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]
User Sponsorship and Managed Growth

By rusty in Site News
Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:19:47 AM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

Anyone who's been around here for a while probably knows I have a very long fuse. I really don't get upset by much, and I've always allowed a lot more silly shit to go on here than most people would. It should be no surprise though that everyone has a limit, and a few former posters here finally hit mine on Sunday.


Since there's already been a lot of confusion about it, what happened was that some people posted links to a porn image with my wife's face photoshopped in. Objectively, it was a rather good photoshop job. Nevertheless, that particular clique earned themselves immediate lifetime bans. I know some of you know where the pictures are. If you'd like your accounts erased as well, please post links to them below. I'm sure someone will test me on this. I'm not kidding. There was also some related stuff with comments designed to crash browsers and so forth. Apparently, all the assholes went nuts at the same time.

Following that was a joyous day of playing whack-a-mole, watching the new accounts get created and removing them. It got boring real fast. Finally, mainly because I had work to finish, I just shut off new user accounts altogether to think about it.

And then one of our Scoop servers was broken into and basically trashed by a rootkit. I don't think it had anything to do with events on the site itself, but the timing sure was bad. The box is back up, and should be back to serving this weekend. We seem to be doing fine on one for now. But that's another story altogether.

I don't think we have a huge problem here. There's almost always been a few annoying people with enough free time to piss off everyone else. The names change a little but the song remains the same. If there was some way to keep it from becoming another game for multiple accounts, I would love to have user voting on whether another user could stay or not. However, that would require some kind of hard proof of identity, and I'm just not prepared to deal with that hassle, nor do I think most of you would accept it for the fairly limited benefits of just having an account here.

So the question is, how do we make it more difficult for obnoxious people to disrupt the site, without barring the gates altogether? And from a wider view, how can a large community like this continue to grow in an organic way? I think part of the initial success of the site was due to the word-of-mouth nature of who showed up to use it. Now that half of our pages are result number one for some google search or another, it seems like a lot of that person-to-person growth, and the sense of community that comes with it, has been lost.

I'd like to propose a strategy for this with four parts. The overall ideas behind it are first, to create more of a barrier to entry and thereby make losing accounts more of a hardship, and second, to recognize that some administrative oversight of who stays and who goes is necessary, while making it as accountable as we can to the wishes of other members (without, hopefully, turning it into a game itself).

Part I: Sponsorship

The first part of the plan involves new accounts. I don't mean sponsorship as in advertising, I mean sponsorship as in vouching for another prospective user.

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.

Also, you can revoke your sponsorship of a user at any time, if you think they're being obnoxious or you no longer trust them. A user whose sponsorship is revoked will go back to unsponsored status, and will not be able to post unless and until they find another sponsor. If the user is re-sponsored, they start from scratch as far as the requirements for sponsoring someone else are concerned.

Sponsorship and the associated delays that go with it, are intended to limit the growth of the site to a rate that allows new users to get used to the place and its culture (and vice versa), and to make it difficult enough to get an account that jerks, spammers, and fly-bys will go elsewhere.

I can't stress enough the point that if someone you sponsor does something to get themselves kicked out, you get kicked out too. This will be made abundantly clear on the sponsorship page. Further, it's not hard to analyze the chains of sponsorship and identify an account that has an unusually high rate of users kicked out downstream. The obvious game against this is to create a drawerful of sock puppet accounts that take the heat when one gets banned and keep your real account protected. It will be easy to identify the root accounts of any users persistent enough to try to game this thing repeatedly.

The sponsorship system is ready to go right now. I held off posting this until I knew that I could roll out the biggest part of it more or less immediately, and get membership back open, to the extent that it will be open from now on. I will await your comments and suggestions, and turn it on when I feel like you guys have had a chance to react. For current users, you are all fully sponsored and have your sponsorship date set to your account's creation date, so you may sponsor others provided you meet the 60 days and 40 comments criteria.

But I don't think this change alone addresses all that we need. Implied in the sponsorship plan is the admission that sometimes people do have to be kicked out. As I said above, I don't trust a voting system with no hard identity backing it up to handle that, so there has to be administrative judgement involved. The following ideas incorporate that fact and try to bring it more up to par with the democratic goals of the site.

Part II: Better Guidelines

The appropriate use guidelines we have now pretty much suck. I hate writing down rules for a thing like this site, because they're always going to be vague, and even vague rules will invite the classic legalistic troll ("The rules don't say anything about..."). But it seems like there will always be a few people who don't realize that harassing another user is not ok, so we might as well write it down.

The basic points I have in mind so far for appropriate use guidelines boil down to:

  • Be respectful of others
  • Technical abuse is grounds for banning (intentional page widening/lengthening, posts designed to crash someone's browser, attempts to crash the site or interfere with other people's use of it, etc)
  • Crapflooding, or posting repeated offtopic spew is grounds for banning
  • Threats against or harassment of another user is grounds for banning
  • Modstorming is grounds for banning
  • All decisions are made by admins and are final, and you can be kicked out for any reason whatsoever. Whining about something not being explicit in the rules is not a defense.
Hopefully you guys can help me whip this into something that spells out the basics of how to behave like a human online. One point I would like to include in there somewhere is that it's not a human right to not be trolled. If you want to be pissed off by something, you will surely find a way, and no website admin can protect you from that. The point is not to make K5 happy-play-land, but merely to prevent it from being a forum for harassment. People with stupid opinions, whether real (Baldrson) or pretend (John Asscroft), are not inherently unwelcome, provided they play by the basic rules of social interaction. "I think you're wrong, because numerous studies have shown that black people are less intelligent and more athletic than white people," is a dumb opinion, but does not inherently violate the site's rules. "You stupid nigger fag" does. That's the difference I'm trying to get at here.

Part III: Warnings

While it's been my experience that 99% of users who lose accounts know exactly what they're doing wrong already, and are doing it on purpose, it may possibly be that a few don't. Also, with sponsorship, one person's obnoxious behavior can affect someone else, who may be innocent of it. So I want to implement a warning system, so people will know when they've gone too far.

It's pretty simple. An admin will be able to go to a user's info page and fill in a text box explaining what that person did wrong. This warning is sent to the user's real email address, the sponsor's real email address, and will also show up in a big red-bordered box at the top of every K5 page the warned users view until they click a button confirming that they have seen it. Site policy will be that you get one warning. The second one is when you and your sponsor get the boot. Hopefully the sponsor system will also encourage people who sponsored friends that get a warning to have a little chat with their friend about what you do and don't do here. That's likely to do more good than I ever could.

This is policy, and not software-enforced, so the admins have the option to issue more than one warning or no warnings at all, and may do so in cases that seem to warrant it. But policy is one. More or fewer than that will probably be rare.

Part IV: Feedback From You

I often don't know whether someone is really annoying the hell out of everyone, or whether it's just a couple of people overreacting while everyone else finds it funny. So I'd like to provide a simple way for you to report if you think someone did something obnoxious enough to warrant a warning or to be shown the door. If you go to someone's user page, there will be a textbox similar to our admin warning one, where you can describe what you're complaining about and report that user. It will make it much easier for us to identify who is a problem and who is just goofing around. It ain't democracy, but at least it provides a clear channel for you to tell us what you think about someone. It should be obvious that reporting people in order to annoy admins is itself a great way to get yourself noticed and warned.

Implementation

This turns out to be not all that hard to implement, at least in its basic form. I will roll out the sponsorship piece as soon as I feel like I haven't overlooked anything major, and the rest of the changes will follow. So please help me craft the appropriate use policy, and let me hear your thoughts below.

I will post another site news when whatever turns out to be the full plan is done. From experience, I expect that a bunch of comments below will ask the same questions and/or bring up the same points. I'll respond to as much as I can here, but if there are things that a lot of people seem to want to know, I'll talk about them in the next site news. Meanwhile, please, please read the comments below before you post. There's a good chance someone's already asked the question you were going to ask. Try to find out if it's already been answered.

And finally, since I know it will come up, the negative aspects described in this post from Everything In Moderation express very well how I feel about killfiles. I'm not going to add them here, and the arguments have all been had many times. So feel free to argue about them yet again if you must, but they're not ever going to happen here. For those of you who have suggested them (over and over) I would encourage you to bend your energy and creativity toward coming up with something new, rather than pushing for the same old mistake.

Sponsors

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

Login

Poll
Sponsorship is
o a good idea 37%
o a bad idea 45%
o don't know yet 16%

Votes: 483
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Scoop
o Google
o this post from Everything In Moderation
o Also by rusty


Display: Sort:
User Sponsorship and Managed Growth | 1020 comments (1020 topical, editorial, 6 hidden)
FRIST PSOT! (1.01 / 59) (#1)
by noogie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:33:44 AM EST




*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
YOU WIN IT! (2.00 / 7) (#192)
by gazbo on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:00:12 PM EST


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

[ Parent ]

Whack a mole indeed.... (2.43 / 16) (#2)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:35:39 AM EST

I'm not particularly familiar with the intricate workings of the kuro5hin gestalt; but every thread I've read on this subject makes the claim that the so-called "ringleaders" were not banned and still have accounts.

Let's assume for teh sake of argument that this is true. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that they are, now that the gates are open, strategising what proxies to line up to what new accounts and figuring out the chain of sponsorship?

MrFucky sponsors two new accounts, gets them up to sponsorable status (40 unrated comments is an trivial number, by the way, it's easily doable in a few hours -- less if you're detirmined) and then
through them, sponsors 4 more accunts (two through each of the 2ndary accounts he's made). And so on.

Not unlike the old "and I made two friends, and they made two friends.." shampoo commericals from way back.

Congratulations, let the games begin....

       

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---

Um.. (2.57 / 7) (#7)
by Dougan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:47:35 AM EST

I think you missed the part where you can't sponsor someone unless your account has been active for sixty days. Creating eight fake accounts would take six months. Who has that kind of attention span??

[ Parent ]
Nutjobs (3.00 / 4) (#93)
by CodeWright on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:44:37 AM EST

Like the kind who sabotage k5 and /.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Ah, but (3.00 / 6) (#142)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:11:58 PM EST

Six months to create, two mouse clicks to tear down. Asymmetric warfare, K5 style.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Hey, I'm all for it. (none / 3) (#205)
by CodeWright on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:11:11 PM EST

This piece of site news has given me more hope than a month of mondays regarding k5's fate.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner you roll out the whole shebang, the better.

I'll even stop my whining about killfiles.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
That in it's self sounds like a good solution. (2.60 / 5) (#316)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:03:35 PM EST

No need to have the sponser get kicked aswell then. To me, getting users to put their account on the line to allow someone to join sounds far too harsh, and will stifle growth. It's almost like vouching for someone when you're in the Mafia.

[ Parent ]
Abuse (none / 1) (#949)
by Banjonardo on Sun Apr 04, 2004 at 11:31:22 PM EST

Couldn't people sponsor their own other accounts? You'd probably want a sponsor limit so that doesn't happen?


I like Muffins. MOLDY muffins.
[ Parent ]

Of course (none / 0) (#989)
by Vaughn on Thu Apr 22, 2004 at 01:47:30 AM EST

That's why the sponsor will get kicked out with the sponsee; it effectively prevents this kind of thing.

You could of course use a level of indirection, but then it would take 60 days between each time you're able to troll, and I'd say there's a good chance Rusty will spot that kind of behaviour anyway.

I say this idea is a Good Thing, and I'll encourage Rusty to implement it no matter what the (highly unscientific, remember?) poll says.

[ Parent ]

Hitting two moles with one hammer (2.66 / 6) (#9)
by ewall on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:48:49 AM EST

Doesn't the idea of banning the sponsoring account when a sponsee is banned pretty much make all that time a waste of effort? Sure, some people are going to continue to be jerks, but when you take the fun out of it they eventually give up. This is one of those handy Kindergarten lessons which Robert Fulghum would appreciate so much.

Karma Police, come arrest this man...
[ Parent ]
That's easy to get around, I think...? (2.50 / 6) (#15)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:54:28 AM EST

From what I read, it's possible to dis-own the sponsoree account. So, in my example, MrFuckey "disowns" the two sockpuppet accounts at the strategically right time and when or if they're banned, he is free to continue making other accounts.

Note, I'm sure that any gaming will be a lot more complex than I've made it out to be...

And yes, the 60-day sponsorship limit does put a hole in my theory; but I think that the people who are -for whatever reason- intent on taking down this site have demonstrated that they possess the required attention span.

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]

Disowning (3.00 / 7) (#27)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:04:56 AM EST

Disowned accounts can't post or do anything else. They revert to the state you start out in, until someone else sponsors them. It's also trivial to see who last sponsored an account and disowned it just as soon as its frenzy of crapflooding ended.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
The last sponsor (2.83 / 6) (#394)
by UncannyVortex on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:28:04 PM EST

...could have legitimately disowned the account after seeing the crapfloods. How would you tell the difference?

[ Parent ]
Only an idiot would let an idiot in to the system (none / 1) (#565)
by richarj on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:00:30 PM EST

I for the record will never sponsor anyone, unless I have known that person for 5 years or more in reallife and know that they are of reasonable maturity.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
IRL (none / 1) (#691)
by Cro Magnon on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:11:18 AM EST

Nobody who hangs with me for 5 years would qualify.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Let the games begin (3.00 / 10) (#12)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:52:28 AM EST

First, you seem to be overlooking that it's not just 40 comments. It's two months and 40 positively-rated comments (unrated don't count). Every new account has a minimum two month lag before it can sponsor anything, and possibly more.

Nevertheless, your assessment of the gaming strategy is right on. However, think about how it's going to work. You spend several months making all your sock puppets, for one big orgy of crapflooding. However, it's extremely easy to follow the sponsorship chain back for any account. I have grave doubts that anyone will take the time and effort to build a nest of sock puppets so convincing that I will be unable to trivially follow them back to the root node.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

40 Positively-Rated Comments.. (3.00 / 10) (#65)
by geekmug on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:27:35 AM EST

is more than I have, and I have been on k5 for like two years now.. I guess maybe that isn't so much a problem since that is the status-quo for sponsorship, but I think it definitely is an indicator of how few of people would be eligable for sponsorship. I'd be curious if you queried the database for a count because it would definitely be important that people outside the main group of posters could get their friends sponsored.

With that said, I don't like the idea of sponsorship either, makes me think of LiveJournal and their gayness.

-- Why reinvent the square wheel?
[ Parent ]
I refuse to believe that. (none / 2) (#496)
by ubernostrum on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:52:12 PM EST

more than I have, and I have been on k5 for like two years now

Once, a couple years ago, I flirted with using a different account I'd just created. It about a month of posting normally to get it trusted.

If you can't find a way to get 40 plus-rated comments in two years, something's wrong.




--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
He either doesn't post a lot or annoys people (none / 0) (#566)
by richarj on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:02:45 PM EST



"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
Well for one thing (none / 0) (#648)
by Emissary on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:42:26 AM EST

There is no more TU. And for another, it now takes a minimum of four ratings for a comment rating to be "positive". As I've mentioned elsewhere I have exactly one comment in my last 180 that's collected that many ratings, and that was a crapflooding thread, the comment was rated by crapflooders, and one of the raters had his account deleted; the comment only has three ratings now, but through some fluke of scoop still has a numerical rating.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
/me looks at his comment history (none / 0) (#809)
by ubernostrum on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:21:02 PM EST

I see five comments in the last 30 that have collected more than enough ratings to have a numeric score, and plenty more that will probably get there.




--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
Alright, prior to the posting of this story. (none / 0) (#812)
by Emissary on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:20:00 AM EST

Because apparently enough people agree with things I've said here to give me some more rated comments.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
I think you're wrong (none / 1) (#156)
by jayhawk88 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:20:36 PM EST

Like you said, "Let the games begin", and this system is just taking the game to the next level. Trolls already take the time to create multiple accounts and live multiple K5 "lives", I don't think adding a bit of complexity to hide their troll account tracks is going to be that much more effort for them.

Also, consider the fact that every troll around here probably has a older "gold" account; one that they have never trolled with and that is typically not associated with their troll/misbehaving accounts in any way. Even if you manage to kill everyone of their troll accounts, every troll is probably going to have this gold account to fall back on.

I think this is a good idea overall, but I just don't think that you can assume another level of complexity/work is going to stop the hardcore trolls.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
how long will they have the gold account? (3.00 / 5) (#234)
by the dehorned unicorn on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:42:17 PM EST

let's say that 9 months from now some troll has finally lost all of their accounts except for the gold one. So what? They can troll with the gold and have their last account deleted. That's fine. They can sponsor two puppet accounts with the gold one, and use the puppets to sponsor others and others and others and 8 months later they can start trolling in which case the chain of command is followed and the gold account disappears.

So long as K5 keeps track of all history (even after an account no longer needs sponsorship), either the gold account isn't used to troll or sponsor trolls, or the gold account is eventually taken away.

The worst thing about this would seem to be the trolls who might have a few hundred gold accounts right now.

Also, what about people who don't know any k5 user but want to join? Initially some trusted users might sponsor some people they've only met online after some emailing. But after some people lose their accounts because they were fooled by a troll, no one will sponsor new people, and there's a little orkut like community, which I'm not sure I like K5 becomming.

[ Parent ]

Getting into the clique (3.00 / 2) (#988)
by protogeek on Mon Apr 19, 2004 at 02:28:16 PM EST

Also, what about people who don't know any k5 user but want to join?

This is the problem I have with the whole sponsorship idea. I found K5 via a comment (by someone I didn't know personally) on /. Since then, I've pointed a few other people at the site, but I've never run across someone in my particular social circle who knew about K5 before I did.

Now granted, I don't post much, so it may be that blocking out people like me is acceptable collateral damage. But there's probably more prolific and interesting folks out there in the same situation. I suppose such a person could email the site admins and offer some kind of proof that they're not a jerk, but how many would bother trying?

I can certainly see why some kind of vetting for new members is appealing, but how many cool new participants can be lost before the cure is worse than the disease?



[ Parent ]
eorpig qepognfl;kbnfd (none / 3) (#413)
by Trollaxor on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:48:09 PM EST

I agree with your idea on one principle and one principle alone: I will keep Vladinator off of this site.

Thank you.

[ Parent ]

A quick note on network topology. (3.00 / 6) (#460)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:52:37 PM EST

If you don't keep track of severed sponsorship lines, people will be able to create loops in their sponsorship graph, thereby eliminating the possibility of tracing them.

For example, say that I register ten accounts the day you start this system with one of my current sock puppets. 60 days later, I've gotten them all into standing as potential sponsors. Now, so that you don't get my one of my favorite accounts or if you somehow know what my sock puppets are (by carefully studying the logs or whatever), I unsponsor one of them and sponsor it with one of the other ten and repeat the process until I have a chain of ten. Then make the last in the chain the sponsor of the first. Of course, if I were smart, I'd just make five chains containing only two accounts, but since I'm a crapflooder, I'm not that smart, unless I read instructions on how to do it by someone like rmg.

So to summarize, make sure you maintain a record of who has sponsored a particular account, not just who is currently sponsoring it. Another approach would be to make accounts sponsored by non-sponsored accounts also effectively unsponsored. Of course, that would probably not be a good thing to do.



[ Parent ]

Keep track of this. (none / 1) (#745)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:45:11 PM EST

To post a message on kuro5hin, send email to (e.g.) sponsor-l@roffle.com. This infects your email address. Mail sent to an infected email address requesting sponsorship is fulfilled and the constantly updated list of infected email addresses available on request. There are easily ten accounts on this board that between them, today, have one hundred sock puppets. Keeping the list closed to only those ten people, the crapflooder's club, is sufficient that Rusty's scheme will have no discernible effect. In practice the number of infected sponsors will grow as prospective members demonstrate fitness in their comment history and are approved by the list's moderator.

Two months from now and a thousand new accounts later, someone gives the signal and all hell breaks loose.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

Such activity is easy to track. (none / 1) (#752)
by ninja rmg on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 03:37:18 PM EST

In short, you lose.



[ Parent ]
Not me. (none / 1) (#757)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 04:02:55 PM EST

I wouldn't bother, but someone determined to disrupt the site once a month or so might. And I don't think you've contemplated the scheme deeply if you think it's easy to track. Easy or no, in theory or practice, the combinatorial depth and complexity is such that crapflooders can always make sure that they have a pool of disposable accounts from which to crapflood.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

thinking out loud (none / 3) (#67)
by eudas on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:28:19 AM EST

it simply extends the game a bit.. turning it into players-vs-admins just a bit more, and raising the bar on how much administrative overhead it requires to both run the site and to ruin the site.

it doesn't stop the gaming... it just ups the effort on both sides of the game.

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

Sponsorship is Stupid (2.67 / 28) (#3)
by catseye on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:40:59 AM EST

I don't like it, and I think it's a very bad idea, especially if you're going to hold sponsors ultimately responsible for the actions of the people they sponsor.

How do you expect totally new people, who do not know any current K5 members, to ever get sponsored? Why would I, or anyone else, risk losing my account to sponsor a stranger?

Instead of kicking sponsors off the site, which to be honest, I think is just plain stupid, why not just disallow them from sponsoring any more users for a period of time? Think about it... What if a new user just goes apeshit one day because he forgot to take his meds or something. Should the sponsor really be held ultimately accountable for that behavior?

Are you really going to make the poor business decision of banning paying members just because someone they sponsored wakes up one morning and decides to be an asshole?

I see sponsorship just one more nail in K5's coffin.

Yes, K5 seems to have attracted the ire of a huge number of assholes. Yes, this is a problem. I don't think the solution is restricting membership and making adults responsible for the actions of other adults. I think the solution is finding out what drew their attention and seeing if it's an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

I'd hazard a guess that a big part of it is all that money that was raised to keep K5 up, CMF, and the poor quality of service even though all that money was donated, etc.

----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?

Interesting; how much money (2.00 / 4) (#6)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:46:40 AM EST

is "all that money", exactly?

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]
Over $30,000 was raised, I think. [n/t] (2.25 / 4) (#19)
by catseye on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:57:42 AM EST



----------
How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
[ Parent ]
Personally (2.75 / 8) (#8)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:48:40 AM EST

I would never, ever sponsor anyone, not even my own family, if my sponsorship could get revoked because they post 0-rated comments. I don't think anyone will ever sponsor anyone. I think the point is No New Users.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
It's not zero-rated comments (3.00 / 7) (#16)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:54:33 AM EST

Getting booted is always an admin (i.e. human) decison. It's never automated, has nothing intrinsically to do with comment ratings, never comes without ample warning, and you may revoke your sponsorship at any time if you fear for your account.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Ooooh, interesting twist. (2.50 / 8) (#25)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:02:53 AM EST

So to get someone booted, you need to create a fake account, act really nice, get sponsored, and then do something so terrible that your sponsor gets booted before he can revoke his sponsorship? This would mean you'd have to get warned, then kicked, before your sponsor logs back on to reject his sponsorship.

This is certainly a first-class information warfare game you've devised.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

not sure where you're leading, but... (2.80 / 5) (#32)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:06:37 AM EST

I know that for my part I will:

a)not be sponsoring anyone, at least not anyone I do not know irl

b)if I take leave of my senses and make an exception to the above, I'll probably "reject" my sponsorship as soon as the sponsoree is on their own.

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]

never mind, I just read post #27. (2.25 / 4) (#36)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:08:24 AM EST

will be interesting to see where this all ends up, ultimately...

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]
You are wise not to sponsor. (2.20 / 5) (#55)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:18:56 AM EST

Those who sponsor first will most likely die first. Note that you're somewhat alone in having figured this out, from the discussion...
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
um, "act nice" ? (none / 1) (#120)
by tzanger on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:02:01 PM EST

How do you act nicely if you can't post?

I understand Rusty's idea behind sponsorship but I think it'll drive a stake through the new user signups -- I found this site through a link on /., how the hell would I have gotten to post?  I didn't know anyone well enough to email them privately and say "whoa dude can you sponsor me?"

[ Parent ]

It would have to happen through other channels (none / 2) (#132)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:07:00 PM EST

Orkut, for example, is a sponsorship system littered with bogus personalities. You could look up a k5 user on orkut, befriend them, and gradually work your way into their confidence. Perhaps just linking to k5 stories and complaining about how you can't post...

There are numerous other ways. Social engineering is an art form.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Hahahahahahah (3.00 / 3) (#242)
by tzanger on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:47:07 PM EST

You could look up a k5 user on orkut, befriend them, and gradually work your way into their confidence.

I'm sorry but any site that needs this much work to be part of simply is not worth it.  That is elitism and sorry, but K5 isn't that cool that I need to go to such lengths to get on it.

Yikes, I sure hope that was tongue-in-cheek.

[ Parent ]

Read my Sig (none / 0) (#578)
by richarj on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:27:43 PM EST



"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
Orkut? (none / 0) (#1018)
by pin0cchio on Thu May 20, 2004 at 12:39:35 PM EST

You could look up a k5 user on orkut

How does anybody get into orkut? Does one have to know somebody who works for Google Inc. in order to get a sponsorship? Or would somebody please correct my misconception?


lj65
[ Parent ]
What happens then? (2.66 / 6) (#45)
by pattern on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:14:32 AM EST

Say I've sponsored Big Bad Barney and he goes off on a drunken rampage and we both get warnings. I revoke my sponsorship to Barney but he continues getting piss drunk and posting barely incoherant slanderous illegal crap and gets tossed out.

What happens to me? I've revoked my sponsorship after realizing my mistake, so should I be punished? Or does having your sponsorship revoked automatically remove your own posting priviledges? Otherwise, won't allowing sponsorship revocations allow people to get away scot-free?



[ Parent ]
He can't (3.00 / 6) (#54)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:18:38 AM EST

If you revoke your sponsorship, Barney can no longer post, until he finds a new sponsor. Revoking your sponsorship sets the user you formerly sponsored back to the same state they were in when they first signed up.

What will happen is that your prior association with Barney will be noted, and people who build up a history of such events (especially one that looks like ducking out from a sock-puppet at the convenient moment) will be likely to have their permission to sponsor stripped.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Pattern brings up a really good point. (2.80 / 10) (#70)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:29:53 AM EST

Your idea re-affirms the point that you don't have any kids.

What you're asking sponsors to do is babysit their charges for 60 days, and they'd better keep a constant eye on them and set e-mail from Rusty on High Priority.
In fact, it might be prudent to have messages from you sent to a pager, so that one doesn't incidentally lose one's account.

As a parent of adolescents, I find it frustrating to know that I'm liable for jail time if my kids fuck up, so I already know the kind of stress your pilot program is going to induce among the sponsors.

Frankly, I don't think any legitimate user is going to want to saddle themselves with that kind of hassle.
I know I won't.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Not quite (2.87 / 8) (#90)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:43:16 AM EST

What you're asking sponsors to do is babysit their charges for 60 days

We're asking you to babysit your charges forever. Your sponsorship doesn't expire after sixty days. It's ongoing, unless someone comes up with a "green card" criteria as suggested below.

But I think your going way too far, honestly. We're not going to warn someone and then ban them and their sponsor five minutes later. At worst, we'll warn someone and revoke their right to do whatever they were doing wrong for a couple days, to let them settle down and get the message. None of us are eager to lose good contributors, so we're not going to go all salting the earth and leaving no stone set atop another on you here.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Questions... (3.00 / 6) (#109)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:57:27 AM EST

How will these people know the difference between a temporary ban and a permanent one?
Is a "couple of days" literally two days? Will it be consistently applied?

If I were temporarily banned, I probably wouldn't bother coming back to see if it was permanent.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Good questions (3.00 / 5) (#118)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:01:02 PM EST

Perhaps a warning should carry with it a standardized temporary ban? Essentially a warning could shut off your privileges for a well-known and explained set period of time -- like two days.

Would that take care of your concerns with it?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

It would, if... (3.00 / 5) (#127)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:05:11 PM EST

If I didn't spend more than 48 hours away from my computer, which I usually don't do.

Some people might enjoy vacations, etc. more than I do, so that aspect should be evaluatedd.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
this one's easy (none / 3) (#262)
by Shpongle Spore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:11:43 PM EST

Keep a temporary ban in place until the new user and the sponsor have seen the warning.
__
I wish I was in Austin, at the Chili Parlor bar,
drinking 'Mad Dog' margaritas and not caring where you are
[ Parent ]
re: seen it (2.80 / 5) (#426)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:59:39 PM EST

How would that be confirmed? See if they've logged in, or something more confirmatory?
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
The impression I got (none / 2) (#500)
by ubernostrum on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:58:37 PM EST

was that the warning would keep showing up on every page until you clicked a widget to make it go away. Is that confirmation enough?


--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
Yeah. (none / 2) (#527)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:13:58 PM EST

I can't be arsed to check my own User Info page daily.

I doubt anyone would be.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
doesn't work (none / 1) (#808)
by seanw on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:20:50 PM EST

then, if either person never comes back to check (deliberately, or not) the ban becomes permanent, instead of the warning it's supposed to be.

so any of the people you've sponsored could ban you just by doing something that warrented a warning, and then not ever signing back into the site with that account.

this is assuming the temp ban would apply to both parties, which is what it sounded like rusty was saying earlier

[ Parent ]

you had me convinced (2.80 / 5) (#201)
by coderlemming on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:10:10 PM EST

Well, you did kind of bust in here with a site news that said "no nonsense, no more, heads are going to roll".  I think it's quite understandable that people are reacting with a bit of fear for their accounts.  From the tone of your post it really seemed as if you were saying "I have no compunctions blasting anyone with the slightest provocation, and I'll get their sponsor too."  I don't even think you should publically make it clear that that's not the case.  

The people who really matter will read far enough down here to realize that they're not in imminent danger of losing their account if they sponsor someone.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]

Who do you hang out with? (2.80 / 5) (#152)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:18:10 PM EST

That you're both willing to sponsor them and afraid they'd be dumb enough to break the rather obvious rules of this site? I've introduced 4 of my friends to this site, none of them have gone off on crap flooding binges 'accidentally' or otherwise.

Speaking of kids, lets be realistic, there aren't many 12 year old kids who can hold up a decent debate about the topics we discuss here. So don't sponsor one. (Unless you're really, really sure.)


[ Parent ]

Every techie I know IRL is already here. (2.80 / 5) (#399)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:31:08 PM EST

Also, I wasn't referring to 12 y.o. kids specifically. Just "kids" that act 12.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Going apeshit (3.00 / 5) (#18)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:56:04 AM EST

What if a new user just goes apeshit one day because he forgot to take his meds or something

He'll get a warning, as will the person who sponsored him. If he goes apeshit repeatedly, that's a risk the sponsor will have to decide whether to assume.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Automatic sponsoring (3.00 / 5) (#124)
by wurp on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:04:38 PM EST

Firstly, I missed the part where the sponsor gets the warning too when the sponsored party fucks up.

Secondly, I would like an option to offer open sponsorship.  I do think we need new blood on K5, and I will offer sponsorship to anyone pending some conversation with them.  I will of course revoke sponsorship on the first warning I get, and if I end up getting banned, so be it.  K5 isn't worth staying with if we can't continue to get new people on board.

So, is there some way we could get an email address posted on the sign-up page for people who are willing to sponsor strangers?  Or at least a link to our K5 user page?  If new users just get told "find a sponsor", there is no chance they will sign up.  If we could have a list of "known sponsors" shown on the sign-up page, maybe people will keep coming.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]

What is, "to go apeshit repeatedly"? (none / 3) (#283)
by nollidj on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:35:16 PM EST

If I sponsor someone and he ends up seriously offending people or crapflooding, a warning is issued to the both of us. It is expected that I will then see the warning and, if I wish, cut the user in question off from my sponsorship.

If I am the type of person who checks kuro5hin only once every other day but is still very active and contributes good material, however, what am I to do if someone I sponsor manages to "go apeshit repeatedly" - let's say, page-widens, posts links to images that are highly offensive (for any number of reasons), insults Tex's mother, or whathaveyou - a whole lot within the span of fourteen hours.

I, the sponsoring account, have no idea that this has been going on. Am I banned along with the offending user?

I suppose this question boils down to: would there ever be any sort of "mitigating circumstances" when it comes to being banned? How exactly would appeals work?

muahaha. MuaHaHA! MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA!!!!
[ Parent ]

Possible solution to this scenario (none / 0) (#927)
by Zoshnell on Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 01:49:25 PM EST

The way I see it, if your sponsoree goes hog wild in 14 hours they will see the warning and get the boot, whereas when you log in 2 days later you get your first warning as such. I think in this case the damage is going to be irrevocable, as this will probably let trolls have more leeway with there.. umm... sock puppets? and claim "I didn't know!" But the history will get them in the end and admins could kill they puppets with one fell stroke. It's a flawed compromise at best, maybe someone else could expand on it?
---------------------------------------------------- "I think there I am, I think." - Nordom The Modron
[ Parent ]
Sponsorship (2.38 / 13) (#4)
by SPYvSPY on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:41:33 AM EST

Do it, ASAP. I like the idea and, being a user that works hard to tread the line between valued participant and idle provacateur, I would welcome exclusion of malicious, retarded cretins. There are plenty of other outlets for artless trolls.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.

Two points (2.63 / 11) (#5)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:46:35 AM EST

  1. Orkut uses this sponsorship model you speak of. It is failing there right now in the most atrocious manner possible. AOL Keywords: Leonie Obermeier. Here's to hoping that you've done a better job.
  2. Without one hidden comment? I'm not going to name names, but I'm relatively sure that people here are going to work hard to ensure that one comment in every new user's first 40 hits zero. I assume you won't show the sponsorship tree, but even so it's not hard to figure out who's new.
Personally I think a hardened New Account generator is all that's needed, but good luck getting your system to work.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
No.. (2.66 / 6) (#10)
by Dougan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:50:58 AM EST

If you read it again, it says "forty non-hidden comments". I.E. if you have 42 comments and two are hidden, you have sponsorship privileges.

[ Parent ]
Well (2.50 / 4) (#84)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:38:49 AM EST

Unless zero-rating becomes a punishable offense, what's to keep people from zero-rating every new user's comments to keep them off the site?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
because that's modbombing (2.75 / 4) (#106)
by janra on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:54:12 AM EST

and modbombing is grounds for banning. It's in the article.
--
Discuss the art and craft of writing
That's the problem with world domination... Nobody is willing to wait for it anymore, work slowly towards it, drink more and enjoy the ride more.
[ Parent ]
Darling, that's my word. (2.60 / 5) (#121)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:03:18 PM EST

I can't tell you how it brings a tear to my eye to see my early "Modbombing is Terrorism / Free Junis from Afghanistan" Slashdot posts swimming from your lips. I also like how rusty refuses to use my word.

But anyway.

Modbombing is an interesting thing to define. At Slashdot, it's officially encouraged (I have the Taco email to prove it, if you'd like to see it). On k5 it has never been against the rules. And if, for the first time, rusty thinks he's going to make it against the rules, it will be interesting to see how he differentiates between a user like eudas who zero-rates everyone because he's legitimately filled with hate and a user who is zero-rating everyone to keep them from gaining sponsorship privs.

Good luck with that.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

There's nothing (none / 1) (#221)
by Ward57 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:28:42 PM EST

legitimate about being filled with hate. It legitimises nothing, although it might encourage one to forgive.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (2.16 / 6) (#232)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:39:56 PM EST

But Osiris and Eudas consistently modbomb people with zeros, and they've never faced administrative action. Therefore in the eyes of the admins, hate is legit.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Orkut sponsership (none / 2) (#162)
by ucblockhead on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:24:19 PM EST

Orkut sponsership has no teeth. I can easily go "invite" a fake user I made up from an existing account, then cut the "friend" link to the original account and then go wild. There's no repercussions for the sponsering account.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Orkut invites (none / 1) (#213)
by Per Abrahamsen on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:17:17 PM EST

I suspect Orkut keeps track of who invited who, even when the "friend" link is severed.  At least, that is what I would do had I written it.


[ Parent ]
Had you written it, (none / 1) (#501)
by ubernostrum on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:01:15 PM EST

I would hope you also would have chosen something more scalable and powerful than .NET to write it with...

Perhaps that's a commentary on how much thought went into Orkut's initial design. They seem to be responding somewhat (and in glacial fashion) to user concerns, though, so maybe it'll get better.




--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
This is good. (2.63 / 11) (#11)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:52:15 AM EST

I've long thought that the problem with democracy is all the crazy people running around who have no idea what's going on.

As for the comments thing, that should probably read 40-RATED comments, otherwise people gaming the system will have an easy enough time posting 40 comments in 40 minutes (assuming we're running at full speed) and game the system that way.

The warnings system is good, and I think you've provided for way more than you really have to in the form of 'fair warning', but that's a good thing because it will reduce the whining and the accidental bans.

Rusty, all in all this sounds like a very good social solution to a very complex social problem. I look forward to filling out a few comment boxes on a few particular users. (Assuming you haven't got them already....)


oops. (2.00 / 4) (#20)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:58:07 AM EST

I overlooked the 60 days bit. That's a rather important bit too. Silly me.

[ Parent ]
meh. I overlooked that one too. (2.20 / 5) (#22)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:02:09 AM EST

So much for the many eyes/shallow bugs theory. ;-)

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]
Why? (2.20 / 5) (#35)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:07:44 AM EST

How many eyes do you have, anyway? ;-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
three, (none / 1) (#141)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:11:46 PM EST

if you count that little nerve ending in the top of your brain that's supposed to be able to sense light, or something.

[ Parent ]
For real? [nt] (none / 1) (#328)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:11:56 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Good lord, no. [n/t] (none / 2) (#345)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:22:45 PM EST



---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]
You Clod! (none / 0) (#928)
by Zoshnell on Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 02:03:49 PM EST

I have a light sensitive tendril on the top of my head you uncaring clod! Oh wait, thats just my hair. Nevermind, false alarm.
---------------------------------------------------- "I think there I am, I think." - Nordom The Modron
[ Parent ]
so K5 is finally dead (2.47 / 23) (#13)
by crazycanuck on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:54:01 AM EST

with sponsorship there will be no new user and K5 turns into just another geek clique.

also, it's pretty easy to make sure nobody ever sponsors nyone. after all, current users have no idea if a potential new user is good or bad. all certain people have to do is pretend they're nice, get sponsored then fuck up and get the sponsor kicked out too. pretty soon nobody will be sponsoring anymore out of fear of getting banned themselves.

RIP K5, it was nice knowing you.

Shall we give this sport a name? (2.25 / 8) (#21)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:59:03 AM EST

You'll have to design a new account to appeal to the target you want to get kicked, so if you wanted to kick C4L you'd need to create a faux Microsoft employee with fascist leanings, or to kick psychologist you'd have to smash random keys with your fists. Either way, k5 will become one of those rare MUD's that support permanent death player killing.

Anyway, what will the name be?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

kurocide bombing? [n/t] (2.50 / 8) (#41)
by angry white guy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:13:50 AM EST



[ Parent ]
or kurokaze [nt] (2.85 / 7) (#281)
by JahToasted on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:34:27 PM EST


______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]
kuro-ku (nt) (none / 1) (#884)
by banstyle on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 05:59:14 PM EST


__
"Everything done in weakness fails. Moral: do nothing." -Nietzsche
[ Parent ]
The idea (3.00 / 7) (#23)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:02:22 AM EST

Why would you sponsor a stranger? I assume you wouldn't. I fully expect that you wouldn't. I, in fact, encourage everyone not to ever sponsor anyone they haven't met in person.

This will lead to fewer new users. I think that's desirable -- you may disagree, and eventually I suppose we'll find out who's right. But I don't think it will mean no new users.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

in other words (2.75 / 8) (#122)
by crazycanuck on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:04:14 PM EST

K5 is supposed to be just another clique? and the only way to get inside is to know someone on the inside?

sounds very elitist to me, pretty much like the real world. I guess all the "ideals" of the internet (bringing everyone together, equality, freedom of expression) are really dead.

[ Parent ]

I guess (3.00 / 5) (#160)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:23:28 PM EST

If you presume that a "clique" can start out with 50,000 members.

It seems to me like if you take 50K people, and look at everyone they know, and everyone they know, and everyone they know (three degrees of separation) you've got a clique comprised of a goodly chunk of humanity.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I don't know about everyone else (2.80 / 10) (#334)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:16:58 PM EST

But I come on k5 to talk to people I don't know IRL. I wouldn't want any of my friends to read my diary. K5 to me is a place to talk to intelligent strangers. Why not give new, unsponsored accounts some relatively harmless privilege, like posting comments only? That way they can contribute to the community without knowing someone on the inside, and if they're smart and insightful, I for one would be happy to sponsor them.

Another problem I see is that, if you post almost exclusively in the diary section like I and many others do, it's extremely rare for a comment to collect the four ratings needed to become "positively rated". Looking at my last 180 comments, I have exactly one with a numbered rating, and at least one of the ratings was from a user whose account was deleted--it only has three ratings now. About two hundred comments ago I posted a story and responded to a lot of comments in it; that's where my TU comes from.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
Excellent Idea! (none / 1) (#916)
by hatshepsut on Tue Mar 30, 2004 at 03:28:40 PM EST

Posting privileges only, and put some limitations on it if you like (no more than X per day or something) so that current users can get to know someone a bit and possibly offer sponsorship to people they feel have something to offer. Those who abuse the posting privilege can be banned before they have any power to do more damage.

Frankly, I know very few people IRL who would be interested in much of the material on K5, but I would like to see K5 open to new membership. I doubt I would have been able to become a member under the proposed rules, since the person who pointed me here didn't have 40 rated comments, and hasn't posted here in months.

[ Parent ]

A possible solution (none / 0) (#929)
by Zoshnell on Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 02:11:37 PM EST

Have unsponsored accounts only able to post in Diaries and journals. That way they can still be heard but can be silenced easier. Maybe. Also, wherefrom did you find that quote in your sig?
---------------------------------------------------- "I think there I am, I think." - Nordom The Modron
[ Parent ]
Sig (none / 0) (#968)
by Emissary on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 10:03:17 PM EST

It was in a comment made by eSolutions some long time ago. I used to have the URL to it, but just lately when I tried to change the sig a little the URL bumped up against the new, lower max char barrier.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
Why not... (2.66 / 6) (#374)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:59:46 PM EST

...make the prerequisite for full participation be a posted story? It shouldn't be a big deal giving new accounts story-posting privileges; queue abuse has historically been the easiest kind of abuse to deal with, AFAIK. I think posting a story is the most meaningful or substantial way of contributing to and participating in the site, so it seems to me that it would be a good test of fitness for full membership.

I still think new and unproven accounts should be allowed to post comments, but it's your decision. I think this story-posting idea also shifts the emphasis back to the story sections in a more open way than this positively rated comments business.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
50K users? (2.33 / 6) (#447)
by big fat idiot on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:28:44 PM EST

Please, you know better than that.

[ Parent ]
Really! (2.60 / 5) (#135)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:08:11 PM EST

I didn't know anyone here in person. I STILL don't know anyone here in person. None of the people I know or trust in person have any interest in K5. I "know" a few people online who I would trust, but most of them have different places to argue and no compelling reason to come here.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't invite people here (2.87 / 8) (#150)
by Stick on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:17:15 PM EST

It's full of trolls.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
I don't want anybody I know in person... (2.85 / 7) (#171)
by gzt on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:34:02 PM EST

...to read this site, especially as that has had adverse side effects in the past.

[ Parent ]
Frankly, (2.60 / 5) (#26)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:03:57 AM EST

I like new users and all, but I can't really remember the last time someone with a UID over 50,000 wrote a story that really impressed me.

To be fair, I don't go keeping track of everyone's UID. Let me rephrase, normally if someone is being an ass I see that they have a high UID. Rarely does a long time user go on a crap flooding binge or post porn pics.

New users can be important to the site, and I will certainly add something to my user description telling people that I'm willing to sponsor real people who have a real desire to be here. But I highly doubt that this will 'kill' or even slightly injure the level of discussion/debate.


[ Parent ]

Disposable Accounts (none / 2) (#176)
by freestylefiend on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:37:06 PM EST

That's not because new users are more likely to be anti-social, but because disposable accounts are more likely to be used anti-socially. Sponsorship is a good idea, but perhaps there should be a better way in for new users.

[ Parent ]
I would never have been sponsored (2.93 / 15) (#50)
by TheWake on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:16:43 AM EST

When I first found this site, there was exactly zero chance of knowing anyone. I lurked for a very long time before getting a membership. I imagine that had this gone into effect earlier I never would have had a chance. Not that I am a prolific contributor, but I have had a chance to give my input when appropriate.

[ Parent ]
Important WARNING Dialog (2.60 / 15) (#14)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:54:11 AM EST

The WARNING idea is great, but since you people will need a record to tell who's already been warned, I advise you to put the following label on warnings:

THIS WILL GO DOWN ON YOUR PERMANANT RECORD.

--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

I want you to know that this will go down on your (2.83 / 6) (#98)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:49:42 AM EST

I take one, one one for my family and two, two two cuz you left me and three, three, three for my heartache and four, four, four for my headaches and five, five, five, five for my sorrow and six, six, n-n-no tomorrow and seven, seven, i forget what seven is for and

never mind

[ Parent ]

I believe (2.75 / 4) (#306)
by TubeShoot on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:55:43 PM EST

that it is actually "eight, eight, I forgot what eight was for".

Seven was a reference to heaven.

Long live the Femmes!!


"Quote thyself..........I do."--TubeShoot '03
[ Parent ]

Pre-emptive strike. (1.94 / 17) (#17)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:54:50 AM EST

No, this is not censorship. If anyone uses that word here today I would like to pre-emptively remind them that Rusty is not the government and this is not your soapbox.

This is a community and even the most peaceful communities need some kind of rules enforcement to deal with the idiots, mentally ill and other various miscreants.


I take extreme offense at your comment (2.62 / 8) (#584)
by richarj on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:44:12 PM EST

mentally ill

I will now zero rate you and I hope other do too. There are many Mentally Ill good contributers to this site. You should offically apologize for this as well.



"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
Analysis (2.59 / 37) (#24)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:02:31 AM EST

a lot of new potentially "good users" who stumble on the site from google searches, blog links, etc are going to be locked out and frustrated, confused and probably come away thinking that this is some sort of elitist insular community that doesn't tolerate newbies.

However, it does seem that this idea will, at least change trolling as it exists on the site today. To that end, I predict that it will probably do a reasonable job.

But to all my friends, I declare this day to be a glorious victory for us trolls, for we have finally turned Kuro5hin into a site even more repressive than Slashdot. Truly, whatever happens after this, this sponsorship program will remain a testament to our hard work and dedication.

One point: (2.85 / 7) (#31)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:06:36 AM EST

Kuro5hin was always more repressive than Slashdot. Remember hidden comments? That was part of the idea.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Remember hidden coments before 5's went away? (2.18 / 11) (#33)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:07:20 AM EST

Yeah... all both of them.

[ Parent ]
Repressive is an understatement. (3.00 / 6) (#97)
by rustv on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:49:05 AM EST

Even rusty can't get a story posted here!

____
"Don't tase me, bro." --Andrew Meyer
[ Parent ]
Out of curiosity... (2.80 / 5) (#506)
by ubernostrum on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:10:49 PM EST

Have you considered how the new-user page and/or the FAQ will be explaining this situation for people who don't know how it all works? The language you use could have a huge impact on the number and quality of new users. For example, compare this:

Full participation in this site is contingent on sponsorship by an established member. You will not be allowed to participate at the same level as everyone else until you find a member to sponsor you.

with this:

Membership here is open to anyone, but we use a "sponsorship" system to help usher new users in gracefully. Once you've created an account you can log in and view stories, comments and the moderation queue just like any other member, to help you get a feel for how the site works. And when you're ready to take the plunge and become a full-fledged member, you can get an established user to sponsor you and you'll pick up full posting privileges.

I think you know which one will lead to more and better new users.

Also: I haven't had time to read all the comments yet, but do you have in mind some way of hooking up potential new users with potential sponsors?




--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
Catch 22 hidden in plain english. (none / 1) (#532)
by toulouse on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:21:22 PM EST

The logical and intuitive follow-up impulse to either statement is to think "Ok, so how do I get an established member to sponsor me?"

If the documentation deals with this, it runs the risk of saying, in a somewhat concealed fashion, "There's no fixed method: you're on your own, pookie". This will, quite correctly, lead to the potential participator feeling 'gypped' (to use the vernacular), possibly even more so considering the political doublespeak that would have to be used. If it is not dealt with in the documentation, this will leave the prospective member feeling both 'gypped' and confused. What a wondrous state of grace! Have you ever perused Kipling's "Rikki-tikki-tavi"?

Given either of these outcomes, I suspect that the first version might encourage a better calibre of participant. Embarking with an attitude of "At least they weren't bullshitting to me from the start", the kind of person who would succeed in the face of such adversity is precisely the kind we seek to swell our ranks.


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


[ Parent ]
See, this is why (none / 0) (#552)
by ubernostrum on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 09:10:43 PM EST

I was saying that we need a way to hook up potential users with potential sponsors. See my recent comment history for more.


--
You cooin' with my bird?
[ Parent ]
Yeah (2.80 / 5) (#563)
by toulouse on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 09:56:18 PM EST

I saw you posted on this after I posted the above comment, but given the timings involved, and the length of your comment, you were probably already off and running at the time...whatever...that's not my point.

My point is that this is pretty much ready-to-roll. It's right there, in the story text, and rusty's commented elsewhere (diaries?) to the effect that it's ~95% done and yet...and yet...

It is readily apparent from a cursory glance at this page that this has not been thought through. Issues are raised which clearly weren't considered; valid perspectives offered; ramifications pontificated upon. Right now the poll is running 50/50 for and against, and godix's poll in the diaries is showing that the vast majority of respondents wouldn't be here had a system such as this been in place.

And the code still sits there, 95% finished.

This conversation, the entire page, should have been had long before any code was punched into a text editor. The fact that the code's pretty much done demonstates that this was signed and sealed to begin with; a done deal not fully thought through. I've worked on projects before where my fully finished work was pulled before deployment. I was livid: the cretins were wrong! Well they weren't wrong: I was. See what I'm saying? This is going to happen because the code's been written, and any issues raised on this page will be hacked on as an afterthought, but serious objections will be glossed over because the work's been put in first. Read Bad_Doggie's thread: it's spot on. When have you ever begun work on something without thoroughly thrashing out the use-cases first?


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


[ Parent ]
There's a t-shirt that'll actually sell (2.25 / 12) (#63)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:26:07 AM EST

"I helped destroy kuro5hin.org!"

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
It would do better than the duxup one (2.18 / 11) (#66)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:27:39 AM EST

I know I'd buy several

[ Parent ]
Gee Tex (none / 2) (#436)
by grouse on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:08:43 PM EST

You sure are getting a surprising number of 0 ratings on innocuous comments... Did you piss some people off?

You sad bastard!

"Grouse please don't take this the wrong way... To be quite frank, you are throwing my inner Chi out of its harmonious balance with nature." -- Tex Bigballs
[ Parent ]

What can I say (2.75 / 4) (#482)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:28:35 PM EST

whenever rusty posts site news it seems to bring out the best in my adoring fans.

[ Parent ]
Yes... (2.33 / 6) (#372)
by the highwayman on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:56:10 PM EST

...I can feel that warm, fuzzy feeling that Germanic barbarians must have felt when they brought down the Roman Empire. In the end, K5 will just be another lame Mason-like country club on the internet. It feels kind of nice to see the whole experiment on democracy come crashing down and the system being replaced by something akin to the citizenship-by-blood system of most societies -- handing out citizenship to anyone and everyone is a recipe for disaster.

I will open up a bottle of wine tonight and celebrate another site being brought down.

[ Parent ]

What happened to you, Tex? (none / 3) (#658)
by egg troll on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 07:50:47 AM EST

You used to be my idol, Tex. Now you're just bitter and angry. When exactly did you start giving a fuck about what happens with rusty's two-bit site?

He's a bondage fan, a gastronome, a sensualist
Unparalleled for sinister lasciviousness.

[ Parent ]

I have no desire to be anyone's idol on this site (2.75 / 4) (#668)
by Tex Bigballs on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 08:46:18 AM EST



[ Parent ]
That's why you were my idol (none / 3) (#807)
by egg troll on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:50:34 PM EST

You seem to misunderstand that K5 was about a handful of things:
  • Complaining about Taco's gayness.
  • Belittling localrogers insipid sci-fi stories.
  • Posting trolls to the front page that would be -1, Flamebait on Slashdot.

I never though you of all people would take anything else seriously on here. But don't worry Tex...when your heart goes astray, I'm always here to bring it back, sailor! :x

He's a bondage fan, a gastronome, a sensualist
Unparalleled for sinister lasciviousness.

[ Parent ]

Let me give you some advice (none / 1) (#835)
by Tex Bigballs on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 09:45:08 AM EST

get a brand new internet idol to fondle your cock and balls over, and then whine to them about what kind of posts you'd like to see them make. (hint: nobody on this site cares about cmdrtaco or wankdot)

[ Parent ]
Before your time. (none / 1) (#914)
by Little Surfer Girl on Tue Mar 30, 2004 at 02:54:03 PM EST

Once upon a time, they did. This place started out as a slash site, and was a refuge haven from "the other site" in much the same way that HuSi is for people from here now.
-- Don't criticize Ronald Regan, or your K5 account will get zapped, too.
[ Parent ]
sounds good. (2.12 / 8) (#28)
by metalgeek on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:05:27 AM EST

I'm in agreement with it.
not sure If I have 40 >0 comments, but who knows.
although perhaps the the thing with new users needs tweaking.
not sure how hard it would be in the database, but how about 1 comment every ten minutes?
would get rid of the crapflooding to a certaine extent, and still let them participate, and maybe gain a sponser that way after making some usful posts?


"K5 is a site where users have the motto 'Anyone Who Isn't Me Is An Idiot, And Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Gay'." skyknight
Wow (2.16 / 12) (#29)
by LilDebbie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:05:42 AM EST

rusty laid down the pain on those who messed with his woman? damn!

I'm a bit turned on...but then again, I could never be his woman.

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

Hmm. (2.00 / 5) (#37)
by zipper on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:09:04 AM EST

Because you're not a woman, you're a man?

---
This account has been neutered by rusty and can no longer rate or post comments. Way to go fearless leader!
[ Parent ]
Right (2.00 / 4) (#53)
by LilDebbie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:17:44 AM EST

umm...yeah

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

[ Parent ]
More problems than solutions (2.95 / 22) (#30)
by TheWake on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:05:47 AM EST

It feels elitist to me. The idea of sponsorship feels antithetical to the "everyone participates" attitude that abounds here.

If it will be implemented, there should be some higher standard where a user no longer requires sponsorship. This would be like getting your "green card" for the site, and the sponsor and the sponsored no longer need to be linked.

One last point. Has any thought gone into what would happen if a sponsor gets kicked out? What happens to the well behaving users when thier sponsor leaves? Will they be punished for someone else's bad behavior?

Two good points (2.60 / 10) (#39)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:11:16 AM EST

If it will be implemented, there should be some higher standard where a user no longer requires sponsorship. This would be like getting your "green card" for the site, and the sponsor and the sponsored no longer need to be linked.

I had not thought of that. It's not a bad idea. Suggestions for what those criteria should be are very welcome.

Has any thought gone into what would happen if a sponsor gets kicked out? What happens to the well behaving users when thier sponsor leaves?

This is one of my other niggling questions about the whole system. I'm honestly not sure what should happen. None of the kicking-out-sponsors stuff is automatic, so I think for right now, unless I get a better suggestion, it will be up to the admin. I don't really expect it to happen very much, which is why I'm willing to go ahead without entirely settling that point.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Here is a suggestion (2.66 / 6) (#61)
by TheWake on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:23:37 AM EST

If it will be implemented, there should be some higher standard where a user no longer requires sponsorship. This would be like getting your "green card" for the site, and the sponsor and the sponsored no longer need to be linked.

I had not thought of that. It's not a bad idea. Suggestions for what those criteria should be are very welcome.

How about double the length of time (120 days) and comments (80 comments), plus a story or two?

[ Parent ]
I don't agree (2.84 / 13) (#68)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:28:58 AM EST

I don't think that getting a story onto the front page should be a criteria. Firstly because this is a discussion site (isn't it?), not a writing workshop. Secondly because the chances are low that a "legitimate" (an admittedly subjective term) user will have the writing and social-networking skills to get all 50,000+ people to agree on their article -- while someone who is gaming the system will know exactly what buttons to push and thereby defeat the purpose.

In other words, I see that suggestion signifigantly degrading the quality of what appears on the front page.

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]

Ok then (2.40 / 5) (#204)
by TheWake on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:11:03 PM EST

If it is too much, drop the story requirement. It is after all only a suggestion. I wonder how many users have had a story posted at all and what the post/dump rate is.

[ Parent ]
Well, (none / 3) (#230)
by guyjin on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:38:47 PM EST

if the idea is to encourage people to write stories, you could say X number of days with X number of posts OR one story sectioned or FPed.
-- 散弾銃でおうがいして ください
[ Parent ]
Recently (2.25 / 4) (#586)
by richarj on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:52:46 PM EST

There was a Troll who regulary got his troll stories posted because idiots don't realise what he is doing. Of course I am referring to James A Joyce. This Troll managed to get four stories posted because he pandered to the masses and all in a short time period. Whereas many much better stories by other people did not.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
Don't be elitist. (none / 1) (#650)
by Emissary on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:49:26 AM EST

This is a democratic site. If the majority of users vote a story up, then it doesn't matter if the story is a "troll" story or not. The users wanted it there! We, the users. You have no cause to bitch and moan that a user who has trolled managed to get a story posted. There's no necessary qualitative difference between a "trolling" post and any other.

I read somewhere a proposition that the designation "troll" no longer be used to describe users; instead, one would say "he has trolled" or "he is known to troll". Even users who post almost nothing but trolls, Michael Moore comes to mind, have posted insightful and constructive comments.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
I'm not being elitist (none / 0) (#805)
by richarj on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:43:04 PM EST

I'm just pointing out that getting stories posted does not make one automatically a trusted person.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't (none / 0) (#813)
by Emissary on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:27:30 AM EST

because it hasn't been put into scoop. But maybe it should. Surely someone who can write a story which the majority of users--a majority of at least 95--want to see on the site is a valuable user, even if he is an asshole sometimes?

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
But trolling is allowed (none / 1) (#695)
by TheWake on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:25:44 AM EST

As long as it conforms to the rules of the site as Rusty suggested in his section II above. There is a diffenece between being a troll and being malicious and disrespectful. A troll would not want to be destructive or harmfull to the "normal" people he is trying to provoke. Personal attacks and technical mischef are the target of sponsorship not infalatory stories and comments.

[ Parent ]
Yes trolling is allowed (none / 1) (#806)
by richarj on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:46:31 PM EST

My point is that some bad people could still get into the system if posting a story was a requirement. They could easily overcome that hurdle "James A Joyce" proves that. Personally I have trolled on this site as well but mainly in the diary section. And I do realise that it is the people that are attacking the system in other ways that are the problem.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
There is the other way as well. (3.00 / 11) (#126)
by hulver on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:05:06 PM EST

There needs to be a way the sponsored users can break out from the repression of their sponsor. If I sponsor someone, and decide I don't like that they're saying a couple of years down the line I could just withdraw my sponsor ship and silence them.

What happens to the people they've sponsored if I do that? Can they still sponsor if they're sponsored by an un-sponsored user?

--
HuSi!
[ Parent ]

Yeah (3.00 / 8) (#144)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:14:29 PM EST

That's another good reason for some kind of "green card" condition. I think it's certainly part of the plan now, I just need to figure out what it should be.

As far as people sponsored by someone who gets unsponsored, my feeling is it shouldn't necessarily go all the way down the chain. If someone gets banned by an admin, we'll certainly investigate in both directions. But if it's between users, I don't think your being unsponsored means everyone you sponsored should be too.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Let's all recurse!! (2.75 / 4) (#177)
by toulouse on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:37:35 PM EST

Hulver: Can they still sponsor if they're sponsored by an un-sponsored user?

Rusty:...people sponsored by someone who gets unsponsored...don't think your being unsponsored means everyone you sponsored...

Steady, now. This all going bit "Who's on first?"


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


[ Parent ]
Yes, he is! (2.50 / 4) (#269)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:19:58 PM EST

Why do people keep asking me that???

WHO IS ON FIRST. There, it's simple, yes?

[ Parent ]

make it literal (2.80 / 5) (#294)
by Wah on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:46:39 PM EST

That's another good reason for some kind of "green card" condition

Make it the good ole fashioned green card, ca$h (like a 3 month membership).  As someone else mentioned, not too many people are going to pay just get banned.

And personally, I'd say drop the sponsorship link after the new poster gains the ability to sponsor others (time, content, whatever).  If you make it a long enough lag time (60 days), with relatively instant retribution for bullshit, it's not a fun game to play anymore.

Helps keep the database simpler too, at the least.

Thanks for doing something, regardless.  As a vocal complainer I do appreciate the effort.

Curious use of 'inherently' a couple times, but other than that snlight nitpick, I think the general proposal you've put forward will help.
--
sometimes things just are that way and that's it. They're true. Sure, Popper, et. al., may argue otherwise, but they're dead. You get it? Yet?
[ Parent ]

the need for green card (none / 1) (#965)
by samething on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 03:56:08 PM EST

Consider two situations.  
  1. User A sponsors User B.  User B is a good user for a year.  Then User A does some really bad stuff and gets kicked off.  It sounds like you probably would maintain User B's "sponsored" status.  In that case, User B would be permanently sponsored since there would be no one to withdraw the sponsorship.
  2. User A sponsors User B.  User B is a good user for a year.  User A starts to exhibit erratic behavior.
It seem like it is better for K5 if no one does something bad enough to get them kicked off (as in situation 2).  However, for User B, situation 1 (in which someone actually gets kicked off) is preferable since User B could still potentially lose sponsorship in situation 2.

The point is that death-of-sponsor should not be the only way to get permanent "sponsored" status.  The natural solution is the "green card" idea that some have mentioned.

[ Parent ]

Suggestion. (2.75 / 4) (#263)
by Ward57 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:12:24 PM EST

A user recieves a green card when someone he sponsored reaches sponsorable level, or at four times the requirement to reach sponsoring status. That would encourage sponsorship of new users, yet double the amount of work a dishonest individual would have to do to set up a green carded account.

A dishonest person might also try to sponsor many legitimate users to hide the few troll accounts he spawns from his main account. They might actually end up working for us (perverse, eh?).

[ Parent ]
my suggestion... (2.60 / 10) (#34)
by jacoplane on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:07:41 AM EST

I know most people here feel the trolls cannot be combatted using software. However I feel that using software to encourage human collaborative filtering a lot could be achieved. My idea expands on an idea by cyberdruid.

Give every user the chance to rate other users. Something like "untrustworthy, neutral, trustworthy". Then you could activate an option saying "ignore all users who are found to be untrustworthy by X users who i find trustworthy". If the option were merely to say "ignore all users who are found to be untrustworthy by X users" that would allow users creating zillions of dupe accounts to ignore another user to death. By only looking at users you trust this problem is eliminated.

If course by ignoring some users there will be gaps in the comments, but rusty has already made it clear that he finds beating the trolls more important than keeping the gaps out...

The upside of all this is that the trolls are free to stick around if they want to, they'll simply be ignored by the regular users...

As much as I like the killfile idea... (none / 1) (#107)
by CodeWright on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:54:17 AM EST

...rusty has already said that it is a permanent no-go for k5.

and, actually, the solution he has proposed today is potentially superior.

ALL HAIL RUSTY!

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Hmm (2.57 / 7) (#38)
by aphasia on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:09:19 AM EST

Certainly you're aware of how somethingawful forums handles things? Do you think anything there ($10 for an account, bannage abounding, an area set aside for the pure crap, strong and multiple moderators, the ability to buy shit titles for others) could be applied here?

Gotta say I don't like the sponsorship idea either. It's alittle too orkut for my tastes.

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave

SA Forums (2.80 / 10) (#47)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:15:21 AM EST

They've devised a bunch of workable, practical means for maintaining a busy forum, certainly. We could probably do those things here. But I'd be bored. I like that K5 can be a playground to try out new ideas, and I think this scheme is an interesting extension of the site's founding principles, and I can't wait to see what happens.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Well, that's fair (none / 2) (#87)
by aphasia on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:40:24 AM EST

It is your playground, and what you describe is an interesting change. It's hard to predict the outcome, considering all the variables. I will say that I find any change whatsoever kind of exciting. It helps that I'm more of an observer these days than a contributor, far less involved, and so to me it's an entertaining spectator sport. I like it that way, actually.

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

Me too (none / 2) (#697)
by mumble on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:33:58 AM EST

"I will say that I find any change whatsoever kind of exciting." - Me too.

That is why I always like it when there are new Site News, or Meta's. There has been a bit of a drought of these, so it is good to see a nice one that you can sink your teeth into. Whatever happened to monthly Site News, and updates regarding CMF?

-----
stats for a better tomorrow
bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
"They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
"I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.
[ Parent ]

Didn't you see Fight Club? (none / 1) (#703)
by aphasia on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:48:33 AM EST

The first rule of CMF: We do not talk about CMF. The second rule? We Do Not Talk About CMF.

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

trying out new ideas.. (2.25 / 4) (#131)
by infinitera on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:06:54 PM EST

What, once every 6-12 months? ;)

(Yes, that coffee-making site spoils us.)

[ Parent ]

You wouldn't get bored (3.00 / 4) (#353)
by coryking on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:28:59 PM EST

You'd have better problems to takle. It's like commercial farming over subsistance farming. Commercial farming frees tons of minds to do better things then worry about getting food. Rather then worrying about how to get rid of idiots, you can worry about how to get the best fucking content in the world. How to integrate other scoop sites. How to attract a diverse audiance. And other cool things that I can't think of now.

Dont forget you are a different type of site too. SA is just a forum; kind of like a gated usenet. Here, people post long storys which get replies. It's really different.

[ Parent ]

Regarding SA (none / 1) (#319)
by devon on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:05:13 PM EST

I thought about SA's model as well. I guess I like that rusty is doing something different. If he implemented all the same policies and whatnot, what would be the point of having two sites? Although, when handing out warnings, you might want to suggest they look into SA, maybe with a link to FYAD.

--
Call yourself a computer professional? Congratulations. You are responsible for the imminent collapse of civilization.
[ Parent ]
New? Good (2.90 / 11) (#40)
by carlossch on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:13:18 AM EST

if you consider kuro5hin to be more a social experiment than a site that promises to be something for someone, anything new seems a good idea. It could be good or it could be awful. Karma and mojo seemed both good in theory, but practice showed karma to be more robust (slashdot is starting to be readable again, if only at 3 with Funny scoring -2.) So I say keep it, and let's see what comes out of it. Some folks will keep it civilized, the trolls will still find a way to be annoying. If sponsorship turns out to be too bad, well, chuck it out and come up with something new and possibly better :) Remember that you'(we)re still exploring the design space.

I think one problem is that someone will be obstinate enough to create a chain of dupe accounts to get out of the sponsor-ban. Before you say trolls are only doing it because it's easy, look at NIWS going for more than half a year, and even harder cases to spot, like rmg and Tex Bigballs, which obviously can maintain a stream of coherent comments alongside the crapflooding.

I dunno: people keep bitching and bitching and bitching about k5, but they keep coming back, and folks keep posting interesting stuff. Seems good enough for me.

-- He took a duck in the face at two hundred and fifty knots.

I thought kuro5hing is the beta site (1.40 / 5) (#51)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:17:16 AM EST

for discussion sites such as satanosphere and husi?

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]
Is your sig about that model? <nt> (none / 2) (#547)
by Vesperto on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:59:35 PM EST



If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
Excellent initiative (2.76 / 13) (#42)
by kmcrober on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:13:55 AM EST

I normally try to abstain from meta-stuff because I'm relatively new here.  But this seems like the kind of thing that's worth every serious user's two cents.

I've come to really enjoy K5, but I'm constantly stumped by the trolls.  I guess it makes me feel old to shake my fist at mouth-breathers with no better ideas than to harass more interesting people.  But when someone does have that much wastable time, and is willing to put all that effort into being an ass, it must make it a difficult problem to deal with.

That's why I'm in favor of the system, even though I really dislike the idea of sponsorship.  I think it should work fine, but I don't have any illusions that I wouldn't have bothered to get a sponsor when I started posting here.  I would have just left, or kept lurking without ever contributing anything.  It's hard to imagine that K5 will draw enough new users to remain vibrant if it adopts the apparently not-very-successful Orkut model.

But if that's the price of weeding out the artless trolls, well, it's worth a shot.  At least the sponsorship requirement could be lifted later if it looks like it's going to be unnecessarily stifling.  And it looks like the mods are willing to flexibly adopt new approaches when necessary.  Maybe require sponsorships for the first four to six months in a year, to wait out persistant trolls?  Or, as someone else said, just a more robust new accounts engine?  

It's all worth a shot.  At least the mods are trying new approaches; that's a good thing.  Thanks.

Hey! (none / 1) (#164)
by gzt on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:29:12 PM EST

I breathe through my mouth and it's not my fault.

[ Parent ]
My bad (2.50 / 4) (#194)
by kmcrober on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:03:38 PM EST

And I apologize for my rampant bigotry.  My eyes have been opened, and my heart has grown three sizes this day...

Breathe free, brother.  Breathe free.

[ Parent ]

+3, Encourage (2.37 / 16) (#43)
by gazbo on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:14:02 AM EST

Nothing wrong with showing you've got a pair every so often.

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

re: k5 guidlines (2.33 / 15) (#44)
by metalgeek on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:14:06 AM EST

I give you, the 10 k5 commandments:

10 commandments of K5:

1. Thou shall not fear rusty, for he is thine admin
2. Thou shall not piss off rusty too much
3. Thou shall not crapflood.
4. Thou shall not link to post anything illegal
5. Thou shall respect those around you, do not post extensive derogatory comments about them
6. Thou shall not break scoop
7. Thou shall not steal accounts
8. Thou shall not game the mod system
9. Thou shall not threaten other users
10. Thou shall not act like an ass

"K5 is a site where users have the motto 'Anyone Who Isn't Me Is An Idiot, And Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Gay'." skyknight
that should work. [nt] (none / 1) (#137)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:09:07 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Ode to K5 (1.66 / 30) (#46)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:14:54 AM EST

There once was a site called K5
On freedom and mercy it thrived
Then one sorry day
Rusty threw it away
I give it two months to survive

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
Two months? (1.92 / 14) (#56)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:21:06 AM EST

I give you less, chump.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Please stop threatening me Rusty (1.87 / 16) (#62)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:24:31 AM EST

What have I ever done to you?

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Be Careful (2.80 / 15) (#88)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:41:23 AM EST

I once got lippy like that with Rusty, and he beat me up.

He took a cab from the airport and showed up at my door with a 2x4 with a nail in the end of it, and just started whaling on me. I said, "Hey -- please stop," and he said, "NeVAR!" and so on. My blood flew everywhere and hit the wall, just like Jesus.

True story.


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
[ Parent ]
I have but one request, Cheeseburger: (2.18 / 11) (#92)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:44:35 AM EST

MOURN MY DEATH.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
He can write the eulogy (2.40 / 5) (#125)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:04:59 PM EST

...in the style of H.L. Mencken's eulogy of William Jennings Bryan.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
I'm a simple man, rusty. (2.88 / 9) (#130)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:06:15 PM EST

An Ode will do fine.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
I give it two months, too. (2.77 / 9) (#72)
by regeya on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:32:18 AM EST

New users have to be sponsored by existing users? New users get booted if their sponsors do? Please...I know you were pissed, and rightly so, but surely there has to be a better solution.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

Now now rusty (2.27 / 22) (#82)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:38:22 AM EST

calling people names is not acceptable under the new and improved touchy-feely afterschool special K5. (see rule #1 and please let me know what buttons I need to press to issue a warning to your user info red box)

[ Parent ]
You're hard, where's your handbag? [nt] (2.00 / 5) (#275)
by James A C Joyce on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:29:08 PM EST


I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

Er.. (none / 0) (#687)
by arafel on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 09:58:20 AM EST

Incidentally, have you actually laid down some guidelines for "be respectful of others" and co.? That's so vague that it's just asking people to complain when they do something like take a comment the wrong way.

If in the course of a discussion I want to call somebody an idiot, I think that's fair enough, and most reasonable people would regard it as such - but you just know there'll be someone who'll regard it as abusive behaviour...

Paul
[ Parent ]
meh (2.20 / 5) (#128)
by infinitera on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:05:24 PM EST

Rusty threw it away when he decided diaries and personal interaction were not the core of community, or indeed of any collaborative media.

[ Parent ]
I like it (mostly) (2.94 / 18) (#48)
by Driusan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:15:28 AM EST

I'm not sure if I really like the idea of revoking the sponsoree's account when someone they sponsor acts up, because that would make me never sponsor anyone, ever. Maybe if it was "permanently revoke your ability to sponsor others" or "if multiple people you've sponsored have been banned" (or better yet, multiple people within the last x days/months/years.)

How long between the warning and the ban? If I sponsor someone, they get a warning, and then they get banned before the next time I even visit K5 am I going to be banned?

Also, requiring everyone to be sponsored is a good way to cut off new blood. Why not just make it so that someone only needs to be sponsored when it's likely that they're an abuser? (They're sharing an IP address with someone else, they're going through a proxy, there've been an unusual number of new signups in the last couple minutes, etc)


--
This space for rent.

Good in theory (none / 0) (#930)
by Zoshnell on Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 03:08:07 PM EST

but I think it might fail in execution. If there's a posted limit, then trolls will just abide by it. On the flip side, if its "case by case" then people will scream unfair. Same thing if its there but unposted. Rock, meet hard place.
---------------------------------------------------- "I think there I am, I think." - Nordom The Modron
[ Parent ]
Ok so how does one get sponsorship (2.93 / 15) (#52)
by haplopeart on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:17:30 AM EST

Please follow senario: 1. Random internet user finds a link inot k5 from the net because a story looks interesting...(That's the way I ended up here once upon a time, a story title displayed on freshmeat looked interesting read the story and wanted to comment so I joined up) 2. With sponsorship the new user, if i understand correctly cannot interact with the board until they are sponsored. 3. How is the user going to get sponsored if they are some random person who has no real world connection to another k5 user? Just my Random quick thought on the matter, I don't blame you for seeing this as a direction one must go in Rusty... ...however this seems to be turning things in the direction or Orkut...which is a gated community that not just anyone can join, unless they know someone on the inside...
Bill "Haplo Peart" Dunn
Administrator Epithna.com
http://www.epithna.com

orkut... (2.50 / 4) (#169)
by coderlemming on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:31:33 PM EST

Orkut has a crapton of users now.  Over a hundred thousand.  Orkut and K5 are different because K5 isn't specifically designed with the intention that you should bring all of your friends in... but I think you need a better example.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]
That's what I thought too (2.75 / 4) (#181)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:43:39 PM EST

Several people have pointed to Orkut as an example of this idea failing. While Orkut isn't anything like K5 in terms of activities, it does have about a zillion users. C.f. this graph. I'm not sure how orkut makes the case that there will be no new users. It would seem to be evidence to the contrary.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
The difference is in the purpose.... (3.00 / 5) (#188)
by haplopeart on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:54:58 PM EST

...orkut is ablout building community by inviting in all your friends, associates, what have you...K5 at least to me is building community by common interest...how is that interest identified, by people finding links to the site, saying hey thats interesting, I'd like to join that discussion, I guess I should join...I understand the desire to lock out the assholes and trolls, its just the barrier to entry propblem that concerns me...

Stated again the problem as I see it is that a random user ends up here...he has no personal contact with someone who is already a memeber, how are they ever going to get anyone to sponsor them in...?

I wish I could offer a solution to the problem that would be an acceptable compromise, but find myself unable too off the top of my head.
Bill "Haplo Peart" Dunn
Administrator Epithna.com
http://www.epithna.com

[ Parent ]

Well (2.75 / 4) (#236)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:42:33 PM EST

It's a risk. Right now, my feeling is that we wait a few months and see what happens. I think we'll know one way or the other within six months whether the barrier is too high. It's also possible that people will organize their own ways to get in if there's enough demand, outside the site itself. That would be fine as well.

So I'm not opposed to some kind of audition system in principle, but I want to see what happens first.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Maybe (3.00 / 6) (#352)
by devon on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:28:54 PM EST

After some period of active lurking, to get a feel for the place, if they haven't found a sponsor, they get probationary access to some user privileges, like just diary and comments. That would give them a way to start interacting with the community. Probation would last for a long time, 6 months to a year. If they get reported during that time, either back to square one, or ban, at the admin's discretion. This sort of "blind entry" user wouldn't get to sponsor anyone, until they did get a sponsor.

--
Call yourself a computer professional? Congratulations. You are responsible for the imminent collapse of civilization.
[ Parent ]
Diverting new users to HuSi? (none / 1) (#1019)
by pin0cchio on Thu May 20, 2004 at 01:04:10 PM EST

It's also possible that people will organize their own ways to get in

Other than just saying something along the lines "Getting a Kuro5hin account is too much work; I'll just join HuSi instead"? Diverting new users to Hulver's site would just turn K5 into a big clique.

So I'm not opposed to some kind of audition system in principle

Advogato seems to have an audition system where new users can post userpages and diaries but need sponsorship to make comments or to get stories posted.

What's your objection to doing it like SA, that is, a 2 or 3 month subscription and you're in, but possibly on probation?


lj65
[ Parent ]
random unconnected users (2.40 / 5) (#395)
by coderlemming on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:28:50 PM EST

I don't think there are very many people who truly have no connection to K5.  I know that I could have gotten sponsored by a few of my friends, if I had wanted to, even though I mostly ended up here randomly myself.  It just happened that a few of my friends also had accounts.

To all those who say "I would never have been here", I suggest this experiment.  Try asking around, seeing if any friends of yours are on K5.  You may not have even known.  Failing that, try friends of friends, etc.  I think more people would have been sponsored than they think.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]

Even if so (3.00 / 2) (#896)
by Cro Magnon on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 09:28:43 AM EST

I wouldn't have gone around asking random RL friends if they were K5rs and wanted to sponser me. I would have just flipped a finger in Rusty's general direction and looked for a site I COULD post on.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
You haven't looked at the graph closely enough. (none / 1) (#684)
by arafel on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 09:53:32 AM EST

Except that the number of new users on Orkut grew rapidly, and now seems fairly static. I suspect that the remaining friends of the users on it just generally aren't bothered, and because of the system no new random people can join. And bear in mind this is with no penalty for introducing "bad" users.

(Which is fair enough - Orkut seems interesting from the outside, but once you're in and have found all your friends there's nothing to actually do.)

Personally, I hate the sponsorship idea, for the reasons people have given numerous times - if you're a random user arriving here from another site, how on earth are you ever supposed to get sponsored given that you can't interact with people onsite, and the penalties for sponsoring "bad" users are so high? I think sponsorship stands a fairly high chance of killing what remains of an interesting K5.

But that's just me. It's your site, go ahead and do what you want with it.

On a completely different note, how's all the CMF stuff working out?
Paul
[ Parent ]

Additionally Orkut is littered with fakes (none / 2) (#240)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:45:46 PM EST

It is a gigantic, screaming disasterous hellhole.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Excellent. (1.44 / 27) (#57)
by zipper on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:21:19 AM EST

Hey rusty, if you want to improve K5, why don't you actually do something productive like fix search? How about we start getting those fabled monthly updates again from someone other than Robotslave? How about you don't make K5 even more of an insular circlejerk where anyone who doesn't subscribe to the groupthink is branded a troll? How about you keep abusive editors in check so they don't go on a delete spree when mommy grounds them?

Well, I guess I should look on the bright side, at least it's an end to 3 months of neglect.

---
This account has been neutered by rusty and can no longer rate or post comments. Way to go fearless leader!
While perhaps you have a point in general (3.00 / 7) (#95)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:46:54 AM EST

I firmly refuse to believe a lack of a search function is significantly hurting the signal to noise ratio of this site.

[ Parent ]
I'm not suggesting it is. (2.75 / 4) (#119)
by zipper on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:01:11 PM EST

... but frankly it's more of a concern to me than the Troll Menace(tm)(r)(c), and fixing it will actually improve K5, as opposed to making it more insular.

---
This account has been neutered by rusty and can no longer rate or post comments. Way to go fearless leader!
[ Parent ]
OK, N/M (NT) (none / 1) (#133)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:07:46 PM EST



[ Parent ]
what's the point of a site search... (2.20 / 5) (#257)
by realhappy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:03:33 PM EST

...when using google to search a site is almost always better?
isn't it just a waste of a site admin's time?

--
and when there is no hope
i'll smoke some crack!
i'll shoot some dope!
choking victim - '500 channels'
[ Parent ]
because google doesn't index k5 (none / 1) (#375)
by infinitera on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:59:54 PM EST

And when it did, it brought k5 to its knees.

The only way to make it searchable is to either default to nested for logged out users, or to re-enable the crawling of /comments.

[ Parent ]

Its not just K5 (none / 1) (#1001)
by Miniluv on Sun May 02, 2004 at 09:06:39 PM EST

For one, this is a deficiency in scoop. Its only exposed when Scoop is used to run a large site short on resources. However that doesn't change the fact that its a deficiency.

Beyond which, within a site there are all sorts of interesting things you could do with search. Imagine a search that allowed for the locating of conversations between a pair, or group, of specific users. Once a good mechanism for searching, and the resources to support it, were available all sorts of interesting innovative ideas could be tried out. Last I checked this coincided with Rusty's goals for the site.

I only occasionally stop by anymore, however I have to agree with the doomsayers who're harping on the neglectful approach towards this site. I paid for a subscription for 6 months to help "save" k5, and what the hell has it accomplished? rusty needs to either start the chemo, or sign the DNR on k5. This feeding tube bullshit just ain't working.

"Its like someone opened my mouth and stuck a fistful of herbs in it." - Tamio Kageyama, Iron Chef 'Battle Eggplant'
[ Parent ]

Comment moderation (3.00 / 44) (#58)
by Psychopath on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:22:10 AM EST

I'd like to use this opportunity to point out and ask users to make more use of comment moderation. If you read a comment and have an opinion about it - please moderate it!
It could even be helpful for the user who wrote the comment, to get some more feedback.
Thanks.
--
The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain. -- Karl Marx
Done. NT (1.40 / 5) (#96)
by freestylefiend on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:47:34 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I fully agree. (n/t) (2.14 / 7) (#499)
by Kinq of Prussia on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:55:39 PM EST


Making the moon less necessary since 1998.
[ Parent ]

But in Windows... (2.50 / 6) (#512)
by driptray on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:29:38 PM EST

...all those form fields have the effect of hanging the system. This makes moderation virtually impossible.

A separate issue is to make moderation easier by switching to radio buttons instead of a drop-down list. This would make moderation a one-click process instead of a two-click process. That might not sound like much, but it's really a massive usability improvment, and would help to increase the amount of moderation that is performed.

At the moment, the user interface is very hostile to those that want to moderate.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

One click rating is already there (none / 3) (#524)
by wurp on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:08:58 PM EST

As pointed out to me elsewhere in this story's comments:  Try Dynamic Threading in your Comment Preferences.  It gives you one-click rating ability, without the stupid reloads.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]
Erm. Duh. (none / 3) (#539)
by wurp on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:33:40 PM EST

Uh, it's still two click rating.  But it's much better than the non-dynamic comment display models.

I agree, it would be much better if it were a radio button, or links, and it shouldn't do the funky reload thing.  I'm not that hot to see my rating reflected in the average.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]

with Opera.. (none / 2) (#675)
by Psychopath on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 09:20:34 AM EST

..it works like a charm. I.e. it doesn't hang/crash the browser or the system.
Though I obviously have to agree it's a two click procedure for each comment rating I don't really mind it and don't see it that hard to moderate.

What I really like is the rate-button under every comment. I don't like scrolling down to click the moderate button (like on slashdot, for example).
--
The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain. -- Karl Marx
[ Parent ]
Moderation is worthless (none / 1) (#863)
by Phil San on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 07:47:09 PM EST

I'd like to use this opportunity to point out and ask users to make more use of comment moderation.

That's great as long as the current policy of not using comment thresholds for sorting is kept. People shouldn't be able to have blinders available for them.

If you read a comment and have an opinion about it - please moderate it!

Or alternatively you could just bother and comment to it. Comment ratings are stupid, limited ways of expressing an "opinion"

It could even be helpful for the user who wrote the comment, to get some more feedback.

What feedback it's a number, and a worthless number at that.

[ Parent ]
Sponsors (2.81 / 11) (#59)
by gumbo on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:22:48 AM EST

Some people have expressed an unwillingness to sponsor under the proposed system. It would be better if the policy guaranteed that a misbehaving user and his sponsor were always given at least one warning. That way a sponsor would have an opportunity to revoke his friends sponsorship before he gets kicked on account of his friend's behaviour. People would be more willing to vouch for others and you would receive fewer complaints in your inbox.

I don't yet know what I think about the social consequences of what you are proposing. I always liked K5 because of its combative rhetoric and irreverent tone. I wouldn't want it to become vapid.

It does (3.00 / 6) (#83)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:38:43 AM EST

Policy is always one warning. Like I said, no warnings would be only for extremely rare cases when we know beyond a doubt that a warning would be pointless. It's so much easier and safer just to give the warning that I don't think it's likely to happen much, if ever.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
A few problems (2.88 / 18) (#60)
by BadDoggie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:23:13 AM EST

Your solution looks fairly well thought-out and I'm glad you decided to put it to discussion first -- whether or not you let the discussion influence you -- rather than simply implementing a massive change such as with ratings.

Here are a few things to think about:

Part I:
What about new people coming to the site? While this could certainly stop another SomethingAwful attack and your having to play Whack-A-Mole® with some crapflooders, it will also stop everyone else coming here and wanting to join after a link appears in El Reg or Wired or /. or Politechbot. Had ti dave's story made it to the FP, you can be sure you would've had a mass of new readers, some of whom would probably stick around, join and contribute, silly opinions or otherwise.

Part II:
Good idea. Make a rules page, make a boldfaced link and put that link under the K5 logo so that it can't be overlooked. Simple rules about what you cannot do should suffice.

Part III:
Also a good idea, but would only work if the system is implemented, and that's a bad idea. It would also require a lot more work by the administrators.

Part IV:
Again, good idea but open to abuse through multiple accounts and joint effort, which is exactly what you faced last weekend. Also very time-consuming unless you set some sort of threshold for number of complaints per comment or user.

What happens if Baldrson and a couple of his friends all complain about my comments in his diary or story? Isn't it off-topic and possibly abuse when I post "-1 Baldrson" to his story unless I sit there and cut-and-paste the entire explanation from the last time I wrote it as a comment? Is it abuse that it's more an Editorial comment but that I submit it as Topical to ensure more people see it? And how do you determine the difference? You need to answer that because you'll be dealing with 100 of those sorts of decisions a day.

I agree with you on the part about killfiles: groupthink. Wouldn't that be the result of restricting the site to those currently on it and people they're willing to vouch for?

woof.

"Eppur si muove." -- Galileo Galilei
"Nevertheless, it moves."

New people and groupthink (3.00 / 12) (#78)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:36:20 AM EST

About driving away new folks: I've watched Metafilter with particular interest for the last N millennia while their new accounts have been closed. That site has a regular horde of people who read all the time and are waiting with eager hope for the day they too can get a posting account. It's been closed forever, with exactly zero definite hope of re-opening, and yet still they wait. Incidentally, it also has a much smaller user base than K5, and has not withered away and died. So, by inference, I'm willing to gamble that we won't either.

The case of MeFi is also interesting in relation to sponsorship. If they had a system like this, there would absolutely be a steady stream of new users who are friends or co-workers or spouses of existing users. You're right that a lot of random visitors will come, discover that they can't post, and then go again. That's ok. The idea is to replace that random haphazard user stream with an entirely different stream -- people who are sent here on purpose by current users.

Will it wind up in an orgy of groupthink? I don't know. I can think of several people I totally disagree with about everything that I would happily sponsor. I think most of the people here now (who are, remember, our root user pool) value the same openness in their points of view. But that's unknown.

About the general issue of determining what's abuse and what isn't -- I think it's like obscenity. I can't necessarily define it, but I know it when I see it. I'm pretty comfortable that all of the admins have a good sense of what's abusive and what isn't. The main problem in the past has been that there's no structure here that accepts and acknowleges that banning people is sometimes necessary, so it's always been seen as something we shouldn't do, even when we have to. I also don't plan to be a lot more strict about "the rules" than I already am, other than personal attacks and harassment (which should be quite a bit easier to contain now that it's harder to make new accounts).

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

All I know (3.00 / 4) (#105)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:53:39 AM EST

is that under the sponsorship idea, I wouldn't be here. I stumbled on this site when Slashdot was having troubles. I saw some familiar usernames, but I didn't KNOW any of them and would have looked for another site where I could post. Likewise, I can't think of anyone who I'd sponsor. Most of the people I'm comfortable with are either already here, or have no real interest in coming here.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Yick. (2.88 / 9) (#155)
by tzanger on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:19:59 PM EST

That's ok. The idea is to replace that random haphazard user stream with an entirely different stream -- people who are sent here on purpose by current users.

Yick.  

This is a lot like inbreeding, IMO.  Not quite as disastrous but still the whole Orkut idea is already dead -- I really do strongly feel that there should be some way for totally fresh new users to come across the site and get posting accounts.  

I haven't figured out how yet.  Sponsorship's not bad, it can be a way to fast-track your way into posting status...  but I really do feel there needs to be some way to get fresh blood into the site without having to be related to someone already there.

[ Parent ]

One way (3.00 / 5) (#182)
by ucblockhead on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:44:57 PM EST

Well...k5 could have a system where existing users volunteer to be sponsers. They'd give an email address where people who want to be new users could petition for sponsership.

This would end up being a bit like the old BBS callback system, except instead of on sysop doing it, it'd be a cadre of volunteers doing the duty. This would pretty obviously prevent automated account creation without Rusty himself having to do anything.

For people to volunteer, though, the admins would have to be a bit less stringent about booting sponsers when the sponseree goes bad if that sponser is one of these volunteers.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Your suggestion broke down the second you (3.00 / 4) (#193)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:03:26 PM EST

suggested having user volunteers. If we've learned nothing else from the internet, it's the pervasiveness of social engineering -and how effective of a tool it is to subvert online communities.

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]
You don't have to (3.00 / 5) (#231)
by JahToasted on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:39:16 PM EST

make it impossible for people to game the system, you just need to make it difficult. If creating a new account is quite a bit more difficult than deleting it, then the assholes will go elsewhere.

Remember, for the most part, we're talking about pre-teens here, and they're not known for long attention spans.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

The ones who have done any damage (none / 3) (#239)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:45:01 PM EST

have spent months at it; this is a factor that seems to be repeatedly minimised and/or ignored.

It's not the kids or the casual rabble-rousers you have to worry abuot, its the people with a real or imagined grievence and a long attention span.

---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]

non user contributions? (2.80 / 5) (#254)
by Nigga on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:58:25 PM EST

I think non-users should be able to contribute. Let them post "anonymously" but let them sign their anonymous postings so that the can create a psuedo-identity for themselves. The only catch is that their comments can be deleted by ANY real user. For any reason. What this allows for is non-users to make friends and get a sponsor through k5 instead of placing the requirement that they get a sponsor outside of k5...

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

Anonymous Hero Deletion Bot (none / 0) (#1020)
by pin0cchio on Thu May 20, 2004 at 01:24:12 PM EST

Then watch somebody sponsor a sockpuppet account "Anonymous Hero Deletion Bot" that just goes through each story and deletes every Anonymous Hero comment.
lj65
[ Parent ]
k5 != MeFi (3.00 / 16) (#259)
by BadDoggie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:04:12 PM EST

MeFi is a less selective memepool with comments. K5 has articles on various subjects which are ideally designed to provoke discussion and possibly controversy. At its best, it gets people to think; in general it presents other ideas and opinions, and at its worst, it's a grafitti wall, and even then, ideas flourish and humour occurs. (I lauged at the "fr1st p0st" comment in this update).

It doesn't matter that no one else can comment at MeFi because most of the comments are inane and at best provide further related links. Not so, here.

I've sent people here. They've read whatever it was I sent 'em for and that was it. They left. Others who came here decided to post in one of my stories or diaries and signed up without me knowing who the hell they were.

I came here haphazardly, and finally signed up for an account months later. I couldn't have done that or anything I do now had you had such a system in effect. I ignored the diaries forever and I frankly find them a lot better now than they were a couple years ago. I hate crapflooding, but a lot of the "troll" stuff really makes me laugh. The crapflooding annoys me as much as anyone else.

And yes, I troll, and you know exactly how and as whom. Have I been obnoxious? A couple times, although I thought it was appropriate. I also provide some stories, a few interesting diaries and a lot of comments which have generated interesting threads, and much more than any of the troll comments I've ever written.

Baby. Bathwater.

Yes, there's a problem with a few people making a concerted effort to shit all over your work. Yes, they must be dealt with. No, I shed very few tears last weekend. Yes, I appreciate your efforts, though some are justified in thinking you took an awful long time to take any action. Everyone also learned what it took to get your attention.

There were bets as to how many seconds it would take for the "rustina" diary to be wiped. If it makes you feel better, no one was even close. Reading back through a particular IRC channel log, it's pretty clear that they were indeed just trying to get your attention, something that's been admittedly hard to do as of late.

My comment in it, as you saw, was sort of trolling the trolls, except it was neither a troll nor a crapflood. More some facetious, sarcastic humour. What does the FAQ say about diaries? "Be aware that anyone can (and will) comment on what you say though... Use at your discretion or lack thereof." [Emphasis added]

Again -- and this isn't a criticism but an observation -- the problem, such as it is, is due to the perception that you didn't pay attention to the site. At all. Were you more active, I don't believe it would've gotten any worse than last summer's Invasion of the Diary-Snatchers, and most of that was pretty funny. If nothing else, it gave us Tex and the zombies, which I plan to use as my next star vehicle's band name.

Getting back to the point, you say that you "can think of several people [you] totally disagree with about everything that [you] would happily sponsor" which is laudable, but not realistic. You aren't worried about the potential loss of access, and you might take the time to pay attention to them.

How will you know what they think or write without first seeing a few of their comments?

Hell, forget sponsorship, how many people can be bothered to rate comments? I don't rate many anymore unless they're damned insightful/interesting or damned funny. Or guesses to one of my riddals. And most other people are the same. Rating is great and I do consider its value and, in some ways, my responsibility, but seriously, even if you changed to the easier HuSi radio-button rating method, I still wouldn't rate that much, although anything that eases doing so is incentive.

Personal attacks? I'm with you most of the time. Likewise, your earlier definition of the general idotic comment verses the personal "fucking nigger fag" attack is pretty clear. Same with photoshopping your wife.

This is not Orkut, which can't handle the strain even though it has no real content yet. This is not MeFi, where people comment on dumb or amusing sites/links. This is supposed to be "Technology and Culture, From the Trenches", but you're planning to change it to "Technology and Culture and Stuff, from the Trusted and Elite. If You Don't Personally Know Someone Posting Here, Fuck Off."

Maybe TPD or gaz can help you with the new logo.

woof.

"Eppur si muove." -- Galileo Galilei
"Nevertheless, it moves."
[ Parent ]

Hang on, don't panic (3.00 / 4) (#304)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:55:27 PM EST

I've said repeatedly (but I will say again) this is an experiment. If we don't like how it goes, there are already several good suggestions here for an open audition-type system.

You are entirely right in your premises, but I don't know yet about the conclusion. I don't think anyone knows for sure, so let's find out first.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Umm... let's NOT (3.00 / 10) (#318)
by BadDoggie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:04:35 PM EST

What we have here is exactly what I and others feared: you're making a MASSIVE change and although you announced the idea ahead of time, no amount of logic no avalanche of explanations of the flaws will stop you from implementing it. So what's the point?

And just how do you propose to to "find out" if it works? Will you run a poll in 3-6 months?

You've said you want this place to grow and expand and take on more opinions and ideas. You're doing everything possible to stop it. This is a truly bad idea. Had you implemented this idea earlier, there would be no Tex. There would be no Riddlar. There would be no Michael Moore. There would be no Ballmer. There would be no John Asscroft, an account I find damned near brilliant. There are a lot of accounts that have become important here that would not and could not exist under your sponsorship idea.

Scroll down to speek's comment. It's a much better idea, requires less work to implement since the machinery has long been in place, and is MUCH less restrictive. You could add the "Kill this user" box to TU pages.

If sponsorship is such a great idea, why are there already so many comments and diaries against it?

woof.

"Eppur si muove." -- Galileo Galilei
"Nevertheless, it moves."
[ Parent ]

well (2.83 / 6) (#379)
by tps12 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:10:29 PM EST

There would have been a Riddlar. And a lot of other joke accounts, like Jack Wagner et al. No Mr Badger, though.

Half-serious variation: model membership on US immigration. You can be sponsored, or you can be put on a lottery list. Each week (or month or whatever), a random subset of listed users will be given probationary accounts; they can post a limited number of comments a day, and their comments will have some visual indicator letting readers know that they are as-yet unsponsored. If a sponsorship-capable user thinks one of these trial users is beneficial, she can click somewhere to sign up to be the person's sponsor.

This gives you the best of everything: you throttle the influx of new users, but give connected people who will be contributing community members a short cut, meanwhile still leaving a path to membership for people who aren't well-connected.

[ Parent ]

I don't think so (3.00 / 10) (#511)
by BadDoggie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:28:57 PM EST

Which faggort would've risked sponsoring Teh Riddlar? Especially with the first few entries?

Not me. Not you. Most users love Teh now, but at the beginning? I don't think so. Especially as it went on for a couple months. Yes, there was a lot of participation, but there was also "participation" in some of the worst troll comments which would, under these rules, earn a warning or outright ban.

Maybe Teh was a bad example. How about Tex? Or the k5 ASCII Re-enactment players? Michael Moore, perhaps? Asscroft, definitely. pThe point is that there are a lot of accounts that started off as real crap but by staying in their roles and participating, ended up becoming part of "the community". This will be lost by Orkut-style accounts.

More importantly, there's nothing that special here to keep people's attention long enough to work for an account. Unlike MeFi with it's "copy the links and send them 'round the office on Friday" style, this site has always pulled people in due to the interesting stories and the ability to create an account and join in... and come back.

You don't come here for the funny MLP which rarely post to section. You don't come here for the latest news. You come here for discussion and to see what others whom you like or dislike have said and to join in the discussion. That's the whole reason for features like diary watch lists.

There are only really two sorts of people who want accounts here: those who want to immediately participate in a particular discussion on a particular topic (since there's no AnonCoward method of posting) and those who want to shit on the site. The question is how to allow the former while preventing the latter.

"Trust" can't even handle the former, since many people would have no idea how to make an account and those who are a bit clever would spam the bejeezus out of everyone with an account and presented E-Mail (with all the success of a U.S. military test) and the latter will always find proxies and other ways around the stopgap measures.

I still think speek's comment about TUs (and my additions) are a better way of handling this.

  1. How do you take in new, unknown and interested people?
  2. Who would risk sponsoring an unknown newbie?`
  3. How do you keep a free flow of differing ideas amongst a group which must approve all new members? Who the hell would've sponsored Baldrson? Besides rusty?.
  4. How will it be determined tha tthe system is good or bad?
This is just the beginning of my list of questions, but I have to be up in a few hours, so I have to stop now.

Rusty, please reconsider. Read the comments. Read the diaries. Understand that most of us are in favour of the ends but not the means. There are better ways. Perhaps a summary of the ideas here and a poll or CMF meet to determine which course to take? Also a "sunset" rule so that any particular method would be utilised X number of days, after which it would be evaluated and either continued or replaced?

I've always argued for the benevolent dictator but I also worry when that dictator stops listening to his advisors.

woof.

"Eppur si muove." -- Galileo Galilei
"Nevertheless, it moves."
[ Parent ]

Your examples (none / 2) (#843)
by rusty on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 12:15:17 PM EST

Being the one with the trigger finger in question, I can say for certain that I wouldn't have done anything to any of the accounts you listed. Moore would have gotten a warning or two by now, but would likely still be here.

I also think everyone is overestimating the risk of sponsoring unknown newbies. If that's what you want to do, all it will require is a little time and attention on your part, to keep an eye on your charges. If they are obnoxious, you can withdraw your sponsorship, no harm done. Even if they manage to earn a warning, you cannot be banned before you've seen and had a chance to act on the warning (I will go into more detail on this in the next site news).

I also would point out that most of the people commenting on the idea are thinking about it backward. You're looking at it from the perspective of some random person who stumbles over the site. What I'm saying is that you should be thinking about it from the perspective of who you are, which is someone who has an account. If a story comes up about some subject, and you know someone with some expertise in that, send them a link and offer them an account to post about it. I bet that for just about any subject somone knows someone who knows about it. The idea is to get you more involved in bringing people here.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Perspectives (none / 2) (#848)
by Driusan on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:06:33 PM EST

All the people who are complaining are looking at it from the perspective of someone with an account here. It's the only perspective that we can look at it from.

As a user with an account here, I don't want to cut off the flow of people who stumble across the site. I don't want to talk to people I already know. I already talk to them outside of K5. If a story comes up on K5 which a friend has expertise in, then I'll talk to my friend about that topic. Will I mention K5? Maybe, but I'm not going try very hard to push them to make an account, because I have access to their expertise already, so what do I care? Especially when you've set up a system that punishes me if they act up, but offers absolutely no rewards for me if they don't.

Say that this all risk no reward problem somehow goes away, and I want to start sponsoring strange, exotic newbies. How do these new people even get hooked up with me? You havn't given any way for legitimate new users to get hooked up with a sponsor. (Which reminds me your "40 positively rated comments" criteria is really vague, I don't even know if I meet that criteria. What's a positively rated comment? ≥ 1? Is that only comments that have met the 4 raters criteria, or is that any comments that have any ratings? Because if it's 40 comments which need to have been rated by at least 4 people, then that's not just a "high bar", it's an absurd amount.)


--
This space for rent.
[ Parent ]

Just let it go. (2.50 / 10) (#854)
by RobotSlave on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:55:12 PM EST

rusty isn't going to change anything right away, no matter how obviously broken it is to you and me. If he goes about this in his usual manner, then he'll defend his dumb idea at first, and then when it becomes painfully apparent down the line that things are broken, he'll quietly change it, and act like nothing happened.

You won't get an apology from rusty, or any credit for the solution that actually works, if you were one of the people suggesting it, but at least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you were right.

You and I both know that predicating site growth on more work on the part of the users is doomed, and that forcing users to act as shills for a nerd-oriented discussion site isn't exactly brilliant social engineering, either.

Rusty won't get it for a while. He doesn't understand yet that the "social networking" internet fad (you know, the one that's due to blow over any day now) only works for sites where the relationships are the raison d'etre.

Rusty also seems to have forgotten the fact that none of his "real world" friends or family are particularly interested in (let alone active on) kuro5hin.org, and that all of his "internet" friends know and respect him mainly because he's the founder of a putatively open and democratic discussion site.

It's possible that the failure of the "sponsor" system will force rusty to be a little more honest with himself. I hope it does-- rusty's most glaring failures (and I shouldn't have to list them, by now) appear to be due to an inability to cope constructively when he fails live up to his chronic overestimations of his own efficacy. We'd all be happier if this cycle were broken— not least rusty himself.

[ Parent ]

I'm special (none / 1) (#917)
by hatshepsut on Tue Mar 30, 2004 at 03:55:21 PM EST

Because I already have an account? How about because I have been making comments for a couple of years, and therefore likely have over 40 rated comments? (Beats me, to be honest, while interesting on occasion, I do NOT agonize about how many people find my comment interesting/insightful/rediculously stupid etc.)

That exclusionary thinking is what has a lot of people in knots, I think. We are all special because we are already here, but new people will have a higher hurdle than we did, simply because they are new. While *everyone* would have given you holy hell if we all had to go through this, there appear to be a fair number of us who are against the idea of making only new, unknown, people beg for admission.

[ Parent ]

monkeyfilter.com (none / 1) (#390)
by pyramid termite on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:24:13 PM EST

A few people got sick of waiting, I guess.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I don't think the metafilter analogy holds (3.00 / 6) (#449)
by TheophileEscargot on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:34:35 PM EST

It maybe true that metafilter hasn't shrunk (I don't know if they have a stats page). K5 has, as pointed out in this thread, fallen from 220k hits per day to 100k. If I may quote someone
...we simply aren't the only game in town anymore. There's a lot more personal blogs, niche communities, and overall things like K5 than there were before. I suspect that people wandered off during the server issues and discovered that there's a lot of cool sites out there. Some of them just don't come back as much.
Metafilter has an easy job. They post links: you can write one up in 60 seconds. Writing K5 stories takes a lot more effort. K5 is far more dependent on willing users. K5 is also in a lot more competition with various other discussion sites and boards.

What works for Metafilter probably won't work for K5.

And don't get too starry-eyed over how great Metafilter is. This week the same link got posted to metafilter and K5. Metafilter got a measly 24 mostly predictable, knee-jerk comments. K5 got 161 comments and a far more detailed, vigorous, interesting discussion. I'd say Metafilter's closed shop has hurt the quality of discussion there a lot.
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

Yeah (3.00 / 5) (#451)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:39:42 PM EST

It's worth noting that MeFi is way smaller, has had totally closed registration forever, and is not really about discussion. But my analogy wasn't meant to be a paralell, just an example of a similar situation in which usage hasn't really declined, and people still haven't given up on getting an account one day. How well the similarity holds we'll see. I have no desire to turn K5 into Metafilter.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Uh... (none / 2) (#620)
by eSolutions on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 01:53:03 AM EST

It's worth noting that MeFi is way smaller, has had totally closed registration forever, and is not really about discussion.

Really? I first heard about metafilter from memigo (an actual decent linking site) with a link that said "discuss this link at Metafilter".

I have no desire to turn K5 into Metafilter.

Yes, but what do you want to turn K5 into? You can't just keep throwing fish heads into the basement forever. Eventually, that monster-child down there will turn eighteen.

Yours in Christ,
eSolutions

[ Parent ]

Unbalanced Subjective Power (2.56 / 16) (#64)
by rustv on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:26:24 AM EST

Okay, so here we have a subjective power to warn/ban by "admins".  I assume that rusty is going to keep the current set of admins, and just leave it at that, but I think there's an inherent problem with the system.

If I understand the situation, rusty banned the account "Michael Jackson" because he wasn't funny and didn't add anything original to the site.  Would he still get banned using the new criteria you outlined?  Because I think that in his case, one admin might think he violated it, and give him a big warning, and another might disagree.  So, can one admin revoke the warning of another admin?

Another thing: when you have something subjective like a warning, I think it should be balanced by something more objective, like a timeout.  So, allow people 60-90 days after a warning before they can have another one.  rusty can still ban the people who abuse this rule, seeing as it's his site, but it's possible that people might mess up every now and then because people have ups and downs.

____
"Don't tase me, bro." --Andrew Meyer

Just for the record (2.28 / 14) (#69)
by regeya on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:29:39 AM EST

Not that I would think that anyone would ask, but just to make it official: I will not sponsor anyone. Ever.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]

Really? (none / 2) (#398)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:30:42 PM EST

I plan to sponsor absolutely anyone who asks me to.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
Good for you. (none / 1) (#498)
by regeya on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:54:24 PM EST

When people you sponsored start getting kicked, and you get kicked too, good riddance.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

You get a warning first (none / 2) (#502)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:04:24 PM EST

Didn't you read the article? When someone does something kickworthy, they and their sponsor are given a warning. At that point I'd just remove sponsorship.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
It's pretty bad what those users did (2.66 / 21) (#71)
by nebbish on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:32:09 AM EST

And I don't condone it at all, but I think the answer here is monitoring the site and accepting that these things will happen sometimes.

I agree totally with the reporting thing, it will make your job easier and give us some responsibilities, but the sponsership idea will cut off new blood and destroy K5. It's using a nuke to sort out a weekend pub fight.

I can understand why you'd be upset by this, but you're forgetting that most of the time K5 works. Please don't kill it.

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

Couple of suggestions (2.88 / 18) (#73)
by minamikuni on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:32:32 AM EST

- Holding a sponsor just as accountable for a troublemaker as the troublemaker themselves is a bit harsh and will scare a lot of people off sponsoring. Certainly sponsors should be held responsible, but not to the point of an automatic ban. Remove their ability to sponsor for a while, certainly ban them if they then sponsor another troublemaker. More than one sponsored troublemaker per 5-10 sponsored 'good' users should be interpreted as deliberate, but less than that might well be an accident.

- With this system, I would never have got into the site. Prospective users can't write comments or do anything else that would give current users a reason to trust them. I know the aim is to spread by word-of-mouth, but there have been a lot of people who just stumble across the site, sign up and start using it responsibly, and it would be a shame to lose them.
My suggestion for getting round this is to say that after signing up and before finding a sponsor, you are allowed to write comments, which automatically start zero-rated; existing users could review them and rate up particularly good ones. This assumes that zero-rated comments are hidden by default, however, which is no longer the case.
Regardless, without some entry point like this, this kind of user is simply never going to get registered on the site.

I also think that some kind of incentive to sponsor good users would be beneficial, although that's always going to be vulnerable to people trying to game the system.

I like the proposed system in most respects. I just think there won't be any new users except the occasional friend or family member of an existing user. I may be wrong, or this may be precisely the point. I do think it would be a pity, though.

(oops) (none / 1) (#85)
by minamikuni on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:39:08 AM EST

Sorry - got an old version of the page somehow, and see now that's all been discussed below. And the intention is indeed that only friends and family members become new users, it seems. Oh well...

[ Parent ]
What if... (none / 1) (#490)
by SPYvSPY on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:43:17 PM EST

...non-sponsored users could reply to stories only, but not to comments? That way, some users could exclude non-sponsored comments outright, and there wouldn't be any of the bizarre continuity problems that result from filtering out certain classes of comments. You could even have a "sponsor me" link on the user's info page.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Maybe (none / 1) (#716)
by minamikuni on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:46:49 AM EST

The sponsor me link sounds like a good idea. I hadn't considered the continuity problem. Saying they can only reply to stories doesn't solve it - to remove any chance of disjointed threads you'd need to say that sponsored users couldn't reply to them. Better than that would be to allow sponsored users to reply to them, but to hide all children of filtered-out comments. Perhaps even better would be to have three options:
  • show comments from non-sponsored users
  • replace comments from non-sponsored users with placeholders (so you could see there had been a comment to which child comments were replying)
  • hide comments from non-sponsored users and all comments descendent from them
although in practice I suspect 90% of the users would use option 1 or 3.

This is all aimed at a model where people with no connection to the site can become users, though, and I don't think this is what the admin are after; looking at rusty's comments below it seems he would rather have no new users who don't already have some personal connection to someone on the site. That's a reasonable position, although if it was put to a vote I'd support a more open alternative.

Maybe the site's going to go through a period of having closed doors. If it's a roaring success then there's no problem; if not, it'll be easier to make the case that the entry conditions should be eased somewhat.

[ Parent ]

Biggest Problem I See... (2.96 / 32) (#74)
by Benabik on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:34:23 AM EST

How do you get sponsered? I joined K5 so I could post a few comments here and there and eventually bought a paid account (expired a while back) to help the site out. I did all this based on the intellegent articles and comments I saw here.

If I showed up after this sponsership was activated I would never be able to post, as I didn't know anyone on the site and never would be able to since I wouldn't be able to post. Limiting K5 to "people current K5 members know already" really cuts out any new people who stumble across K5.



You have to accost your geekiest co-worker (2.12 / 8) (#81)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:38:21 AM EST

and demand a personal invitation to kuro5hin.org or else you'll mess up that pretty little face of his. Or just buy him flowers, take him on a few dates, and I'm sure he'll offer it to you eventually.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
I can't figure this out either... (3.00 / 8) (#129)
by claes on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:05:26 PM EST

Is Rusty trying to turn this into friendster? I personally like the anonymity. I don't particularly want to go emailing random people trying to get an account.

I don't think sponsorship is a viable solution.

-- claes (not my real name)

[ Parent ]

A way to do it (3.00 / 11) (#161)
by mstefan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:23:58 PM EST

Rather than simply word-of-mouth (which would be one way to go), I'd suggest a system like this...

You come across K5 and start reading the articles. You decide that you're interested in joining and there's a few posters that you really like. So what you do is flag those accounts as people you'd like to have as potential sponsors. Then, instead of a system where you can't post at all, your posts are accepted but queued for review by those who've you're interested in acting as your sponsor. They are notified when you post something, and if they mod up your posts, then they appear to the rests of the community. The idea is that it helps address the problem of the site becoming completely insular, still maintains some chain of authority and provides a mechanism for people to "get to know" one another through their posts.

To prevent gaming the system, you require a minimum and maximum number of potential sponsors; for example, say that there's a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 9. The person who wants to join can't just mass-flag everyone, and it forces them to be selective; the minimum number means that they can't just flag one or two people, they need to have a number of folks who are willing to be potential sponsors.

After a period of time, say 30 days, if none of the person's potential sponsors have actually sponsored him, then his status is dropped to read-only and the only possibility of getting in past that point is a direct sponsorship by word of mouth. That prevents people from exploiting the system to be in a permanent semi-sponsored state.

On the other side, posters should be able to set whether they will accept being flagged as a potential sponsor at all, and if so, if they will automatically accept the request or if they want to manually accept. To limit the "I will sponsor the world" kind of person, have it so that you can only sponsor a set number of people, say 5, at a time. Tied together with that is that once a sponsored person reaches full status themselves, they are no longer associated with their sponsor. They are an entity unto themselves, now capable of sponsoring others and their sponsor is free to sponsor someone else if they wish.



[ Parent ]
Honest question. (3.00 / 4) (#208)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:12:56 PM EST

You come across K5 and start reading the articles. You decide that you're interested in joining and there's a few posters that you really like. So what you do is flag those accounts as people you'd like to have as potential sponsors. Then, instead of a system where you can't post at all, your posts are accepted but queued for review by those who've you're interested in acting as your sponsor. They are notified when you post something, and if they mod up your posts, then they appear to the rests of the community.

You really think anyone would put up with that?

[ Parent ]

Question about question (2.80 / 5) (#256)
by Driusan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:01:55 PM EST

Put up with what? Put up with random people deciding that you'd make a good sponsor, or put up with finding people who you think might sponsor you? If you mean the former, then I would.


--
This space for rent.
[ Parent ]
The latter (nt) (none / 2) (#277)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:32:10 PM EST



[ Parent ]
The whole thing... (none / 1) (#756)
by duffbeer703 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 03:54:02 PM EST

This is an internet message board for god's sake!

If I wanted to get into some exclusive club or organization... I'd do that in real life!

If I stumbled across this site and tried to post a response to something, only to be greeted by some complex and time consuming rules & procedures... I'd be hitting the "back" button asap.

[ Parent ]

As much as they would being untrusted (2.75 / 4) (#258)
by mstefan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:03:55 PM EST

I don't think there's a huge difference between that and being untrusted, except that you don't get the ability to spam with reckless abandon. People can still post, and if they're picking people as potential sponsors who they like or agree with, there's a good chance that their posts will be modded up quickly.

It does put some burden on those who are willing to act as sponsors, but in the old days those of us with trusted user status took the time to review the toilet bowl just to try and make sure good posts didn't get flushed.

I see is as something in between the free-for-all that we've had, and completely closed, word-of-mouth-only sponsorship.

In any case, some people here are saying that membership would drop by 50% (which ties in to some extent with your general question). To be honest, I don't think that would be a bad thing at all. I'd rather have 50% fewer posters and a resulting improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio. It's not too small a price to pay to put a serious dent in the rampant trolling, crapflooding and (to a lesser extent) modbombing that's been going on.



[ Parent ]
Someone with a nearly 40k UID... (none / 2) (#601)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:08:38 AM EST

...talking about "the old days".

My hairline is receding as we speak.

I drive an Oldsmobile.

I should try to get into AARP...



[ Parent ]
Relatively speaking (none / 1) (#621)
by mstefan on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:05:37 AM EST

Relax. I obviously meant before the change in how trust user status worked, not to imply that I've been here since dirt first formed.



[ Parent ]
This is a good start... (3.00 / 7) (#268)
by RadiantMatrix on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:19:16 PM EST

Let's define three classes of user: "full", "provisional", and "new".

New users can participate, but their posts will not be generally viewable until at least 3 full users have determined a post to be appropriate; also, the number of 'appropriate' votes must always be greater than 'inappropriate' votes. After a certain number of comments/days (perhaps both thresholds should be met -- 45 comments and 20 days or somesuch), the user is provisional.

Provisional users' comments are posted automatically.  However, full users can still mark their posts 'inappropriate' -- if this happens with frequency (say more than 10% of that users' posts are so marked), the account is suspended for admin review.  After review, the account is restored, returned to 'new' status, or closed. The account becomes full after a high threshold has been reached (60 days of provisional status without more than a few 'inappropriate' posts) and a Full User is willing to sponsor them.

Full users have options in their settings to "view new user comments".  New user comments can be voted appropriate/inappropriate; Provisional user comments are assumed to be appropriate until marked otherwise.  Full users can sponsor provisional users who have reached the right thresholds.

Admins can tweak status as needed.

This is rudimentary, but I think the basic concept is good.  Ideas?

----------
I don't like spam - Parent ]

thanks (none / 1) (#431)
by sesquiped on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:06:35 PM EST

As with most of you (or so it seems from the comments), I didn't know any k5ers IRL, so I wouldn't have been able to get a sponsorship when I started reading (and sporadically posting) here.

The parent comment is a great suggestion for modifying basic sponsorship so that some trust relation is preserved while still not excluding people without friends who already have accounts.

[ Parent ]

Rusty please respond (3.00 / 4) (#175)
by FattMattP on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:38 PM EST

Rusty, could you please address this? If a new user doesn't know anyone on the site, they will never be able to be sponsored. How is a new user expected to become a part of the community and prove their worth if they aren't able to participate in the community in the first place?

[ Parent ]
You should be able to buy sponsorship. (3.00 / 11) (#238)
by sllort on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:44:36 PM EST

A paid account should be instantly sponsored. This is one way new people could join. Would crapflooders really pay rusty for the privelege to post one comment before he deleted their account?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
I agree (2.50 / 4) (#452)
by mstefan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:43:23 PM EST

I think that there are two tracks that should be available, paid status and the kind of sponsorship that we're discussing. The only thing I would suggest is that there be a somewhat higher minimum fee than the $2/$4. Require that people buy their initial membership in, say, a 6 month block. $12 or $24 is not going to be any kind of an impediment to someone who wants to really join the community. And you're right; if they want to throw their money away by crapflooding or whatever and getting banned, then at least Rusty is being compensated for having to deal with their stupid.

I like another poster's suggestion as well that at least some of that money should also go to paying authors here in some scheme or another. I'd have no problem paying a bit more to reward them. No one would get rich, but I think it would be an important signal from the community to the writers who contribute that they are valued (and more than in just an abstract, attaboy kind of way); even if it's just enough for them to take themselves out to a nice meal or something.



[ Parent ]
That approach seems to have worked for LJ (none / 1) (#599)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:05:38 AM EST

...as it has kept me away from there...



[ Parent ]
Some thoughts on this (2.84 / 19) (#75)
by onyxruby on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:34:47 AM EST

Ok, I've been quite for a while here, but I have still followed here anyways. As far as the trolls go, there was a time when someone would just comment to an admin on irc that account XXXXX was a troll, the admin checked it out and they'd be gone in short order. I can say with certainty that people felt freer to talk back in the early days knowing asswipes would just get banned. I've had my share of flames and blatant trolls here, and I'm ok with that, but a lot of other people who are less vocal just don't want to deal with it.

The accounts that got banned were long overdue, and their like drove a lot of formers k5er's away. K5 is like slashdot in that there are several times more people who read than ever post. It got so bad a while back that when asked in meat-space about k5 by a once reader my first response was to say that it had become a breeding ground for hate-speech. Intolerance and blatant trolling let the tyranny of the vocal minority reign, and chased away a lot of those who just wanted a place to chat about whatever.

As far as sponsorship goes, I have reservations. Many people dont know anyone here, and would have no way to join. This can only lead to a narrowing of opinions and ideas as most people have a nature to only invite those that tend to agree with them to a discussion site. Let's face it, most people want to be with people they perceive as like minded. Only greater intolerance can come from this.

This also puts a bind on the prospective member as they discover that if they say something their sponsor doesn't agree with they are at risk. This cant possible breed diversity, and K5 needs diversity. This also puts the sponsor in a tight spot if someone turns out to be an ass. I'm reminded of two times I referenced a friend over the years for a job where I worked and they turned out to be lousy employees. The stigma of that bad referral reflected quite poorly on me for behavior I couldn't control.

I dont like sponsorship for the stifling of diversity it would inevitably create. That being said, I do think a staggering time lock for new comments, diaries, and the like is a good idea. I concur that the Baldrsons and greenrds should be welcome, so long as the poster is sincere. Why not keep it simple and just ban the blatant trolls? I know this puts a burden on the admins, but something has to be done before only the trolls are left.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

Diversity (2.62 / 8) (#102)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:52:32 AM EST

What I'm hoping here is that rather than expecting random people to stumble in from elsewhere, the limits on new users will help make K5 no longer a breeding-ground for hate speech, to the point that you would feel comfortable actually telling your friend that he should come by and check it out, and that you'll sponsor him.

It's a different way of thinking about where new users come from. If this works anything like I expect, there will be a period of little growth, and then a steady trickle of folks who didn't find K5 randomly, but were brought here on purpose by someone who's already here and likes the new atmosphere.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Seriously though rusty (2.66 / 18) (#114)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:59:58 AM EST

I realise the internet is getting all "acceptance" these days and such, but let's face the facts: even of your established userbase, only a certain type of user would ever do something as geeky as invite a RL friend to a website like K5 (that is, geeky news and discussion). Maybe you're the sort of person who would do that, and certainly a lot of the people here do have adequately nerdy social circles that they would too. But for what I'd say is the vast majority of not only people in general, but people on K5, they're not going to invite their RL chums for a nice old time at K5. The fact that you even have to invite them makes it even geekier, "Here's an invite to this gated community... you'd never have been able to post otherwise! Email be back your username and I'll blah blah blah". Like, I do think it's generally socially acceptable to mention websites to people, email them links, etc. But something like what you're proposing here just isn't, and only supergeeks will really want to do it.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
I don't know (2.25 / 8) (#149)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:16:56 PM EST

I can see it going either way, and honestly I wouldn't put money on what's going to happen at all right now. It could be that no one will ever be able to get sponsored and there won't be any new users. Or it could be that the userbase in general will slowly start to become less geeky as the people who aren't willing to put up with the abuse rampant at totally open sites start to come here.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
A less geeky userbase (none / 2) (#945)
by UncannyVortex on Fri Apr 02, 2004 at 05:32:42 PM EST

...will lead to less intellectual discussion, more inane comments & diaries, and probably more crapflooding, IMO.

[ Parent ]
Some of us posters... (2.70 / 10) (#154)
by maynard on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:19:41 PM EST

...use our real names and make certain that our email addresses are available for anyone who might want to drop a note. Any polite poster and/or reader from numerous sites like /. or dailykos, etc. who contacts me and presents a reasonable case for inclusion will have my sponsorship. There are plenty of others, such as Michael Crawford, who do the same. And hell, as long as a reasonable number of posters offer public email contact, your complaint about sponsorship disappears. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
You must be very proud of yourself, maynard. (1.53 / 15) (#159)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:22:39 PM EST

Really.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Well, (3.00 / 4) (#446)
by ambrosen on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:26:40 PM EST

It's not like you're hard to get in touch with, mike@michaelmoore.com .

--
Procrastination does not make you cool. Being cool makes you procrastinate. DesiredUsername.
[ Parent ]
I'm very proud of myself... (none / 1) (#739)
by CodeWright on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:08:26 PM EST

...for far less reason. I'm prouder of myself than you are of yourself! (that's my reason)

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
That's my personal information... (1.80 / 5) (#521)
by maynard on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:06:54 PM EST

...what's your point? And why are you posting my work address and phone number? Do you consider that appropriate? --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
You know what you did is grossly unethical. (1.60 / 10) (#536)
by maynard on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:28:49 PM EST

Yes, you do. And so does everyone else here who cares about such things. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
Hahahahaha. (2.15 / 13) (#603)
by Trollaxor on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:11:48 AM EST

Maynard's a weener.

A weenyard.

[ Parent ]

Wow. I've never seen vicious here like this. (2.25 / 4) (#608)
by maynard on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:27:27 AM EST

OK. I can't stop what you're doing. To refute your points:

1) I listed my employer in my /. bio. I can't remember a post I've ever made which referenced my employer. There's nothing in my bio here which references my employer. It's a job. Everyone needs one.

2) Yes. I've been using my real name on the internet for a very long time. And the sad thing is because of this kind of harassment I may change. Is anonymity now a requirement for internet discourse? I bet you'd want that, wouldn't you? If this shit doesn't break the site rules on harassment, I don't know what would. JMO.

3) A long standing policy for MIT faculty, staff, and students to be published by finger protocol and directory. So what?

I won't respond to this thread any longer. And yes, you got your kicks here. I am offended. --M


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Ghetto 3s. (nt) (2.25 / 8) (#616)
by Michael Moore on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 01:08:24 AM EST

Do not mod this post down.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Clarification: (3.00 / 7) (#674)
by Michael Moore on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 09:19:52 AM EST

Parent comment to parent post was deleted, as were a number of others in this thread. Those ghetto 3s in no way belong to maynard.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Actually... (2.00 / 5) (#740)
by CodeWright on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:09:41 PM EST

...they do.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Incorrect. (2.46 / 13) (#728)
by sllort on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:34:42 PM EST

As late visitors to this thread must infer, there are comments missing. You can do something to stop them. You did it. You whined until the comments were deleted.

Please, don't ever post a comment about real/verifiable contact information ever again.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

so what (none / 1) (#911)
by Wah on Tue Mar 30, 2004 at 10:48:00 AM EST

those comments shouldn't be there.

It's like a conversation you can't remember because it was so stupid you repressed it.

Nothing to see here, move along.  Literally.
--
sometimes things just are that way and that's it. They're true. Sure, Popper, et. al., may argue otherwise, but they're dead. You get it? Yet?
[ Parent ]

There's plenty to see here. (2.75 / 4) (#944)
by sllort on Fri Apr 02, 2004 at 02:24:46 PM EST

There's a permanent monument to Maynard walking the walk he talks. There's a shining example of the memory-hole-esque charred landscape left after deletion or killfiles are dropped from 30,000 feet. There's a lot to learn here.

Not for you though. Move along.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

perhaps for you (none / 2) (#960)
by Wah on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 09:31:48 PM EST

those comments shouldn't be there.
It's like a conversation you can't remember because it was so stupid you repressed it.

same point, new comment.
--
K5 troll comment rating guidelines....
The Best Troll Comment Evar, really great stuff, trips up a bunch of people, and wastes a day. == 1
Any
[ Parent ]

Michael Moore... (none / 2) (#741)
by CodeWright on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:11:30 PM EST

...is a worthless pud-plucker. Pay him no mind.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

[ Parent ]
Wooo, GIGANTO HYPOCRITE gets comments deleted (2.00 / 4) (#701)
by sllort on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:45:16 AM EST

Yay for you.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, what a joke. (2.85 / 7) (#706)
by Michael Moore on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:10:18 AM EST

That final comment really spoke for itself.

Hey maynard, you talk pretty tough, so why is it you go running to rusty every time things stop going your way? Why do you "pride yourself" on having personal information available, then attack the person who posts it? You can't have it both ways.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]

Heh (2.60 / 5) (#338)
by coryking on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:18:56 PM EST

I was going to comment on that. The only types of people who would do that whole invite-to-a-website thing are either total nerds, or people who take things like friendster/livejournal/whtatever religiously. The former are arrogant bastards and the latter are 16 year olds. I really with the former would just go away and stay at their own place and the latter, I dont think they have much interesting to say LOL, ROFL!!!11!!!!111! :-P=

[ Parent ]
so does that mean (none / 2) (#361)
by janra on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:33:23 PM EST

that you'd think I'm either a "total nerd" or a "livejournal teenage lamer" if I were to tell somebody about photographica in glowing terms, and encourage them to join?

Oh, I'm sure that you only intended your comment to apply to invite-only sites and not all sites, but I see inviting users to a site in the same light regardless of whether or not the site requires invitations...
--
Discuss the art and craft of writing
That's the problem with world domination... Nobody is willing to wait for it anymore, work slowly towards it, drink more and enjoy the ride more.
[ Parent ]

Hmm.. (none / 3) (#371)
by coryking on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:53:48 PM EST

You are making me talk without thinking (my mind is elseware).

I think there is a difference between a "You've been invited to k5 by joeblow, here is your keys" email and a "Hey joeblow, check out these pictures!". I've gotten those friendster invitations before, and I just ignore them. But somebody who sends me a link to a site as a casual "check out this story" - that is different.

Dont know where I'm going with that... again... i usually talk out of my ass. I just am afraid that this system will immediatly narrow the potential audiance range down to a very, very small subset of potential good users. My guess was, statistically, the vast majority of people who would actually take the time to sign up based on a friendster like invite would fall into the two categories I've given.

[ Parent ]

interesting (3.00 / 5) (#340)
by jacob on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:19:48 PM EST

What I'm hoping here is that rather than expecting random people to stumble in from elsewhere, the limits on new users will help make K5 no longer a breeding-ground for hate speech, to the point that you would feel comfortable actually telling your friend that he should come by and check it out, and that you'll sponsor him.

I nearly didn't tell the people in my research group about my recent article, and in fact I nearly didn't publish it here at all, exactly because I was worried about this. I'd love it if the whole place got cleaned up.

Sidenote: I don't know whether you ever read husi or not anymore, but over there the community is strong enough that people are actually talking serious about buying hulver a ticket to the States to come to one of the frequent husi meetups. I think you deserve to be at least a little proud of that moment, in the same way I imagine a father is proud when his son does something awesome; it never would've happened had it not been for your idea to build K5. Kinda mind-blowing to think about, really.

--
"it's not rocket science" right right insofar as rocket science is boring

--Iced_Up

[ Parent ]

fuck (2.80 / 5) (#365)
by coryking on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:41:03 PM EST

I'd be proud too. For all the shit rusty gets - there are a lot of interesting spin-offs of this site; all directly owe a portion of their userbase, and their admin style to rusty and his scoop software.

To rusty I say: good job!

[ Parent ]

thoughts on diversity (none / 2) (#589)
by teichos on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:32:29 PM EST

The UID may indicate otherwise, but I'm an old salt here. I've read the site from the beginning, but didn't get an account for good while after that. Anyway, I think, like Usenet, you have an awful trolling problem here, where new, diverse users are already not very welcome. The site itself is very welcoming, and always has been, but the body politic has become quite forbidding. I miss the old days, when we could really get into some great discussions here.

For those of us whose age is a far higher number than our shoesize, it becomes futile to sit here and type out carefully reasoned and subtle opinions, when they will either be modbombed, flamed, or trolled into irrelevance, sometimes simultaneously. What these asshats did to you, and do to you every day, is deplorable, but you can erect even more barriers to entry and the site will only suffer further. I've never liked ratings, either, and I don't believe I've ever rated a comment. It just encourages silence.

I'm all for limiting hate speech, and reducing harmful trolling is always a good thing. I've noticed that how it's done in the wiki-world seems to work fairly well, although it might not be a great comparison. On a wiki, bad users can be banned, and their postings deleted into oblivion. What's particularly useful, is that the bans are public, which alerts everyone to the problem user. Deletion is helpful too, where particularly bad judgement can be erased from the site altogether.

So, maybe you should really rethink this whole sponsorship thing - it sounds good on kneejerk, but on reflection might not encourage diversity at all. Consider simple, very public, bans of user accounts for different time periods, and consider deleting comments, and even diaries and stories. If people think their crap might be deleted, they will reconsider a flood in the first place. The rest of us intellectuals will be more interested in reading deeper into the site and posting, since there will be a possibility that it might be worthwhile. Maybe one day, the old K5 will come back...

flames and modbombs are the most pathetic forms of flattery
[ Parent ]
temp banning (none / 0) (#607)
by martingale on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:17:12 AM EST

The idea of temporarily banning users seems quite promising. Part of the prblem with trolling and crap flooding is that a lot of junk is produced in a short amount of time. If scoop had a tempbanning system, this could help with some of those problems.

Here's what I imagine: suppose that if a recent comment is scored below 1, posting privileges are revoked for say 6 hours. After 6 hours from the first time this happens, the account is allowed to post again normally. Because we count the first time, it's not possible for people to continually zero yet another comment to keep a person out.

The idea is that after 6 hours, the poster could defend him/herself through responses, and if he just uses that to post more junk, other people will again zero him, producing another 6 hour break. That takes all the fun out of crapflooding, unless you have lots of shill accounts.

On the other hand, after 6 hours, the original discussion partners are probably gone, so a zero rating with tempbanning would serve to cool off a flamefest also.

This is just a sketch with some unexplored consequences, but might be worth discussing further.

For example, if scoop keeps track of how many 6 hour breaks were given out in a period of time, it would be a good indicator of accounts to be chopped.

[ Parent ]

hrmm (none / 3) (#816)
by crayz on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 01:34:30 AM EST

Simple idea: what about allowing new users to post say 1 comment/day for a while, and then maybe more if those comments are rated positively. You could still leave some sort of status gap for them if they aren't sponsored...

[ Parent ]
perhaps then (none / 0) (#1028)
by dimaq on Wed Jun 02, 2004 at 08:25:59 AM EST

you should consider having both sponsored users and users that stumbled in and liked it (proving that by the number of stories they read or rather a period during which they actively read something)

how about this?


[ Parent ]

I For One... (2.55 / 18) (#76)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:36:07 AM EST

...Welcome our new insect overlords, and may point out that I can be intrumental in persuading other users to toil in their underground sugar mines.

Sponsorship is good. Warnings is good. Less tolerance of pure crapflooding is good. New Site News is good.

If this works even half as well as it might, I may just return to actually reading and contributing to K5 on a regular basis again (rather than just peeking in once every week or so, the way I do now).

I love the Republic, and I love democracy. I swear to you now I will lay down these powers once this crisis has been averted.

Thank you Dirty Sanchez and Jar-Jar Binks.


___
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski. Personally, I pref
Ok, not bad (2.77 / 9) (#77)
by imrdkl on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:36:18 AM EST

First, on behalf of at least 95% of the users on this site, I was disgusted and angry by the picture in question, and I hope that your wife never saw it.

Now, w.r.t. user accounts and sponsorship, I'm willing to give it a shot, although the dynamics don't feel quite right from the description, perhaps it will work. It seems to be a way of delegating administrative authority, without adding more admins. I submit, however, that incidents such as the picture prove that you need some more admins in the european and australian timezones, not only for duplicity's sake, but also to assure prompt handling of this sort of thing in the future.

Also, there's clearly a bunch of multiple accounts out there which have never been used, or used only frequently for fun. Shall the rule apply to existing, but unused accounts? I think that it must, and the 60-day trial must begin from today, if the account has not the requisite number of comments already. I'd further like to suggest that new accounts which have a sponsor should not get to vote on stories until the trial period is over.

Finally, I'd like to make a special case for stories. Posting a story should count for some multiple number of days, and/or comments, if it gets voted up.

Anyhow, I'm glad to see something being done.

Good grief. (1.14 / 7) (#677)
by Kax on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 09:27:54 AM EST

I was disgusted and angry by the picture in question, and I hope that your wife never saw it.

On behalf of the hopefully more than 5% of the users on this site, I vouch thee and thy ilk oversensitive pansies.

Snap out of it.

[ Parent ]

You have 0'd me, but consider (1.33 / 6) (#712)
by Kax on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:33:06 AM EST

that I was being serious.  Who cares if there's a pic of your wife floating around on some porn star's body?  How does this cause harm?

[ Parent ]
And yet, (none / 0) (#751)
by Kax on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 03:33:48 PM EST

no answers...

[ Parent ]
+1 SP (2.77 / 27) (#79)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:36:48 AM EST

Two things.

One, the sponsorship is not a good idea. The problem at the moment is not a surplus of things. It's a stagnation of sorts. A lot of people have left. I'm not going into the reasons for this, because I don't know exactly what they are. However, I can tell what the effect is. The effect is a number of persons who were in the group positive contributors have "given up" for some reason, and zero people in the group who are just masturbating into their browser window "gave up", since they would be convinced of their own genius even if they were the only user on the site. The more constructive people became quiet, the more attention was left over for the masturbators, and the louder they became. This will only get better with new blood.

The sponsorship would do nothing but limit. It would turn away anyone truly new, and encourage cliquishness. Were you paying close attention during the whole 11-M thing? Something interesting happened: We had an influx of users, all Spanish. I don't know how they found this site, but they did, and most of them had very interesting things to say, even if they didn't know how to spell "Iraq". Perhaps some of them have stuck around. This was refreshing. This would not have happened with the sponsorship system. These people were all disconnected entirely from the site; if they came to the site wanting to discuss something of note, and saw just a note saying "if you want to comment here, you have to befriend someone who comments here already, and convince them to +v you, and if you don't know anyone oh well that's too bad", they would simply go "hm.." and go comment on fark or something. Most people just won't go to that amount of trouble. Meanwhile the K5 userbase would continue to shrink and harden.

Look at what metafilter has become. I really, really assure you. You do not want that.

Two, while there may be some valid ideas in what you have proposed above, they are all one fatal flaw. They all add complexity. They add rules. They add moving parts.

The more rules you have the more it begins to look like a game.

The crapflooders on this site love to game things, and they are very good at it. Look at what happened just with the moderation system back before it was simplified. This sponsorship system in PARTICULAR would lead to gaming, quadrupled. Like the feeling that when you read the diary section that 80% of the people you see are the same five people astroturfing with dupe accounts? No? Well expect it to get indescribably worse.

Some of the other rules are possibly worthwhile. However they come back to the same problem. The crapflooders on this site are mostly trying to provoke you into a response. Not the readers, even, usually. The admins specifically. Tex Bigballs, Turmeric, Rmg, NIWS (whther or not the last three are the same person) were all working on the exact same model: Figure out where the limits of the rules were, bang on it increasingly harder and harder until some sort of response is garnered, and then whine fucking endlessly with their nine dupe accounts. Then start again.

Adding these proposed rules would have one of two effects. If the rules are applied in a legalistic manner, this just enlarges the game. There are more corners and lines for the crapflooders to tiptoe back and forth across in hopes of making that magic post which garners a ban but which they can then whine "BUT I WASNT DOING ANYTHING WRONG". If the admins are given explicit discretionary power to ban anyone who seems to be "gaming the system", that solves the problem, but then in a sense "the crapflooders have already won", in that they have removed the sense of due process which has historically been part of this site's administrative policy. (The fact which the crapflooders have had by now to universally resort exclusively to personal attacks on site administrators to get their ban badges speaks well towards the idea that it is difficult to get a ban around here via legitimate use.) Saying "if it looks like abuse, it's abuse" is not the worst thing in the world but opens up the door to a possibility, however slim, of editors deleting stuff just because they feel like it, or feel like it isn't "constructive". This sets up for kind of disaster that happened to everything2. Whether you want this to happen, I dont know, and perhaps there are ways to put checks on it. I don't know.

My point being the problem I have just mentioned-- rules leading to gaming-- is not intractable. However it needs to be kept carefully in mind before adding any new rules or enforcement methods.

Dispite my comments above, and my firm belief the sponsorship idea can possibly create a positive net effect, I am unfortunately low on constructive suggestions. I have only one. However, I think it is an important one. It is one less of specific ideas than of tactics. I do not think the solution is trying to limit what we have. I think the solution is to invite persons in. Instead of trying to silence the crapflooders, drown them out. Somehow attract enough users to the site that the bad blood is flushed out with new blood. I do not know how to do this. However, how's that site ad thing going? Still got a lot of advertiser dead air? Maybe you could set up agreements with some randomly selected sites (dieselsweeties comes to mind for no reason) where you mutually agree to swap ad space. They get 10000 impressions on K5, you get 10000 impressions on their site. Either way: K5 needs an enema, not chemotherapy. Just a thought.

Perhaps one other small thing I should say is that the problem is probably worse from your (Rusty)'s perspective than it could be. You, I assume, feel obligated to look at the diary section. The thing is, the moderation system works. If you ignore diaries that look like crapflooding use "sort by highest-rated" in the story comments, and stop reading when you reach about 1.75, K5 is a very readable, interesting site. The crud is only apparent if you read everything. There's no real reason to very much try to significantly alter this unless something truly extreme happens. Unfortunately it would not be unreasonable to classify spamming with photoshop porn of the site administrator's wife as 'something extreme'.

I would appreciate comments from anyone on the above.

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame

Minor typo in the above (2.25 / 4) (#86)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:40:12 AM EST

my firm belief the sponsorship idea can possibly create a positive net effect

was intended to be

my firm belief the sponsorship idea can not possibly create a positive net effect

bah

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

I normally don't reply to blatant trolls (2.21 / 14) (#94)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:45:05 AM EST

but would you care to enlighten me on who my 9 dupe accounts are?

[ Parent ]
Generalities. (3.00 / 7) (#117)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:00:32 PM EST

The text in the grandparent post was meant to describe a general conceptual outline and not meant to specifically imply that you, Tex Bigballs, specifically, had dupe accounts or had ever been banned.

It's all about gaming. Originally I meant to imply some sort of gradient between Tex Bigballs like crapflooders which possess a "respectable" verneer, do not get banned, etc, going down to NIWS-like noise at the bottom, with certain persons ducking back and forth across the line in the middle. When those in the middle finally get banned the "respectable" persons, who are doing similar things without being so fucking annoying, can go "tsk tsk, was that necessary"? This view of things is by no means coherent or certain enough to be accurate to warrant having been really mentioned. Fragments of the idea were still left in the grandparent comment, though. Perhaps this was in error, as I should have been aware that necessarily due to the subject matter of this discussion certain persons would be likely to do something like isolate one single detail within the post which could be, when construed in a certain way, interpreted as an innacurate statement, then dismiss the post wholesale based on that.

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

Jesus christ (1.75 / 12) (#173)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:05 PM EST

It's a sad day when a perfectly valid comment like this is at 1.00/4. Why, because Tex is one of those demonized "trolls"? These site news updates always bring in the Nazis.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
A man is judged by the company he keeps. (none / 2) (#189)
by it certainly is on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:55:05 PM EST

And you know that.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

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

A man is not judged by his internet persona (2.50 / 6) (#191)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:56:47 PM EST

and I feel very sorry for anyone who is convinced otherwise.

[ Parent ]
As far as the readers of this site are concerned (3.00 / 5) (#215)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:19:58 PM EST

You are not a man. You are an internet persona. This goes for all of us.

You are not judged by your internet persona. "Tex Bigballs" is.

This observation is purely semantic. However, so was yours.

[ Parent ]

Further to that point (3.00 / 6) (#198)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:07:20 PM EST

and while you're coming down off your high horse, ici, might I remind you that you were the one who posted rusty's personal phone number to one of my diaries. That's a line that even I haven't crossed.

[ Parent ]
No, (2.80 / 5) (#220)
by it certainly is on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:24:55 PM EST

that's a line that the Internet persona "Tex Bigballs" hasn't crossed.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

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

I'll vouch for Tex. (2.25 / 4) (#429)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:01:38 PM EST

I think he really doesn't do any of this kind of shit, he just associates with it to seem bad assed. He's a decent guy, just like me -- though I actually am bad assed.

There are shady characters like what mcc is talking about, but Tex is not one of them.



[ Parent ]

True, and you post in almost every (2.71 / 7) (#292)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:45:30 PM EST

adequacy thread.

[ Parent ]
Good Sir, (none / 1) (#515)
by it certainly is on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:49:18 PM EST

there are misleading suggestions that deserve your personal attention.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

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

I don't come when called (none / 1) (#523)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:08:38 PM EST

plus, I'm insulted by the suggestion that I'm a snake handling heretic.

[ Parent ]
That is what caught my eye. (none / 0) (#525)
by it certainly is on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:12:19 PM EST

As you are a caring man of the faith, I thought perhaps the errant poster could be gently taught the error of his ways. Or is it better to leave the mistruths unchallenged?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

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

Yeah, we know all about that, don't we? (none / 0) (#421)
by pyramid termite on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:56:13 PM EST

nt
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
A couple of items... (2.71 / 7) (#108)
by RareHeintz on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:57:01 AM EST

First, previously active users of this site "gave up" because of the trolls, crapflooders, etc. I'm nowhere near as active here as I used to be, because the site has turned (primarily) into a haven for trolls and morons. I can't speak for everyone who's fallen off the site, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't the number-one issue with user participation falloff.

Second, and related: If the worst thing that happens to K5 is that it turns into MeFi, I'd call that a Big Win. Right now, K5 sucks. No two ways about it. MeFi has its issues, but I can go there and not have to wade through crap to get to something good. Not so, here.

If Rusty's idea of user sponsorship gets rid of those needy children whose only joy in life is disrupting what could be an otherwise great community, I say go for it.

Wish I could go into it all more deeply, but I'm at work.

OK,
- B


--
http://www.bradheintz.com/ - updated kind of daily
[ Parent ]
YOU can (2.80 / 5) (#360)
by godix on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:32:49 PM EST

MeFi has its issues, but I can go there and not have to wade through crap to get to something good.

Perhaps you can but most of the rest of K5 can't. MeFi has put a hung sign saying 'FUCK OFF' on it's front door so I took the hint and haven't visited it in months. Do you really think the solution to K5's problems is to make a sign saying 'Yeah, what MeFi said, fuck off!'?

Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris

[ Parent ]
Very good point (none / 2) (#652)
by nebbish on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 06:15:01 AM EST

Were you paying close attention during the whole 11-M thing? Something interesting happened: We had an influx of users, all Spanish. I don't know how they found this site, but they did, and most of them had very interesting things to say, even if they didn't know how to spell "Iraq".

What would be the point of K5 without stuff like this?

On a different note, unwittingly you have uncovered part of the problem in your comment - people perceiving trolls as a bad thing. Trolls like Tex Bigballs keep K5 alive, they are funny, and if you look carefully, pretty respectful of other users (so long as they have a sense of humour).

There are levels of trolling. Being funny good, dragging rusty's wife into it bad. Getting rid of them all will kill that site.

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

The T Word (3.00 / 4) (#717)
by mcc on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:50:34 AM EST

Trolls like Tex Bigballs keep K5 alive, they are funny, and if you look carefully, pretty respectful of other users (so long as they have a sense of humour).

I agree, I think K5 could survive without them, but there would definitely be a sense of something lost.

However I would hold that there are very, very few trolls like Tex Bigballs on this site. Maybe two or three more.

You may have noticed that I did not use "the T word" in the grandparent post. This was on purpose.

I firmly believe K5 has a troll problem, and this problem has nothing to do with there being too many of them. It isn't a problem of trolls, it's a problem with the trolls. The problem is that the trolls around here, in general, just suck.

K5 has a crapflooder problem, and it is very much a problem of crapflooders.

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

"Graduating" from sponsored status? (2.94 / 19) (#80)
by Cowculator on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:36:50 AM EST

It's already been pointed out that someone you've sponsored might go insane and start crapflooding because he forgot his medication or maybe he's just pissed at you and trying to get you in trouble.  I realize this is what the warning is designed to accomplish, but it seems that at some point you shouldn't have to be responsible for the users you sponsor anymore, just like parents aren't responsible for their children anymore once they turn 18.

If 60 days and 40 positive comments is enough to let you bring someone else on to the site, why not set a slightly higher threshold to make a user independent (i.e., self-sponsored)?  If you can make it through 90 days and 60 positive comments (or maybe even the proposed 60/40 threshold for sponsorship), for instance, maybe it's that much more unlikely that you'll suddenly do something to get yourself banned, because it just isn't worth the effort.  And if a sponsor can get a new user to make positive contributions to the community for that long, maybe the sponsor should be rewarded for having done so by no longer being made responsible for that user's actions.

That's a good idea. (3.00 / 8) (#104)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:53:08 AM EST

The problem with it, of course, is that there's no control against people just biding their time and then deliberately losing it - and it might be easy to game. But as long as policy allows tracing back to you if *multiple* of your previously-sponsored people do that, having sponsorship age out strikes me as a good idea.

[ Parent ]
I'll second that - excellent idea [nt] (none / 2) (#110)
by RareHeintz on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:58:09 AM EST


--
http://www.bradheintz.com/ - updated kind of daily
[ Parent ]
This is a necessary part of the system. (none / 0) (#720)
by glor on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:05:54 PM EST

Everyone has to grow up and be on their own some time.  Good idea.

--
Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.
[ Parent ]

Commercial potential. . . (2.11 / 9) (#89)
by Pop Top on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:41:36 AM EST

Offer a cash prize for the fellow (No chick would ever bother) who can successfully obtain the most sponsored accounts at the end of a given time period - - say one year.

To help pay for this, increase commercial sponsorship.

Call it the Kuro5hin Olympics. Or maybe the Kuro5hin Amway Olympics.

Scoop meets multi-level marketing.

The sponsor getting kicked too... (2.71 / 7) (#91)
by Skywise on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:43:18 AM EST

Does that work in a chain?

So if I sponsor somebody who sponsors somebody else who gets whacked... Do we all get whacked?

In that way, we all get turned into Vampires.  Kill the head of the clan and you kill all the spawns...

How about this:

All trusted users get to vote to ban non-trusted users, with one caveat... the old accounts remain and can be reactivated by people voting them back up.

This puts some meat back on the trusted user status.  Those who spam quickly lose (or never gain) trusted user status and if they're really annoying, trusted users vote them off the island.

i've suggested that before too (2.25 / 4) (#99)
by infinitera on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:50:01 AM EST

Kinda like we had the Spam button on stories, 'cept on user info pages. I had limited reactivation to admin oversight, however.

[ Parent ]
That practically begs "abuse me". (3.00 / 6) (#101)
by ti dave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:52:14 AM EST

Yikes. That's a bad idea on its face.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
well, (2.00 / 4) (#115)
by infinitera on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:00:16 PM EST

It does rest on TU being a meaningful state.

[ Parent ]
Banning chains (3.00 / 5) (#134)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:08:08 PM EST

It can be done, and will be when it's clear that it's a chain of sock puppets designed to shelter the original idiot behind the whole thing. A little bit of analysis of the downchain from any individual will make it pretty obvious when someone's just playing reindeer games.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Proposal: User Validation (2.72 / 18) (#100)
by awgsilyari on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:50:51 AM EST

Why not have an early-90's style BBS validation system, composed of a series of QA:

Q: What does ACID stand for?
Q: What is TheDraw?
Q: What year did Captain Crunch get convicted?
Q: Who the fuck is Aleph One?
Q: Have you couriered any gamez?
Q: Which line on a phone system is the ring line? The red or the green?
Q: Explain the functioning of a blue box.
Q: Have you ever defeated call-back validation by simply humming the right tone into the phone?

Following that, the most elite of the user base will vote on acceptance. (No, we didn't fucking spell it '31337' in 1992. We TyPeD LiKE THiS. WiTH ANSI CoLoRS, BiTCH) If the account is rejected, we trace the number and go destroy his car with aluminum bats.

This system worked, and worked well. Let's reinstate it. K-rad, dude.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com

OMG I'm so leet (2.60 / 5) (#158)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:22:29 PM EST

ANSI Creators In Demand
The leetest ANSI drawing program
I want to say 1978
Aleph One? I forget. The head of RZR?
Hell yeah I ran an elite BBS with HST and then 14.4 couriers
Red is ring, duh
The blue box emits a 2600hz tone that allows you to manipulate the phone system
No

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Can I play solar realms? (none / 2) (#279)
by waxmop on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:33:31 PM EST

I'll take you all on at the same time once I get my military planets started.
--
Long-term consequences of Bush deficits

[ Parent ]
Door weenie (2.50 / 4) (#378)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:06:21 PM EST

Playing kiddie games when you could be couriering.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
I fail every question... I am not elite [n/t] (none / 2) (#424)
by Fon2d2 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:58:04 PM EST



[ Parent ]
hmmm (2.50 / 4) (#428)
by pyramid termite on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:01:34 PM EST

Q: What year did Captain Crunch get convicted?

Not sure - his get out of jail party was in Jan 1977, up in the Berkley Hills, sponsored by "Earth People's Park". I was semi-hanging with them at the time, so I was there.

It was a big party - I didn't get to meet him and it wouldn't have meant much to me at the time. At that time, the hippies still thought THEY were the revolution.

Shows you what WE knew.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
You're old school! (none / 2) (#459)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:52:32 PM EST

All of it was way before my time, but I've got kind of an academic interest in the old phreaking stuff--I got my hands on a copy of the CCC's "Die Hackerbibel", the one with the reprints of all the old Yippie newsletters in the back, and I spend some time reading files stored on the servers for old BBS's, like the old Esquire article on Cap'n Crunch and such. Could you point me towards sources of anything of interest, like memoirs or recollections of the scene, online?

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
I'm afraid you misunderstood (2.75 / 4) (#474)
by pyramid termite on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:13:57 PM EST

I'm an old school HIPPIE, not an old school hacker - around the mid-70s the two cultures were beginning to interact, and of course, the hackers ended up taking over things.

It took me 'til '89 to get a computer and it wasn't '97 until I got online.

In short, it took me a pretty damn long time to get a c100 about all this. While we were talking about "the revolution" the hackers were DOING it and we didn't see it.

However, this site has a lot of the old school stuff you want.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
How to make K5 less like a game. (3.00 / 21) (#103)
by Sock Puppet on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:52:42 AM EST

Step 1: add fun, new game features that make it even more like a game.

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with sock puppet accounts (such as this one), new personas inspire creative writing and showmanship. Who can forget the K5 ASCII Reenactment Players? Or the Cookie Monster posting about C? The problem is that some people here -- about 3 or 4 -- are assholes. Their sock puppets are assholes by extension. All this site needs is a consistent anti-Vlad/Eric/qpt policy to stem the tide.

The problem with sponsoring systems is that they don't work. Firstly, because K5 is likely to lose 50% of its accounts after its next major flamewar. As any news admin can attest to, "don't interfere unless it really, really, REALLY is spam" is a good abuse department policy. The more you pull plugs upon request, the more people will feel the need to report their grievances.

Secondly, because sponsorship systems reward insular behaviour. For an example of this, see the Red Meat Construction Set. First, Soren Ragsdale would let anyone post Red Meat format comic strips with his generator. Then, after too many people thought it was funny for Milkman Dan to say "omg rofl wtf", he instituted accounts. To get one, you had to mail Soren with some Red Meat jokes, and if he liked them he'd let you have an account. Now, it runs a full sponsorship system, where to get in you have to work out who would be "appropriate" to get you in, then mail them, and hope they don't openly blackball you on the mailing list. They don't like giving out accounts, as that cuts in to their rating time. Did mention their rating system? Strips get an average of zScores, where each poster rates from 1 to 10, and the resultant zScore is the standard deviation of that rating from the average of all their past ratings. Even then, all the good jokes are just OpenRMCS reposts.

The point is that closed systems are no better than open ones. The main problem for the closed system is stagnation and inevitable death, because of the deliberate barriers to entry keeping all fresh talent out of the loop. The problem with the open system is free riders. But that can be solved -- just open a few more tech/culture/politics blogs for Vlad to spew in, and play hardball with him on K5. He'll get the hint.

K5 ASCII Reenactment Players (2.85 / 7) (#112)
by nebbish on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:59:41 AM EST

Very, very good point. You'd only have got a brief flash of genius like that on Kuro5hin. It's why I stay here when you could argue there is more going on elsewhere.

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

Sock Puppets (3.00 / 8) (#163)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:27:52 PM EST

Lest I gave the wrong impression in the story here, sock puppets are still not inherently against the rules. If your sock puppet account behaves itself reasonably well (i.e. is not abusive) then there's no reason it can't stay. K5ARP, for example, would not in a million years have gotten kicked out.

The abuse policy has always been loose. It will remain pretty lose, with the exception that we're not going to let so much of the really obnoxious personal stuff go on. I went to great pains to explain that even trolling is not inherently against policy.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Speaking of sock puppets... (2.33 / 6) (#400)
by Living Incarnation of Boll Weevil on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:32:15 PM EST

I am really happy to hear that! As a sign of appreciation, your cotton crop will not be turned into a dry, useless mess. This year.

If you prefer otherwise, you know where to find me.

[ Parent ]

Rusty Goes to the Trephinist (2.66 / 12) (#518)
by eSolutions on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:00:17 PM EST

Scene One

Setting: Trephinist's office. Masonic symbols on the walls, round table with crystal ball, stuffed animal fetuses.

Rusty slams his the right side of his face onto the table, and leaves it there as if glued. The crystal ball bounces off the table, rolls into a corner.

Rusty: AAAAAHHH! Take it out, man! Take it out!

Trephinist: Yes? What is it, Rusty? This is, these are the demons?

Rusty: YES! AAAAAHHH! It's awful, man, it's awful! AAAAAAH! Stupid demons! I want control, man, come on. I want say with who goes in and who goes out. You can do that... AAAAAH!

Trephinist: Oooo. See, that...normally...eeeee...this is not a good idea. The lockdown. It tends to backfire. You know, you can get these things under control just by taking a sort of "Artistic Leadership" over things, a creative vision. Mentally. You know? Really. This can work wonders over the psyche. Even the Ba'al class of vapours, I've read, can be tamed--

Rusty slams fistful after fistful of crumpled bills on the table, the side of his face still pressed flush.

Trephinist: Well, all right, all right. But if the Blood Sun rises, it's your own business.

Rusty: WHATEVER. Just give me authority back. Who goes in. Who goes out.

Trephinist: [shrugs.] Okee-doke. I'll just get my awl out of the dishwasher.

Scene Two

Setting: Two weeks later, Rusty sits alone on a park bench. A fist-size hole in the side of his skull smokes lazily.

Rusty: [slowly] This is nice.

The smoking dribble forms into a few dozen ghosts, circled before him like a battalion.

Rusty: [speaking as if with a mouthful of oatmeal] So go forth now, my kuro-djinn, and let each of you find a mate, like onto like. And in my brain shall be your home, and many thinking-lives shall be therein and thereby.

The ghosts now seem to have more purpose. They take presence and opacity. A mist deepens in the trees behind Rusty. Spirits drift from it like a lazy breeze. Banners are raised. Ghosts waft into camps. Dogs, horses, boars rise from the grass. Drums, trumpets, steel. Distant sounds of argument, hissing and barking, rise and fall.

One ghost wanders out to the street, begins proselytizing:
You can't get to corrosion through sin! It ain't right! It cannah tubee.
You can't get to corrosion if you a blass-femur. No blasphemy in corrosion!
You can't get to corrosion a-smokin' reefah! Reefah ain't right! No reefah in corrosion! God don't want no reefah in corrosion!
Ain't no way! Ain't no way! Got to live right! Gah-tah.

Scene Three

Setting: Years later. Rusty sits in an absinthe bar. White stubble, big eyebrows. Beside him sits George from "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", who drinks bourbon and chuckles to himself.

Rusty: [drooling] Gaaah...

The entire top of Rusty's head is missing. The brain has been removed, and the remaining skull plated inside with silver. In and above this metal bowl, thin green vapors waft aimlessly, slipping over each other without purpose.

Rusty: God...

George: Yes...yes...good...

Rusty: Oh, God.

THE END.

Yours in Christ,
eSolutions

[ Parent ]

Why the Masonic Symbols? (n/t) (none / 0) (#598)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:04:00 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Dr. Sapperstein and Tannis Root (none / 1) (#600)
by eSolutions on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:08:14 AM EST

It's the occult, the dark shadow-rule of the gnostic brotherhood.

[ Parent ]
Freudian slip? (none / 0) (#671)
by wiredog on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 08:58:26 AM EST

The abuse policy has always been loose. It will remain pretty lose

Why not let the Diary Ghetto remain its current free-form-no-rules self, and apply more controls to stories and comments thereto?

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]

Sock Puppets (none / 0) (#875)
by The Smith on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 07:13:11 AM EST

K5ARP, for example, would not in a million years have gotten kicked out.
Neither, in a million years, would they have bothered to get an account in the first place.

[ Parent ]
Uh (none / 0) (#936)
by ffrinch on Thu Apr 01, 2004 at 07:21:25 PM EST

Sock Puppets are, by definition, extra accounts for existing users. They don't need anyone else to sponsor the puppets for them, they can do it themselves. This new policy probably wouldn't have affected "good" puppets like K5ARP and Cookie Monster at all.

-◊-
"I learned the hard way that rock music ... is a powerful demonic force controlled by Satan." — Jack Chick
[ Parent ]
Hate speech. (2.20 / 5) (#244)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:50:17 PM EST

kyz, I'm a bit saddened by the recent rash of hate speech from your corner. Eric? qpt?? I can see Vlad, but Eric's not bad. And I have no idea why you listed qpt. He's a real straight shooter as far as I can tell.



[ Parent ]
You've changed your tune. (2.50 / 4) (#265)
by it certainly is on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:18:09 PM EST

Earlier this week it was all "you naughty crapflooders. I am so unlike you."

Eric pumps out a huge amount of contentless drivel. I don't think my opinion of him has changed in the past couple of years.

I listed qpt because, as far as I know, he was behind the NIWS saga. I'm sure rusty could confirm or deny that assertion.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

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

AFAIK (none / 2) (#288)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:41:25 PM EST

I'm told that qpt had nothing to do with NIWS, who was going around impersonating him on IRC.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
I had a front row seat (2.50 / 4) (#298)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:49:55 PM EST

In the qpt/niws/rmg thing. I can assure you that qpt and Night in White Satin are definitely different people.



[ Parent ]
There's only one way you could know that for sure (none / 2) (#384)
by grouse on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:18:16 PM EST

no text

You sad bastard!

"Grouse please don't take this the wrong way... To be quite frank, you are throwing my inner Chi out of its harmonious balance with nature." -- Tex Bigballs
[ Parent ]

How's that? (none / 2) (#387)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:21:41 PM EST





[ Parent ]
I think it's pretty clear what I was insinuating (none / 2) (#438)
by grouse on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:09:27 PM EST

no text

You sad bastard!

"Grouse please don't take this the wrong way... To be quite frank, you are throwing my inner Chi out of its harmonious balance with nature." -- Tex Bigballs
[ Parent ]

Not to me. (2.50 / 4) (#465)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:58:17 PM EST

The obvious is logically contradictory.



[ Parent ]
I imagine he's suggesting (3.00 / 5) (#517)
by it certainly is on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:58:15 PM EST

you are either qpt or NIWS.

Yeah, I know, silly old me for biting, but the suspense was killing me and I'd rather put the thread out of its misery.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

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

Link? (none / 1) (#450)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:36:53 PM EST

I don't believe you. Are you thinking of Gpt? That account was IIRC controlled by NIWS.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
Not anymore. (none / 0) (#870)
by ninja rmg on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 11:01:03 PM EST





[ Parent ]
49085237629084375298345 (none / 3) (#537)
by Trollaxor on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:30:52 PM EST

All email to R&#246;stig over the last three months has gone unanswered, and this holds true for practically everyone outside of the Kuro5hin Inner Circle. While I'm in agreement with your theory behind the NIWS debacle, only R&#246; can assure us without doubt and he's once again slacking in his important duties.

[ Parent ]
Gaming Sponsorship and Other Problems (none / 3) (#876)
by knickknack on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 07:32:54 AM EST

There are so many comments that my browser is scrolling slower than a pitch drop, so I'll add my comments to this one, since it seems relevant, and close to the top.

I've included a suggestion for a potentially better approach at the end of the comment.

I also think sponsorship would be horrible idea that would prevent constructive involvement from many people, just to deal with a few bad apples.

First of all, I don't think I would have participated in K5 if sponsorship was required. There was an article on a topic that I was familiar with, and I wanted to respond. I'd like to think that this one post was edifying to the K5 community. With sponsorship, the desire to participate would have been foiled by red tape. Who should I ask for sponsorship? I don't know anyone here, and personally, I don't care to. For me, this is not my social network, it is an informational one. I come here to take in the knowledge and perspective of a diverse group, and to learn what I can from them. Although I have read many K5 articles over the course of the last year, or so, I don't recall coming across the scumbags that precipitated the push for sponsorship. To me it seemed you already have a fairly vibrant and positive community.

Rusty, you know all the implementation details of sponsorship, so you will know better if it can be gamed easily or not, but can think of some ways that it might be gamed.

One way is to sponsor oneself (a sock-puppet account is it?) The good acount sponsors the bad account. When the bad account gets its first warning, the good account retracts its sponsorship, thus cancelling the bad account (which has already served its purpose). I doubt that peer-pressure will work on self-sponsored accounts... The good account then sponsors another account. What is needed now is to keep track of accounts to see how many good .vs. bad accounts they have sponsored. It seems that the sponsorship system will become more complex with time to deal with such gaming.

It also seems that punishing sponsors is the way to make it unlikely that people will sponsor. I'm not willing to vouch for anyone that I don't know personally; I'm not willing to risk my account on account of another persons behavior that is beyond my control. I'd bet others feel the same way...

In short, user sponsorship is like trying to nuke cockroaches... too much collatoral damage.

What may work better is to have posting sponsorhips instead. I don't mind sponsoring a comment, since I can see everything that I need to know about it (no need to vouch for the character of the user). New accounts would have their posts go into a queue that is normally not visible, and other users could sponsor it for publication to the story. That sounds a bit like moderation... Maybe for main-page articles, the author and some select editors are responsible for reviewing 'newbie' comments. Three rejections and the post is deleted from the queue. Failure to get a sponsored post after N tries, and the 'newbie' account is disabled or cancelled. After getting M sponsored posts, the account becomes a 'full' account, and comments appear as they normally do, along with the article. With a full account, other capabilities would become active (diaries, voting, moderation, etc.)

To me, this suggestions seems like a tweek to moderation, linking it to account capabilities. It's one 'weakness' is that it allows easy account creation, but this is really a strength if you want to encourage a vibrant community (and most new accounts will have a net-positive for K5). Losers will only be able to harass a few people (editors and author), for a very short period of time, and the rate of comments could be limited for 'newbie' accounts (only one comment in the 'newbie' queue at any one time).

Good luck Rusty! I hope K5 stays open.



[ Parent ]
I don't like sponsorship (2.75 / 12) (#111)
by minerboy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:59:14 AM EST

It is to reminiscent of groups like the Masons. The result, as you say, will be fewer users, and eventually a less diverse set of users. I would prefer some more registration standards - say no yahoo, hotmail, etc. accounts, maybe other types of identity checks on registration, along with maybe a less tolerant additude toward users that abuse the system.



blah blah blah (2.20 / 5) (#113)
by CodeWright on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:59:44 AM EST

i've been here since the beginning.

the only people who go away are dead throwaway accounts and all those bodies piling up in Inoshiro's basement.

--
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top posting dumb? --clover_kicker

Hi Rusty (2.14 / 7) (#123)
by Anonymous 7324 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:04:26 PM EST

Look, I'm sorry to hear about the people who behave like complete asses. But uh... if they can get their accounts nuked for not behaving, can I please, please, please get this one nuked for behaving? I've tried contacting you by email a few times with no responses.

mail help@kuro5hin (3.00 / 6) (#140)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:11:38 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Oh man (1.60 / 10) (#136)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:08:35 PM EST

If I could rate, I'd be complaining that a 3 isn't high enough. You gotta admit that's hilarious even if you are the butt of the joke.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
Parent comment deleted, disregard. (nt) (2.42 / 7) (#145)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:15:14 PM EST



--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
You took the pebble! (1.16 / 6) (#138)
by imrdkl on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:09:16 PM EST

Time for you to leave.

You're fading fast (1.80 / 5) (#157)
by imrdkl on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:22:03 PM EST

I cant hardly see you now.

[ Parent ]
Er (1.75 / 4) (#165)
by imrdkl on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:29:12 PM EST

This comment was orginally attached to my other comment below, as a retort to the shitstain who also replied to it. It seems that said shitstain's original reply was deleted completely, which was an inadequate measure, frankly. He should have been wiped completely. Stick with the plan, admins.

[ Parent ]
Ah, thats better (1.50 / 4) (#174)
by imrdkl on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:36:15 PM EST

Now if someone would kindly delete this thread so I don't appear to be talking to myself.

[ Parent ]
Everyone stay calm.... (2.50 / 6) (#443)
by Woundweavr on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:20:39 PM EST

... and slowly walk away. He is clearly about to go bonkers.

[ Parent ]
If you don't mind (none / 1) (#458)
by imrdkl on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:51:38 PM EST

I'd like to be alone here.

[ Parent ]
You are (2.00 / 6) (#466)
by Woundweavr on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:59:42 PM EST

I'm a figment of your imagination.

[ Parent ]
What I Would Like To See (2.75 / 8) (#139)
by freestylefiend on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:10:19 PM EST

What I would like to see is some kind of sponsorship system that would allow unsponsored users to join, but would only allow diary posting, comment rating and story voting privileges to sponsored users. However, I don't suppose that this would solve the problem.

How will rusty's proposed sponsorship system compare to Advogato's trust metric? Will it be as resistant to attack?

I agree (2.80 / 5) (#467)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:59:51 PM EST

I outlined a system I think would work in my diary.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
_ (2.88 / 25) (#146)
by llimllib on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:16:33 PM EST

First off, I'm glad that you're planning to do something serious about this site. Like CheeseburgerBrown, I may return to frequent reading status if this works. However, I have one nagging doubt about the sponsorship system.

If the sponsorship system were in place when I got here, I wouldn't be here. It's tempting to sit back and say, well, I'm here, and they're not gonna ban my account, so who cares? Unfortunately, I think that people like me, who don't really have "friends" on the internet they can ask for site sponsorships, won't be able to get into the site under the proposed system.

As such, can there be a way for a prospective user that wants a sponsorship to try and get in? I'll admit that I haven't had any particularly good new ideas for how they might earn it (let them post a story? post x # of comments with an "I need a sponsorship" or "I'm a stupid newbie" tag? have their own section? I don't really like any of them), but I just can't get rid of the feeling that I wouldn't be here.

Peace.

The demise of a good thing (none / 1) (#864)
by Phil San on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:05:58 PM EST

First off, I'm glad that you're planning to do something serious about this site.

Well I think there was another guy called Hitler and he did some "serious things" about things in his domain as well it dosn't mean it's a good idea.

Like CheeseburgerBrown, I may return to frequent reading status if this works.

You must be extremely fragile. Almost nothing affects me from persons on ther internet.

However, I have one nagging doubt about the sponsorship system.

Besides the fact that it's an inherently elitist system designed to allow friends, of friends, of friends in the real and electronic world connect and share similar ideas?

If the sponsorship system were in place when I got here, I wouldn't be here.

See even you see this.

It's tempting to sit back and say, well, I'm here, and they're not gonna ban my account, so who cares? Unfortunately, I think that people like me, who don't really have "friends" on the internet they can ask for site sponsorships, won't be able to get into the site under the proposed system.

I agree with this.

As such, can there be a way for a prospective user that wants a sponsorship to try and get in? I'll admit that I haven't had any particularly good new ideas for how they might earn it (let them post a story? post x # of comments with an "I need a sponsorship" or "I'm a stupid newbie" tag? have their own section? I don't really like any of them), but I just can't get rid of the feeling that I wouldn't be here.

This is the crux of my reasoning as well.

I however disagree with story posting success, or with comment ratings.

All I have to do is use a little psychological engineering and parrot the favorite line to get sponsorship.

Story posting is more difficult than it's worth. I've seen easier term papers in upper division college classes than getting a k5 story successfully published. So frankly I don't think that's fair. You want to thing random pointless, unstrucutred writing you should look at: http://www.everything2.com

There they can force you to write a simple definition in both an inaccurate, intellectually bereft, and classelss fahsion; then combine that with obsessive, compulsive aspects like "experience points", and idiotic levels of grammar, and "excitement" and you have a very oppressive system.

Peace.

"...I wish you war, pestilence, and famine..."

[ Parent ]
Here here! Bravo! (2.75 / 8) (#148)
by cavalier on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:16:49 PM EST

rusty, I salute you, I think this is an absolutely great idea.   To be quite honest k5 has fallen off my regular web travels for a few months now.   The noise ratio was just too loud and I wasted too much time skimming through troll comments and not gaining any specific insight or wisdom.   (Yes, those of you new enough here, there was a time when sometimes the comments were even more informative then the original post).

I think sponsorship is a wonderfully interesting idea and I am fascinated by what that will mean to an online community like k5.   Bravo,  roll it out,  raw hide, etcetera.   I think you will see an increase in registered users who had otherwise abandoned k5 to the trolls.


Knee-jerk thoughts on sponsorship (2.00 / 8) (#151)
by jabber on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:17:39 PM EST

  1. There need to be consequences for the sponsor, if the person(s) they sponsored turn out to be assholes. Know thy friends.
  2. Sponsorship will turn K5 into a den of elitist pricks. Oh wait... ;)
  3. The Orkut model is interesting, and I think it's worth trying out.
  4. Only paying members should be sponsors.
  5. People should be able to become full members either through sponsorship or subscription. Money talks.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Sponsorship (2.73 / 15) (#153)
by GenerationY on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:19:32 PM EST

I respect your reasons, but I cannot see it working. In terms of cost/benefit, new accounts should be left permanently off.

First, I suspect we would have very few users here if it had been sponsorship from day one. And if I wanted a monoculture's groupthink, then I'd still be over on Slashdot. I may be wide of the mark here, but sponsorship may appear to be OK if you move in the same circles as the sort of people who administer sites such as this. Thing is, many users don't.

Second, there is no reason to ever sponsor someone for membership. The risks of a permanet ban are just too great (esp. as I have no way of contacting K5ers outside K5 itself. I'd never get back in). It also introduces the new, fun game of "con someone into sponsoring you so you can nuke their account with a single html link". And hey, if I de-sponsor them in time, there could be threats and so on. I'd like to support K5's expanding membership, but the costs are just too high.  

Third, the trolls and their shit will be as nothing to the scathes of people attacking their sponsors, their sponsorees, the people who sponsored people they don't like etc. It will be a perfect breeding ground for animosity and petty bitterness that will poison what is left of the site at the present time.

I genuinely wish I could be more positive, but I'm just calling it as I see it. In terms of other solutions, I can see its a knotty problem. Frankly I have nothing against more admins with wider powers. Its your house, you can do what you like. I guess that includes putting in sponorship though..hmm.

the internet changes fast. (2.50 / 8) (#166)
by noogie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:30:17 PM EST

k5 is a new and exciting place of shouting and angriness and stupidity. i think we all have to accept that and learn to enjoy it the way it is. evolution has brought us to what k5 is today and there isnt any going back. no amount of cuckoo sponsorship or whatever is going to make them go away.


*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
You are a wise man, noogie. (2.50 / 6) (#170)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:33:54 PM EST

Who are we to judge the evolution of a website like K5? Only the ignorant would assume our morality is the only one that's valid.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Yay! (2.50 / 8) (#167)
by ucblockhead on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:30:26 PM EST

Hopefully this will help return k5 to what it was.

One question: how are you going to deal with existing accounts. One danger is that there are an awful lot of duplicate accounts floating around there. What happens if "Emperor Rusty" sponsers someone who then goes apeshit? Are you going to try to track it back to the real user? (i.e. whatever the real account of the lamer who registered "Emperor Rusty" is.)
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

it seems to me (2.83 / 6) (#180)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:42:11 PM EST

that many people have both 'real' accounts they value (perhaps with nice low UIDs), and secondary accounts to crap flood with. I figure if we get ride of the bad accounts the people in question will be good with their remaining accounts. No reason to kick people individually, just doing the bad accounts should discourage the bad behaviour and at the same time reinforce good behaviour.


[ Parent ]
"fake" accounts (none / 3) (#207)
by ucblockhead on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:12:13 PM EST

From what I...er...understand, some people have lots of these fake accounts and could probably go on quite a while before losing them all.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
That's ok (2.80 / 5) (#247)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:53:35 PM EST

I've been going on quite a while already, and I'm prepared to go a lot longer. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
hmm... (none / 2) (#229)
by Thirty Thousand on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:38:37 PM EST

In this modern age we live in, some of us even have fake accounts with UIDs that are relatively low.
-

It's scientifically proven that I am twice as good as qpt


[ Parent ]
Yup (3.00 / 5) (#184)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:48:10 PM EST

I expect that some of that will happen. We will make every effort to trace abusive accounts back to the user actually responsible for them. If you think about how to design the UI for that, it's not really very hard at all.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Some issues people are misunderstanding... (2.76 / 13) (#168)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:30:59 PM EST

As Rusty has pointed out, you're NOT expected to sponsor total strangers. This would be a BAD IDEA. You're supposed to bring people you know/trust (not that the two are necessarily the same thing) and sponsor them.

If randomGuy38593@hotmail.com asks you to sponsor them - and you think about it for more than 10 seconds - you're on your own, and rightly so.

Most of the complaints I've seen seem to basically fall along the lines of "but I'll get in trouble if I sponsor an idiot onto the site". Well yes, you will, and that's a good thing. I think I speak for the majority of people when I say that there are too many dumb trolls on this site. I think Rusty has been way to nice in not kicking people off. I was thinking about closing registrations when the UIDs hit 25,000.

Look at metafilter, people queue up for months to get in there, and run mirror sites to have discussion in the meantime. K5 should be so lucky to have dedicated non-trolls waiting to get in. Right now (or two weeks ago) I'd be willing to bet that the dupe account sign-ups outnumbered the new users 8-1.

K5 isn't going to die from this, K5 was already as dead as it was going to get. Soon we'll be back down to the non-idiot core that makes this site work. (We may even get back the people who left, since most of the crap flooders will quickly die out.) Once that happens we'll be attracting real people with real interest in discussion. Right now I think we only attract /. trolls who aren't smart enough to avoid getting banned over there.

Things won't be the same now. We will be inviting a different type of person to join the site, instead of random people it'll be people known to current users - people who will be more likely to raise the level of debate, not lower it.

Friends (2.80 / 5) (#200)
by GenerationY on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:09:07 PM EST

...and other interpersonal relationships sometimes turn bad. At which point you sponsor/sponsoree might as well be a complete stranger. Only now they have it in for you. You will then be, as you say, on your own. Is it fair though to be banned from K5 for life, in effect, because you had an argument with your flat mate about whose turn it was to buy milk? Of course not. If you have any sense you won't sponsor anyone frankly, friend or not. Is joining K5 only for those who are incapable of misjuding another and never being involved in a misunderstanding? Perhaps I'm overemphasising how bad being banned would be, but if you don't care about being banned for life from K5, in that case, are you someone who should be sponsoring new members in the first place?

[ Parent ]
Wow. (none / 2) (#273)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:28:14 PM EST

There's a name for the logical fallacy that goes "this is wrong because it might fail if I forget to buy milk" but I can't remember it right now.

Seriously, that's a rather rare example and although I see your point the fact of the matter is that Rusty would probably be more than likely to understand that. We're not talking an automated system here, we're talking about the common sense of a bunch of pretty normal admins. Rusty et el are not as dumb as rocks or anything. If people try to game the system that way they'll figure it out.


[ Parent ]

Slippery slope fallacy (2.75 / 4) (#290)
by GenerationY on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:43:31 PM EST

but it doesn't apply here because falling out with a friend has a first-order relationship to them then getting you banned (it doesn't require too many unlikely intermediate steps).

If it requires that Rusty et al., investigate and then in effect try the accused, possibly deal with appeals, then field any further flack from the banning event, that is a hell of a lot of work to take on. I don't see how it is more effective than just a general monitoring of posts or checking new membership applications against IPs (both of which are nice solutions but too labour intensive to really be suggested).

And I wasn't suggesting anyone was "dumb as rocks" and I don't understand how you think I was implying that. Theres a technical term for that sort of fallacy as well; its a fallacy of extension.  Please don't put words into my mouth (especially not, er, 'extended falluses"). I get it that you think sponsorship is a good idea; I just happen to see it as causing more problems than it solves. I hope you appreciate I am commenting because I think it is a bad idea, not because I wish to see the downfall of the site. If I didn't give a damn, believe me, I wouldn't be bothering.

[ Parent ]

Well, actually if you think about it, (none / 2) (#305)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:55:40 PM EST

it's the exact same amount of work rusty has to do now in dealing with idiots, minus the repetitive nature. Which is to say that hopefully with this system he'd have to kick the same person less often than he does now.

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth in a way you didn't mean. What I was going for was the argument I thought you were making; which seemed to be that the system would fail it it was uniformly enforced by someone with no common sense who just took the rules and liberally applied them to every situation. My point about the milk thing was that probably if you explained it to Rusty he would get it. I suppose that some dedicated trolls will try to give excuses every time for their dupe accounts, but they could still only manage to get away with that once.

The IP checking thing has been shown to be useless, as Rusty has mentioned previously, dedicated crap flooders take the 20 seconds to go through a proxy, and there are tonnes of proxies out there.

[that wasn't the fallacy I had in mind, but that doesn't really matter at this point.]


[ Parent ]

OK. well in closing (none / 0) (#310)
by GenerationY on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:00:28 PM EST

I've said my bit and I won't go on (more than up to my self-set limit for meta grumbling)

I (genuinely) hope that when this system comes in I am proved wrong in my concerns.

[ Parent ]

my thoughts (for what's they're worth) (2.70 / 20) (#172)
by sine nomen on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:35:45 PM EST

I've had an account on K5 for a little over 2 years (not necessarially this account though), and have probably been reading for longer than that. Not trying to say that my opinion counts for more, just trying to let ya'll know where I'm coming from.

I like the idea of sponsorship, but not the other things that it implies. I think that the stagnation point is a very good one. 2 years ago I would never have been able to post, simply because no one knew me. How were they supposed to know to take a chance on me or not (granted, maybe you don't think my content has value... whatever). But I digress, this has all been said.

I actually find the trolls amusing and only mildly anoying 99% of the time. I don't care one way or the other if they are gone or not. I have time to spend seperating the wheat from the shaft, and I don't need fancy systems or admins to do it for me.

  1. You shouldn't have to sponsor a user forever. After a year or so of activity, the connection should be broken, or at least become less significant. If the user can't stand on their own after this much time, then they never will.
  2. At first I was going to suggest that paying accounts should get automatic privelges, but thinking about it I'm not sure the trolls would really stay away for only $12 (or whatever the price is).

So here's my big suggestion: bring back the idea of hidden comments, but apply it more liberally and mix it with the sponsorship system. A new user can post all the diaries and comments they want, but they are hidden to all the other users either a) until the user becomes sponsored, or b) unless I choose (opt-in) to view comments/diaries from unsponsored accounts.

This way, those of us who don't care can still have K5 the way it's been. And for someone who is about to sponsor an account, they can review a person's hidden post/diary activity and decide if this person might make a contibution to the community. Otherwise, they really have no way of knowing anything about the person.

So yeah, there you have it. If you can overlook the spelling, maybe my post has merit, maybe not. But this is about all I have to say on the issue... good luck rusty.

Agree (none / 2) (#317)
by aberryman on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:04:13 PM EST

I highly agree with sine's idea about hidden non-sponsored comments.

[ Parent ]
a little more of me babbling on... (2.83 / 6) (#350)
by sine nomen on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:27:17 PM EST

Since I made that post, I've been thinking: when my friends ask me why I like K5 so much, what do I tell them? The answer: in general, the users are a) smarter, and b) have more control over the content than sites like /..

Certainly I love the story submission system, and my favorite part is reading the diaries section. I like the fact that it is basically a fully function place where people get to post all sorts of crap.

And in this vain, I think that eliminating the old trusted user/hidden comment system was a great move. It gave the users more freedom to choose what they thought was valuable content and what was crap, and it didn't truely censor anyone.

And I think that is what I hate most about the proposed system: the fact that (potentially) a large group of people are censored for no apparent reason, and that the users lose a hell of a lot of say when it comes to what content they do and don't find valuable.

Finally, to rusty: I can understand why you were pissed and I sympathize with your response. I didn't see the picture in question, but attacking a person is one thing, going after the people he cares about it another. But this whole proprosal stinks of being a knee-jerk reaction to the problem. I won't say "if you do this, I'm going to leave", because I won't, but I'm just trying to say that the whole thing seems too drastic.

[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 2) (#435)
by ZorbaTHut on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:07:48 PM EST

I just closed the k5 window mulling over "what's a good solution?", and came up with a brilliant idea that I was sure nobody else had posted, since I hadn't seen it.

So I open up k5 again, and the first thing I see is . . . my idea. Right here.

Sigh. :P

I think the hidden-comments idea is a really good one, personally.


[ Parent ]

A few thoughts (2.66 / 6) (#178)
by sophacles on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:37:52 PM EST

I have been inactive on this site since last summer.  This is due mainly to flaky internet service, and a pretty busy outside life.  I seem to have missed quite a bit of "fun".  I do know that this is the first site I check when my internt connection and life conspire to give me some time.

I understand that trolls are always a problem when any number of people group together, and that in particular they are hard to deal with on the net, however this sponsorship idea gets my bad idea sense tingling. I think that more personal accountability is a good idea, but is sponsorship the way to go?

I was thinking more along the lines of some sort of probationary status.  I have no feasable suggestions as to how to implement it at the moment, but I will think about it at work for sure.  Perhaps even using the two ideas in tandem, for instance a new user forum, where people could get to prove that they are not trolls.  This forum could allow people to get to prove themselves sponsorable.

Or perhaps even allow them to comment on the stories, under a special category for the comments, like the edit comments.  This way people willing to sponsor new members could turn on the option to read these comments.  The trolls could have a playground, and anyone who is actually posting good copy could find a sponsor who has more than blind faith to go on.

Unfortunately now I have to go to work, but hopefully Ill have hashed this idea in my head better by the time I come home.

Write-In Solution: (2.40 / 15) (#179)
by Trollaxor on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:39:48 PM EST

Give control of Kuro5hin to me for a month. When I ran my Scoop site we never had any of these problems, and it had nothing to do with the size of the community or how people found out about the site (for the record, 50% had followed links from Google or other sites, 50% had heard through their grapevines). It had to do with the fact that the users loved me. The users here question you and your caretaking of K5, Rusty, especially since the fundraiser.

In all its life Trollaxor.com only had one problem user (if you can guess who that was) and he was dealt with swiftly and severely. Other than that incident it was smooth sailing as far as user activity went. If you want more stats on the site please ask here or email me, I'd be glad to share them. The point is that T.C was successful because of the mutual respect from and for the users and admins. That hasn't been happening lately nn Kuro5hin as we can see with the rampant trolling and the mass exodus to HuSi.

Give Kuro5hin to me, Rusty, and you will see an improvement in the community.

Thank you.

Do it Ruston. It's the only way [nt] (3.00 / 4) (#457)
by Stick on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:49:26 PM EST




---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Brilliant (2.20 / 5) (#183)
by Verbophobe on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:46:03 PM EST

Please implement ASAP.

No, I'm not being trollish or sarcastic.  This really is a good compromise.

Proud member of the Canadian Broadcorping Castration

Market Solutions (2.00 / 5) (#185)
by kognate on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:48:26 PM EST

I don't think sponsorship is a long-term viable solution, and many others have posted that too so I'm going to stop here. But, I think a technical solution is possible (technical being in how the community maintains itself). Something like this: 1) New accounts have an account balance of Zero, which means they cannot post. 2) Accounts with a balance less than zero are deleted after some amount of time 3) Account balances have negative interest rates based upon past participation (the account balance goes down at a faster rate as the account is inactive). 4) Posting a story has a certain cost (initially, but could generate profit if enough there is enough response -- what is enough is another point), postign a followup has a certain cost moderating posts has a certain profit. 4a) Posting certain stories could be much more profitable than others, this is a way to "ask" for certian stories. People could use their account balances to "pay" for stories they want written. 5) Moderation can add or subtract to your account. Trolling, for example, would be very costly. What this does is it makes participation more of a requirement and it makes trolling much more difficult since there is much less motivation. Newly created accounts can't be used to troll with and maintaining a bank of "dummy" accounts would be hard since they would all require maintaince. Right now, it's very easy to have a bank of accounts and use that power for evil. If you had to maintain those accounts you coulnd't have such a big bank. -j

Half-empty (3.00 / 7) (#187)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:53:22 PM EST

The site half-empty used a market-style system like this. It doesn't work, because it's way too complicated and no one is willing to put up with the hassle of it.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Just because it didn't work for one site (none / 2) (#308)
by kognate on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:59:33 PM EST

doesn't mean it's unworkable. I agree with you that it is complicated and that users will feel hassled at the begining, BUT I think that it can be implemented in a way that makes it not a real hassle. On the subject of complexity: I don't think it's really that complicated if you put a counter up at all times showing the account balance. People are used to buying and selling and they are used to managing account balances. As long as the functions used to calculate cost are not too complex, the system itself is a standard market which nearly everyone understands. I would also argue that it is _less_ complicated than many of the counter proposals (but I'm a bit biased). -j

[ Parent ]
Not quite (none / 1) (#357)
by ghjm on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:32:13 PM EST

It didn't work because the currency had no value. If those points were dollars, boy howdy would you see some nicely written stories.

[ Parent ]
Have you looked at Scoop? (none / 0) (#592)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:50:44 PM EST

"complicated" doesn't begin to describe Scoop... ;o)



[ Parent ]
Personalized ratings (1.75 / 4) (#186)
by p3d0 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:50:10 PM EST

Chuck the one-moderation-value-per-post system and base the whole thing on a Slashdot-style friend/foe system. You don't mod posts, you mod users, and then users' posts automatically get a mod value based on the viewer's opinion of the author.
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
No, keep modding posts (none / 2) (#644)
by Viliam Bur on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:30:00 AM EST

If a user writes half of stupid posts, and half of good ones, the good ones should be visible and at the top of the page, the bad ones somewhere low or hidden.

[ Parent ]
And what if he's a jackass... (none / 1) (#723)
by p3d0 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:18:12 PM EST

...who mods down posts he disagrees with?
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
[ Parent ]
good idea. (3.00 / 11) (#190)
by Cruel Elevator on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 12:55:27 PM EST

I understand and tolerate the concept of trolling, but being malicious is different.

If somebody writes a long whiny diary about his 3117 OpenBSD box and gets the classic "*BSD is dying" troll, it's not a big deal. Trolls are expected and often welcome.

But, if somebody writes about his father's death, it is of very poor taste to write inappropriate things just to irritate him. I'd say it's even worse then crapflooding. Crapflooding is like graffiti - I understand the thrill people get from seeing their (disruptive) handiwork. But what's the deal with the nastiness? Would these people, IRL, walk over to somebody putting flowers on a grave and say nasty things?

What's more, I see people intentionally modding up these nasty comments just because they don't like the parent thread poster, or they're friends with the jerk making the inappropriate post. Would the same people, IRL, like to be known as supporters of a mean, spiteful person?

Yeah. Happens.

Sponsorships will take care of this asshole problem. If users can't give the minimal amount of respect to others, the admins have every right to delete them.

I have two questions about this system:

1. I read about K5 in Slashdot and joined in. I don't know anybody from K5 IRL. How does a sincere new user enter K5 without knowing anybody? By making this site "by invitation only" won't we be losing prospective good quality writers and content?

2. Without a steady stream of new users, how will K5 make enough money to sustain?

I think the point.. (2.75 / 4) (#197)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:06:45 PM EST

(1) is that now we get people from different sources. It's a small loss that total strangers won't have such an easy time to get in, but it solves a bigger problem.

(2) I think K5 will still have a steady stream of new users, but just from a different source. (People we invite from real life.)

(2a) I don't think most new users were paying anyway, so I'm not sure the $$ issue really is a problem.

[ Parent ]

The concept and freedom and society (none / 3) (#866)
by Phil San on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:58:15 PM EST

I understand and tolerate the concept of trolling, but being malicious is different.

I will make the argument throughout this posting basically asking about how is this supposed to apply to supposedly free people.

If somebody writes a long whiny diary about his 3117 OpenBSD box and gets the classic "*BSD is dying" troll, it's not a big deal.

Well maybe like me I expect something useful to be in response to the statement. Posting humor isn't welcome in most circumstances.

Trolls are expected and often welcome.

Maybe some people like random idiocy but I don't.

But, if somebody writes about his father's death, it is of very poor taste to write inappropriate things just to irritate him.

But would I really expect something like that not to appear?

Frankly I don't really expect respect in my life because people don't give a damn. So I try and return the favor.

If you can't express your mind on the internet then where can you express it?

I'd say it's even worse then crapflooding. Crapflooding is like graffiti - I understand the thrill people get from seeing their (disruptive) handiwork.

Then you must not technically look at much graphitti. I for the most part in the past didn't really look at it much. But I think it's grown on me. I have a toleration of real graphitti improved from an outright hatred. "Crapflooding" (man you people invent random terms for everything don't you) is just some idiot say taking the contents of command.com or the front page of kuro5hin.org and posts it again and again, nothing even remotely good or even satisfing.

But what's the deal with the nastiness? Would these people, IRL, walk over to somebody putting flowers on a grave and say nasty things?

I think it's the ability of letting off steam on places like the internet and the like that prevents the problem that you describe.

Frankly it works that way in my life.

However in the United States (where the site is based, and frankly where the relevent discussion is now taking place) we have a little thing called free speech, protect by a written constitution and inscribed by law.

This means that we respect all speech, not only the type we like.

What's more, I see people intentionally modding up these nasty comments just because they don't like the parent thread poster, or they're friends with the jerk making the inappropriate post.

Well I have to give you a little insight about modding comments up. I actually as a matter of principle mod everything up. I especially will go into the "hidden comments" section just to mod up all the comments I can get ahold of on the principle that there should be no censorhip of comments. Just because you can hide comments dosn't mean you should. That is one of the reasons that I removed myself from slashdot as well. Setting up comment thresholds and starting scores was something that made opinions invisible from people who don't need to be that determined.

Then you add shit like friend/foe lists and you can effectively remove poeple you don't like from the entire universe: this is unacceptable. If you don't like something just don't read the author's comments, but don't prevent poeple from having that little moment where he has to make the concious decision about whether to actually glance at it or not.

Hell I have to read shit on bulletin boards in public places, books on library shelves, and verbal comments all the time that make me want to commit acts of violence against the person involved. That dosn't mean I have the right to censor the opinions of those I dislike, merely try and make my horizons smaller.

Do you know why I don't watch the network news? Do you know why I don't watch much television on any network besides PBS? Do you know why I even try to prevent myself from spending too much time on k5? It's all because I don't give a shit about most people's personal problems.

Care to wonder why? It's because of reciprocy and lack of focus.

There is never any doubt in my mind that anyone given the chance would help me in the least, hell they even have people like that in the real world and the intenet, they try to form a failure of a political movemnet it's called 'libertarianism'. So based on this concept I don't give a damn.

Let's go back to your death example. Frankly atheists and their ilk disgust me. Not only are they for the most part drug addled, science blinded fools but they are also fairly demented people.

Anyone who thinks that because they got screwed in the past can make a judgement about God and religion is stupid, the Jews for the most part had this problem with the Holocaust and they got over it.

Science majors usually are just idiots who spend their time in looking at specific problems and then write boring limited publication books (I've read many of these things myself) called "dissertations" with scintilating titles like [just an example, not to excite anyone with the possible content], 'Relativistic, proton quad-quantum fluctuation analysis in selenium matrices' or some shit like that.

Then these same people think that they have any right to comment on something out of their expertice.

Then this is coupled with reliance on old time philosophers in the Greek/Roman persuasion, most of whom asked brain dead questions that ammount to shit like "Is this computer that Phil San typed this message on really there" or something like that. I just realized why most of the internet cronies like them so, they ask questions which are for the most part pointless, stupid, and resolved millenia ago.

No wonder people like that think they have answers.

But to get back to this angry rant. No one would care if anyone I loved or cared about, let alone died, had misfortune, or even had a bad day.

Of course unlike most poeple I would turn into a punisher like character before I gave into pitty too much. Revenge on disease, death, or someone else would be the order of the day.

Would the same people, IRL, like to be known as supporters of a mean, spiteful person?

Frankly people on k5 are not the crowd that I care about their opinion, or their feelings toward me.

Yeah. Happens. Sponsorships will take care of this asshole problem. If users can't give the minimal amount of respect to others, the admins have every right to delete them.

Funny I thought that msot poeple believed in freedom of expression. Here's a thought: actually have a feeling of strong self concept.

Anything, anyone could say so me usually goes through the filer of: I'm on top, you're at the bottom. Nothing matters when it comes from the mouthes of slaves, and the ignorant.

I have two questions about this system: 1. I read about K5 in Slashdot and joined in. I don't know anybody from K5 IRL. How does a sincere new user enter K5 without knowing anybody? By making this site "by invitation only" won't we be losing prospective good quality writers and content?

Of course they will and frankly I'm sure they don't care at all. It's the nature of the new internet, people demand "quality" [read something that they care personally about, rather than something that is "good"] and in their level of feeling.

When someone can publish a story that basically is a rant against fat poeple, writen in simplistic terms, or some shit that sounds like a rap "jam session" written by a troll user I tend to think that k5 has a kind of mentality and philosophy of a worthless human like Edward Abbey.

Of course you have crap like Australian colonial history (which I as an American find terribly boring and about as important as Assyrian dental practices), or the "mystery" of the Red Barron's death (sorry PBS did a better job than the poster could ever have done) I get to thinking about all the things I ever tried to get published on k5 at various times.

I have tried to publish far more interesting things and they got shot down (no pun intended) faster than a biplane (ok that one was deliberate) over area 51. That is not unique to k5 this also was a constant at everything2. These idiots went from a slashdot bored spin off which was about building definitions into a database into something resembling a "creative writing" class run by some homosexual pot smoker and a Nazi.

Trust me you can't win in this battle, the stakes are too low for all the effort to be worth it. When I can write professional papers in less time than I can a successfully submitted k5 piece I tend to assume that it's just not worth the time. I could get professional publishing done easier and make a nickel instead of getting another 10 point on my blood pressure.

2. Without a steady stream of new users, how will K5 make enough money to sustain?

Well that's the kicker isn't it. They already have their "premium content" and all that. Personally I thought k5 was the slashdot replacement and that it could just use advertising revenue and the like, but if it did move over the a subscription model I would have to just pay for a usenet service subscription like I have done in the past.

Frankly you people aren't really that worth it if you allow shit that makes pre-school short stories look like Tolstoy half the time.

Here's a thought maybe you should try and loosen the publishing criteria and maybe someone would put together some better content and may challenge your preconceptions.

[ Parent ]

Paid Account? (2.25 / 8) (#195)
by unknownlamer on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:05:21 PM EST

What happens if someone with a paid account sponsors someone who turns out to be a fuckhead? Let's say that said person had six months or something already paid for.

If sponsorship really must be done, I think that new users should be allowed to at least post comments before they find a sponsor. If a user is silent, how can he find a sponsor? Disabling diaries and stories until sponsored seems like a good idea though. Maybe just diaries because comments and stories can be moderated out of existance, although stories do take up room in the queue so I can see why disabling new stories can be justified. Disabling comments on new account is just plain stupid and will finally kill the site for good (not that it's really all that alive right now).

I think that, after a certain number of 'highly' rated comments are posted, a user should be disassociated from his sponsor. There is no reason to maintain the connection once a user has proved himself.

Rusty's Wife pr0n. (I R so funny, ha ha ha).



--
<vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
If you're going to allow comments (3.00 / 6) (#199)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:08:47 PM EST

Why not stories? Stories are by definition of backbone of the K5 structure and probably the most meaningful way a user can contribute. An approval process is already in place for stories: they're voted on. If a user who is 'unsponsored' could write something that could pass the existing test, why should they be prevented from doing so? It doesn't make sense to allow comments and not stories.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 1) (#209)
by unknownlamer on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:13:12 PM EST

I simply said that I could see why not allowing stories could be justified (ten bad comments scattered around the site are nothing when compared to ten crapflood stories in the queue). I think that stories should be allowed for new users, but I wouldn't have much of a problem if they were disabled.



--
<vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 2) (#480)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:23:33 PM EST

Thanks for spreading the meme.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
How is this consistent (none / 0) (#722)
by glor on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:17:24 PM EST

with the prevailing attitude towards "nullos" who post stories?

--
Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.
[ Parent ]

The hatred of nullos is ridiculous and unjustified (none / 2) (#724)
by Michael Moore on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:20:00 PM EST

I always have and always will support nullo rights.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
you'd better hope (none / 2) (#203)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:10:56 PM EST

Rusty doesn't just assume that picture is what you said it is. If I was him I wouldn't even bother checking, I'd ban people on general principals.


[ Parent ]
And that's why we all thank God (2.50 / 4) (#206)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:11:49 PM EST

this isn't your site.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
good point. [nt] ;) (none / 0) (#214)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:17:20 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 1) (#211)
by unknownlamer on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:15:30 PM EST

I was just seeing what would happen. If I am banned because of it you all simply have a reason to call rusty a tyrannical dictator ;)

Of course, seeing me with a halo on my head is probably painful enough to justify me being banned. The best part is that I took the picture last night after I found the halo when I cleaned off the floor and I'm still wearing the same shirt (no point in getting into clean clothes when I woke up at noon and have work at three).



--
<vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
[ Parent ]
Ahhh! (none / 2) (#246)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:51:13 PM EST

Dear God, and I thought the real picture was bad. ;-)

About how do you find a sponsor, see my several other comments on that elsewhere in this discussion...

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Good work, Rusty. (2.25 / 4) (#196)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:06:45 PM EST

Moving in the right direction.

A few of things, though.

  1. Will I be able to see complaints about me on my user page? If the answer is no, can you please change the answer to yes?
  2. Would you consider banning me? (That is not a request.)
  3. Would you consider adding a rule wherein those who come back and reveal that they have previously been banned be re-banned?





I like it, mostly (2.94 / 18) (#202)
by johnny on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:10:50 PM EST

But I'm worried about how to open a door to decent people that just don't happen to know anybody here. It may be the case that there is no goo solution to this problem, but maybe there is some kind of waiting list or something. . .

I do think there is a danger in the site's becoming too insular -- HuSi is boringly self-referential, and DaiyKos is 20,000 people violently agreeing with each other -- but with 30,000 users, or however many there are, I'm not too worried about it. And I'm not worried that we'll get rid of the amusing trolls. Because as Rusty says, he's proved that he has a pretty long fuse. Speaking for myself, I don't mind Tex Bigballs calling me a whore every chance he gets. But I do mind people who crapflood diaries with page-wideners and the like. K5 looses nothing by keeping that kind of fuck-head out of here.

yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Che

I love you too johnny (2.80 / 5) (#210)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:13:36 PM EST

and you're insult of me is my favorite quote on my user info page.

[ Parent ]
YOU TWO! (3.00 / 4) (#212)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:16:38 PM EST

Are the best example I can currently think of for the "useful user and amusing troll". In otherwords, you're what make this site pretty great.


[ Parent ]
Motion seconded (n/t) (none / 1) (#595)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:57:39 PM EST



[ Parent ]
"your" insult. Without the apostrophe. (none / 2) (#330)
by johnny on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:12:32 PM EST



yr frn,
jrs
Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Che
[ Parent ]
Lose the extra o (3.00 / 7) (#358)
by TubeShoot on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:32:15 PM EST

K5 looses nothing

Just a friendly reminder from one pedant to another.


"Quote thyself..........I do."--TubeShoot '03
[ Parent ]

Geeze (2.87 / 8) (#455)
by Stick on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:47:24 PM EST

Go write a book or something if you're going to be that picky.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
rofl, classic description (none / 2) (#373)
by cam on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:58:01 PM EST

and DaiyKos is 20,000 people violently agreeing with each other

Great way to describe it. Fighting with each other to see who can agree more. I am kind of scoop homeless at the moment, having partially lost the will, desire and passion to publish. If k5 ceased to be the noise factory it currently is, I would feel more inclined to participate again.

I dont know if sponsorship will work, I only know k5 people because I have been participating on k5; but any interventionist change has to be better than the garbage that has been going on for the last year or so.

cam
Freedom, Liberty, Equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Sponsor chain boots? (2.77 / 9) (#216)
by Kasreyn on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:20:09 PM EST

A sponsors B sponsors C sponsors D. D posts photoshopped pr0n of rusty giving head to a donkey. D is booted. Are A and B booted along with C?

Even if only C is booted, I'm definitely against sponsorship. While it might be more manageable to have a smaller k5 community, I think we'd lose too many valuable new members because they couldn't find anyone to sponsor them. I certainly knew noone who posted here when I first came here. How would I contact someone? Most of the email addresses people post in their userinfos are fake or spamboxes anyway. Plus, "hi I'm a newbie please sponsor me" will start to read as "hi I'm a crapflooder please let me get you banned."

Hypothetical: Troll A hates Upstanding User B. A contacts B under a different name and convinces B to sponsor him (B thinking A is a stranger). A then posts comments designed to crash browsers. Result: A's throwaway garbage account is booted (who cares?), and B's real account is booted too.

I have a better idea than all of this, rusty. If you want to get involved in censorship, just take upon yourself the power to hide comments beyond any power of other users to unhide them with moderation. In most other regards, I think the moderation system works pretty well around here. Crapflooding diaries don't bother me because no one is forcing anyone else to read the diaries, and if you want to keep up on a friend's diary, all you have to do is bookmark their userinfo page.

I just don't understand what all the fuss is about, I guess. Though it's a bit creepy that someone got hold of a picture of your wife...


-Kasreyn


"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.
C gets booted. (none / 1) (#219)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:24:07 PM EST

A and B get looked at.

[ Parent ]
the whole point (none / 2) (#222)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:29:30 PM EST

is that we clean up the site through users not being dumb enough to sponser total stranges.

[ Parent ]
Which means (3.00 / 4) (#243)
by Kasreyn on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:48:03 PM EST

if this had been in place when I first came here, I'd never have gotten an account. I was a total stranger to everyone here.

Just on principle, I think I'm logically required to oppose this. :-P


-Kasreyn


"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 ]
I conceed, (2.75 / 4) (#276)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:30:40 PM EST

I might not have gotten in either, but on the other hand, I was a member for months before I started to post anything, so I think I probably would have had the patience to find a sponsor. There's always #kuro5hin, email, etc.

Difference doesn't have to mean bad. We'll get users joining for different reasons, but I think in the end it'll be a good change.


[ Parent ]

Already addressed. (none / 1) (#248)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:54:36 PM EST

This is the real problem with K5. People repost the same crap and ask questions already answered. Makes for cluttered, unreadable comment sections.

The more interesting question is if C posts Rusty slash fanfic and gets banned, what happens to D?



[ Parent ]

read the part about warnings again (none / 2) (#296)
by janra on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:48:28 PM EST

and about revoking sponsorship.

It doesn't only take one instance of misbehaviour to get somebody booted.
--
Discuss the art and craft of writing
That's the problem with world domination... Nobody is willing to wait for it anymore, work slowly towards it, drink more and enjoy the ride more.
[ Parent ]

Great! (2.85 / 7) (#217)
by waxmop on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:22:07 PM EST

First of all, it's nice to know that rusty is still interested in maintaining the site.

I think that preventing any user from posting a diary more than once every 4 hours would help keep the diary section cleaner.

Sponsorship is really interesting, but I know that I wouldn't be willing to sponsor anyone I didn't personally know if that person could get me booted. If most people are like me, then a lot of outsiders will be effectively locked out, which would be unfortunate.

The fourth idea, where users can file complaints publicly, seems like a pretty good short-run solution. I think that the accusers should self-identify, sort of like how in US CJS, the accused has the right to face the accuser.

In fact, if possible, I would model the system as much as possible on a trial by jury of peers model rather than a secret tribunal held by the site editors.

Anyway, why don't we have any political science majors stepping up to the plate? This is all any of freaks study, isn't it?
--
Long-term consequences of Bush deficits

make user complaints public (2.66 / 6) (#218)
by coderlemming on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:22:23 PM EST

I've read the discussion on this, and I have to say I'm all for it.  It sucks that we're relegated to this, but I've run a free service on the net before and seen just how much free time trolls have.  It's pitiful that it's necessary, but it's an undeniable rule that, where there's a free internet forum or service, there will be people who will shit on it.

I'm glad you took a step, rusty.  I've seen you be community-oriented before, and it's a temptation to never act too authoritarian when you're running a site like this.  In this case, I think it's a positive thing that you've come down hard and drawn a line that will not be crossed.  More power to you.

That said, I have a minor idea.  It might be good, it might be bad, I haven't really thought it out yet.  I'm sure you'll see the complaint system gamed just a little bit, but I think you can prevent that by making complaints public.  If I decide that user Joe Schmoe is worth a complaint the text of the complaint should show up in my user info, and possibly in theirs as well.  It'll add a level of accountability to complaints, and it'll make it clear when someone isn't liked by a lot of people.

Then again, it could stifle criticism.  It could just be a shitty idea.

Thoughts?


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)

oh, hmmmm... (none / 1) (#223)
by coderlemming on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:30:45 PM EST

Hadn't thought of this: trolls would, of course, wear complaints as a badge.  Still, it might be a good idea.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]
That's an excellent way ... (3.00 / 4) (#462)
by pyramid termite on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:55:15 PM EST

... to start flame wars from hell. "You netcopped me!!" etc. etc.

We don't want to go there. No way.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
good point (none / 0) (#505)
by coderlemming on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:10:34 PM EST

and your sig is appropriate...


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]
Please don't implement sponsorship (2.77 / 9) (#224)
by jubal3 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:31:50 PM EST

I would never have stayed around if I had to find someone to sponsor me before I could post comments, etc. I would have read the occasional post and then gone elsewhere.

Overall, I think I've contributed to some of the discussions here in a positive way. But that contribution would have been nil if I had been forced to find a sponsor. I just wouldn't have bothered.

I think the site will be much poorer with this requirement in the long-run, and perhaps most importantly, you'll kill dissenting opinions.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***

30,000+ users already able to sponser... (none / 1) (#226)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:34:24 PM EST

certainly we don't all have the same opinion?

You're right that some people won't bother, but I think that Rusty is right in thinking that that cost is worth it to clean the site up.

[ Parent ]

What's the big deal? (none / 2) (#252)
by jubal3 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:57:31 PM EST

I read this site every day, except for the diary entries. I rarely see crapflooding, or anything objectionable.

I think it's an over-reaction to a tiny number of assholes. BTW Rusty, can't you implement IP bans for new accounts for banned people? Wouldn't that sort out at least some of the idiots?


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]

Too easy to avoid (none / 1) (#274)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:28:59 PM EST

with proxy servers. People do this all the time at the other site. We do not want to follow in the footsteps of the other site.

[ Parent ]
The other site? (none / 1) (#342)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:20:49 PM EST

People do it all the time here.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
You wouldn't have me either [nt] (none / 2) (#453)
by Stick on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:45:41 PM EST




---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
I don't know (2.91 / 12) (#225)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:33:59 PM EST

It would seem that with the sponsorship idea, the only new accounts would be dupe accounts.  A reasonable counter-point would be that this site has developed such a strange and insular culture that there are very few new users anyway.  

In any case, I never would have gotten an account under the new system.  I don't remember how I found the site but I've never met another K5 user, as far as I know.

My suggestions are as follows.  First, perhaps only paid members get to vote accounts off.  I somehow doubt the troublemakers are inclined or capable of buying a substancial number of accounts.

My second idea might be called the K5 Brady bill.  A new user can only post a limited number of comments each day and can't submit stories or diaries.  A period of two weeks on this status should be helpful.

My third suggestion relies on the laziness of users.  Allow users to make as many accounts as they want with one email address.  This way when a user makes trouble with one account, you can kill all of them.  In any case, the one account per email address rule does little help the site.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

Proposal for Point V : addendum (2.85 / 14) (#227)
by toulouse on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:36:17 PM EST

It is hereby proposed that the merry band of kuro5hin administrator elves sit down and draw up some lists. One could consist of nouns; another could consist of verbs. There should be at least fifty entries on each list: the more, the merrier.

Entries for a nouns list should be along the lines of 'ostrich', 'noodle', 'copper sulphate precipitation'; likewise, a verbs list should consist of things like 'arcing', 'folding', 'seventh day pentecostalizing'. Go wild, have fun.

When anything is posted (comments, diaries and stories), the message should be parsed and all references to 'troll', 'trolls', 'trolling' (and any troll-derived verbiage) should be replaced arbitrarily with a randomly selected substitute glyph from one of the appropriate lists.

I would consider the signal to noise ration enhanced immeasurably if complaints such as: "He's just a tree surgeon, always was; can never stop horse massaging" and "You've always had it in for us teddy bears; if it wasn't for us lavatory paper manufacturers, you'd never have any content" became the normal form of complaint rather than any other.

Feel free to apply this methodology retrospectively to this post.


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


Feedback on "Feedback from You" (2.77 / 9) (#228)
by kellan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:37:34 PM EST

This sponsorship system is very well thought out. I think at some point in the future you'll want open the flood gates to new users, perhaps just a trickle of them, but in the mean time allowing the community to regain its equilibrium makes a lot of sense.

It is probably an obvious concern, but the "Part IV. Feedback from You" did raise one small concern for me. People have an immense amount of energy and eloquence to expend on complaining, while operations running smoothly will register at most a passing comment from most people. So I think the following feature will require a light touch.

I'd like to provide a simple way for you to report if you think someone did something obnoxious enough to warrant a warning or to be shown the door.
I would set a *very* high threshold on this. Perhaps the system doesn't even notify the admins until 3-4 people have all suggested that someone be warned over a short window of time.

In the heat of the moment people are going to overreact, and it would be easy, as admin, to start getting bogged down by requested warnings, and take a "ban them all, the Devil will know his own" approach.



Yeah (3.00 / 5) (#241)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:46:10 PM EST

The plan as of now is to just have a pretty simple interface for admins to see new reports chronologically. If it turns out to be a chore, we'll do some kind of grouping like that instead. I don't have any qualms about dismissing a report if I don't think it's founded, and it does at least give people a way to vent if they're angry. Most people will feel better and move on after that, which is a good thing.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
What about the non-nark? (2.42 / 7) (#233)
by Nigga on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:40:23 PM EST

Nark encouragement is fine and well,  but to some that goes against our very nature.  For example, I've had a few beefs here and there with characters like Kitten (who just likes to battle people as i'm sure you know)  and McGrew (I know he's from the midwest and all so I can accept that a "Nigga" account will catch some shit from the midwest...  but I can't just stand there take abuse and not bite back... it's just not in me)

I guess my point is, some of us are vigilante's and not narks.  I'm much more inclined to just beef with a fucker instead of complaining to admins.  I'm not one to start beefs, but if a cat wants to battle i'm usually game.  But I think i do it in an honorable way still.  Also, I hope you understand that a pro-nark attitude towards abuse will require admins to be responsive..  When I first joined up with this community i was immediately modbombed by guyjin.  I took the nark approach, and my complaints fell on deaf ears.  This experience taught me that if i want to defend myself I must take it into my own hands.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?

Jesus Christ. (none / 3) (#514)
by Paulsweblog on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:46:31 PM EST

Your words kill me with orgasmic death.

--
Blood for blood and death for death.
[ Parent ]

comments (3.00 / 4) (#235)
by phred on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:42:18 PM EST

I'm not fond of the sponsorship idea but its better than nothing. The downside is of course I'll have to become a very lukewarm poster to avoid a punative boot by the next partykidd, but theres always other places to have fun posting dumb stuff. If k5's time has come and gone, so be it. If sponsorship turns the tide and k5 is better for it then thats definitely cool too, heck I don't mind if the rules change, the one constant is change.

I would have rather had two other things change here, 1, get the moderation system in order. I don't know why scoop doesn't allow for good moderation (I do not want to look at code, as theres too much other broke stuff in scoop so I'm not really that interested), but obviously its a sensitive subject with scoop folks, especially with rusty, all he's ever offered was ridicule of whoever brings up the moderation subject (well, thats been my experience).

The second item is a bit more sensitive, and I know that I might get the boot for "being disrespectful", but its basically the fact that Rusty is a troll magnet. I don't really know much about what happened with Vlad, so I can't compare what Rusty did to what Vlad did, but the net effect is the same to a certain degree. Really, being a high profile "net personality" often can result from writing some particularily nice software, without having the benefits of a winning personality. I think some of what Rusty has done is pretty cool, but from reading what he writes, I think he'd be sort of a weasle to actually work with, he's not open to suggestions, he discounts other folks opinions, he bans interesting posters, and I think k5 is just too entangled with all of Rusty's spankousity to actually be an open discussion site like slash is.

I really like to compare slash to k5 and theres one more comparison to make, slash users seem to be a self contained hoard now, and are much more vicious moderators than I bet the admins would ever be, and these users can be like this and not give 1 seconds thought to who actually runs slashdot. K5 just can't seem to progress beyond a bullet point for Rusty's resume BUT THATS OK TOO. Theres no reason k5 shouldn't be a showpiece for Rusty's abilities, and I think that the invitation only thing is a good step in deemphasising scoops perpetual moderation problems and not be such a drag for Rusty. I wouldn't want to be as spanked as that on my own site either.

Anyways, hope the invitation thing works.

Nah, this site is just much smaller... (3.00 / 5) (#434)
by IndianaTroll on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:07:20 PM EST

With respect to your second "more sensitive item" this site is just much smaller.  Much much smaller.

The fact that:


  • users have to log in to create accounts

  • stories are posted at best two or three a day

  • there are only a small percentage as many users here as on /.

  • the expectation (maybe not the follow-through, but the expectation) of high stardards in discourse here is much stronger than on /.

all combine to keep the community small and inbred.  The other site's moderation scheme keeps the taco-trolls and Seth Finklestein below the AC ratings-view threshold, so many just plain don't see the hecklers.

On average, a much higher percentage of comments are seen at this site than at the other site.  For better or for worse, lots of folks wade through one hundred fifty or more comments in every story.

It's not so much that the users here can't seem to progress beyond rusty trolling...it's that scoop as an engine seems to encourage site-owner-fetishism.  Witness trollaxor.com and husi.  I mean they're going fly the site founder all the way to the US?

So I don't think it's necessarily rusty's weaseliness that brings on the trolls.  In actuality, it's more a technology issue.  Think of it this way, given a statistically large enough group of people, the aggregate post content for a given topic is similar from any sample to any other sample.  What's the difference between when the other site posts a review of the latest movie and when this site posts a review of the same movie?

Hint: it's not the thoughts of the userbase.  It's the rote, mechanical technology of the site.

Scoop => owner adoration => owner trolling.

Rusty's just not so good at handling the far right end of the equation.
Your personal experiences don't mean diddly in a nation of 300 million people. jubal3
[ Parent ]

Art and technology, they are different. (none / 1) (#803)
by eSolutions on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:40:35 PM EST

The medium provides a context for the art, but doesn't govern the art. That's what makes it art.

And journalism and commentary are art. On the Media, boycott-riaa.com, and The Daily Show all do meta-journalism, but take different formats, biases, and goals. Different artistic visions are what define these things, not media minutae.

What K5 needs is an agressive creative leadership. This will create a clear brand, will suggest themes for future stories (as with slashdot -- you know what kind of articles they're looking for), will make the site compelling, and will draw users looking to be entertained by this novel vision.

Want something that isn't formulaic? Don't obsess over formulae.

Yours in Christ,
eSolutions

[ Parent ]

Further problems. (2.92 / 13) (#237)
by Kasreyn on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:42:53 PM EST

I read as many of the comments as I could to try to find duplicates of my points, but my eyes were about to melt.

Points I hope you take into consideration if you DO decide on sponsorship, which I hope you don't:

* God help you if you forget your account password. How will you convince anyone you're you? I don't have email, IRC, or IM conversations with anyone from here more often than every 6 months or so. Why should I have to cultivate a closer interaction with k5ers just to maintain my user identity here?
* How will "harassment" be defined? Osama Bin Fabulous used to zero every comment I posted. This went on for nearly a year. Other users persist in being disrespectful to me or attempting to subtly insult me every time we interact, but I'm not sure if that's harassment either. However, I don't want anyone banned for "harassing" me, with the exception of modstorms. I think it would be pretty babyish of me if I couldn't handle my own social problems.
* How will sponsors ever find the time for both their own site use, AND keeping a close eye on their sponsoree's posts to be able to revoke and jump ship fast? No one will want to sponsor anyone, or at most one person, because of all the work involved keeping an eye on them.
* What's to prevent a sponsor from making a certain kind of ideology or posting style a condition of sponsorship? Ie., "I'll sponsor you if you never post anything blasphemous against my religion. The minute I see anything atheist come out your mouth, you're revoked." This is just an example, but EVERYONE has things they'd be tempted to censor in the people they sponsor. I think this gives too much power to the sponsor, who can threaten revocation at the worst times.
* What happens if you're revoked (not banned) while a story you submitted is in either queue?
* Doesn't the 40 comment minimum just mean people will post quickie garbage posts to get to the limit? I would make this, 40 comments each rated a minimum of 2.1 after a minimum of 4 moderations. After all, we don't want to ENCOURAGE crapflooding after we go to such lengths to stop it!
* All decisions are made by admins and are final, and you can be kicked out for any reason whatsoever. Ummm... why post the other rules then? :-P
* "I think you're wrong, because numerous studies have shown that black people are less intelligent and more athletic than white people," is a dumb opinion, but does not inherently violate the site's rules. "You stupid nigger fag" does. I hope this won't outlaw discussions of the etymology of racial epithets, Twain's Huckleberry Finn, and British people asking for cigarettes? Please, please, PLEASE, rusty, don't implement some sort of fucking word-matching comment-deleting script. Nothing you could do to the site could be worse.
* Reinstatement. There needs to be some sort of way a user can appeal their banning, promise to do better, or something.
* As to "reporting" people: the way stories go up or down around here based on partisanship rather than discussion-worthiness makes it very clear that anyone who regularly espouses any radical belief that makes others uncomfortable will be regularly reported to the admins for "abuse". I'm not saying the admins are too dumb to not realize this, but this seems like a case of the boy who cried wolf too many times... if that user LATER does something that really is ban-worthy, the admins will have a long history of thinking "pfft, he's just pissing off the small minded again". On the other hand, maybe the admins will think "50 different users have reported him - he MUST be doing SOMEthing wrong! *ban*".
* In any case, popularity will determine user identity survival. Hello, karma whoring.

My former post merely details why I am against sponsorship. This one describes the flaws I see. I hope you'll address them, rusty. If I can't convince you to drop the idea, maybe it can at least be better designed.


-Kasreyn


"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.
Well.... (2.25 / 4) (#261)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:10:20 PM EST

Ok, you obviously didn't read all the comments, because most of these HAVE been dealt with, but here we go anyway. (See, I know, I've been trolled.)

*There's already a lost password function. I don't think most people were in the habit of just creating new accounts when they forget their password, when K5 would just email it to you.

*Harassment will be defined in many ways, but mostly by the common sense of the admins and users.

*You won't have to 'keep an eye' on someone you've sponsored if they're anything other than an idiot, and you shouldn't sponsor idiots.

*The story in the queue would get deleted along with your account. (It just stands to reason.)

*it's 40 comments + 60 days. No just 40 comments. I think that should take care of most trolls, who are not that patient.

*Where'd that quote come from?

*None of this is going to be automated, so I'm sure the admins will know the difference between people discussing the historical uses of the word "fuck" vs. someone crap flooding it 1000 times into every diary.

*admins are not that dumb

*Karma doesn't ban you, so that remains unchanged.


[ Parent ]

About the quote (2.75 / 4) (#335)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:17:01 PM EST

The line in italics came from my article. Obviously abuse depends on context. No bans will happen automatically. They always will be the result of an admin investigating (or seeing) something and taking action (manually) if it's warranted.

Some people are getting some very odd ideas that our policies have suddenly changed. They really haven't. We've tried to stop harassment all along, and been unsuccessful because it's so easy to make a new account. This just puts teeth behind what we do now. If you haven't been banned yet, you're probably not going to suddenly say the wrong thing and find yourself kicked out.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Can we believe that, rusty? (2.60 / 5) (#337)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:18:53 PM EST

Maybe you're "trolling" me but I've been directly threatened by you twice in the last few days.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Where's the fun... (none / 1) (#468)
by skyknight on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:00:34 PM EST

in posting such a comment without incriminating links?

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
drat. (none / 2) (#348)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:25:20 PM EST

I'm blind, my apologies to Kasreyn for not seeing that.


[ Parent ]
You are very polite, thank you. :-) (none / 0) (#610)
by Kasreyn on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:46:50 AM EST

and I'll overlook you calling me a troll, because you had reason.

MY apologies for posting issues others already raised.


-Kasreyn


"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 ]
That's one of my concerns too (none / 3) (#488)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:39:51 PM EST

The sponsoring system gives specific users ultimate power over the accounts of other specific users. This is a far cry from the current "all are equal in the eyes of moderation" or even the old TU system. I can see it in the long run strongly encouraging factionalism or even a "clan" mentality like you get on MMOGs, delusions of grandeur, and such. It seems to me that on a democratic website all users should be equal.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
whey-hey! (2.91 / 12) (#245)
by pb on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:50:56 PM EST

Does this mean you're running the site again? Jeez, if that's all it took, I would have brushed up on my Photoshop skills instead of wasting my time working on a search engine!

Just to reiterate:
K5 still isn't a community; therefore, if you expect it to behave like one, you will end up being disappointed.

As for that killfile rant you linked to, well, I have to agree with some of its points, and disagree with its tone and suppositions. Obviously a simple killfile approach is a bad idea, just as an inflexible 'community' site housing large groups of easily pissed-off people working at cross-purposes is a bad idea. Especially when a few of them have administrative powers.

But I'm all for 'individualism'; if we can all do something to keep ourselves less easily pissed-off, then it'll be much easier to get along. More importantly, if I'm having an interesting discussion with someone, or a group of people, and the 'community' decides that it is meritless, ... what do we care? Why should they be able to censor us, the minority that is actually participating? So it isn't just about individualism, it's about resolving disputes. It's about the fact that people don't all agree on the same things, and trying to force them to is ridiculous.

That's because there are some fundamental disagreements with my ideas, and those of the 'community'. I see nothing wrong with segmenting up a democracy based on interests, opinions, and preferences; in fact, I think it would encourage lively discussions and debates amongst those that wish to have them together. This stands in stark contrast to the flawed ideal of Communism-by-committee that K5 has now.

Now, I doubt that K5 will ever become the sort of flexible set of communities I describe when I talk about what I'd want in a discussion site. I guess in some sense that just proves my point. If you like the site the way it is, fine. Just don't be deluded into thinking that it's a 'community'. I don't think that trying to make it into a gated community will improve matters much either.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall

Community (2.00 / 6) (#329)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:12:31 PM EST

I have been running the site all along. I'm going to add a "This user has been banned" flag to user pages as well, for banned users. It seems that people really don't know how often I do it. The fact that they've come back over and over and over, for years in some cases, is what made me think something like this is needed. If people aren't aware of this, it just means I've been doing my job. But I'm pretty tired of it.

I don't think a place with this many users can be a community. At best, it's a collection of communities. I think K5 qualifies as that, though not nearly as much as I'd like.

Part of the goal here is to shift new membership to reinforce that "collection of communities" nature. Hopefully it will help.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

wasn't kuro5hin.net part of that plan? [nt] (none / 2) (#382)
by infinitera on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:17:08 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 3) (#432)
by rusty on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:06:39 PM EST

But a big raft of other things came up in the meantime.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
the first step is admitting you have a problem... (none / 3) (#439)
by pb on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:10:03 PM EST

Great... so maybe one day we can have a discussion site that's designed to support a multitude of communities, peacefully, under one roof.

As for your running of the site, it is nice to have new site news, but the "Site News" section seems to be missing the monthly updates from December of 2003 up through the present, which detail the progress of the site, etc., etc.

And if you're getting tired of the monotonous duties of running K5, heavy hangs the head that wears the crown and all that, then I'm sure some people would be more than willing to help in some capacity or another. But you might have to talk to them first. And there's also that CMF thing.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

I have a better idea: (2.09 / 11) (#249)
by V on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:55:06 PM EST

Ship all the thin skinned whinners to HuSi.

It's a fucking web-site, for fucks sake!

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

sponsor approval (2.50 / 4) (#250)
by cronian on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:56:36 PM EST

If the sponser is going to be responsible for the content of the users posting, they should have the power to to approve the sponseree's posts. You could even have a special section of the site similar to the old review hidden comments, where old users could review new user's comments. Whoever approved the new users comments would be responsible if the users post was a crapflood, or something. There could be a special page to track the average rating of a sponsors user's postings to prevent abuse.

Once a new user gets a certain number of comments rated up, or gets a story posted they would then gain full priveledges. In the trial stage, they wouldn't be able to rate comments, or vote on stories. That way we could encourage a lower threshold for sponsorship, and allow those who don't know anyone on K5 to post.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
Wow (2.66 / 6) (#253)
by Michael Moore on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:57:38 PM EST

My joke about K5 being the Babysitter's Club is coming true.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Don't like it, here's another idea (2.91 / 12) (#251)
by speek on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:57:28 PM EST

Rather than have sponsored membership, which will have a real chilling effect on new users, why not have sponsored trusted user status?

Trusted user status based on comment quality was useless and too easy to game.

Trusted user status based on sponsorship helps create a base of administrators who could have the following abilities:

  • Only trusted users can zero comments or diaries
  • Comments/diaries that go below 1 get removed from the system
A trusted user who gets a comment removed becomes untrusted, as does his sponsor.

This way, membership isn't so adversely affected, bad posts can be easily removed without manual intervention on your part (the most imporant aspect you need, IMO), and the ability to remove data is carefully delegated out.

Also: the fact that you've already coded your solution tells me your going to do it regardless of objections and that your main response against other ideas is "well, that'll take time to code". So, I expect to be duly ignored.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

Good basis (2.50 / 4) (#267)
by BadDoggie on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:19:04 PM EST

But TU would have to be cleaned up, Diary ratings would have to stop "counting" again, and an arbitrary number of TU 0s (say, 5) would automatically send a comment directly to the bit bucket. Of course, that may cause a groupthink problem, so the TU-comment-kill number may have to be tweaked.

woof.

"Eppur si muove." -- Galileo Galilei
"Nevertheless, it moves."
[ Parent ]

what do you mean by "Counting"? (2.75 / 4) (#311)
by speek on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:01:11 PM EST

Ratings don't count toward whether you are trusted or not - trusted is a matter of sponsorship, except in the case of having a comment removed. If you are trusted and you post a comment in a diary that gets removed, then you should lose trusted status. I would say 1 zero rating is enough to remove a comment. Let's be clear - I'm changing the meaning of "trusted user" to really mean a trusted user. It's a way for Rusty to farm out site content management in a controlled way. A trusted user who zeroes in an unwarranted fashion is going to get caught pretty darn quick and that'll be the end of that.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

change (none / 1) (#323)
by speek on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:07:01 PM EST

There would never be enough trusted users for this to work as I stated, so I would revise to say that 1 zero vote on a comment or diary is enough to remove it. This can be softened by providing a period of time during which the comment is hidden for other trusted users to review, but that seems optional. It may seem too easy to remove content, but when I say trusted user here, I mean it. A trusted user that abuses will quickly be stripped of these rights anyway.

I see this as a way for Rusty to delegate site content management in a controlled fashion.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Make rating easier (2.87 / 8) (#255)
by wurp on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:01:01 PM EST

One thing that would make me rate drastically more comments is if rating was easier.  Provide an option in our User Info to display "javascript enabled" ratings, and display all of the ratings options side by side when that's enabled.  When I click a rating, immediately send a request to the server to rate the comment as I've specified, but don't make me reload the page.

When I rate now, every time I click "Rate All" I lose my location in the thread of conversation and I lose the ability to cick 'back' because I get a "this page was the result of a form submission" message.  It makes me not want to rate.  Also, since I tend to select several ratings before I click "Rate all" (because rate all is a pain in the ass), I tend to lose ratings I had queued up when I find an interesting sub-thread.  I am unwilling to rate all & then find the sub-thread link again, so I just follow the link.  Usually I never back my way to the original thread and submit the ratings I made.

You might also consider making a "why doesn't K5 do X" section in the FAQ.  I have commented lots of times that we need an ignore list, and had never seen you comment either way about it.  I don't consider it being obstinate to keep asking about something when I have never gotten an answer.  I personally disagree with your linked evaluation of killfiles, but at least now I understand your position well enough to stop bitching about it.
---
Buy my stuff

Right click is your friend (none / 2) (#266)
by godix on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:18:47 PM EST

Right click on the subthread and choose 'open link in new window'. You get all the thrills of seeing an interesting thread without losing your place or ratings on the main page. Also useful when you want to make a reply without losing your place (like I'm doing right now)

Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris

[ Parent ]
Good point (none / 1) (#271)
by wurp on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:24:19 PM EST

But it still doesn't solve the general suckiness of the rating system.  I'm glad we have the option of doing it the way it's done now for those who don't have good javascript support, but there's no reason we shouldn't be able to do it nicely for the vast majority who do.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]
Doing it nicely? (none / 1) (#291)
by godix on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:44:22 PM EST

Javascript is your idea of doing it nicely? What an odd thought process you have...

Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris

[ Parent ]
Having a decent UI (none / 1) (#549)
by wurp on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 09:06:16 PM EST

Is doing it nicely.  I actually don't care much what technology lies under it; I'm just a stupid user in this case.

I personally don't much like javascript, but only because it's a pain to get it cross-browser compliant.  I mean, I wouldn't do real development in it, but when you have to run a process on the client side, it's usually the best option.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]

Would a row of radio buttons below the comments (none / 0) (#594)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:56:25 PM EST

work for you.

If you check out HuSi, that's the way that they do it. It's taking me a while to get used to the drop-down boxes again...



[ Parent ]
Yep (none / 2) (#690)
by wurp on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:08:05 AM EST

That sounds perfect.  One order of radio ratings buttons, hold the HuSi.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]
Javascript (3.00 / 6) (#282)
by Driusan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:34:43 PM EST

Go to your comment preferences and use dynamic threaded mode. It already works that way.


--
This space for rent.
[ Parent ]
Woohoo! (none / 1) (#343)
by wurp on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:21:13 PM EST

That's immensely better!  Now, can you tell me where the damn directions are for those comment preferences?

Thanks!!
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]

Check the box with your username (none / 0) (#593)
by leviramsey on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:54:49 PM EST

right below the voxel.net and "collocated linux/freebsd server as low as $45/month" ads.



[ Parent ]
I see the box (none / 0) (#596)
by wurp on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 11:58:11 PM EST

I use it all the time.  But it only has this in it:
wurp
Moderate Submissions (2/3/5)
Review Hidden Comments
User Info
Your Comments
Your Stories
Your Diary
Your Ads
New Diary Entry
New Ad
New Story
User Preferences
Display Preferences
Comment Preferences
Logout wurp

I don't see anything that looks like a link to directions there to me.

I'm not asking for how to get to the Comment Preferences; I'm asking for something that tells me what the options mean on Comment Preferences.  I.E. something that would have let me know what Dynamic Threading was before I posted an ignorant comment on K5 :-)
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]

Dynamic Threaded (none / 2) (#309)
by Scurra on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:59:49 PM EST

If you use the "Dynamic Threaded" comments display option then you can rate comments without losing your flow, and it's also quite a nice way to read the comments (although an "expand all" and "collapse all" button would be nice)

[ Parent ]
sorry, above is redundant n/t (none / 1) (#312)
by Scurra on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:01:28 PM EST

blame my webcache :)

[ Parent ]
It's your site, do what you want (2.90 / 11) (#260)
by ethereal on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:08:25 PM EST

If I had to put up with that kind of crap, I'd consider doing the same things.

As a pretty infrequent poster (at least recently) my opinion may not carry a lot of weight. But I will say that there's no way I could have gotten an account under the proposed sponsorship system, since I didn't know anyone on the sight, and would not have been willing to beg a complete stranger to let me in.

I suggest you have a poll of the current membership. Find out how many people would not have accounts if your proposed system were in place at the time they joined. The number may be higher than you think.

I guess if you're OK with radically changing the membership-acquiring characteristics of the site, then do it. But understand that there will be a big change. It's too bad that a bunch of jackasses have put you in this position.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Exactly what I was thinking (3.00 / 4) (#272)
by Erbo on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:28:02 PM EST

I'd have been in the same boat as ethereal if I were coming into this site for the first time...and, under those circumstances, rather than trying to navigate the sponsorship minefield, I'd probably just take my marbles and go home. (Link down at the moment due to server disk failure, sorry)

And the harsh nature of the punishment that could be laid against a sponsor would make me very, very reluctant to sponsor anyone, except maybe people I knew in "real life." After all, how well do you know anyone if you only know them online? Now, imagine a large portion of the existing userbase thinking the way I do, and you might begin to see how tough it would be for any new users to get in.

Still, I will be watching this experiment, if/when it gets implemented, with interest...for I can envision the day that I may have to implement the same thing for EMinds. It won't happen anytime soon; our membership is mainly composed of Reasonable People. But if we get to the point where we start attracting the assholes, it might leave me as little choice as Rusty seems to have.
--
Electric Minds - virtual community since 1996. http://www.electricminds.org
[ Parent ]

The End of Information Influx (2.95 / 22) (#264)
by Remus Shepherd on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:12:31 PM EST

Sponsored memberships are a mistake.

Some people comment very rarely on threads, and some people come to kuro5hin only when they hear something in their interests being discussed.  If you limit comments only to those who are already here, you will cease to have any new information brought onto the site.  Kuro5hin will become an echo chamber containing only the opinions of those who are already here and those who agree with their opinions.

As an example, I just recently started reading Metafilter.  There have been several threads there in which I would have liked to provide information.  Can't comment -- no new users permitted.  So I watch as Metafilter posts incorrect information, and I'm unable to give them any help.  Rather than mail the moderators and try to convince them of my good intentions, I may just stop reading the site.  Let them have their playground and their delusions.

If you go to a sponsorship format, I beg you to at least allow anonymous comments.  Have anonymous comments default to a large negative rating so they do not show up for most users, but allow newcomers to make some kind of input.  New readers will not continue to read a discussion site if they are not allowed to contribute to it.  If you shut new users out, it will be the first step towards kuro5hin's decline into irrelevancy.

...
Remus Shepherd <remus@panix.com>
Creator and holder of many Indefensible Positions.

ahh, but there's the rub... (none / 1) (#278)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:33:16 PM EST

We may have missed out on 10 people like you on metafilter, but we've also avoided 100 trolls the same way. There is a cost to it then, but not a critical one. (Nothing personal.)


[ Parent ]
Nothing personal. :) (none / 3) (#386)
by Remus Shepherd on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:21:15 PM EST

Oh, no offense taken.  :)  It's all a matter of what kind of site you want to have.  I prefer sites that are vibrant, alive, and with many informed opinions instead of ones that are cliqueish and tend to self-reinforce ignorance.  Nothing personal.  :)
...
Remus Shepherd <remus@panix.com>
Creator and holder of many Indefensible Positions.
[ Parent ]
100 trolls for every 10 real users? (none / 2) (#492)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:45:46 PM EST

I think you are gravely mistaken. Even on k5, which everyone agrees is troll-ridden, the ratio is more like one troll for every twenty real users. AFAIK MeFi never even reached that level.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
100 troll ACCOUNTS for 10 ever user ACCOUNTS {nt} (none / 3) (#541)
by clover_kicker on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:42:51 PM EST


--
I am the very model of a K5 personality.
I intersperse obscenity with tedious banality.

[ Parent ]
Still completely ridiculous (none / 1) (#554)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 09:18:16 PM EST

I assume you don't mean active accounts, just shell accounts a troll can jump to if their current account is deleted? The real users still vastly outnumber the troll accounts. You have some sort of persecution complex.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
it ain't me babe (none / 1) (#570)
by clover_kicker on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:14:11 PM EST

Naw, I don't agree with those ratios either. But there are definitely several people with a couple of dozen accounts each.

I'd love to see a usage histogram of the current users.
How many inactive accounts?
How many who log in 1/week?
How many who log in 1/day?
How many obsessive reloaders?
--
I am the very model of a K5 personality.
I intersperse obscenity with tedious banality.

[ Parent ]

Rare does not mean worthless (none / 0) (#721)
by Remus Shepherd on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:08:35 PM EST

I only log in once a month if that.  I can read the site via RSS feed anonymously -- I only log in when I feel the need to make comments.  My comments are always reasonable.  By your measure I'd be listed as an inactive account and a probable troll.  Is that fair?  No.
...
Remus Shepherd <remus@panix.com>
Creator and holder of many Indefensible Positions.
[ Parent ]
this looks like a job for Captain Paranoid!!!! (none / 0) (#887)
by clover_kicker on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 08:50:25 PM EST

I'm sure that the vast majority of inactive accounts belong to legitimate users who just got tired of coming here.
--
I am the very model of a K5 personality.
I intersperse obscenity with tedious banality.

[ Parent ]
Last check... (none / 0) (#606)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:16:51 AM EST

There were 55k accounts total on K5. So there's only 5,000 non-troll accounts on K5?



[ Parent ]
Metafilter closed options (none / 0) (#755)
by Mitheral on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 03:48:02 PM EST

head on over to monkeyfilter http://monkeyfilter.com/ if you haven't already. A bunch of people in your situation started it up to talk about MF threads and it is starting to be a decent comunity in it's own right

[ Parent ]
Old User, possibly back (2.92 / 13) (#270)
by Davidicus on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:20:45 PM EST

So i used to read K5 a lot, (started before the great black-out of 2000) but i havent been here in the past year, mostly because of the trolls and the ever dimishing signal-to-noise ratio. I'm not one to chime in to a discussion unless i have something really major to add, so i dont qualify to sponsor people, and probably never will. I like this plan, and i think it will help a lot, I have spent the last year and a half at MeFi, which is a really strong comunity *because* it has had no new signups. (or very, very few) If someone is out there who really wants to contribute, but doesnt know anyone here, they can email rusty, and make their case, and he can "sponsor" them himself, as a temporary thing, (i'm not going to call for his banning if someone he cold-sponsored acts up)

Community strength (3.00 / 4) (#293)
by mstefan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:45:53 PM EST

I don't know how strong MeFi's community really is; it is certainly self-reinforcing, but I tend to think that the real strength of a site like this is in its (legitimate) diversity of opinion. With a site like MeFi, you start running the risk of exchanging ideas with people who all share the same fundamental principals; in environments like that, minority opinions are drowned out and there is little "thinking outside the box" because everyone is in the box, together. Personally, I've seen some colossally stupid assertions made (many of them political) and all you see is the crowd nod their head in unison, with the site's token libertarian or conservative voice being dismissed out of hand.

If you want a site that is going to reinforce your own worldview (and/or ego), where everything you write is an exercise in mental mastubation to be lavished upon by like-minded individuals, then something like MeFi is the place to be. However, I would argue that if you want a site that is going to challenge your thinking and make you defend your positions, not just espouse them to the masses, then it's the wrong way to go.

Rusty needs a mechanism that still allows "strangers" to interact with the community on some kind of basis. Word-of-mouth in this day and age, where we're all just bits on a wire, is too restrictive. There has to be a place somewhere between the current free-for-all and the insular, invite only community that's being proposed.



[ Parent ]
This is pretty pathetic (2.45 / 11) (#280)
by omghax on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:34:08 PM EST

It's clearly designed so that people can continue to do the OTHER kind of crapflooding... wherein they post UNBELIEVABLY boring diaries in hardly-readable trash that somewhat resembles English in appearance and hardly at all in mechanics.

There is no Technology or Culture anymore. People on this website that take it seriously have such hostile, polarized stances on everything that reasoned discussion is pretty nigh impossible. The "crapflooders" and "trolls" became the only interesting thing to read. Now they will be gone.

I put the "LOL" in phiLOLigcal leadership - vote for OMGHAX for CMF president!

Poor tech&culture... (none / 1) (#433)
by Elendale on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:06:59 PM EST

If i wasn't such a lamer i'd write up some technology articles myself. That was half the reason i came to k5 in the first place (the other half is that it was way better than Slashdot). When's the last time we saw a "How to secure a Slackware Linux server" or similar article, anyway? I know politics is interesting, but the people here are not and most politics discussions tend to drift into discussing personal bias more than anything else...
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
So... (2.71 / 7) (#284)
by James A C Joyce on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:36:56 PM EST

...you want to stop people from graphically insulting your wife, page-widening and rooting the K5 servers?

And you think that insituting sponsorship, allowing admins to warn people and making better (read: more restrictive) rules will stop this?

With all due respect, rusty, I'd like a description of the logical chain of thought that brought you from the stimulus to this conclusion.

I bought this account on eBay

While I don't like the idea of sponsorship, (none / 1) (#297)
by anticlimax on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:49:50 PM EST

I'm curious to hear your logical chain of thought on this. Why would this not prevent that?

[ Parent ]
OK. (none / 2) (#313)
by James A C Joyce on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:01:59 PM EST

Let's say I want to insult Ru$ty's wife. Here's how I could do it under this proposed totalitarian regime:
  1. Dig up that photo of Ru$ty standing next to his wife.
  2. Head over to some TGP portal like Autopr0n and download some fetish porn.
  3. Using open source free GNU software tools like the GIMP, I cut and paste Ru$ty's wife's face with loving care into one of the aforementioned pornographic images.
  4. I upload the resulting well-photoshopped image to a public web server.
  5. I ask a troll to sponsor a new K5 account so I can post the image. Hell, I could just use this account.
  6. I login using the convenient post form on the front page.
  7. I find an appropriate story/diary to post in. Or make my own.
  8. I post a link to the picture in a comment, story or diary.
  9. Repeat step 8 until banned.
Really, the only difference here is that in the current situation I can skip step 5.

So that's why I'd like to see how Ru$ty developed his ideas when they would have little bearing on current "troll" behaviour.

I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

You would run out of sponsors. (3.00 / 6) (#321)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:06:27 PM EST

After about three months of this system, willing sponsors will be hard to come by.



[ Parent ]
You only need to do it once, though. (none / 0) (#759)
by James A C Joyce on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 04:07:03 PM EST

Then Ru$ty will flip out yet again and do something even more retarded. So you don't need an endless supply of sponsors.

I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

well, well (none / 0) (#811)
by martingale on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 11:47:20 PM EST

You naughty copycat terrorist you. At least suggest something more original. I've read that one on cnn already, several years ago.

[ Parent ]
Wait a minute. Did I just troll you? (none / 2) (#326)
by anticlimax on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:10:20 PM EST

Because you look pretty damn stupid about now.

[ Parent ]
Asserting something does not make it true. (none / 2) (#333)
by James A C Joyce on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:16:56 PM EST


I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

Woah, you sure did put me in my place! n/t (none / 1) (#351)
by anticlimax on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:27:30 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Moot. (2.50 / 4) (#526)
by Paulsweblog on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:13:54 PM EST

Whether you believe the argument you presented or not is unimportant. Putting aside for a moment that arguments are allowed to stand on their own independent & faceless, consider that it's only your own credibility you damage if your argument is stupid: simply stating that you were trolling does not reach into the past and prevent you from putting forth a stupid argument. Were that so, anyone who ever made a stupid argument with the sincere belief that it was true could merely insist he was trolling when made aware of its stupidity. It happens often.

But the most important thing here is that, while you'd like to believe you're the only possible host for an argument, it's not so. An argument debunked is an argument debunked. It's virtually impossible to win by "trolling," since, truly, nobody cares what you believe over what you say. You're just the messenger. We don't read your mind here, only your words. Anyone who debunks a losing argument with a winning argument wins the game. You don't play much of a role besides setting the ball going and letting it play into the hands of someone smarter to take some free glory. Get over yourself.

--
Blood for blood and death for death.
[ Parent ]

This is the problem with GNAA 'trolls' (2.42 / 7) (#315)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:02:14 PM EST

The idiocy becomes internalized. What they should only say in a troll becomes truth to them. It's a dangerous trap.

This is part of the reason they cannot properly be called trolls. They are really only only net.idiots.

They forget that they post Rusty fanfic and pornography not in protest or in hopes of change, but because of their own discontent, their own delusions of adequacy.



[ Parent ]

Here's a little tip the next time you post. (2.16 / 6) (#344)
by James A C Joyce on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:21:33 PM EST

Use the "Post A Comment" link to reply to a story, not the "Reply to This" link. Otherwise you run the risk of making an offtopic and irrelevant. response to a comment.

I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

Assholes and the path of least resistance (2.75 / 4) (#303)
by mstefan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:53:52 PM EST

I could be wrong, but I think that the general thinking is to "increase the resistance" with regards to access to the site; in general, the assholes of the world follow the path of least resistance. They spam because they can. They crapflood because they can. They troll because they can. And when enough barriers are put in front of them, they stop and turn their eyeballs towards greener pastures where it's easier to vent their spleen. There are undoubtably a few, dedicated schmucks who make it their mission in life to be a thorn in your ass regardless of what measures you take, but those are in the significant minority. The trick is to make that barrier high enough so that K5 is no longer the path of least resistance when some of these idiots get the urge to express their inner asshole, but not so high that it discourages folks who really are interested in honest (even heated) discussions about complex issues.



[ Parent ]
make it more like a frat (2.03 / 30) (#285)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:38:13 PM EST

I'd like to know, for the sake of this comment, rate it a 1 if you were invited by a friend and a 2 if you arrived uninvited.

For every solution there's a trade off. Right now, we're banning all unknown users for the sake of a few. The analogy is close to a closed border with no incoming traffic, only users giving birth to more users. If Rusty could keep users from leaving, he'd be China.

This hostility to new users is unfortunate. Understandable, but unfortunate. I sympathize for you, Rusty, I really do, but you may be cutting off your nose to spite your face on this one. New users are your lifeblood and unsponsored users can help grow this site.

That's not to say that I don't like this idea. It has its merits, but the draconian nature is severe and should be mitigated. Just like a fraternity, we now have a problem with applicants who arrive without a referral. I suggest that, just like a fraternity, we allow people to rush. We're already elitist by embracing this plan, may as well go all the way.

To Rush, a user can designate a diary article as "Unsponsored Friendly", and these diaries would need to stand out in such a way as to inform and invite unsponsored user's attention. In these diaries (and only in these diaries) users who ordinarily would have no voice can demonstrate their involvement. If the diariest or anyone likes what they see and decide to take the risk, they can extend sponsorship, with all the consequences that come with sponsorship.

Further, to prevent an ass user from spamming these diaries, only allow these unsponsored users a limited number of comments for the duration of their "unsponsorship".

Just an idea. An imperfect one, sure, but no more imperfect than this implementation.

-Soc
I drank what?


I don't like it (2.33 / 6) (#286)
by 5pectre on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:38:47 PM EST

I would suggest two things.

1. bring back the old ratings system
2. make an "ignore" feature that allows people to avoid displaying the comments of people they don't like, or people with an average comment score of <x <p> Sponsorship sucks.

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

Wow. (2.50 / 6) (#289)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:42:12 PM EST

Did ya read the article? Don't bother suggesting black lists when Rusty has specifically said he'd never do that.


[ Parent ]
Aye (none / 2) (#299)
by Aneurin on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:51:01 PM EST

I'm starting to agree with blacklisting the more I think about it.

Some people that I don't wish to read tend to have high comment rating averages which is somewhat annoying.

I don't really like outright cutting of a user from my "experience" but I'd certainly like to be able to reduce or increase the rating weight of certain users. Of course, this would be preferable with the 0-5 system.
---
Just think: the entire Internet, running on jazz. -Canthros

[ Parent ]

Re: suggestion (1) (none / 1) (#324)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:09:16 PM EST

Why?

[ Parent ]
Bad idea. (2.86 / 15) (#287)
by mold on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:40:00 PM EST

If this system had been in place, like oh-so-many others here, I wouldn't be here.

I know you've said that you just want people to invite family and friends and the like, but my whole reason for coming here is to have interesting debates with people that I don't know. Why should I invite my friends and family? I can, and do, debate with them all the time. Why should anyone else invite their friends and family? They can, and do, debate with them all the time. Why would anybody invite friends and family?

We don't need a website to debate with people we already know.

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!

complaint box (2.81 / 11) (#295)
by tps12 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:48:00 PM EST

I am going to use the complaint box to send the admins warm fuzzies about users I like. I encourage others to do the same. Make love, not war!

Nah (none / 2) (#368)
by godix on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:50:03 PM EST

I'm going to use the complaint box to complain. If I have a bad day at work, a fight with my wife, or life in general is sucking then Rusty's gonna hear about it. After all, the box is labeled complaint isn't it?

Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris

[ Parent ]
I for one welcome our new sponsorship overlords (2.33 / 6) (#300)
by pw201 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:51:23 PM EST

This seems like a useful way of limiting the idiots. I'm not sure it's a good idea to only allow one sponsor at a time, though. Something like Advogato's trust system might make more sense.

Am I a sponsor? (2.75 / 4) (#301)
by Maniac on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:51:27 PM EST

Is there some way to determine as a long time reader / occasional poster if I qualify as a "sponsor"?

I did a quick check in the archives, three stories posted (w/ about 50 comments total) and between 50 & 60 comments made (many not rated). So a strict reading of what you say the rules are, I am not a qualified sponsor. Is that the intent of the rules?

I also have to comment that I don't see any clear way to get myself sponsored if I arrived at K5 at this time. I may certainly know some of the people IRL already at K5 (based on their comments to what I posted) - but would not have know that unless I could have posted. I am also not quite sure if I'd ever sponsor someone unless I knew them for some time.

  --Mark

PS: When I clicked on my name - I saw the [long forgotten] link to my entry in one of the "Who are You?" stories. It has certainly been a while since you last asked that question - will you do it again?


off topic (none / 1) (#346)
by tiamat on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:22:56 PM EST

You're right, it's been just over one year since te last "who are you", so I put the next one in the queue.

[ Parent ]
What the fuck (2.51 / 29) (#302)
by bc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:52:28 PM EST

How many "problem users" are there on k5? You know, the sort that go out purely to hurt others as hard as they can? Three? Half a dozen?

Not very many, that's for sure. So using this hammer to crack such a tiny nut is complete horseshit.

I am absolutely certain that, a little bit down the line, Rusty will introduce a great new idea to combat the utterly stalled growth of k5 (after all, it can only have a few hundred users active enough to invite others). Its simple: people will be able to buy sponsored accounts.

In other words, the wife-pics are being used like Bush used 9/11 - a grand pretext for something you wanted to do anyway, but now can do for higher, purer reasons that you can sell to the suckered, fundraiser-raped masses, and get that revenue-stream you've always wanted.

This sucks. I'm not against the idea of having to pay to get an account at all, but it will be very annoying if its forced in under some pretext, but, given rusty's record, not at all surprising.

♥, bc.

Brilliant. (2.75 / 8) (#314)
by waxmop on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:02:12 PM EST

In other words, the wife-pics are being used like Bush used 9/11...

Wow.

And I thought I was too into this site.
--
Long-term consequences of Bush deficits

[ Parent ]

I wish (2.75 / 4) (#322)
by mcc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:06:34 PM EST

That I could 3 your comment while 0ing paragraph four.

Oh well.

[ Parent ]

That's why I gave him a two. ;-) [n/t] (none / 1) (#325)
by RandomLiegh on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:09:39 PM EST



---
Thought of the week: There is no thought this week.
---
[ Parent ]
Some thoughts (3.00 / 23) (#307)
by godix on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:56:02 PM EST

Part I - I really really don't like it. First off a lot of people I see coming on to this site stumbled into it from google, other weblogs linking to it, etc. They don't have friends here to ask to sponsor. You've tied my account into their actions so I'm damned well not going to sponsor someone I don't know. Those potential new users are just SOL. Second off, I'm not a freaking babysitter here. Even if it is a friend I don't want to have to spend the next month or so monitoring what they do and wondering if I'm going to get banned because of them. All sponsorships will do is turn K5 into Metafilter lite, a sad pathetic has-been of the internet that's going through a slow death spiral as their users slowly leave (well, quickly in K5's case, turnover is high here) and never get replaced.

Part II - I like simple guidelines. A statement of 'If you act like a dick you will be banned' should be more than sufficient. Some will complain that it doesn't provide specifics but if there's someone who doesn't realize that crapflooding is being a dick do we want them on the site anyway?

Part IV - So let me get this straight, the next time I say something people don't like in addition to getting a flood of 0's I also get a flood of people telling the admins that I suck? Just because I posted a controversial opinion? Yeah, great idea. The email address for admins is readily avalable already, there's no need for a special 'report user' button as well.

My personal suggestion is to make TU's mean something. Specifically make them mean that diaries can be given -1 and if a certain % of votes are TUs dumping it then the comment gets dumped regardless of it's average score. To counter this power abusing TU status should be the quickest way to get banned.

Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris

Part III: ??? (nt) (none / 2) (#331)
by xg0blin on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:13:06 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Part V: Profit? (none / 2) (#332)
by xg0blin on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:13:42 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I have no issues with Part III (3.00 / 4) (#364)
by godix on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:40:42 PM EST

Warnings wouldn't pose any problems with the way Rusty described them. I suspect they'll be rather ineffective but I have no complaints about it.

Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris

[ Parent ]
Fuckedcompany.com's TOS (3.00 / 4) (#581)
by duffbeer703 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:37:28 PM EST

"Don't be a dipshit"

That seems to work over there.

[ Parent ]

Doesn't it? (none / 0) (#737)
by coryking on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 01:53:42 PM EST

Fuckedcompany.com has one of the best, most lively discussion systems on the internet. Not a day goes by where you can't check the comments on a particular fucked company and get heaps of quality, timely information *directly* related to the company in question.

And they owe it all to that TOS. Great, ain't it?

[ Parent ]

True (none / 0) (#743)
by duffbeer703 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:30:57 PM EST

FC is definately a... different kind of discussion forum with the usual cast of crapflooders, trolls and idiots, but there is a real community there.

The strength and weakness K5 is the story voting system, which gives fanatics or people with too much time and 20 troll accounts on their hands an opportunity to control what is and isn't posted here. The days leading up to the 2000 presidential election was the ultimate example of that -- this place was practically invaded with Ralph Nader fanboys.

I enjoy this site, but I think that there is already too much structure. If personal attacks get out of hand -- ban the people. Why setup a convoluted structure to solve a simple problem?

[ Parent ]

On the internet no one knows you're a dog (none / 1) (#857)
by ramses0 on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 06:09:07 PM EST

"""Part II - I like simple guidelines. A statement of 'If you act like a dick you will be banned' should be more than sufficient. Some will complain that it doesn't provide specifics but if there's someone who doesn't realize that crapflooding is being a dick do we want them on the site anyway?"""

Great idea.  Act like a dick in your local arcade, or movie theater, or pub, and you'll get kicked out.  (so far no problems).  But on the internet (like Rusty said), there's no way to 100% verify someone's identity.  Thus, it's as if you get kicked out of the movie theater, come right back in with a Nixon mask on, and nobody says anything.

The penalty (kicking out) is not effective, because user account Troll99 is no different from Troll98, it has no value.  In order for the penalty to have any kind of effect at all, you need to make it take away something of value, you need to make the account itself have some sort of value.

Something I like about the proposed system is: allow anyone to post, make their comments start off hidden.  Make their usernames have a "sponsor me" link off to the side.  There needs to be a way for random net-newbies to find their way on to here and get involved.  This all or nothing approach is pretty harsh, but I hope it's just rusty overreacting (no offense, Rusty ... and sorry about what happened, suxors, eh?) ... and he'll realize that the sponsorship approach needs a little more thought put into it.

Questions to answer:
   - How can n00bs get noticed or get a sponsorship (#kuro5hin on IRC? Post @ zero?)
   - How can I revoke my sponsorship of someone (in case they start being a dick) and what happens?
   - What if instead of deleting my account, I could no longer sponsor people?  (chop off the arms to do no harm, not the head).
   - $20 still gets you in? (that seems fair, traceable)

As it stands, I am not about to put my account at risk since there is no value to me to do so, and that's what Rusty needs to formulate into this equation. :^)

--Robert
[ rate all comments , for great ju
[
Parent ]

*THE* solution (2.78 / 14) (#320)
by coryking on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:05:52 PM EST

Heh, maybe not. But here it goes. People are right, the sponsorship idea will put a check on the diversity found here. A k5 story will get linked from joeblowsfantasticblog.com and the people who visit will have no way of posting. However, sponsorship will help weed out the idiots.

There is a website out there that has perhaps the best userbase ever. A diverse set of people, not all arrogant slashnerds, who have really interesting things to say. Nary an idiot to be found. You know the site? forums.somethingawful.com. You know why it's the best damn forum out there? Cause you got to pay $9.95 to join. Are you NIWS and try to post shit to somethingawful? Well, your ass is booted, you get a big fuck you, and you dont get your money back. The system works.

I can't help but to think that would work here as well. BUT you can do both. You can a) sign up via a sponsorship from somebody else for free or b) hack up $9.95 for an account. If the account turns out to be an idiot - boot them, no money back. Have they "reformed"? They'll pay $9.95 again. The system works. You can still attract diversity by allowing random people to sign up, but still have a more gated community.

Funny though, I suspect that both ways of regulating accounts will make ratings even more worthless. I suggest you leave them in for a month, then rip them out. Your site doesn't need them; no site does.

Ooopps (2.71 / 7) (#327)
by coryking on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:11:36 PM EST

and i forgot to add: Take the $9.95 sign up money and pay people who get stories posted. Kind of a profit sharing.

[ Parent ]
That's actually a fine idea (none / 1) (#369)
by Perianwyr on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:50:09 PM EST

It would also support k5's operating costs as well.

[ Parent ]
There are no operating costs. (none / 1) (#530)
by Paulsweblog on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:18:18 PM EST

Seriously.

--
Blood for blood and death for death.
[ Parent ]

monocle polish don't buy itself ya know (n/t) (none / 0) (#611)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:52:39 AM EST



[ Parent ]
There's always operating costs (none / 0) (#633)
by Perianwyr on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 03:31:14 AM EST

I also have zero objection to Rusty taking home more cash from this site. Why not? It doesn't make it any less fun.

[ Parent ]
Rusty's cats get hungry! (none / 0) (#673)
by wiredog on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 09:13:27 AM EST

And so does Rusty.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Sounds good to me -nt (none / 1) (#444)
by andersjm on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:20:45 PM EST



[ Parent ]
not a bad idea n/t (none / 1) (#470)
by j0s)( on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:04:00 PM EST


-- j0sh -- of course im over-dramatizing my statements, but thats how its done here, sensationalism, otherwise you wouldnt read it.


[ Parent ]
Actually it's true (none / 1) (#583)
by JayGarner on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:43:12 PM EST

Nothing would weed out the fucktards like making people cough up some money to join.

Maybe you just end up with richer fucktards though. You get money either way.

Sponsorship is great for NASCAR and AA, not sure it beats the make people pay solution.

[ Parent ]

I'd buy this for a dollar! (none / 0) (#886)
by banstyle on Sun Mar 28, 2004 at 07:32:05 PM EST

Honestly, if crapflooding goes down because they have to pay out of pocket everytime they want to troll, then hell yeah, I'm for it. I did pay for a subscription to K5- but I let it lapse because of all the asshats.

I'd gladly come back and pay.
__
"Everything done in weakness fails. Moral: do nothing." -Nietzsche
[ Parent ]

Display of sponsored users (2.50 / 4) (#336)
by oceanwave on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:17:22 PM EST

Would it be prudent to display, on each user's profile/user page, all of the users they have previously sponsored, just so the community themselves can see who is tied to whom, or would this just encourage more exclusionary behavior? For instance, user A hates user C, A notices user C was sponsored by B, therefore A decides to hate B as well. Despite that possibility, it could provide some more accountability to people, knowing full well that anyone can see who they have sponsored. Personally I'm not sure either way, but it's something to consider at least, and I'm interested to hear other opinions on it.

zoo.pl (none / 2) (#363)
by it certainly is on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:35:32 PM EST

The best feature of the slashdot game. Great idea, genius.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

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

But (none / 1) (#497)
by Emissary on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:52:30 PM EST

it would take all the fun out of sock puppet accounts.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
[ Parent ]
Viva Anonymous, to a degree (none / 0) (#781)
by elpapa on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 07:18:21 PM EST

I guess this is one of the roots of the problem, that of giving users the opportunity to "moderate down" people they just dislike, without even reading what they have to say more the once.

A hates C but sponsores D which loves C therefore.....I personally couldn't care less about who hates who and who loves who , as when I'm here I just want to look for toughtfull, well reasoned and educated stories and comments.

And I guess all the "battle" within A,B,C and other users is totally useless, doesn't add anything to the discussion...I'd gladly get rid of the usernames if this is going to prevent targeted trolling.

[ Parent ]

Yay, and a question (2.90 / 10) (#339)
by Matthew Guenther on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:19:34 PM EST

As much as I dislike "me too" comments, I'm going to chime in and say as an early user who has largely stopped reading and participating in K5, I think you should go ahead with this idea.  Although this is certain to change the dynamics of the site and membership, it can only help with the overall content by making people more cognisant of the decency of their own behaviour towards others.  

Rusty, I remember one of your early comments on K5, about how you created the site with a generally open and democratic framework because you believed people generally live up to what is  expected of them.  I'm curious if you still feel this is true, and how you think the sponsorship change might affect people's behaviour in light of this?

MBG

Rusty, what about people like me? (2.60 / 5) (#341)
by psychologist on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:19:52 PM EST

I write a lot of anti-semitic stuff, a few pointless troll diaries, a lot of stuff about liking terrorists, hating america, and the occasional anti-rusty diary. I don't recall ever crap flooding and I've certainly not done any technical crap (I'm not good enough at tech to do such).

Do you recall anything of mine that could get me booted? With what comments/diaries am I walking the tightrope?

Interesting question (none / 1) (#362)
by mstefan on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:33:42 PM EST

Rusty mentioned Baldrson and John Asscroft. In the former case, you have someone who apparently really does believe in what's he's shovelling. In the later, it's obviously meant to be satirical humor.

If you want to write fiction, then by all means, write fiction. But, in all seriousness, why are you here? Just to regale us with Takes of the Stupid vis a vis your hallucinogenic mercenary exploits?



[ Parent ]
Don't discourage him, the genuinely wild and weird (3.00 / 5) (#411)
by jongleur on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:44:05 PM EST

are a great thing. I'm surprised and bummed, that we don't have more of them.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
Fascinating signature link. (2.75 / 4) (#533)
by Paulsweblog on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:22:37 PM EST

Marshall Brain is excellent. He was recommended to me by a white supremacist. She has interests outside of white supremacy, of course, but anyhow it's a good idea to link to the beginning.

--
Blood for blood and death for death.
[ Parent ]

thanks, glad to see someone who knows about it (none / 0) (#623)
by jongleur on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:26:05 AM EST

but I figured I'd point out the juiciest bit and let people explore on their own. I love the radical idea that we might not have to work soon, but, it takes re-thinking a lot. Things have changed enough that even if Marshall Brain's particular idea doesn't work I think it's time we re-think a lot of things anyway.
--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
You should stay (3.00 / 5) (#370)
by The Terrorists on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:50:59 PM EST

so should Baldrson

Watch your mouth, pigfucker. -- Rusty Foster
[ Parent ]

what about The Jews? [nt] (none / 1) (#385)
by infinitera on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:21:03 PM EST

(Myself included.)

[ Parent ]
Oh, they can stay too, of course! -nt (2.75 / 4) (#420)
by conthefol on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:56:05 PM EST


--
kuro5hin is about to E.X.P.L.O.D.E!!!
[ Parent ]

Yup (none / 1) (#667)
by The Terrorists on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 08:41:13 AM EST

Anyone who can actually argue intelligently can stay imho

Watch your mouth, pigfucker. -- Rusty Foster
[ Parent ]

That's unfair (none / 1) (#685)
by Cro Magnon on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 09:54:04 AM EST

Since when has intellegence been required to post on K5?
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
I don't think you're walking the line. (3.00 / 4) (#522)
by aphrael on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:08:20 PM EST

The point isn't to rmeove content we disagree with; it's to remove things which are intended solely to annoy.

[ Parent ]
This should be interesting (2.40 / 5) (#347)
by JahToasted on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:24:10 PM EST

I think it will cut down on the crapflooding, but it will also decrease the number of new users.

So you've decided to officially whack the crapflooders... I wonder if it would be feasible to have a banned user "graveyard" where the banned users are listed and the admins would post the reason for the user being banned? Maybe move the offending comments there as proof of the user's crimes or whatever. Allow users to post comment their complaining about the injustice done to their comrade or lauding the admin's decisive action. I think it would be more in the spirit of the site if the bans were transparent.

It would also be nice to have a forum where untrusted users could post so we could identify new talent. maybe wait a few months before you put that in place so we don't get the usual suspects carpping that up.

Anyway... hope this works out.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison

i agree completely (none / 0) (#489)
by transient0 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:42:03 PM EST

i love how rarely the site admins have had to actually step in, but whenever they do and a user just disappears, it seems very un-k5 for everyone else to have to whiper amongst themselves and try and figure out why.
---------
lysergically yours
[ Parent ]
Your graveyard == trolls high score table |nt (none / 0) (#629)
by CwazyWabbit on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:59:30 AM EST


--
"But here's the thing: if people hand me ammunition, what kind of misanthrope would I be if I didn't use it?" - Sarah-Katherine
[ Parent ]
If we do this... (2.54 / 11) (#349)
by skyknight on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:25:41 PM EST

then the terrorists have already won. This stinks of the PATRIOT act to me: different contexts, same odious stench, and rolled in under the auspices of trumped up charges of impending doom.

K5's present problem is not from an abundance of noise, but rather from a lack of signal. Draconian regulations may clamp down on noise, but they do nothing to increase the signal, and will probably even hurt it.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
Okay. (1.00 / 6) (#354)
by ninja rmg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:30:51 PM EST





Sponsorship is a terrible idea (2.95 / 22) (#355)
by TheophileEscargot on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:30:52 PM EST

Same reasons everyone else has said: encourages cliquishness, discourages new members. I'd certainly never have joined if this had been in place at the time.

Also, for me, one of the best things about K5 is when an article is posted on a specialist topic, and specialists join and start commenting from their own specialist knowledge. That's not going to happen any more.

There are loads of better ways to solve the problem:

  • More editors, more active deleting.
  • Remove the diary section
  • Waiting periods before a new user can post (like DailyKos)
  • Hide/voting system for diaries
  • Return of the -1 rating
I think a one-week waiting period alone would help a great deal with this. They're generally after immediate gratification, and would get bored. Plus, you'd only need to look for suspicious registrations once a week.

Sponsorship seems to be massive overkill: like you've gotten pissed off and reached straight for the nuclear option. Stories and story comments are fairly OK because they're moderated. The problems are mostly in the diary section, which has no moderation. Users can't hide or vote down a diary.

Since the problems are mainly in the unmoderated section, either close it down or introduce moderation. Surely it's better to a least try a moderation solution, rather than leap straight to (virtually) closing down new registrations?
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death

Waiting periods are crap (3.00 / 7) (#366)
by coryking on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:43:55 PM EST

Nothing pisses me off then having something to say, and finding out I have to wait before I can post. I suspect I'm not alone.

[ Parent ]
Like with guns (2.75 / 4) (#582)
by JayGarner on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:38:57 PM EST

Waiting period? But I'm mad NOW!

[ Parent ]
Limit number of comments for the first few days. (none / 1) (#669)
by mr strange on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 08:47:32 AM EST

Limit new users for their first week: Two comments per 24 hour period. No diaries. No story entries.

After the probationary week, kill the account if it has no positively rated comments. Or kill the account if is has ANY hidden comments.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

Bad limit (none / 0) (#796)
by ffrinch on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:08:16 PM EST

Limiting new users to two comments per 24 hour period stops them from getting into a real discussion/argument with anyone.

-◊-
"I learned the hard way that rock music ... is a powerful demonic force controlled by Satan." — Jack Chick
[ Parent ]
That's the point! (none / 2) (#820)
by mr strange on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 04:56:27 AM EST

If a new user must wait for days before she can post at all, then she might not bother at all. After all, she's burning to have a say in an ongoing discussion.

But I don't think many real newcomers to the site want to generate dozens of comments on their first day. Most people will lurk for a while and read the stories. Then one day, they will be see something that they simply must comment on - and they join up to make that comment. But they won't suddenly go to posting 10 comments on every story - their usage pattern will change gradually, as they get more confident.

The point is to identify the usage patterns of REAL users, and set the rules to allow that, but DISALLOW unusual or undesirable usage patterns.

Another suggestion: Since real users will usually lurk for a while before they join, why not track lurkers with a cookie? Reject new users who have not been lurkers on the site for at least a couple of days.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus
[ Parent ]

That's not true (none / 3) (#832)
by ffrinch on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 08:11:18 AM EST

There are different types of user. Some people join the site join with the intention of hanging around, joining the "community" and whatnot.

Other users stumble across individual articles, or follow links to them. These people might only want to post to that article, but, if so, those comments are probably worth reading.

In the grandparent comment, TheophileEscargot said:

Also, for me, one of the best things about K5 is when an article is posted on a specialist topic, and specialists join and start commenting from their own specialist knowledge. That's not going to happen any more.
That's the biggest issue here for me. I've seen many "nullo" users with specialist knowledge posting incredibly insightful and useful comments. Those are far more valuable than all of the blather from the intelligent (or not) amateurs who like to post on every single topic, regardless of qualification. Specialists are also likely to post more than once in that particular story, as they respond to comments from others, even if they have no interest in staying at the site.

Most of them are not going to care enough about correcting the misapprehensions of amateurs to jump through hoops in order to register, and it's our loss, not theirs.

-◊-
"I learned the hard way that rock music ... is a powerful demonic force controlled by Satan." — Jack Chick
[ Parent ]

IAWTP (2.75 / 4) (#401)
by ad hoc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:32:33 PM EST

I wouldn't be here if there were sponsorship. I didn't know anyone from this site IRL or otherwise until after the first K5 meets and there is no way I could or would have been sponsored.

This, of course, is irrespective of the fact that I am not here any longer. The crap got too much for me and I "left." I still check in from time to time, but I post nothing here any more.

The only thing that would seem to work for me is some sort of "Ban this account" vote. Or something. I haven't put a lot of thought into how that might work, but it seems the only way.

Thinking out loud: Maybe it would be a two-step thing. Someone does a write-up that an account should be banned and submits it to the queue in the "ban this account" topic. If the article makes it to a vote, then another vote is yay or nay on the ban. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. But sponsorship is doomed. Doomed!


--

[ Parent ]

Just to make the point completely clear (2.83 / 6) (#408)
by ElMiguel on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:41:52 PM EST

How many of the users who have posted to this story would have been able to get sponsored as required by Rusty's scheme? That's a poll I'd like to see. Any bets on the result?

I think part of the solution to the troll problem (that anyway didn't seem so pressing until just now) should be making the comment rating mean something. I never rate comments now because it's completely useless, but if a troll could realistically get banned on bad comment ratings, perhaps more people would rate.

Anyway, Slashdot has their trolls more or less under control, and they even allow anonymous posting for heaven's sake. Surely Kuro5hin can deal with trolls without resorting to fascism.

[ Parent ]

*AHEM* (3.00 / 4) (#507)
by godix on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:17:33 PM EST

Here. The results are about what I expected, 81% would not have joined this site if sponsorship was required. A further 10% aren't sure. This is out of 49 responses. So out of 49 people somewhere between 40 and 45 of them wouldn't be here if sponsorship was required. I hope those remaining 4 to 9 people really like talking to each other...

Thank god I'm worth more than SilentChris

[ Parent ]
Wait a fucking minute... (none / 2) (#604)
by leviramsey on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:13:46 AM EST

Also, for me, one of the best things about K5 is when an article is posted on a specialist topic, and specialists join and start commenting from their own specialist knowledge. That's not going to happen any more.
Waiting periods before a new user can post (like DailyKos)

Kind of incompatible, n'est-ce pas?



[ Parent ]
No (none / 3) (#622)
by TheophileEscargot on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:17:56 AM EST

DailyKos has a 24 hour waiting period for comments. Discussion in stories lasts longer than that.

Whereas with sponsorship, the chances of a new specialist knowing someone to sponsor him are zero.
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]

It still won't happen (none / 1) (#798)
by ffrinch on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 10:13:24 PM EST

Most of the comments I've seen from specialists have been in response to someone else posting something grossly ignorant or incorrect. I honestly can't see most specialists caring enough to register and wait 24 hours just to correct the misapprehensions of a bunch of amateurs -- it's a spur of the moment thing, like most comments.

-◊-
"I learned the hard way that rock music ... is a powerful demonic force controlled by Satan." — Jack Chick
[ Parent ]