren't any better. You could have questioned the value of pre-sifted opinions. You could have picked one of a hundred topical, on-point or interesting issues to raise in disagreement. Instead, you decided to be a language-lawyer. That doesn't make you right. It makes you an insufferable cock. And wrong, to boot. Way to go, bet Mom's real proud.
"The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw
[ Parent ]

Yawn (none / 0) (#227)
by GenerationY on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:54:39 PM EST

Don't be an idiot. When you are in a hole, stop digging. I didn't argue anything, I posted a one liner. You then turned grammar nazi to hide your embarassment because you are so full of pride. You are flip-flopping now because you didn't like the fact I further illuminated the the dank, stagnant depths of your ignorance.

I've published both articles and books in good old dead tree format and edited/refereed many more. You are talking crap because you know nothing about how it works. There is no debate to be had because editorial decisions in the "real world" are just as much a product of group think as they are here (there are layers of referees, copy editors, commissioning editors, advertising boards, etc.). Thats why I didn't fancy making any of the arguments you seem to be expecting. The only deviation from this is specifically in the news media proper because of time constraints (hence duty editors). That is why it matters whether you are discussing news media or not. I'd have thought that was obvious really, but there, I've spelt it out for you.

Whoever has a gun to your head and is threatening to pull the trigger if you don't keep embarassing yourself should be ashamed of themselves. Be a man and take your hands away from the keyboard.

And no, being dull does not automatically make anyone wrong. Please enage your brain before replying further.

[ Parent ]

OK, that was stupid. (none / 1) (#186)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu May 20, 2004 at 04:28:10 AM EST

I mean, apart from the fact you're totally wrong, that also wasn't funny.

Better luck next time I suppose.

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

Quality... (none / 2) (#179)
by Dwonis on Wed May 19, 2004 at 09:34:27 PM EST

While you may not like the slant of your local newspaper, it is somewhat more difficult to get ink on the op-ed page; therefore, the quality of the ink that you do get tends to be higher.

I'd say that the ink that you get is more consistent than high.

[ Parent ]

Adequacy had the right idea. (3.00 / 7) (#165)
by Phillip Asheo on Wed May 19, 2004 at 03:02:15 PM EST

And to an extent, something similar is working at Husi.

It relies on taking the fun out of trolling.

All Rusty needs to do is instigate a 'strict no-trolling policy' like adequacy's, and appoint a selection of well-educated editors who have the power to delete trolls.

Problem solved.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long

What about satire? (2.40 / 5) (#168)
by ambisinistral on Wed May 19, 2004 at 04:30:52 PM EST

The problem is that lampoonery is a valid method of criticism. You end up with humourless people squashing debate because they don't like the style. Then, squashing debate because you don't like the substance isn't far behind.

[ Parent ]
Its like pornography (none / 1) (#170)
by Phillip Asheo on Wed May 19, 2004 at 04:50:56 PM EST

Its hard to define a troll, but most people know one when they see it. Once boudaries are set, they start to become respected, and a community standard it set.

Adequacy may well have deleted a few comments that were not intentionally trolls, but it served a greater purpose of ensuring troll-free discourse. A noble objective I'm sure you'll agree. I guess I just don't care if one or two people's opinions don't get heard, because if a well-educated editor thought they were trolling, then they probably were.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

One man's trash is another man's treasure. (none / 2) (#177)
by ambisinistral on Wed May 19, 2004 at 08:00:41 PM EST

I don't think it is at all noble to silence people because they "might" be a troll in ONE person's opinion. That is sanitizing conversation. That leads to quelling differing opinions.

As long as somebody isn't flooding, let the individual readers decide if they should ignore a poster. I think in a conversational media like this, one meant to encourage the exchange of differing viewpoints, it is better to get a little chaff than to miss some wheat.



[ Parent ]
"Troll" seems to be more subjective (none / 0) (#180)
by Dwonis on Wed May 19, 2004 at 09:36:48 PM EST

Its hard to define a troll, but most people know one when they see it.

Care to provide some evidence? I think our experience with Slashdot moderation suggests otherwise.

[ Parent ]

Slashdot trolling is dead. (none / 0) (#181)
by Phillip Asheo on Wed May 19, 2004 at 10:00:12 PM EST

Moderation works. If you read with a sensible threshold, slashdot it virtually troll-free.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Let me give you an example of moderator abuse. (none / 0) (#216)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:35:06 AM EST

-1: Troll

This was an accident, I posted to the wrong story. Pretty silly mistake to make, but it certainly wasn't an attempt at making a troll.  

Here's my response when I discovered my mistake:
-1: Offtopic

I tried to email them about this, but I never got a response and they never fixed it. Now I can only post at -1.

Slashdot moderation works? Like hell it does!

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

If your dumb ass.. (none / 1) (#221)
by undermyne on Sat May 22, 2004 at 11:50:51 AM EST

is stuck with a -1, it fucking works like a charm.

"You're an asshole. You are the greatest troll on this site." Some nullo

[ Parent ]
Brilliant! (none / 1) (#224)
by undermyne on Sat May 22, 2004 at 02:15:22 PM EST

Its the antitroll. Rate everything 3 to ward off the "stupid fuck" spirits that had gathered due to your copious 0'ing of my comments.

I can go along with that.

"You're an asshole. You are the greatest troll on this site." Some nullo

[ Parent ]
Copious 0-ing. (none / 0) (#229)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sun May 23, 2004 at 04:18:13 AM EST

Pot, kettle, black, and anyway, I zeroed two of your comments because you called me a "fag".

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Er, I wasnt being sarcastic... (none / 0) (#230)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sun May 23, 2004 at 07:42:51 AM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
wtf??? (none / 0) (#231)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sun May 23, 2004 at 07:53:54 AM EST

I didn't reply to this comment! Wierd.

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Satire? Trolling? (none / 1) (#185)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu May 20, 2004 at 04:26:14 AM EST

Maybe some trolling is satire, but most is just to get a rise out of people for no reason at all. You see, while satire is designed to get a rise out of people, it does so to show the person that the view they hold or the action they undertake is either morally wrong, unthinking, or selfish.

Senseless trolling to get a rise out of people is what's the problem, not satire.

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

I agree, but... (none / 1) (#196)
by ambisinistral on Thu May 20, 2004 at 12:17:52 PM EST

Well aimed satire frequently will get a rise out of the target of the satire. Now, if the target of the satire happens to be a moderator's views... ehhh, there's the crux of the problem.

Troll is a hugely overused word on these forums IMHO. Can anybody say they haven't read a post they considered pretty good, only to see somebody come along and accuse it of being trollish? Just look at moderating systems. What percentage of moderations are just two groups of people moderating each other up and down based on agreeing or disagreeing with the other posters views?

Constraining speech is virtually impossible to do without drifting into censorship and groupthink.



[ Parent ]
I'm not sure (none / 1) (#189)
by izogi on Thu May 20, 2004 at 04:36:51 AM EST

All Rusty needs to do is instigate a 'strict no-trolling policy' like adequacy's, and appoint a selection of well-educated editors who have the power to delete trolls.

I didn't have much firsthand experience with the Adequacy moderators since at best I only read stories on the site from time to time. My impression with this policy, though, is that it would only serve to encourage the trolls to try and invent new and better ways to beat the system.

It would work if the moderators were superb at what they do, but there will always be technical ways around good intentions and I'm sure this would help to encourage it. It's only moving the playing field for trolls.


- izogi


[ Parent ]
Making the best of it (none / 1) (#175)
by coljac on Wed May 19, 2004 at 06:35:13 PM EST

Since we don't have a choice, we may as well look on the bright side and make the best of it. I'm sure there are still enough people left to continue a lively debate, and at least now the number of die-hard idiots should exponentially decay.

No doubt the infusion of "new blood" will be slow, but on the other hand we can get to know each other better. :) Perhaps after all exclusivity will have its advantages.

Is there anyone else out there who feels the same way?
--

---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey

Trolls caused this. (2.66 / 6) (#182)
by arcade on Thu May 20, 2004 at 12:29:21 AM EST

From the comments already posted it's quite obvious to me why Rusty does what he does. He's tired of the idiot trolls. He's disappointed that people actually mod trolls up. This site is swarming with trolls, people that mod trolls up, and so forth.

NEWSFLASH! It's not funny. It's this kind of behavior that makes people give up. It's this kind of behavior that kills the joy in making a site. If anyone should be blamed for rusty's disappearance, it's the damn trolls, and the fsckheads that mods them up because they are "funny"

And what exactly did the idiot who made the rustina picture think? That it was "funny"? What kind of moron was he? And what about the fsckheads that actually link to it in this article? Does anyone think that motivates rusty to reopen the site, or to close it down?



I couldn't agree with you more. (nt) (none / 0) (#184)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu May 20, 2004 at 04:15:15 AM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Actually (none / 3) (#201)
by smg on Fri May 21, 2004 at 12:05:56 AM EST

the whole thing is really fucking funny if you think about it.

[ Parent ]
actually, Rusty caused it (none / 2) (#206)
by Delirium on Fri May 21, 2004 at 03:54:27 PM EST

Rusty's been milking his site for profit for years now under false pretenses. He solicited donations and textads under the pretense of starting a Collaborative Media Foundation (CMF) and avoiding "real ads", but there is no CMF, and we now have Google ad-bars. Sites can't run on autopilot, and as he's done nothing significant on the site in nearly two years, of course it went to shit and got overrun by trolls. Even the legitimate users don't care about it anymore.

[ Parent ]
Bullshit from A to Z. (none / 3) (#219)
by arcade on Sat May 22, 2004 at 10:52:46 AM EST

Your subject: "Rusty caused it"

This is nothing but pure bullshit. Is Rusty the troll? No, he is the victim of trolls.

Rusty's been milking his site for profit for years now under false pretenses

Oh, you think so? How much work do you think goes into the site? I'll tell you what, even when not implementing new features, I know (from running a BBS in the good old days) that running a site is massive amounts of work. You need to watch out for abusive users, spam, users joining an mass with multiple accounts, and so fucking forth. This takes up hours each and every fucking day.

Now, lets see, how much do you think the textads has earned him? I'll tell you what - I'll pull a number out of the air and bet that it's less than $2 per hour of work he has put into the site. You call this MILKING the site for profit?

Sites can't run on autopilot, and as he's done nothing significant on the site in nearly two years, of course it went to shit and got overrun by trolls

No, sites can't run on autopilot, but no site is immune to immature 14 year old pricks. Look at what happened to Usenet - it's overrun by trolls. Look at what happened to e-mail - it's overrun by spammers. Look at what happened to webforums - spammers spam them, and trolls abuse them. Look at what happened to slashdot - hundreds of trolls per story.

On one hand, you do NOT want censorship. On the other hand, idiots (like YOU!) roam free and abuse your "power" of free speech. It's pathetic, and you're nothing but a troll and a fucking moron.

*/RANT*

[ Parent ]
he doesn't work on the site though (none / 1) (#222)
by Delirium on Sat May 22, 2004 at 01:58:28 PM EST

You need to watch out for abusive users, spam, users joining an mass with multiple accounts, and so fucking forth. This takes up hours each and every fucking day.

The point is that rusty doesn't do this. He did at one time, but for the past year or two he's essentially let the site run on auto-pilot, on rare occasion coming in and implementing some hare-brained scheme in an hour or two of work. The site was pretty good until he basically abandoned it.

He also hasn't contributed code in nearly two years—all the recent features were coded by other people, who unlike rusty did not get paid (panner did a good number of them).

[ Parent ]

also (none / 0) (#223)
by Delirium on Sat May 22, 2004 at 01:59:17 PM EST

He gave figures in the range of $40,000 for the first round of donation-raising, which is a pretty damn respectable salary.

[ Parent ]
Discourse is dead (3.00 / 4) (#197)
by Disgruntled Citizen on Thu May 20, 2004 at 12:58:45 PM EST

Discourse is difficult enough to find on the Internet. One reason for this is that like-minded people tend to flock to the same place. If you make it so that only the friends of current members can become registered users, you're going to lose the possibility of disagreement. What's the point of constant agreement? It causes stagnation. You need new points of view to keep things even remotely lively. Our beliefs can only change when presented with well thought out, and new arguments.


"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." --Attorney General John Ashcroft
application queue (none / 0) (#205)
by simul on Fri May 21, 2004 at 01:34:25 PM EST

that's why i proposed an "application queue"... where anyone can sign up... and their essay-style application goes into a queue.

why won't everyone just approve everyone?

you are gambling on them if you vote for them, because your reputiation rides on their performance.

Read this book - first 24 pages are free to browse - it rocks
[ Parent ]

Knee-jerk reactions != good (none / 2) (#199)
by jabon on Thu May 20, 2004 at 05:01:01 PM EST

While well thought out and with justifiable reasons, this is a strong *emotional* reaction to a problem requireing sound technical solutions. Cutting people off initially was probably the only option, but the grand majority of people on k5 do not know each other, and certainly could not vouch for their integrity. Any time where social behaivors need to be regulated by the rule of law, on any scale, you must have an objective standard by which to judge or the system relies on the false assumption that human nature is inherantly good and will prevail. It's nice to think that people will be responsible, especially when someone else is on the line for their actions, but its a pipe dream born of cinemas and fantasy novels.

What you need to do is involve the law somehow. I realize it may be costly to involve lawyers, but I don't think that's an important part of the equation just yet. Users should have their identity on record, and not just submitted data, they need to provide proof of identity with whatever means the internet has these days (read: fake bank deposits with verified amounts, passport data, etc) obviously with the highest security one can muster. Once you know who they are, you bind them to the agreement of decency and such, and violations come back to smack them 'in real life' with a fine. I know there are laws for these things, probably not requireing lawsuits, just think how many traffic tickets go unchallenged. Sponsering is just fatally flawed, I won't ever vouch for someone unless I know them 'irl' first, and this is contrary to one of the functions of this community. I know suggestions of fundamental shift are annoying as hell frustrating, but hammering away at a system that just won't work is going to cause you more grief without achieving the growth *and* moderation you seek.

umm bad (none / 1) (#202)
by oohp on Fri May 21, 2004 at 07:36:13 AM EST

This is pretty silly. Actually, I think people here will get pissed with this and start an alternate kuro5hin or equivalent. Maybe Rusty doesn't care but it's his problem.

It's called Hulver's site (none / 1) (#204)
by pin0cchio on Fri May 21, 2004 at 12:09:12 PM EST

You may be alluding to the creation of Monkeyfilter when Metafilter closed new user signups.

So if you get frustrated with K5, there's always Alterna-K5.


lj65
[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0) (#235)
by phred on Tue May 25, 2004 at 08:57:08 AM EST

Husi is a tightly run ship and with the addition of "the hole", theres a designed destination for craziness and mayhem as well. Sure some folks get marginalized but these are the folks who might not fare well in a generally moderated system anyways.

Husi got the casual chatters who didn't want to put up with the constant assault of some folks at k5.

[ Parent ]

Sponsorship isn't a flawed model (none / 2) (#211)
by redwolfb14 on Sat May 22, 2004 at 02:48:05 AM EST

The sponsorship model isn't flawed and it has worked in other communities. I think it's an excellent idea and will help to remove trolls. As i'm no longer a regular reader of K5; primarily because of the trolls and what I feel to be a majority trolling population, this idea is welcome. Sometime ago I played with the idea in my mind of a system to prevent trolling. Not against users with just different or biased opinions but people bitch slapping others with 1's purely based on their bias and general troll like behavior. The conclusion was that people will be stupid if they can't be held accountable for their actions. The only way to hold them responsible for their actions is to remove moderator privileges and/or to ban them. What it really boils down to is netiquette or a modicum of respect for an idea, person or belief which isn't inline with your own. This requires a level of maturity most people can't seem to have on their own when they aren't within the bounds of accountability. This sadly grows into nothing more than troll against troll; and eventual destruction of any sort of civilized behavior which seems to be happening considering the comments.

The best thing is to overhaul the system which is what this plan seems to do. The arguments in this article are valid but they just point out what we already know and they also don't provide any answers to the actual problem as you've mentioned. When you take a look at the options; this will restore a balance that is needed for the site to continue in any sort of fashion at all.

As a social project one could look at K5 as earth and the users are the human beings. The only problem is that these human beings are hostile towards one another and biased against each other; sometimes for no reason at all. They bicker and they fight, rape, pillage and eventually they go to war until it reaches a level where someone with the power to do so IE, the gov't in this case or god if you're religious says "WTF". These are the new rules, let's have some order here.

I challenge you to find a better way that will foster intelligent communication rather than useless ignorant trolling and articles that describe a problem I'm sure Rusty has played over in his head many a time. Especially considering it's gotten to the point where people are attacking his wife in demeaning manners. If it was your code, project, something you put alot of time and effort into; to have it turn around and demean the woman you love is hurtful. Thick skin or not, it's not something that any man would or should accept.

So more solutions, more intelligent ideas, more respect and less of the rest.
Say what you want because I already have.

I can't help thinking (none / 1) (#213)
by GenerationY on Sat May 22, 2004 at 06:44:46 AM EST

the best way to increase the signal to noise ratio is just to increase the signal. There will always be residual noise right?

As i'm no longer a regular reader of K5; primarily because of the trolls and what I feel to be a majority trolling population, this idea is welcome

Less lurk. More post. Decisions are made and communities are changed by those who go to the trouble of turning up. Kuro5hin, if it evolves at all, must surely evolve to suit its userbase. I'm not entirely sure that people who don't read it can or should be included in the decision making process. I'm not trying to disenfranchise you or anything, but you must recognise some truth in what I am saying? Indeed, as a proponent of sponsorship you must be in favour of this elitist approach (perhaps paradoxically). It is an irony that, in effect, you would have this the new Adequacy if indeed (1) sponsorship came in and (2) trolls are the majority population, it is an inevitable result.

I respectfully submit that sponsorship is flawed, you've just failed to spot the internal contradictions.

[ Parent ]

Less lurk: most post... (none / 0) (#214)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:19:03 AM EST

... good idea. Except for the fact that you get flamed by juveniles every time you post, so why bother?

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
Three things (none / 1) (#215)
by GenerationY on Sat May 22, 2004 at 08:46:53 AM EST

First, I don't get flamed or trolled every time I post. When it happens I either ignore or deliberately decide to fight back which can be quite therapeutic. You have to expect these things in any public forum. My experience of local politics was far more bruising than anything you'll see here.

Second, its up to us. We can rate, we can comment. If we can't be bothered in case someone offends our paper-thin sensibilities, then the inevitable will follow and we only have ourselves to blame. I find it ironic people criticise Rusty for abandoning K5 whilst they have done the same thing themselves. Personally I've never subscribed to the argument that Rusty should fix all our ills (indeed theres a degree to which I would say he shouldn't meddle in them) primarily because he can't.

Third, as I've said before my suggestion is to put everything back as it was pre-DrDuck, make TU harder to get with only other TU votes counting and get some extra admins (like HuSi have recently).

I think its axiomatic that a community problem requires a community solution, and if none is forthcoming then it is a community failure. Give us the tools Rusty and we'll give it a try.

[ Parent ]

I agree with you. (none / 1) (#217)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:38:04 AM EST

Things were better when we had Trusted Users. We could actually fix up the bad trolls, and - surprise, surprise! - we had sanctions in the form of hidden comments that actually worked.

Sure it was controversial, but not as bad as it is now.

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

This is the problem (none / 2) (#220)
by redwolfb14 on Sat May 22, 2004 at 11:02:47 AM EST

First, I don't get flamed or trolled every time I post. When it happens I either ignore or deliberately decide to fight back which can be quite therapeutic. You have to expect these things in any public forum. My experience of local politics was far more bruising than anything you'll see here.

Ignoring it is fine until you become a target of group trolling. Fighting back is stooping to the level of a troll. It's exactly what they want. Name a public forum that doesn't have rules or guidelines. If anything K5 was an experiment that pure chaos can't work in human social structures because the human nature in and of itself is destructive. Why that is can be left up to discussion. It's upon us as human beings to force ourselves to follow social constructs. To realize that we all are human beings that have different taste, ideas and feelings on every topic. The few people who understood this the best and came to this realization have been assisinated by this same destructive behavior of humans. Now, that, is irony at its finest.

Second, its up to us. We can rate, we can comment. If we can't be bothered in case someone offends our paper-thin sensibilities, then the inevitable will follow and we only have ourselves to blame. I find it ironic people criticise Rusty for abandoning K5 whilst they have done the same thing themselves. Personally I've never subscribed to the argument that Rusty should fix all our ills (indeed theres a degree to which I would say he shouldn't meddle in them) primarily because he can't.

I don't think most peopole who read or even currently read K5 have paper thin sensibilities; not even in the slightest. People have abandoned K5 because there are no guidelines and no sensible discussion that will not spiral down into a flameflest. There have been alot of decent discussions i've been able to participate here in at K5, even with some who strongly disagree with me and those who have a different view point but it's the trolls, the people who don't have any sensibility that decide on how things will go. They abuse the Trusted User guidelines and bitch slap people with 1's. Since there is no retribution or righting of a wrong people eventually get fed up. So two people who disagreed on a topic BOTH leave because of the trolls. Instead of insightful or positive discussion, you're left with trolls; who don't post, who don't submit articles, who don't really do much of anything but whine, bitch and moan. Which is what I think K5 has generally become.

Third, as I've said before my suggestion is to put everything back as it was pre-DrDuck, make TU harder to get with only other TU votes counting and get some extra admins (like HuSi have recently).

I personally believe it's too late for this, at least it's a suggestion.

I think its axiomatic that a community problem requires a community solution, and if none is forthcoming then it is a community failure. Give us the tools Rusty and we'll give it a try.

It's not a community failure if a community doesn't exist. All communes are bound by rules; K5 currently isn't. Even if it were to acquire rules now it doesn't have a community strong enough to sustain it. You're free to disagree but I just don't see where progress will be made until user sponsorship. I think it's an excellent idea for K5 and will breathe new life, new people, more ideas, better discussion and less trolls into the site. If you don't like the idea you are free to no longer participate as I've chosen to do so with the current model.
Say what you want because I already have.
[ Parent ]

Yes but look (none / 0) (#228)
by GenerationY on Sat May 22, 2004 at 09:58:40 PM EST

all that being true, sponsorship won't improve the situation. No-one (see site news thread, I don't think I saw a single person who wasn't being tongue in cheek about it) will sponsor anyone else. There will be no new blood.

My suggestion is to open membership and just firm up the previously existing rules. More admins are needed and they should have the power to remove TU status (required for -1 and diary posting in this version) and delete accounts in the case of obvious assholedom. Easy.

[ Parent ]

What you are saying is (none / 0) (#218)
by redwolfb14 on Sat May 22, 2004 at 10:31:50 AM EST

More signal. Where are you to get this 'signal" from? The signal has long been drowned out by trolls. Decisions are made in communities where there are rules and accountability to follow. When you have none of those then you essentially have troll chaos which has been proven by k5.

I'm not entirely sure that people who don't read it can or should be included in the decision making process. I'm not trying to disenfranchise you or anything, but you must recognise some truth in what I am saying? Indeed, as a proponent of sponsorship you must be in favour of this elitist approach (perhaps paradoxically)

This is far from elitist. It's pure community, right now the community has no say in what goes on really. If you're only answer is to increase signal it's really not a logical one because there are simply more trolls than signal. So the only signal that gets heard is their own. In a later post of yours which is a reply to a user below you say that you yourself even participate in what people generally call flame wars as it relieves some sort of tension you seem to have at times. Alot of us normally refer to this tension relief as trolling.

It is an irony that, in effect, you would have this the new Adequacy if indeed (1) sponsorship came in and (2) trolls are the majority population, it is an inevitable result.

Trolls are already a majority of the population, when they can be held accountable they can be easily weeded out. Again; in a later post to a user below you speak of DrDuck; since i've been a user here and you are free to read/search my comments on DrDuck, Godel and Trusted User Privileges and see some of the ideas that I originally thought would work for K5. Infact, I'll do you one better. Here are some useful threads.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/17/54643/3555
http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/1/3/16339/29782/235#235

Here is a choice quote;
The other solution is to simply have a couple of people keep a keen eye. A user like drduck shouldn't exist and when found out; should be deleted immediately. This would set a precedence that if you want to be apart of the community, if you want privileged user status, you have to participate.

NFW had some excellent ideas as well. Which even now can probably still be tried in some form or fashion but would involve writing code. At one point in time I would of wrote this code happily, but as you can see, I think the site is most likely far past the point of attempting such a design. Only to have it cause problems and essentially backfire in the long run and esentially returning to where we are now. The problem is simply that to invest such an amount of time and effort, one would have to care enough and I don't anymore. I'm sure Rusty would rather be doing something else and the actual community who cared at one point; don't anymore. There is nothing here to care for really. When users have something to care for again such an approach can be tried if problems arise. By sponsoring someone you, as a user, now have vested interest and a stake in the community; this is good all around it means you can be held accountable for your actions. Even if it's your peers telling you to refrain from acting like a dumbass; or relieving tension in what you feel to be a justifiable argument. There is a point where if you aren't leading your argument anywhere and two people just disagree on a topic it makes little sense in constantly flaming each other. Agree, to respectfully disagree and move on.

I respectfully submit that sponsorship is flawed, you've just failed to spot the internal contradictions.

Yet you haven't given one single reason as to why the model is flawed, a solution or a general idea in the way of progress. Except to rehash, something, in this instance that I already have an idea about. Some examples of online communities where interaction is sponsored is Orkut. In that instance it makes the community exclusive to the people who are invited, and holds them accountable by the people they are associated with. So if they act like trolls it's reflective upon their associations; etc etc.

So please, more ideas, more solutions. Move forward, but if you're gonna respond with sponsorship is a flawed model and not really give any ideas or solutions you're are aren't helping anything.
 
Say what you want because I already have.
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#226)
by GenerationY on Sat May 22, 2004 at 07:19:10 PM EST

Look, I make suggestions directly in my follow-up comment that you responded to first. Don't play games.

Thanks accusing me of trolling. Sometimes I like a robust argument with people who show a similar prediliction. Nobody, but you, calls this trolling. "Flame wars"...please. You have built all this "trolling" and "flaming" into something its not. You don't work for Wired magazine do you?

I can't be bothered we a point by point rebuttal, but I think you significantly over-estimate the problem. My point was that this hysteria and exaggeration is most of the problem. If the site is beyond saving then I have no idea what point you are trying to prove here anyway.

[ Parent ]

Advogato trust metric (none / 0) (#233)
by danny on Mon May 24, 2004 at 09:54:27 PM EST

What about using something like the Advogato trust metric?

That allows users to certify others, but doesn't allow a small number of rogue users to compromise the overall system. I'm not sure exactly how this would be connected to creation of new accounts, though. Maybe only allow trusted users to sponsor new users - but without negative consequences if they later misbehave.

Danny.
[900 book reviews and other stuff]
[ Parent ]

Lack of content, too much bullshiat (none / 0) (#234)
by mcrbids on Tue May 25, 2004 at 02:39:37 AM EST

K5 is boring. Not enough articles, and what articles there are seem to be 50% K5 politics.

I don't want to spent insane amounts of time listenting to inane chatter. I come to K5 1x per week, if that. I hit slashdot daily because there's something new there.

I can click a link and see how my articles have been received.

Sponsorship? What kind of crap is that?

Come one, guys. You have some decent site here, you can do wonderful things with it. Yet, it seems to me that too much effort is spent on "how" rather than "what"....
I kept looking around for somebody to solve the problem. Then I realized... I am somebody! -Anonymouse

Livejournal (none / 0) (#236)
by limekiller on Fri May 28, 2004 at 01:47:04 AM EST

I'm not a regular reader of K5 and I'm not a Livejournal user (I know a few people with them), but I'd like to point out that until somewhat recently (3-6 months?) Livejournal required that you be sponsored by another Livejournal user.  I don't know why they stopped but it might be because it didn't work.  

At the very least Rusty might want to contact them to find out why they ditched the idea.  Maybe it had run it's course, who knows.  My gut tells me that people just found someone to do the verification and it stopped very little "cruft."  But checking won't kill anyone.

Regards,
Jason

Received an email from a guy called Ben (none / 0) (#237)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Sat May 29, 2004 at 08:56:57 AM EST

It reads:

/random email from stranger in hope it will get posted

I'd have something to say about newuser signups, but I can't sign up.

It's amusing to watch all the existing users argue about it though. And by
amusing I mean frustrating.

I haven't got a clue who anyone on K5 is, or even if any of my friends are
users, so this sponsorship dealie is a waste of time. It's a shame K5 will
wither and die.

Forgive the random approach, but I hate being muted.

/ben

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

Why sponsored users won't work. | 237 comments (180 topical, 57 editorial, 1 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!