MODERATOR ANNOUNCEMENT: ILE to accept posts from registered users only

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Okay, we are now in position to make ILE accept posts only from those registered and logged in. This has been thought necessary because of persistent offenders who we have been unable to ban. Now they will need to reregister using a valid and unique email address - and if someone does this repeatedly after being banned, there are other possible steps we can take about them. So I hope people will think twice about the kind of behaviour that would lead to their being banned.

It's not happening this minute - it will happen as soon as we feel the need to ban someone, with no further notice. Therefore I'd recommend registering now, though there will be nothing to stop you doing so after the switch happens. People already registered need take no action at all.

We're sorry for the extra inconvenience for some, and the restrictions on random visitors immediately posting, but various events and campaigns of objectionable behaviour have led to the moderators and most others believing this is the right step.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Bravo!

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Though I kinda worry what the regulars who've never registered (for some reason or other) will do.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I hope they will register.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Now they will need to reregister using a valid and unique email address

noise dudes with 700 random characters in the e-mail field will be bummed

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll kind of miss all those "regular user posting anonymously" threads.

(but if the mods think it's necessary, then it's necessary, i guess)

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

There are plans to hide email addresses, or offer the option of doing so for your email, and offer a webmail service instead so you can still contact users.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmmmmm. What if I want to make an anonymous posting about contacting a woman I haven't spoken to in ten years?

(I didn't start that thread, by the way. That logged out user has apparently been burnin' since the world's been turnin'.)

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

BUT WHERE WILL I GO?? WHO WILL TAKE ME IN??

O
M
F
G

― I change usernames every post, Monday, 26 July 2004 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not like your real name is Pleasant Plains, is it? Those of us who do use our real names... I don't know. I've never had difficulties admitting personal stuff on ILE, but that's just me.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I started an anonymous thread once about how to stop yourself crushing on people.

Maybe the ILX coders could add an option to hide the usernames on selected posts from non-mods, or something. I'm sure it wouldn't be tricky to implement; it would, of course, be another thing to bloat the code with.

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe my name IS Pleasant Plains!

But how am I going to start an anonymous thread about how much I had a crush on that girl from the Drop Nineteens album cover without all of YOU knowing about it?

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah, that wasn't so hard.

― sexyDancer (sexyDancer), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

ILM is about to become even less interesting than it used to be

― Vansi, Monday, 26 July 2004 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

impossible.

― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I just haven't been registering lately because I've been flitting around from computing machine to computing machine, and have been known to be perversely unable to log out on some machines, but whatever, this will probably be a good thing, except for the people who really don't care that everybody thinks they're an asshole.

oh yeah, and goodbye random googlers, I suppose.
xpost

― Huck, Monday, 26 July 2004 21:33 (twenty-one years ago)

(after all, if a normal user posts anonymously at the moment, the mods can work out who it is fairly easily by IP analysis)

(xpost, lots)

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:33 (twenty-one years ago)

About time.q

― The Dreaded Rear Admiral (Leee), Monday, 26 July 2004 21:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought this was just ILE, not ILX-wide.

― morris pavilion (samjeff), Monday, 26 July 2004 22:15 (twenty-one years ago)

It's the death of ILX!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Monday, 26 July 2004 23:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Who's going to pay for all the syringes?

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 26 July 2004 23:56 (twenty-one years ago)

This spells the end for Janne Karlsson.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 00:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Dudes, you're all forgetting how many gmail invites we probably all still have. Nothing stopping anyone making actual legitame addresses to go with any additional proper logins you might want...

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 00:55 (twenty-one years ago)

or if you run your own domain name....

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it impossible to post anonymously now? That needs to stay, I think.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin, does this just apply to ILE or the whole of ILX?

(BTW....Yay! At last!)

― Fred Nerk (Fred Nerk), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:12 (twenty-one years ago)

ahh what about Allyzay's wonderful email addresses?

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Well how would you differentiate an anon post for those puposes from someoen just using a random name as a googler/to be a dick/to evade banning? As far as the database knows theres no difference :-/

(xpost to Tracer)

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I have to say that this will kill a lot of ILX appeal. Part of the reason why I started posting on ILX (and haven't posted to many forums I often wish I could) was b/c I didn't have to go through any crazy registration procedures and all the crap that goes along with them.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

All the crap? It took me literally a minute to fill in a name and a (never used) email address when I came here. Cookies meant I never had to think about it again, unless I forcibly logged out or used a new PC.

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

how is the legitness of the email addy checked anyway? couldn't you just make one up that looked legit?

― gaz (gaz), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:28 (twenty-one years ago)

No cos it sends the password to that email. It does that now, this is why I dont get peoples confusion!

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 01:35 (twenty-one years ago)

norandom g00glers wil suk

― dyson (dyson), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 02:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I actually came over here to because of no registrations. It was nice to come in, write something, get out. The other board I went to went to a boxy format with all of the tables and HTML rules like [quote] or [bold] and had those weird avatars that move around and everything. It was horrible.

I like the simplicity of this place. However, in just the last month or so, I've started signing in everytime. Being able to skip immediately to the unread posts and being able to see what threads have been updated and not on the front page or more than worth it.

So from a very, very guarded point of view, I suppose that I would vote AYE on registration being required. But I do like some of the anonymous threads very much.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)

It should be noted that only moderators would be able to tell who posted "anonymous" threads (assuming that the username link goes away).

Also, I'd humbly suggest that anything you don't feel comfortable putting your name to isn't something you should put on an archived, publicly-accessible message board.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 02:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I started an anonymous thread once about how to stop yourself crushing on people.
Maybe the ILX coders could add an option to hide the usernames on selected posts from non-mods, or something.

what if say I have a crush on one of the mods? (see c-man for example if say he needs to confess anonymously his love for ned)

― parakeet_esparanto (parakeetesparanto), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 02:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Whoa, and I just realized that if you're signed in, the days change on the front place at midnight LOCAL time instead of GMT. The pleasures of registration are infectious!

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I just realized that if you're signed in, the days change on the front place at midnight LOCAL time instead of GMT.

Yeah, whenever I'm not logged in for some reason and check the New Answers I always get weirded out by the time offset.

There'll probably be a 'Post Anonymously' checkbox next to submit button, for those who wish to post something sensitive.

― Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:07 (twenty-one years ago)

i am angry about this.

― anthony, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 04:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see thatthere has been a problem enoguh to warrant this step. I'm rather unhappy about it. I'm unhappy that it appears to have been presented as a fait accompli, rather than discussed which makes me even more opposed to the idea.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 05:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm standing on top of my chair and applauding. Thanks!

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 05:21 (twenty-one years ago)

What, so every idea gets discussed forever and because half the people disagree, nothing ever gets done about anything ever?

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 06:35 (twenty-one years ago)

sorta like a real parliament then trayce

― gem (trisk), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 06:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I like the idea definitely, good work!

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm more amenable to registration than some, but if you think logins don't stop people posting LAME things/embeds/bad links you've never been to popbitch.

How about a category of 'lurker would like to say something' where someone who wants a bite rather than a whole bloody sandwich could contribute, but would be unable to post pix?

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Just because you register, surely doesn't mean you have to post if you don't want to.

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:15 (twenty-one years ago)

good job mods!

― Sir Chaki McBeer III (chaki), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:16 (twenty-one years ago)

You know how some people won't register to the NY Times site on principle? People are a bit like that with boards sometimes.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm unhappy that it appears to have been presented as a fait accompli, rather than discussed which makes me even more opposed to the idea.

Ed, this has been discussed a lot in the past, with regarding Calum and the other trolls we've had. And the comments made have been pretty much same as on this thread.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:23 (twenty-one years ago)

About bloody time - I don't see why people are so precious about being able to change usernames five times a day and random Googlers are hardly a big draw to ILX as far as I'm concerned.

Ed - this has not been presented as a fait accompli, the notion has been discussed again and again for months with valid points presented on both sides.

I'm not convinced it will stop people who are intent on causing a nuisance but hopefully it will go some way to sorting out the mess that ILE has become lately.

A 'post anonymously' button is urgent and key though.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Suzy, I think there'e a difference giving your details to some mega-buck company than giving them to ILX.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I see what you mean Suzy, it's just that I would have thought with this kind of thing, ppl could register & post once & then never post again. I don't really see the problem, but by the looks of this thread, lots of ppl do.

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Lots of ppl = 4.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:28 (twenty-one years ago)

T, it's not that the Times et al would 'share' my details - they're about as unlikely to as ILX would be! It's just the registration thing, pure and simple...

xpost w/Pink: Yeah, but when there's a registration system you have a login issued to your email address, and depending on the admin it could arrive in a second or a day and most posters here need to post THATSECOND for what they say to have relevance. It's the lack of immediacy some object to.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:29 (twenty-one years ago)

To me, it seems there are more people discontent with how things are now than those discontent with registration, so registration seems like the better option. I was against it before, but being here longer and witnessing the sort of harassment that can take place on ILX (which I've always felt is a pretty safe place, still - that's why it's also more vulnerable to harassment), I've come to change my mind.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Lots of ppl = 4.
Thanks for coinfirming that Tuomas.

To Suzy: yeah I see that point & I agree with that def!

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm cool with whatever.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:45 (twenty-one years ago)

so does this mean my displayed 'email' here which obv does not exist would no longer be allowed? or would the fact that i still have a legit e-mail address in my settings which is not displayed make it okay to not add a legit e-mail address when posting?

also, surely people wishing to post anon can just register an extra account with a gmail address or something purely for anon ILX use, if they're that concerned about it

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 07:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I like this idea. As pointed out by P. Plains above, there are all kinds of ways in which ILX works better when you are registered. And yes, who's to stop you bagging anonymousposter@gmail.com for your sensitive stuff?

Random googlers are mostly an annoyance, I find.

― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:17 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't reg w/ the NYT bcz it is an IDEOLOGICAL STATE APPARATUS. i used to agin ilx registration but given that 97% of the time i use my real email address (and my real full name is on the users page) i don't see the problem if it reduces the amount of idiocy. it takes about 30 seconds to register: in fact i think it was a full year between me registering (as a 'googler') and starting to post 'properly'.

― enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:39 (twenty-one years ago)

1 it's fair to say that the response has been +ve. hurray.

2 this is only ILE. ILX is not 100% registered users only. Mods set this per board.

3 currently registered users with invalid e-mails are OK. For now. Moderators reserve the right to enforce re-validation of registered accounts. Though this shouldn't be necessary

The "anon post" option when posting is interesting. This would have to be "anon" to all but board moderators. hmmm.

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:46 (twenty-one years ago)

the other issue with legit e-mails is how are they protected from spam robots - not that i know how all that really works, is it a big problem?

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:47 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't reg w/ the NYT bcz it is an IDEOLOGICAL STATE APPARATUS.

Besides, BugMeNot routes around it anyway

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:48 (twenty-one years ago)

(check, check, one-two)

did this go through...?

― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:52 (twenty-one years ago)

BugMeNot doesn't always work. :-(

― Maneating Leopards of India (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't care though; my NYT registration is an e-mail address I haven't even used in years. Big Brother can have it for all I care.

― Maneating Leopards of India (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:56 (twenty-one years ago)

valid e-mails and spam-bots:

Right now only registered users can currently see full e-mail addresses.

Before long, e-mail addresses will NOT be shown on posts unless you set it in your personal settings. This is intended to be site wide, not just for individual boards.

Other pages (statscock, webmail) that show e-mail addresses will be fixed too.

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 08:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Before long, e-mail addresses will NOT be shown on posts unless you set it in your personal settings. This is intended to be site wide, not just for individual boards.

This is a fantastic move.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll miss the googlers.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:16 (twenty-one years ago)

you can always look them up on google.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:16 (twenty-one years ago)

the difference between registering here and registering loads of other places is that most other places want your full name and address and phone number and blood type and all that crap, which is really annoying. i don't remember giving any of that info here, and as long as people can post anonymously (or possibly log in but could change their posted name/email for comic effect-- wasn't that an option on the network 54 thing?), i don't see why it's a problem...

(many xposts)

― colette (a2lette), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:18 (twenty-one years ago)

iirc all you had to give on ilx wz email address and name.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:19 (twenty-one years ago)

You might not have given this info Colette, but we know it, oh yes!

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:21 (twenty-one years ago)

This might be a good place to ask a serious question about user profiles -- I'm not sure if I'm a registered user or not. I have a settings page, my browser accepts ILX cookies, while some but not all of my info and settings will save from the settings page. And there's no link on my name from the users page. Have I not set up my account properly? Should I just create a new one?

And in the future, where can we ask questions about such user-related issues? I didn't think this was a moderation issue so I didn't post this on one of the moderator threads.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Another big thumbs up from me. ILX has come so close to being crippled on a number of occasions because 0.1% of its user base decides to behave like a selfish, malicious cunt. This is a no-brainer.

Ed, search ILE for words like "obligatory registration" if you don't think this has been discussed enough.

If you're not willing to make the tiny effort of registering, you don't deserve ILX's fulsome bounty. Simple as that. If you're not part of the solution, etc.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:31 (twenty-one years ago)

if only it is the solution.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:33 (twenty-one years ago)

how can i make my personal URL re-appear on the statscock again, it only displays if i return to my original username, but it's the same account so i never understood that.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I have really enjoyed random googlers on things like the Paul McCartney threads, but I think those people are such loonies they would probably be only too happy to take the time to register. So everyone's a winner.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:37 (twenty-one years ago)

the statscock is still fuxored

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 09:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Many regulars arrived here through google, no? (I did, though I'm heardly a regular anymore).

This pretty much shuts the door on many new posters and its now going to become a board where only people that know each other will post. But i hope not.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Why does it? They just have to register, it's really not that big of a deal!!

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:10 (twenty-one years ago)

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I arrived here through Google, but I immediately registered. It isn't that hard, it really isn't.

(I'm assuming googlers can still *read* the board, that won't be changed, will it?)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:11 (twenty-one years ago)

But it's not a crazy registration process. You need a username & an email address where you can receive a password & then you never need access to that email address again. Jesus, why does it have to be so difficult?!

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:13 (twenty-one years ago)

it's by no means a 'crazy registration process'!!!! jesus, free lunch anyone? this board is golden, and worth making up an email address for.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:16 (twenty-one years ago)

YOU PEOPLE ARE DUMB!!!! ALSO HOPW EXATLY DOES TIHS STOP REGULRAS FROM BEING UTTER ASSHATS

― Amazing Randy (Amazing Randy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:20 (twenty-one years ago)

COS U KNOW, MOST OF YA R ATUALY WROSE THAN TEH TROLLS!!

― Amazing Randy (Amazing Randy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:21 (twenty-one years ago)

How will is a passing googler gonna know that?

But anyway, whatever makes moderating easier.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:21 (twenty-one years ago)

if this new thing filters out people who don't know how to click on the word "register" and then type in a login name and an email address, i'm all for it.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:22 (twenty-one years ago)

making people register makes it easier to delete all posts from "randy" in one fell swoop, for a start.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Indeed!

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Funnily enough, Calum and JW didn't make me change my mind about registration, it took the Amazing Randy to do that. Hope your proud of yourself, Randy.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:26 (twenty-one years ago)

THE BOARD IS RUBBISH ANYWAY! ITS EITHRE MADE UP THREADS ABIUT ANAL SEX, THREADS WITH AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST GOING "OMG LIKE WTFOMG! LIKE TOTALLY LOL OMG!" FOR 500 POSTS, THREADS WHERE A GIRL POSTS SOMETHING THEN THE NEXT 50 POSTS ARE EVERY CREEPY SLEAZY MALE ON HERE ACTING LIKE ITS A CARRY ON FILM, AND THEN THREADS THAT CONSIST OF EVERYONE PATTING EACH OTHER ON THE BACK AND POSTING BAD POETRY!!!!!!!!!! I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST SHUT THE WHOLE THING

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

YES IM SURE RANDY IS VERY PROUD OF HIMSELF! HE ONLY CAME BACK TO REVEAL JONATHON WILLIAMS AND HIS CRONIES AS THE RACIST BIGOTS THEY REALLY ARE AND NOW HES SHUT A WHOLE BOARD DOWN, U DA MAN RANDY U DA MAN!!!!!!

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:32 (twenty-one years ago)

so that's randy and JAKC off the board already, this thing is working great!

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:35 (twenty-one years ago)

BUT KEN, YOURE RANDY

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:36 (twenty-one years ago)

so are you, the difference being you never get any.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm Randy!

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I meant Spartacus.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:38 (twenty-one years ago)

perhaps the above is true randy, perhaps you are right, but, what i don't get is why you are so bothered? (though there is nothing wrong with that)

and, by the same token, i don't really get why anyone is upset with randy. he only posts in upper case and says "you are lame" a few times, surely you can cope with that?

it seems a funny thing to be angry abuot!

― steanor bottom toll house (gareth), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

So Julio, you'd rather compromise the board to save random googlers 30 seconds? You are so fucking contrary it's not funny.

JAKC is so OTM though in his 3rd last post.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

it will be sad to see a possible end to Hair-Dye threads and Skottie's hilarious posts to those threads but in every other way i'm in favour of it.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I THINK RACISM TOWARDS ASIANS, HOMOPHOBIA AND SEXISM IS ENOUGH TO GET LOTS OF PEOPLE BOTHERED, SURELY

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:40 (twenty-one years ago)

steanor bottom toll house OTM

being angry at something that's being deleted is just dumb.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:41 (twenty-one years ago)

fair enough randy, in that case, fire away. different people have to react in different ways, i can understand that

― steanor bottom toll house (gareth), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

jakc you forgot animal cruelty!!

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

The difference between, say, Calum and Randy is that Randy is here, by his own statement, for no other reason than personal vendetta. Even if his vendetta is against an ILXor many of us don't particularly like, allowing it to go on sets a dangerous precedent and is clearly against the moderation guidelines. Also, Calum has become an infinite source of amusement, while Randy is merely irritating.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:43 (twenty-one years ago)

steanor bottom toll house!!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd be interested in the banning criteria actually. I mean if a random person registers & then starts to insult a particular ilxor, do they get banned? What about a regular insulting another regular, do they get banned aswell?

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i dunno, there is no accounting for comedic taste, ergo randy and c-man are about as funny as each other

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Even if his vendetta is against an ILXor many of us don't particularly like... is a moot point. I don't think, Tuomas, that it matters what your feelings are toward his target - you shouldn't be worried about allowing precedent but fostering a more friendly, human board.

― j.e.r.e.m.y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i advocate the banning of anyone who posts only in capital letters the whole time. also no more than six exclamation marks in any post.

― the neurotic awakening of benito mussolinington (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Pink, there are grey areas, but if a regular goes on insulting the other regular even after he's received the "yellow card", and the insults aren't made in a joking manner, something should definitely be done about it.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Proper punctuation and spelling rules, okay?

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:51 (twenty-one years ago)

My post about banning criteria ^^^^ was actually quite important to me, so I hope it doesnt get lost amongst the sarcasm!

― PinXor (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:51 (twenty-one years ago)

s!t!e!v!e!m! otm!

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:52 (twenty-one years ago)

IF THATS THE CASE JEREMY WHY NOT ALSO BAN PEOPLE WHO MAKE DEROGATORY COMMENTS ABOUT HOW ASIAN PEOPLE SPEAK, AND CALL PEOPLE "FAGS" OR "GAY" (ITS OK THOUGH BECAUSE "GAY" JUST MEANS BAD DUDE). NO RIGHT ANWSER IS THERE

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:52 (twenty-one years ago)

ALSO, I DONT SEE HOW RANDY HAS ONCE INSULTED ANY POSTER ON THIS BORED

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:53 (twenty-one years ago)

(ID LIKE EVIDENCE IF THE CASE IS OTHERWISE)

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:53 (twenty-one years ago)

So - would Calum be banned immediately for past crimes, or would there be an amnesty from the off?

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:54 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm slightly confused here, is jakc making a case for why people shouldn't be banned from ilx??

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Turn the other cheek? He (and most of the other trogyldytes) never really post on the threads with which I'm quite involved. Only /once/ did I snip at him, and I'm regretful of engaging.

― j.e.r.e.m.y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:56 (twenty-one years ago)

no retro-banning, that would be particularly silly

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Calum's been surprisingly mild-mannered lately, the amnesty idea sounds like a good one.

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:57 (twenty-one years ago)

JAKC is giving a good example of how the education system is going down the pan. Check your spelling there dude

― Porkpie (porkpie), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:58 (twenty-one years ago)

JAKC why do you insist on shouting? honestly, have you never heard of NETIQUETTE?!?!

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 10:58 (twenty-one years ago)

JAKC, THANK YOU FOR WRITING IN CAPITALS, IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO MAKE US ELDERLY FOLKS WITH BAD EYESIGHT FEEL WELCOME!

― A SENIOR CITIZEN (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

OH YEAH I FORGOT TO ADD TERRIBLE HUMOR TO MY RUN DOWN OF ILX THREAD/POSTING TROPES

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

who is JAKC anyway? latest bettings from Williams Hill:

Amazing Randy: 2-1
Jon Williams: 7-1
Ken C: 7-2
Spinktor The Unmerciful: 9-4
Gareth: 16-1
Teh Pinefox: 33-1
Latvia: 150-1
God: 500-1

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

This pretty much shuts the door on many new posters and its now going to become a board where only people that know each other will post. But i hope not.

agreed. ilx will come a lot more cliquey and predictable. fair enough if you like it that way, though.

― dave amos, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

A guy who uses the word 'tropes' correctly might think to take off the Caps Lock, eh?

― j.e.r.e.m.y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

OH YEAH I FORGOT TO ADD TERRIBLE HUMOR TO MY RUN DOWN OF ILX THREAD/POSTING TROPES

now that you've remembered i'd like to see you try.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

fwiw i registered soon enough too - i think if i'd been forced to i would've done it sooner as well.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:04 (twenty-one years ago)

humour, that is, rather than adding things to a list. one or both of which may be beyond your mental capability.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:04 (twenty-one years ago)

why bother?

― the neurotic awakening of captain nihilismo (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:05 (twenty-one years ago)

agreed. ilx will come a lot more cliquey and predictable. fair enough if you like it that way, though.

Why would that happen? As almost everyone on this thread has said, registration really doesn't take that much, just an username and an e-mail address, no personal info or anything. I registered 10 minutes after I found ILX.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:06 (twenty-one years ago)

ID LIKE TO REQUEST THE BANNING OF KEN C FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS TOWARDS ME PLEASE

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:06 (twenty-one years ago)

his attempts at humour may be funny to witness.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:06 (twenty-one years ago)

YOURE KIND OF SCRAPING THE BARREL NOW KENNETH

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Jakc, there isn't such a thing as a personal attack against a false persona.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see how I have once insulted you on this "bored"

(I'd like evidence if "the case is otherwise")

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:09 (twenty-one years ago)

trust me, i'm not even near scraping the barrel, jakc, but i fear that even when i do scrape the barrel your humour will remain begging.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:11 (twenty-one years ago)

"one or both of which may be beyond your mental capability. "

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:12 (twenty-one years ago)

i think new people will be discouraged from joining in and inevitably ilx will become one big collection of private jokes. one of the nice things about ilx was the fluidity of identity, the way people could assume any alias and leave no traces. i think this will be compromised by registration. but like i say, most people seem to be happy with the idea of ilx as a big 'excelsior' fest, and those that aren't have been leaving.

― dave amos, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:12 (twenty-one years ago)

so are you, the difference being you never get any.
-- ken c (pykachu10...), July 27th, 2004.

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I FIND BOTH OF THOSE COMMENTS INSULTING, PLEASE BAN KEN C

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:13 (twenty-one years ago)

so stating facts is the same as a personal attack now? or did i just touch a couple of nerves?

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

ACTUALLY JUST BAN HIM FOR BEING A HUMORLESS, ARROGANT, DULLARD.

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

i rest my case.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:14 (twenty-one years ago)

private jokes or tedious pissing contests

― dave amos, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Final thing is that I have been reading the mod board and I'm getting an idea of how difficult its been so from that POV -- that it makes the job easier -- its fine. But I sense here, among regulars on this board, that the need to be controlling abt every fucking thing anyone posts is what's ultimately behind this. And this will not stop args betweens regulars from becoming over-agressive, either.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see why anyone wanting to change their identity can't just go and set up a new email account and pick a new login name. But I've never really understood why anyone wants to do it anyway. I just get confused. But I'm probably just thick.

― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:19 (twenty-one years ago)

ALRITE KEN C I'LL LET U WIN. IM OUT NOW. ALL THE BEST ON YOUR NEW BOARD, SOME OF YOU ARE COOL, SHAME MOST OF YOU JUST LIVE TO BE ASSHOLES ON THE INTERNET.

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:23 (twenty-one years ago)

It makes it a lot more laborious to do so, plus we can employ other tactics to delay the re-registration of troublesome fools.

― Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:27 (twenty-one years ago)

madchen otm (except about being thick). it won't be that difficult to keep posting 'anonymously' once registration is mandatory, think about it.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:28 (twenty-one years ago)

inevitably ilx will become one big collection of private jokes.

'will'

'become'

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:28 (twenty-one years ago)

'jokes'

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm glad some people have pointed out that there has been loads of discussion about this for ages, and that the pro-reg side has rather carried the day, eventually.

For me, I am not minded to completely forget about past offences by whoever, but I am not going to ban anyone instantly - I just think it's fair to take past behaviour into account when considering such things, weighting recent behaviour more highly. I haven't noticed Calum being abusive lately, so I'm not close to banning him at the moment. Randy/Jakc (same IP, unlike Ken's which is different here, so he is either jumping between quite different computers or it's someone else posting as these two people)(perhaps Jakc's praise of Randy is another instance of Internet Connection Sharing) has been abusive, but the examples (about five threads so far) have all been deleted. I issued a yellow card warning (if that option works), so if the bad behaviour persists I will consider banning the account(s).

As for banning guidelines, we have guidelines for what is considered acceptable and what can be deleted in the FAQ, and banning would come about after persistent and severe and deliberate breaching of such guidelines. As I said, I'd take past behaviour into account, so someone who has taken good part here for a long time might get a bit more leniency than someone who never has, but I don't want to put too much weight on that, or it would mean someone like Ned would have almost infinite licence! Other mods may take no account of past behaviour - we don't have a clear ruling/guide agreed on this matter.

As for the target of abuse or harassment being a factor, I think we have to consider provocation up to a point, but that doesn't make breaking the rules acceptable - it might just mean we need to think about the status of the provoking user too. (I don't mean that I'm intending to ban Jon, by the way, this is meant generally.)

I hope the anonymity feature can be added, and the email hiding option too, before too long, but I know the coders here have put in a lot of work already, so I don't want to be too demanding.

I would suggest that any matters of the proper functioning of the boards be taken to the moderator request forum - it seems the only sensible place for it, and will be read by those who code this thing.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, ken c likes to talk to himself

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:33 (twenty-one years ago)

ARE YOU REALLY THIS DUMB IN REAL LIFE JON?

― Amazing Randy (Amazing Randy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't want to put too much weight on that, or it would mean someone like Ned would have almost infinite licence!

Man, my plan almost worked! ;-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:38 (twenty-one years ago)

OH NO I'M A WEENIE WHO HIDES WHO I AM TO ATTACK PEOPLE

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:40 (twenty-one years ago)

DID YOU REALLY JUST SAY WEENIE? I FEEL EMBARASSED FOR YOUR MOM

― Amazing Randy (Amazing Randy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:41 (twenty-one years ago)

certain established ILXers have shown to be just as spiteful if not more so than the people they're attacking in recent weeks (esp. prior to the two week 'outage'). making the issue of banning people for targetted abuse all the more thorny.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:41 (twenty-one years ago)

that's true--i guess the idea is that the threat of bans will make *everyone* behave, just as international diplomatic bodies like the UN have... oh hang on...

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see why anyone wanting to change their identity can't just go and set up a new email account and pick a new login name. But I've never really understood why anyone wants to do it anyway

my point wasn't that seasoned regulars wouldn't have a chance to change identities: obviously they would. it was more that people crash landing from google etc. who don't really know the rules are less likely to bother to get involved. for a lot of people outside the 'excelsior/sinister/this is the thread where i say' axis, said googlers have often ended up providing a breath of fresh air or interesting new perspectives.

― dave amos, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

The first and third axis was created by folks who were already here and mutates according to the whim of whoever wants in, and the second group is pretty well outnumbered, like any other 'original' group that came here -- alt.music.alternative or whatever. Not every googler who found us did so specifically to jump in feet first and do whatever, and many people came because of recommendations. I think worrying about somehow shutting off the fresh air is worrying too much.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:55 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah fair enough.

the scenario i'm describing happens more on ilm, where someone turns up who knows shitloads about e.g. indian classical music or detroit techno which they are willing to share. and as i understand it, registration won't be required there. it's not really the same on ile except for recipes and celebrity gossip.

― dave amos, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:58 (twenty-one years ago)

there's a diff btwn 'people who got here via google' and 'googlers'. i qt like the stupid flame arguments on eg the DMB thread, but that's just me.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:58 (twenty-one years ago)

How about a 'nursery'?

(It's a joke.)

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:59 (twenty-one years ago)

it sure is

x-post

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:59 (twenty-one years ago)

there's a diff btwn 'people who got here via google' and 'googlers'

how so? the 'people who got here via google' were surely mere 'googlers' when they made their first posts. i am going to stop banging on about this anyway, the decision has been made!

― dave amos, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:04 (twenty-one years ago)

i guess "people who got here via google" are the people who bothered to have a quick read of the posts before deciding that yes maybe this is a good place and starts posting, hence the effort of typing out "people who got here via google".

"googler" on the other hand i guess would be like
OMG! i just found this place and i need to express how much i love him. i mean J0HN C3NA!!! I love him sooooooooo much he is all i think about all i dream about and all i want!!!!!!! i cant wait till he comes to the UK!!!! i am soooo excited!! i cant go but ill be watching and im planning on camping out near the arena!!!!!!!!
-- Sandy Anders (SCARY___GUR...), July 27th, 2004 11:10 AM. (later)

post googleproofed.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:14 (twenty-one years ago)

i think new people will be discouraged from joining in and inevitably ilx will become one big collection of private jokes.

I'd sort of like to point out that ILE started as a forum for a relatively small group of posters to post private jokes. Also, there have always been cliques since its inception and that hasn't stopped anyone who has wanted to join in from doing so.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:14 (twenty-one years ago)

The "registering will deter new posters" argument is a bit disinguenuous because if I was a newcomer to ILX, I think the sort of dickwaving we've seen recently would prove about 100 times more offputting than a simple registration process. I can't see how any decent potential contributor would think any differently tbh.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I like it when Sister Disco posts.

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:24 (twenty-one years ago)

It is a shame -- I cannot post on, or read? - the Shed Seven board.

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:30 (twenty-one years ago)

ha ha ken, that sandy anders post is like 99% of yours!

― dave amos, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:37 (twenty-one years ago)

really?

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:41 (twenty-one years ago)

nah, ignore me, i don't have a finely tuned sense of irony ;-)

― dave amos, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm sorry about that.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 12:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Rebrov signs for West Ham!

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 13:00 (twenty-one years ago)

and, er, he wants to come onto ILX, but he's unsure about this new registered user thing.

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 13:18 (twenty-one years ago)

this is all J0hn Darni3ll3's fault

― UNREGISTEREDBOT, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 13:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I would like to register my mild objection to this plan, because a) it's going to eliminate some of the spontaneous spark that makes ILX grate (jokes in email addresses, smartass answers to random g00glers, etc.) and b) it's not going to solve any of the problems. There are still going to be assholes, and we're still going to have 1000-post threads about what to do about them. The only way to get rid of posters that aren't wanted is for everyone to ignore them, and as we've seen, that's just not going to happen. Someone will always rise to the bait. Some posters still think that making snarky comments to Calum or Jon is effective somehow, when really it's just increasing the noise and static on ILX from one or two lame posts to a stream of lame posts, including lame posts from some ILXors I used to actually respect. If people would just exhibit some self-control, none of this would be necessary. But anyways, like I said, my level of objection to this is pretty mild, since I have a feeling ILX is going to be pretty much the same no matter what.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 13:51 (twenty-one years ago)

it's not going to stop jokey e-mail addresses, users can have the legit e-mail address as their hidden one - there should be no need to force people to DISPLAY legit e-mail addresses in their posts as i see it (only to supply a legit address with which to register).

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 13:59 (twenty-one years ago)

haven't been most of the meta tags been eliminated from ILX? I mean, there's been far less random googlage lately, so I'm not sure why there's an outcry about it being gone now when, as far as I can tell, it's been kinda over for a while.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:01 (twenty-one years ago)

On the whole I think I'm in favour of this, although I do have reservations. I would like the board to take a quality up-turn. I haven't found a great deal to interest me lately and my head has been in too many other places to start threads of my own. This isn't just due to maybe-trolls, but also to the fact that some regular posters will keep responding to them in exactly the same manner. I'm not entirely blameless myself, it's not as if I've never reached breaking point. However, I do (maybe) like to think that when I do get pissed off with people I respond with reasons as to why they are wrong/ offensive/ whatever, rather than the "u r all gay" type of idiocy that just prolongs things. Oh I don't know. Andrew and the Mods (please start a 60's-style beat group) do a hell of a lot to try and keep this place a vaguely sane portion of the internet, so whatever makes their life easier.

Side issue: I'd actually be quite happy if regular posters stopped changing their names. I find it quite hard to keep track of who is who and it just seems a bit pointless, still free will and all that...

― Anna (Anna), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

'I'm glad some people have pointed out that there has been loads of discussion about this for ages, and that the pro-reg side has rather carried the day, eventually.'

was there a vote on this?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:19 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not a democrazy, remember.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh who cares. This isn't a democracy, it's a CHEEROCRACY and I say the Mods should just dae it. Ga' wan the Mods!

― brighton beach (starry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just saying that we shouldn't pretend that agreement was reached on this, as martin seems to be implying.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Are fists and boots not the correct settlement criteria?

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

If the Mods have reached agreement then that's fine by me.

― registered since day 1, surely (starry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

God, stop lumping me in with Callum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! asshat

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:24 (twenty-one years ago)

You're not helping your case responding like that.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:24 (twenty-one years ago)

me too, and if there's a vote on this it will be pathetic.

hey Ned, I wouldn't want to be lumped in with Calum, he's got a point.

― also registered since day 1, albeit under a different name (porkpie), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:25 (twenty-one years ago)

(I don't care about the crotch hygiene of celebrities, Ned.)

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:26 (twenty-one years ago)

You can't have votes on a msgboard, surely? It's mentalism. What citizenship criteria are there?

At least Calum keeps his idiocy to his own threads in the main.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

that's cool starry, like I said, they do the work and anything that makes it easier but i think a few regulars started whining and er, that was it really.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

To clarify, I don't really consider Jon and Calum to be the same. I was just using them as examples of how I think it's appropriate to deal with posters that you don't get along with. I don't consider either of them "trolls" anymore, like it or not, they're both ILX regulars at this point.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I think some people enjoy writing about the nature of ILX more than other subjects. 'Tis fine. I don't care about the troublemakers myself, but then I'm an irregular poster.

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I think some people enjoy writing about the nature of ILX more than other subjects.

OTM.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

(I don't care about the crotch hygiene of celebrities, Ned.)

Hm, true.

To echo the above -- more than you might think, we the collective mods are aware of and responsive to complaints and concerns. And it is precisely *because* of the volume of complaints and concerns regarding recent hoohah that the registered user thing is now in full effect -- it was not just a matter of 'a few regulars whining,' Julio, and I admit to being a bit annoyed to seeing it characterized that way.

This change has been made for ILE -- and specifically ILE, to repeat a point that often seems missed -- after review between Andrew, Martin and the overall machine maintainers such as Alan and Zac. If this is somehow objectionable that this has been done in the light of the reasons *why* it was done, then you are more than welcome to say so -- and on this thread a number have -- but once again I have to note that the mods are more careful than you might think about all this and are NOT somehow running roughshod over concerns, tehcnical or otherwise, without thinking about them and discussing them in detail, notably right over on the mod forums, which are publically available for reading and participation.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Nick A, I started off posting semi normally for like 2 years? Then I was mildly annoying for like 3 months.

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Semi-normal is the new normal.

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Semi Charmed Kind of Life

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

The bone of contention is the word "mildly", Jon. A significant number of incredibly vocal people (significant largely because they were incredibly vocal) didn't think you were mildly annoying.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Jon, I'm not attacking you. Whether or not you think you've been acting better or not, there are obviously a lot of people who are still mad at you and think that you're still fucking up ILX. I am not one of them. I was just using you as an example because a lot of people think about you that way.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:40 (twenty-one years ago)

They're the ones who hate my freedom!

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

1) Where's The Problem?
2) Who decides?
3) Plentry of discussion, no consesus
4) Waste of effort
5) Won't fulfil objectives
6) Restriction of some of the things that make it worthwhile clicking the bookmark
7) Who is really that annoying
8) Just ignore it

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see you leaving, Ed.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:43 (twenty-one years ago)

They're the ones who hate my freedom!

Jon, I think a lot of ppl regard you in the same way as ppl regard ppl who walk up to random ppl in the street and won't let them past. They're not hurting the ppl in question or breaking any laws and they are perfectly free to do it, not breaking any laws, but they are still irritating if you;re the one whose path along the street is being impeded (cf lots of irrelevant pics that take an age to appear, speshly if you have dial-up).

You can't have votes on a msgboard, surely? It's mentalism

But what brand of mentalism? The brand of mentalism which is unwieldy/difficult, or the brand which is the thin end of the wedge, leading to the promulgation of the idea of a democratic message board, challenging the authority of the moderators?

I accept that a msg board can never be democratic. I think the moderators do a fine job and trust them implicitly on this one. Make it registered posters only. Go for it.

― MarkH (MarkH), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

So I have to leave to make a point?

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I've grown fond of ILX. I don't mind this place too much. It can be fun.

― C-Man (C-Man), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I also want to say that I'm not mad at the mods for doing this. I'm glad that they're taking a proactive response to trying to solve a problem that evidently exists for a lot of ILXors. It's just that I think that the main problem (how people react to each other on ILX, especially when tempers run high) is one that the mods are never going to be able to really solve.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)

No, Ed, but I will note this -- a number of people, most of whom I number among good friends of many years' standing, have either left the board or cut back their participation drastically due to problems which have resulted in this registration being put into effect. I have a strong personal bias there, I freely admit, but it is enough to tell me even were I not a mod that there was something which was resulting in frustration, anger and annoyance among people who have offered a huge amount to this board, in terms of intelligent conversation, friendliness and more. To hear Julio dismiss it as whining does annoy me, to see that this step taken is somehow being dismissed by you as nothing but a combination of supposedly unproductive debate and a mod power-play annoys me further.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember someone who lurks here telling me that he got bored with our Big Brother threads because we weren't nasty enough to the contestants, so he abandoned us in favour of another board where the ppl were being REALLY rotten. I think the ppl who would be affected by a registration-only ILE would be the types who would react to the above situation in a different way, by saying "This board needs changing and I'm the one to change it" rather than "this isn't anything like the kind of board i like so I'm going where I fit in better".

― MarkH (MarkH), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

It WILL fulfill objectives - if people have to register then it will make it far easier to lock out repeated nuisance posters, regardless of how many accounts they set up. As far as I can see it could bring back some of the good things about ILX that have been drowned out over recent weeks. I just don't see why registration is that much of a problem, to anyone really.

The people who are still mad at Jon etc (and I mean the ones who OBSESS over him, and Calum, and Aja until recently) are as much of a problem with regard to making this a generally annoying place to be as far as I can see. Especially those who can't resist piling in/provoking at every opportunity. Jon essentially posts where he knows he's going to get a rise, which is why you don't see ILB or wherever swamped under gigantic jpegs and unweildy scripts.

Alternate view - this is just what ILX *is* these days, and no amount of (welcome and appreciated) mod intervention is going to change that, deep down. This is, I suspect, the main reason for a lot of departures.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I never suggested or even inferred that it was a power play I merely suggested that despite endless discussions we have never, as a community, come to the conclusion that this scheme was needed or would even work. On balance I think it would take away more than it gave and most fundamentally would not address the problems that have driven people away.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

One thing I find incredible is that there are always people willing to rise to minor annoyances rather than just ignore them.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:56 (twenty-one years ago)

it's about typing in two pieces of not necessarily true information. If this is the most you have to worry about then you either have no life or are a complete arse

― Porkpie (porkpie), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Let me all remind you of who is behind the recent rash of stupid trolling:

Basically Jon Williams has ruined ILX for a number of regular users, some of whom have now left. Whenever he is asked not to post countless huge images on a thread - or at least confine them to his own hilarious 'frat house' - he responds with insults and sarcasm. He shows no consideration for the other posters on this board, some of whom have been visiting ILX for a lot longer than he has. All this is in addition to the countless homophobic insults that Williams hurls at anyone who happens to like anything he considers 'faggoty'.
So in return, a number of us have decided to fuck up things for Jon Williams as much as we can. He deserves everything he gets.
ps I am a regular posting from a different computer than my normal one - you can ban this IP address or whatever, I won't be on this machine for much longer
-- GFGDF (DFGDF...) (webmail), July 22nd, 2004 12:01 PM. (later) (link)

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait, where did Ed say a power play was involved? I didn't infer that from what he posted at all, more like his R&D wing had rejected it.

While I take yr. points on board, Ned - I really miss some of the people you might be mentioning - I really believe it's possible to ignore people who bug you 99 per cent of the time.

(x-postal)

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait, irregular poster is befuddled. Are you Jon, Whiskeytown?

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Whiskeytown Littlecock = Jon Williams, yes

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I have no objection to registration per se, I use my main email address here as I can deal with the SPAM load. Hell I'll even register for the new york times. It just seems like people are scrabbling round for a magic bullet to bring back the good old days. It ain't going to happen just let the thing roll on and evolve. IT won't solve these perceived problems, it probably won't even attract back people who have drifted off. I f3eel that it will take away from the charcter of the thing, make it more intimidating for new people, prevent worthwhile anonymous threads. Go ahead and try it; it's not as if you need to listen to me I hardly have any capital left here anymore anyway. It seems like such a waste though.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Ed, you've made your point, and at least 80% of posters on this thread disagree with you. That makes you in the minority, and for there to be ANY degree of fairness, the majority's going to get the nod over you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Some answers:

1) Where's The Problem? The problem is in the increasing number of upsurges of anger, annoyance and departure ILX has been experiencing. The biggest one was just before the shutdown. No-one could claim that Calum and his ilk were the cause of all this, but in many cases they were like the irritations that turn a glum mood into impotent rage. Without them getting in the way, it'll be an easier, happier place.

2) Who decides? The mods do, with Andrew having casting vote. If you don't like it, that's tough, because there simply isn't a way of democratising a communtiy like this without it descending into total anarchy. Sorry dude.

3) Plentry of discussion, no consesus. See above. It's never going to happen. Ever. Which means that the "plenty of discussion" is the best we can do, and we've done it. No regular observers of ILE will be at a loss as to what this is all about.

4) Waste of effort. But something had to be done, and this is worth doing for the mods, for Andrew and for the majority of posters upthread. It's the nearest you're going to get to your consensus.

5) Won't fulfil objectives. You don't know that, and nor do I. I do know that when trolls are discouraged from posting, or have their toys repeatedly taken away when they do post, they'll get bored and leave. Shall I remind you I've done this professionally? I don't claim to know everything, but I know a lot about the mentality of the few who like to fuck it up for everyone else (side point: I know I don't always act in the most helpful way in these circumstances; so sue me).

6) Restriction of some of the things that make it worthwhile clicking the bookmark. What restriction? You're already registered! Nothing is being restricted for you, and nothing is being restricted for anyone else! All your precious googlers and newcomers have to do is register. What else in your life comes so easy, Ed? Want an ice cream? You have to go and buy it! Or even just get it out of your freezer? Both of which will take longer than registering.

7) Who is really that annoying. Calum, for one. Jon, for many people. B3cky Lucas, who buggered up the board good and proper for weeks. Conner and Randy may have been amsuing to tart with, but is that who you want making up your community? What about other feuds that have left a bad taste in the mouth? We'd still have several much-loved posters if various things hadn't got out of hand - perhaps banning (or the threat of it) might have made people consider their actions a bit more.

8) Just ignore it. We tried. We failed. If you subscribe to this theory, why are you moaning here? But it's not just you or me, it's all of us. And we can't do it.

HTH. (many x-posts, obv)

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Mark means Start in point 7.

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe not.

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

what does tom ewing think? it's still his creation, this thing, isn't it?

(not that he has to take a side. if he's not interested in getting drawn into this, good for him.)

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't like tarting with Ranfy much, but otherwise, lovely work Mark, as succinct a defence as cd be wished for: OTM all the way.

― President Scruff (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

you know, one other answer, would be, you know, stop being angry. its better for the skin too

― lidos of the north (gareth), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

All valid point bar the last.

I'm whining now because it will fundamentally affect the way people work. I accept that it's going to happen I just want to provoke a little more thought before it does. If anything I will be amused by Jon Williams continued sucesses at doing stupid and annoying thing in spite of any measure you put in place to stop him.

When we've had really bad trolls we've dealt with them best by guile and cunning (Cf. B3cky Luc@s incident)

If you think registration is going to stop the feuding you'll end p having to ban everyone.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)

well said mr lido

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Ed, do you still think I am being stupid and annoying? Obviously there are ways to circumvent this, like proxies, etc.

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

If you think registration is going to stop the feuding you'll end p having to ban everyone.

This is true, as amply demonstrated by Kate before the shutdown.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't particularly (I object to anything flashing on principle and pink really isn't my thing), annoying you may have been on occasion, rude, not to me , if you have been to other people then stop it there's no call for that.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Jon, how old are you? (Not a leading question, just curiosity).

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:17 (twenty-one years ago)

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I really wish people would stop acting like this is about JOn because it isn't. It's about the people whining about Jon.

Everybody should be happy that I am not a moderator right about now.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Ban the mods! Give the trolls moderator rights. Underneath the pavement etc

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Focussign on Jon weakens the argument for registration as he is propably most able to circumvent it anyway.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes. Dan OTM (with his first point).

I think we should ban everyone, and then not let anyone back on until they have something worthwhile to say. Start from scratch.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

No one's talking about banning me, I hope. (Except for kate and all the other mystery haters)

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

If it's not about banning specific people who are percieived by some to be a problem then what the hell is it for?

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Amazing Randy

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

what does tom ewing think? it's still his creation, this thing, isn't it?

I think ILM is Tom's creation, ILE was originally started by DG. I wish both Tom and DG posted here a lot.

I have no opinion on this. I've been both pro- and anti-, but now I just don't know. I realise the "old days" are gone, but I do wish it was....I dunno, better, somehow. Some of the older names who don't post anymore, I miss quite a lot, actually.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

people posting semi-slanderous things everytime someone else posts.

people crapflooding

people posting porn

(xpost)

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I miss people too, this isn't going to bring them back.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that the ILX core-group (both oldskoolers and those newer folks who post consistently and attempt to engage seriously on the board, e.g. yours truly) has, in some sense set up a pretty self-regulating system. There's a lot of camaraderie between the older members which newer posters and googlers find intimidating, pseudo-hazing, and very isolating. In even the half year I've been posting (and year in which I on/off lurked) this seems to have intensified a bit, and the decision to require registration - at first - seems to indicate that this clique-settling is the direction the board's heading. But, logically, this doesn't bear out: if one's seriously intending on posting to the board, will providing a valid email address dissuade them? Very unlikely.

I say go for it, mods.

― j.e.r.e.m.y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)

(x-post) Yes, I know.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:30 (twenty-one years ago)

people posting semi-slanderous things everytime someone else posts.
people crapflooding

people posting porn

"waaaaah but mommmy i don't do that stuff anymore, honest!!"

― bush w bush, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

revivalist

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't long for some bygone age of ILX, i do wish certain people would post more again tho, but if i'm still here why aren't they? maybe it's their problem? i don't know. maybe it's better that things just move on anyway, for better or worse (it will be both)

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Who On Earth Is This Bosko?
Explain Me Bosko Balaban

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Why are people who are annoyed by Jon Williams the problem here, Dan?I for one would love to see Jon banned - he's routinely abusive. How could you have a discussion about banning people and not talk about banning someone who regularly attacks others?

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

let me get this straight.

right now moderators have the ability to ban posts from specific IP addresses. this does not affect those trolls who use dialup or otherwise jump between different addresses. when registration becomes mandatory, these trolls will still be able to post, only this time after registering (presumably for the umpteenth time) using a valid (for the moment at least) email address.

the idea is (?) that these extra steps--getting a new email address, registering here, validating the registration--will prevent trolls from appearing on ilx. but the trolls that people seem to be concerned about are unusually persistent: amazing randy, calum, et al. i don't see how this new function will stop them.

but if i can do a little bit, perhaps it's worth it. i'm not convinced by the arguments that suggest it will have a deleterious effect on ilx.

x-post

jon, i don't think many people want to ban do, but surely you're a bit upset that anyone would even entertain this thought? perhaps you could lay off certain habits that encourage it.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

who has a SERIOUS intent on posting on a board?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

that was garbled.

i don't think many people want to ban do should be i don't think many people do want to ban you

(sorry.)

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I AM BOSKO
-- Jon in R'lyeh (¡Û¡Ù¢¾♋¡¡Ý¡è¥Ø...), June 14th, 2004.

― bush w bush, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I miss people too, this isn't going to bring them back.

You weren't speaking about power plays -- well, I wasn't speaking about turning back the clock. This is about the future, not a return to a golden age.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

that revivalist thing annoyed me, i'm not sure why, it's not really a stance that can easily rationalised, but still, it annoyed me. i suppose you could make an argument that revivals without a constructive point are ineffectual and clog up new answers unnecessarily but...seems a bit weak huh?

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember when pf revived a few threads, but its ok bcz he's a regular.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

someone objects to people reviving threads?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i expect when he revived them he made a constructive/effectual point or raised a new question tho.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread is so depressing. It's like a commentary on the fallen state of mankind and a discussion of the limits of our perfectibility.

Now that I've got that off of my chest...

I too am extremely ambivalent about registration as it regards free speech, spontaneity, etc... and was thinking that my brief soujourn here might soon have to end. I don't really post that much and I'm sure I wouldn't be missed as I know none of you personally. However, it occurred to me that after lurking for about a week at ILB, which was linked from another site, I registered. I did this to be polite, to present a consistent ID that people could befriend or abhor. Without this, threads become mere series of incoherent non sequiturs and if I wanted to participate in that kind of banter I could just talk to my co-workers.

I don't know how much registration will change things in reality but I would like an anonymous option. I disagree with Dan's opinion that if you can't post overtly, you shouldn't post at all. Conceivably, everyone here is posting under a pseudonym using a dedicated e-mail adress. Without anonymity how can we post about playing air guitar to Boston as a child, our STDs, our love of yodelling, our second wife and kids in Manteca, and where to hide the bodies of our creditors?

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

how many of revivalist's revivals were followed up by anybody?

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

You can strongly argue that. There are enough opportunities to refer people to good old threads in current threads - old threads can be fun to look at if you choose to do so but I don't want some pointless twat reviving stuff at random with no reason. These threads have had their day - unless you have something that needs posting on them, in which case there's a reason to continue the multilogue.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I find Markelby a vicious little sod at times. His responses indicate someone who spends too much time living in "internet land" and who actually does see someone like myself as his "real time enemy" when, in fact, I'm nothing more than a name on the other side of a PC. I find his behaviour, not unlike certain other's, worrying because it indicates to me an inability to seperate real life from ILX. I think this is deeply sad, and if these people actually admitted they needed help I'd offer them some pity. Until then I'm sadly disappointed with this thread.

― C-Man (C-Man), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

where to hide the bodies of our creditors?

I've been meaning to ask you about that.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

would you not agree that you have acted like a vicious little sod at times too c-mang?

i don't find this thread depressing at all. it is perhaps a shame that the issue has arisen at all but it has so why not talk about it.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

pick out the plank from thine own eye, calum.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

why not set up a public email and login for anonymous revelatory postings, with the understanding that if it was used for anything else the post would be deleted?

people could do this w/o the mods' approval in fact

― Anonimo, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I think pf only said 'this was a good thread' or something like that.

we should ban him, its the sensible thing as one poster might have been annoyed for like five seconds.

x-post: barry its not in the FAQ, though I've no doubt you'll whine about it and get it on there.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

If its that important that people want to talk about their personal problems, they can simply register a new hotmail account.

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

IS THE AMAZING RANDY EURO ILX TROLL ONE OF THESE PEOPLE

― bush w bush, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

NOTE SERIOUS QUESTION NOT BAITING OR BEING A JERK: Has a formal method/policy for requesting the banning of an ILXor been drafted? Or is it just by moderator's discretion?

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

well Julio that kind of thing annoys me a little, like copycat threads annoy some others. but i did not say people should be banned because of it.

On improving society by connecting people through the Internet

i mean wtf is the point there?

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

MAY I REMIND EVERYONE REAL QUICK THAT ME AND THE RANDSTER ARE ALWAYS LOGGED IN WHEN WE POST. SO BAN US ALREADY IF WE REALLY POSE SUCH A THREAT TO THIS GREAT COMMUNITY.

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

"I know pornography when I see it"

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I too would like to know the answer to St. Nick's query?

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Things don't need to have a point all the time steve.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/image/leviathan.jpg

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Julio, there's no point talking to you, you have some kind of bizarre desire to make everything shit. You're the least comprehensible person on this whole fuckinmg board.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post

That's why I try to keep my posts nasty, brutish and short.

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post - though I bet you see that as some kind of compliment. You hate beauty.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

You are confusing me, Markelby.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

So I guess you're cool with this board becoming more like all those other boards then? I'm just interested in why someone would do that, revive a thread just to make a dubious comment - if not purely just to get a rise out of people. It would seem there is a point and that was it. If people are okay with that fine whatever, I'm sure I can turn a blind eye and still get my beauty sleep at the end of the day too...

(few x-posts)

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

beauty is in the eye of the reviver, it would seem

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Is that kind of personal venom really necessary, Markelby?

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

IS SOMEONE GOING TO BAN MARKELBY? THAT LAST FEW POSTS TO JULIO SEEM A HUNDRED TIMES MORE OFFENSIVE AND TROLLISH THAN ANYTHING ME AND THE RANDSTER OR CALUM HAVE EVER POSTED

― JAKC (ja=Ack_0FF), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe we just ran out of stuff to talk about.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Just doing my apoplectic-yet-impotent thing at Julio's constant little digs at anything that might be positive, Ned.

(as for reviving threads, go for it, just not dozens and dozens at a time to which you add nothing. God, the SELFISHNESS the internet allows, fuck)

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

jakc, i thought you've gone.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - this thread shoulda probably been locked once it got into discussion of specific posters' personalities.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm offended by people posting in all caps (nb. this is true, though not of any import.)

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

KEN C IS THE TROLL

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Reposting my question not to be obnoxiously insistent but just because I'm worried my serious and (I think) important question got lost in the bullshit:
Has a formal method/policy for requesting the banning of an ILXor been drafted? Or is it just by moderator's discretion?

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Am I more comprehensible than hegel, barry?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_81

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

shhh jon don't tell them that.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

God, the SELFISHNESS the internet allows, fuck

Smartass post: That's why it's so popular.

Candid post: Are you claiming not to be selfish?

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

At the point at which "revivalist" did his thing, there were actually a few good & interesting threads on the go. Suddenly there were all these (30+)revived threads w/one word posts at the end of them, and some of the good threads got pushed off the bottom of the fucking page! Surely, one might say, the action of a nuisance poster!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I disagree with Dan's opinion that if you can't post overtly, you shouldn't post at all.

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of people who post to this board who would be better served by keeping more of their lives private.

(multiple xposts: I hate this board)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

i suppose my point is, if ineffectual/pointless* revivals were deleted by TPTB, would anyone really mind? i wouldn't, i don't consider a taking of liberties, there is no principal issue. When Dan Perry locked a few threads because they were copycats of an original thread, nobody really cried about it that much. The locking bothered me more than the repetition of a joke in that instance, but again, no sleep lost.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

NA can't you make such a request on one of the moderator-request threads??

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

*of course how you define this is problematic

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

(they're not supposed to know that i actually waste half of my day at work posting as Randy and JAKC on a new computer i bought personally to bring to work with a satellite internet connection, just so that I can pwn them as if they're some thick as shit kids)

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i've just never understood Randy/JAKC's schtick, anymore than c-mang's really. is it worthwile? useful? i ask this a lot more than 'am i offended?'

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

It's pretty useless, really.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

or is that a problematic definition? ;-)

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

well who are we to decide that, is the problem...but not as big a problem as the 'offending' posts ;)

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

uselessness is in the eye of the reviver.

*winky*

x-post

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

avoid jon williams he is a moron and a creep

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

jon, as an example of what i meant upthread: Have you ever seen a ghost? Supernatural phenomena and weirdly inexplicable events from your own life...

what are you doing here? you seem like a smart guy, and ultimately you seem to understand people's objections to certain of your posting habits. so i only ask that you stop clogging so many threads up with self-referential posts.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

errr wrong thread

-- Whiskeytown Littlecock (░▒▓█▌...) (webmail), July 27th, 2004 1:03 PM. (ex machina) (later) (link)

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

AMAZING XPOST OMG

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

apologies, jon.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

reason enough for registration/banning i'd say

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't remember my password, as usual, but I guess I can just re-register if need be.

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Julio always struck me as being alright. Markelby strikes me as a real twat with a problem seperating his nose from within two inches of the computer screen (which is about as close as he'll ever get to losing his virginity no doubt).

I've said it many times before and the only answer to this is to make me a moderator.

― C-Man (C-Man), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

The sort of pointless flamewar that's been going on on this thread, interrupting the valid points that have been made throughout is exactly the reason why this decision has been been made. If people continue to try to overrun all of the other discussions on this board with their happy playtime, whether it's for a vendetta or not, it means that a very few people can and will continue to take advantage of the openness of the board's posting structure to drown out everyone else, and that's unacceptable.

It's worth reiterating that this decision is being applied to ILE only. ILM will continue to be open. You are free to start another board like Amazing Funtime Pickle and HTML Anonymous Goof-Off Hour if you would like to have unfettered flamewars with each other. No one is stopping you. Give it a try.

If you would like to post anonymously on ILE for the time being, it's incredibly easy to open a hotmail account. Give it a try.

I fail to see how this change, should it occur, will "fundamentally affect the way people work". It will just mean that the people who actually come here to talk with each other won't have to wade through reams and reams of bullshit to get to the TALK.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

MYT WROK HREER IS DONED

― Amazing Randy (Amazing Randy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:15 (twenty-one years ago)

For me, consensus was reached, as much as one could hope for in something like this - this move had been discussed a lot for a long time. Some time ago, there seemed a fairly even split between the pro and anti opinions. I was on the anti side, in fact. Over the last months, the mood has changed a great deal, and it is unmistakeable, if you have followed the discussions, that the mood was very firmly pro this.

I don't know if it will work. I don't know if it will reduce the annoying behaviour or not. I think it probably will. Whether the change in the board is worth the disincentive to new posters is yet to be seen, and is a concern. We haven't done it yet, and I'm not sitting here with my finger poised over a button. When we do it, if it does no good we can easily abandon it, though how we determine its success or failure is hard to define.

Nick, there are no formal agreements: we have guidelines for moderator action and for what is not acceptable, in the FAQ. Banning would be the result of persistent and severe breaking of these guidelines, continuing after a warning. I'd be inclined to jump to that pretty quickly for a spamming troll, say, whereas I would want discussion and consensus for someone who takes part but crosses lines some. I don't think we can make clear-cut rules. If someone wants to request someone else is banned, they can post on the moderator request board. I guess they could email a mod privately, but I wouldn't wish to encourage that - I'd rather it were discussed openly.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Sean C = OTM.

There is quite a bit of needlessly intolerant and reactionary drama on this thread.

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

This is the ILX PATRIOT act.

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

i really hope markelby will lose his virginity one day

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I really wish people wd stop hating on barry.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks Martin. That seems reasonable.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

as a random googler/semiliterate troll deterrent, registration will probably work wonders. even the slightest speedbump has stopped me from doing tons of shit online for a long while (like, read the washington post). studies show* that barriers to entry or action online don't have to be very high.

but let's not confuse just that (kinda small) effect with "making this place great again" which is a whole other elephant in the living room, except it isn't really cos it's under discussion constantly, and will be, forever.

*haha like i know wtf

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

You guys are all fags.
-- I CAN LEAD YOU THROUGH THE ZONE (░▒▓█▌...) (webmail), July 20th, 2004 5:39 AM. (ex machina) (later) (link)

― bush w bush, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

i wish c-mang would answer my questions. how rude and disrespectful not to do so.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

MODERATOR ANNOUNCEMENT: 1P3 to accept posts from registed users only

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I really wish people wd stop hating on barry.

Agreed.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

is the prevalence of knee-jerk liberalism toward jon w's faux-mophobia almost as problematic as the faux-mophobia itself?

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:27 (twenty-one years ago)

more than you wish c-mang would stop hating on pashmina and ned? is it so chicken-and-egg now?

(x-posts)

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:27 (twenty-one years ago)

reasonably good question mr gygax. to which i do not know the answer...

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

'faux-mophobia' yeah yeah excuses excuses

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Markelby is a well known shagger and last week I saw him in real life and there wasn't a computer screen in sight (although he was holding the menu quite close to his nose for long periods).

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks Norman. Ironically when Calum talks about wanting to be a moderator, I can see why his sense of humour might after all fit on ILX. Then he goes and says something else and ruins it.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

is the prevalence of knee-jerk liberalism toward jon w's faux-mophobia almost as problematic as the faux-mophobia itself?

dude, like, Castro's totally cool, dude.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I think its really funny that there's a shadowy cabal of offended angry europeans plotting to harass me online.

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

especially if your are European so you can hang out on the beach.

― jack cole (jackcole), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

The EU's going to get you.

― jack cole (jackcole), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't take credit for that it was actually Tokyo Rosemary's idea.

if jon looked like capleton and was given a brief positive blurb by S1m0n r3yn0lds this would be a dead issue.

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

stop being such a europhobe jon

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

faux-rophobe.

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I love this thread. Thanks guys!

― dean? (deangulberry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

All the people who hate me are surely european or post most actively from like 5 am till 10 am EST.

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

euro-faux-b.

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

wait.. i thought it was me who was harassing you!

but i'm asian, and, like, not a plural.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think it's cool to call people "fag" but seeing as whining about it nonstop and creating an unreadable atmosphere by being a complete and utter dipshit by harrassing the people who are doing it actually makes the situation worse...

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

oh just put the reg thing in effect already, let's see how it works. this thread has detoured into the shitzone a long time ago.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Barry- all my saying is that I don't think its a positive move but I know its happening so there's no need to get angry about it. I hope it works out for the mods and ile.

Also Ned I wasn't suggesting powerplay.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

the one offensive picture that jon posted (not made by jon btw) is the internet equivalent of Morrissey's "Bengali In Platforms" (frequently defended on ILX).

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

g--ff otm this thread should have stopped the moment jakc got pwned.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

BAD KEN

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

― dean? (deangulberry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.misterrogers.org/images/early_care/fc/ill2_rules.gif

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

what does tom ewing think? it's still his creation, this thing, isn't it?

Hello, Fritz - nothing like a big meta-flamewar to lure me out.

ILE isn't my direct creation, I'm just to blame for it. ILM is and seems to be doing OK (the music it loves now isnt the music I love but so what). I stopped posting to ILE and mostly stopped reading it before any of this new shit started so I'm honestly not bothered except that i) it's a thankless job to be a mod; ii) all the ones I've met are good people and I trust them; iii) here is the lesson I have learned from ILX - START YOUR OWN BOARD, it's fun.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Look, the point ultimately is NOT about how easy, harmless, or private registration is. The issue has to do with the concept of registration, the idea of people randomly posting - and that often having a genial effect!, sponteneity, and sometimes purely harmless silliness (by this I'm not referring to trolling).

Will bad shit happen? Yes. As has been stated many times above, the main problems will not be solved in the long or short term by a registration process. Will not. So what would setting up such a "defense system" really do? As far as I'm concerned, it will not change the content, identity, or mood of ILE significantly.

Furthermore, you talk so much about the regulars who have left for this and other reasons. Guess what? If you do this, there will be unregistered regulars who will leave as well. Sure, a lot will submit to registering. Keep in mind, though, that most of the people in favor of registering are already registered, so they already are cool with it. I think that those of us most affected by this should maybe have a little more of an opportunity to argue why we don't want to register.

And getting back to the old regulars who have left - a lot of regulars leave for a variety of reasons, including changes in their real-world life, gradual disinterest in general, or inability to adapt to the inevitable and random changes in the character of the board at large. Maybe these things were the last straw, but has ILE become devoid of good conversation? Has everything already been said? Is there nothing even entertaining left? If you think so, there's nothing that a registration process will do to change your mind about that. If you don't think so, then why not keep things as they are?

Maybe the solution is more aggressive mod'ing. If you all are so pissed off with C-Man, Randy, or Jon, it's still your own fault for letting them stick around ultimately. And let's face it, if they were first-time posters doing the same trolling, they would not be let off so leniently. As far as I'm concerned, this is a community, and there will always be people who upset others and play pranks. So be it. Let's not punish all the other unregistered users here.

I spend a good deal of time on the Wikipedia during the ILX outage and what impressed me the most about the site (some of this being b/c it was a wiki) was how it was more or less self-policed and the community together worked to keep it in respectable order. Trolls rarely were able to make a dent, b/c things would literally get cleaned up in five minutes or less from when damage was inflicted. What is the point of the Moderation Request button here? To allow the community to police itself, though the representation and hard volunteer work of the mods. Let that be how we deal with problems on the board.

The problem is not unregistered users, it's that we need some more clear standards and policies as far as how to deal with unacceptable behavior. And we should perhaps be at least a little wary of the misconception that users who've been around longer should be given slightly more leniency. Policies should be uniform and more or less equal wrt to standing.

Registratio mandamus delenda est!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

i have absolutely no idea why anyone would be averse to registering.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

It's like this thread is a gigantic echo chamber filled with sadness and pain.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

and cheese!

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

like a really spicy con queso dip.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:56 (twenty-one years ago)

...5 hours later when you're stomach starts making "those sounds".

― gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

There are two current ILE mods, and we couldn't cope with that aggressive an approach if we wanted to - cleaning bad stuff out in five minutes, and so on. People don't want to be mods, and have quit, because almost every time we delete anything there is a huge row. And exactly how would we get rid of these people and leave the board wide open to everyone? I can't make sense of that at all.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:03 (twenty-one years ago)

How exactly do you propose to effectively get rid of these people under enforced registration? They can re-register all they like - the only weapon that you really have is IP bans, right? I would assume you can already do that now, though. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe the solution is more aggressive mod'ing.

There are and remain specific technical reasons why the mods cannot magically wish people into the cornfield, and the continued LACK of appreciation of this fact has been one of our greatest frustrations in modworld, from Andrew on down. Also, anytime anyone has tried to do this, the general reaction has been:

* complaints that the mods are, and I'll say it again, on some sort of power trip

* assertions that just ignoring the problem will make the bad people go away

* eternal proclamations that we should give the bad people 'just one more chance'

Now, these aren't the universal reactions, obviously, and people's minds can and do change. But they were, are and remain hallmarks of what happened. And there were certainly instances where the complaints were justified, but nearly everything ended up being tarred with the same brush.

Now, it seems, we are at fault in your eyes for not being aggressive enough. As the mods are not particularly interested in condemning themselves to a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't situation, we have concluded to take a stance that is far more reactive than proactive, and related to this is the system of registering and yellow-card warnings and so forth. The point about treating everyone equally is well-observed and has been the subject of quite a bit of discussion.

Finally, the mods are not thrilled in the slightest in continuing to be everyone's individual whipping boys/girls for the perceived sins of the board. We are not going to satisfy everyone and we know this, and while we appreciate feedback, raking us over the coals for not having your own individual mindset doesn't help.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

NED OTM.

― dean? (deangulberry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

What Ned is trying to say is "Go eat a bag of dicks."*

* This is why I'm no longer a moderator.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

An option if registration is required: someone repeatedly offends and reregisters, having to create lots of fake emails: we don't ban their IP, but we can sure capture it and ask some questions every time anyone from that IP range shows up to register. This would at least cause them loads more trouble, and if it gets too bad, we might settle for accepting no new registrations from such range.

This is not a plan or policy, but it is an option.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:16 (twenty-one years ago)

First of all, I am not blaming the mods at all, nor do I believe that they've done anything wrong. The problem is that there aren't any clear methods of dealing with things. We haven't codified. That's a deficiency of the community, not the mods. We all need to sit down and lay some rules of posting down, as well as how to deal with breaches in online etiquette, for lack of a better word.

And again, under a clear and delineated set of behavior rules and guidelines, you have clear precedent for why you've deleted things, so that would at least make the rows slanted more in your favor if you can point to a set of rules and say, "look, you violated rule 3, sorry but that's the end of discussion, no exceptions". If they want to debate, they can debate the merit of the rule itself, but not the deletion itself.

I also think that if a larger number of people were given mod power, it would decrease the reliance on a small few, while at the same time probably covering more ground. And those who would have it wouldn't necessarily spend large amounts of time doing mod work; it'd be more a handy tool to have when they deem it needed.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin, that seems way too Draconian, as well as impractical for the mods if they are as short-stocked as it seems.

I would like to re-iterate that the registration as a line of defense will not work.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:19 (twenty-one years ago)

We have such rules - see the FAQ.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:19 (twenty-one years ago)

The problem, apparently always lies in the real world. We're going to need to collect alot more money and phyically hunt down the trolls. On the plus side, they'll be a great source of fertilizer for our poppy and cannabis farms.

― Michael White (Hereward), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)

We have such rules - see the FAQ.

As Martin noted. We are also aware of areas where the FAQ could do with revision and updating and have carried out quite a bit of discussion on this. Not to offend, but you are assuming we haven't been thinking about this ourselves, and while I can see how this impression formed, I would like to ask that you can choose to give us more of the benefit of the doubt.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I generally agree with Mr Savonarola, in saying that compulsary registration to post is not a fix for the perceived problem. However, I've also seen evidence to the contrary - on one set of boards run by some friends of mine, banned posters generally do not come back for some time, and if they do come back they don't reoffend. Those boards are all much more heavily moderated than ILE is, to start with, and a lot of the things that people complain about 'trolls' doing on ILE are prevented automatically by the software.

So, in short, I've seen evidence that requiring registration and banning rule-flouters can be effective. I'm not convinced that it's what ILE needs, though. I accept that the mods do a hard job, have to put up with unwarranted abuse, and that there aren't enough of them.

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sorry Ned if I've come on a bit strong. No offense or disrespect intended towards any of the ILX elders. However, as you might gather, I feel rather strongly about this matter.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

have you posted much lately Girolamo? i can't recall seeing your name come up much

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

(my position is still the one I think I stated somewhere near the top of the thread: I don't have a problem with compulsary registration so long as there is still some way to make posts which are anonymous from an ordinary user's perspective. As far as I can see, most of the "jump in and post straight away" type of random googlers don't contribute a great deal to either the content or atmosphere of the site.)

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

You can always register an account that is your "anonymous" account, if it's that important to you.

― dean? (deangulberry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm in the pro-registration camp. I was registered long before I ever posted and I don't ever even think about having registered. It sounds like some people think ILE is some kind of mafia trial where witnesses (new posters) must have their absolute privacy protected or they'll be assasinated or something.

I also think that there's no harm in giving mandatory registration a try. It's not necessarily a permanent change, right?

With forced reg there's no initial exclusion of anyone. Also, if it works, we'll be creating a space where potential new posters will feel more comfortable/interested-in posting in the first place. I'm not sure if I would have started posting way back when if the board consisted of all the nonsense we've been seeing lately.

Finally, the quality of trolls has really gone downhill.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:45 (twenty-one years ago)

steve- that's NOT the point, he has been posted, maybe not regurlarly but for long enough.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 21:48 (twenty-one years ago)

FWIW every other forum *ever* that I have been on is registration-only. And a lot stricter than here. Some boards will edit your posts without even warning you if you swear (I guess as an acknlowedgement children may be reading). Some boards dont delete anything, but will lock a thread within 2 or 3 posts if its a repeated topic, or even *looks* like becoming flamy (one person dissing another ONCE is all it takes many places Ive read).

I personally think this is good, as long as it clearly set, established, and STUCK TO no matter what people think. The problem here of course is this wasn't how ILX was set up to start with.

You wanted freedom - you have it, and this is what happens.

BTW I find it amusing that it didnt occur to anyone else that the randy/jakc nastyshouting troll might have been a conspicuously absent regular who we knew had issues with the current direction - eg Ally, Millar, J0hn D, Kate or Marcello... or combination thereof...

[not that I know, care, or want to bother with whom it might be but I mean look at the posting style. It ain't some dumb kid].

Carry on, you crazy twits.

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:44 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't understand why some people are pretending that this whole thing is an affront to their "freedom". This is a good idea.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

steve- that's NOT the point, he has been posted, maybe not regurlarly but for long enough.

i just find it a bit odd that people not contributing that much lately would feel so strongly about it, no matter

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)

That's a bit like, random, isn't it?

― Fergal (Ferg), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure if I would have started posting way back when if the board consisted of all the nonsense we've been seeing lately.

otm. it would've put me off too i think - more than a policy of mandatory registration. but we seem to be going in and out of circles here.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 00:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Trayce i think it's highly unlikely it would be any of those people - they'd plummet in my estimations if it was

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Well yeah.. its just, I dunno. I had a feeling, based on past (seemingly childish) reactions to various things, and some peoples preciousness about what ILX "is". I guess that might be a big issue here - this whole "what this board means to me and it is being ruined" idea.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 00:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I wonder why Girolamo is so upset over this matter? I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with Dada.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm pro, it just seems reasonable. I can understand some of the objections, but the benefit outweighs the harm, I think.

― I'm a libra, believe it or not (Matt), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 00:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Trayce, there is going to be an "unveiling"

― Whiskeytown Littlecock (ex machina), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 01:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Hi Leon!!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think I mind the registration thing. Two cents, End Post.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 01:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Can I still choose to be one of the "bad" people?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

You already are, TRAITOR Hand. *beats quisling into pulp*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 01:25 (twenty-one years ago)

damn what a long thread.

I think this is a good idea. For everyone who's whining about being put out by registering, registration putting off newbies, mods as demi-gods need to stop their whining. This is board is a place you have the pleasure of (by someone else's work and most everyone else's money) visiting. It's not your damned right.

Re: anonymous posting: I wouldn't mind seeing this elimnated. While some people do so b/c of sensitive subjects other users will do so to make shitty comments they don't have the balls to stand behind. I agree with Dan upthread here.

Also, re: mods - I have no problem with a few people making decisions for all of us. This is not a democracy. If tried to decide issues with a consensus of all users chaos would reign and nothing would ever happen. Anytime I've submitted a question or problem to the mods I've received a timely response and have no issues with their decisions even when they weren't what I wanted. Lay off them.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:04 (twenty-one years ago)

it's going to eliminate some of the spontaneous spark that makes ILX grate (jokes in email addresses, smartass answers to random g00glers, etc.)

There are two readings of the word 'grate' here

― Fergal (Ferg), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:11 (twenty-one years ago)

haha

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I've no problem with the mods, I'm just bemused as to why we're back down to only having two of them aain. I know a lot of them have drifted off, so why not create some new ones to spread the load a bit.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 05:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe because people are thinking, if someone as amenable as Ned and Dan dont want to do it, who the hell else would!? :/

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 05:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Quite possibly, I wouldn't either.

I'm mainly putting my point of view across because i believe thatthese things need discussing right down to the wire.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 05:41 (twenty-one years ago)

i am a moderator on ilm, but not ile anymore. i offered to take on being a moderator again for ile recently on the modlist. but, actually, i don't think i can be bothered with it. i'm not sure i'm going to have time to wade through all the arguing after all.

― charltonlido (gareth), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 05:44 (twenty-one years ago)

So this is what bothers me. If Andrew and the other mods want to do this, then just make an anouncement then lock it. No discussion, just do it NOW and live with it. If you want to make the rules, then I accept. But don't give the impression that you care about our input. Andrew, Ned , Dan, Martin, etc... I realize that no one is paying you to moderate these boards. So thank you, VERY VERY MUCH!!! But if it is your ball and your bat then don't look for aproval for your rules. We'll play or not according to our own rules.

― Speedy (Speedy Gonzalas), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 06:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you misunderstand the history of ilx. It is organised the way it is more by accident than design, by the generous effortsof various peoplr, not always the people you think. ILX has always reacted to circumstance rather than ever had any kind of plans. Which is why everything should be discussed as much as possible, before during and after the fact. No body here has done this before everyone here has experience of other places. The only reason anyone has control is because they offered to take up the burden.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 06:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with discussing things, it's not like this a democracy or anything, but I do think it's a good thing that the mods and administers want to listen to people's opinions.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 06:45 (twenty-one years ago)

But, they are not listening to our opinions, they have acted and now we are whining about their decision.
I know it is not clear, but if this is what Andrew needs to do, then, I am in. But, as Andrew stated when someone questioned the thread locking rulings, it's is his deal, so get over it. Andrew I support you in this. But why is this a thread? THE DISCUSSION IS OVER. The rule has been made. Locked! Let us just move on.

― Speedy (Speedy Gonzalas), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 06:59 (twenty-one years ago)

But it's not like the decision came from out of the blue, registration has been discussed before this thread, and I think listening to the general mood of ILE lately is what made the admins make this change.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 07:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Tuomas, I like you too much and think that my point is so unimportant that I will not say another thing in disagreement with you on this subject. I'd rather make fun of Bush or do something that matters than risk a tiny chance of pissing you off.Please post some summertime pics of your friends, so I can wish and wonder about where you live.

― Speedy (Speedy Gonzalas), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 07:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I was a mod on ile, but now i'm just a mod on ilm. Personally, I found a lot of the grandstranding over the attempts to prevent calum from disrupting threads to be infuriating and to an extent disgusting. based on other lists i'm on, i remain a proponent of pro-active moderation, based on the fact that the longest lasting internet communities that i'm on have been quite actively moderated, and they remain interesting places, i think partly because of this. personally, i think this place is ungovernable. if this place were moderated according to what i like to see, jakc and randy's posts would be deleted as soon as they appeared, revivalists pointless fucking about would have been deleted immediately, etc etc. Terrible, eh, what a nazi i am. yadda.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:02 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm with pashmina

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:19 (twenty-one years ago)

rather than Nazism i prefer to call it a case for Die Asshatten Polizei

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Ed, ILX isn't some kind of social experiment. Well, it is, but that's by the by - it's an active, evolving community that we like and we want to maintain and maybe even improve. See it as a plant that sprouts, but then maybe gets too big too quickly and can't support its weight. This process is like the stake up which the plant can grow.

There may be a pleasing abstract symmetry in letting ILX destroy itself because of what it's become; I don't want this to happen, though.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:55 (twenty-one years ago)

After the outage i was less concerned abt the absense of the ilx old guard (many of whom had spent the last half-year bitching and pissing anyway) and more concerned about how sinisterly emo it had become. seems okay now. i'm totally unaware of what randy's been up to, fer example. but afaic registration is a no-brainer.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:59 (twenty-one years ago)

appreciated Mark. i don't suppose the people blamed for dragging the place down would ever consider it like that?

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:59 (twenty-one years ago)

to re-iterate somewhat tho, Amazing Randy is a registered user right? and on no grounds can he (for some reason i feel comfortable in assuming it's a MANG) be banned. His (and others) posts can already be censored, so it wouldn't make much difference in that respect would it?

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:01 (twenty-one years ago)

it just makes it harder if he wants to reregister.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:05 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean, if he feels that signing up for a new email address everyday is worth the effort.. then i salute the dedication.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:05 (twenty-one years ago)

revivalists pointless fucking about would have been deleted immediately, etc etc. Terrible, eh, what a nazi i am. yadda.'

I guess those are the easiest things to deal with - nothing constructive or whatever so delete it - but I think the road you're taking could mean that in future someone like dave q and his posts might have been deleted. I came across some older threads and it seemed to be that he was being 'misunderstood' earlier on.

(and would the pf and his revivals also be deleted too?)

Also most of the ppl that have stopped posting seemed to do so bcz they had other things to do, not bcz the board got nastier.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Re-read Martin's posts - people will only be banned (or censured it whatever way) after repeated and severe violations. I imagine our argument yesterday would slip under the radar, Julio, though I wouldn't think it unfair if either of us (well, me anyway) got rapped knuckles for it.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:13 (twenty-one years ago)

the pinefox and dave q ARE different. lots of people know who they are and what they're like - some of us engage with them offline, we have a better understanding of why they might revive or start a thread with no instantly discernible point as a result. it's hard to explain the difference - and at one point i did fine the pinefox style a bit annoying, but i wouldn't have deemed it deletable. i suppose on reflection the main problem was the frequency with which revivalist was reviving threads, not the reason.

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Fuck da police. Let's misbehave.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Mom, you never misbehave in that way, though. You're all knowing winks and provocative teasing. Julio's more likely to be banned than you are :)

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:25 (twenty-one years ago)

i bet he was serious about fucking da police though

http://ikjeld.com/features/soccer/images/101957-japanese_police.jpg

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:29 (twenty-one years ago)

i should've added Momus to the list of Randy suspects

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:30 (twenty-one years ago)

BAD KEN!

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus is registered=he is a total wuss and never backs up his anarcho-crap.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:31 (twenty-one years ago)

woah
http://www.geocities.com/policelady2000/japwpc13.jpg

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:32 (twenty-one years ago)

ok i leave now :)

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:32 (twenty-one years ago)

erm why on earth is this happening?

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)

to annoy 7 people

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:57 (twenty-one years ago)

ILE:Let's lock the door and fuck each other senseless.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey, when you put it that way...

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:59 (twenty-one years ago)

People sure have an odd perception of how having to register will affect ILE

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Reviving threads seems a pretty harmless thing: but when it is done with a hundred apparently random threads, with the only contributing effect being to screw up New Answers, that seems to me to be the same as Bosko-style spamming. Deletion would be fine if anyone wanted to bother, and maybe I'd issue a warning, but it would be no big deal.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Ronan and his reactionary libertarianism: oh how it cheers up the place.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:14 (twenty-one years ago)

more librarianisms pls.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

no shouting please

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark have you ever considered the possibility that you are not an endless force for turning frowns upside down globally and beyond!

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

it's nice that someone tries though.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:24 (twenty-one years ago)

what, even if they fail and actually make things worse 90 percent of the time by the perpetual implication that it's everyone elses fault things aren't "nicer" or "more positive" etc etc etc etc etc.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

beats just whinging for the sake of it.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I just explained my position, did you even bother to read that or did you just type your post first?

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:40 (twenty-one years ago)

the explaination must have been deleted by a mod.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:44 (twenty-one years ago)

what, even if they fail and actually make things worse 90 percent of the time

Ken it's RIGHT THERE. Who exactly is whinging for the sake of it here?

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

oh right that was you explaining your position.. sorry. guess you're right then.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:50 (twenty-one years ago)

you've said absolutely nothing and engaged with nothing so far here, surprise surprise.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

that's because i agree with you

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:55 (twenty-one years ago)

hilarious

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah c'mon ken what's wrong with you?! criticize something already! put a whole group of people down!

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

you don't want me to agree with you? so you can start a fight?

oh xpost

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

somebody's grumpy

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

i love you all, but i think you could stand to be a bit more like me

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 29 July 2004 08:43 (twenty-one years ago)

let's all chip in to buy steve a chair for his birthday

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 29 July 2004 08:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Whatever you may think of me, Ronan, you haven't half just proved my point.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 29 July 2004 08:56 (twenty-one years ago)

and then got pwn3d.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 29 July 2004 09:08 (twenty-one years ago)

yes this sort of thing is better than anonymous googling!

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Thursday, 29 July 2004 09:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I am not contributing to a thread that is slowly sliding off the New Answers page because I cannot log off and post to it. It's not due to embarassment, either, but because it relates to a deal that hasn't closed yet. In the past, I'd have logged off and posted from a proxy IP.

I'm not arrogant enough to say that y'all have been deprived of a great post, but not being able to make a post to this thread has made ILE less fun than any oversized graphics ever did.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 29 July 2004 09:32 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.ginghamsburg.org/sermon98/jul0598c.jpg

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 29 July 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I really wish people would stop acting like this is about JOn because it isn't. It's about the people whining about Jon

Thank you Dan. Thank you.

― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 29 July 2004 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

we have comments boxes now anyway duh.

― cºzen (Cozen), Thursday, 29 July 2004 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark you are my point.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 29 July 2004 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

"less fun FOR ME" I should have wrote...

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 29 July 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Colin, this hasn't been implemented yet, as far as I am aware.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 30 July 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

three months pass...

I'm reviving this because it's been an irritating week - more than one person posting under someone else's name, the usual dreary trolling and so on. I'm starting to think about this again, and I'm looking for feedback.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Personally I'd say go for it...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Let the election bullshit die down for another week
If it gets as intolerable as last winter though go right ahead

― TOMBOT, Monday, 8 November 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

If a random annoying person wanted to, say, post lots of trolling threads with alliterative usernames, how would forcing him to register them all first stop him doing it?

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

it doesn't stop it
it just makes it more of a pain in the ass
so maybe their pain in the ass is at least nearing the pain they cause in everyone else's asses

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm for it.

― Cathy (Cathy), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm personally for the idea of only doing this for the IP addresses of the troublemakers, so that not everyone has to be registered, only those who have the misfortune of sharing the IP address of a troll. But I understand this might be too much of a hassle. If so, I'm ok with general registration.

― n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Sounds like a good idea but you'll probably need more mods to regulate it.

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know if you care what I think, but yeah, why not?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd pefer not to.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

ah, humanity!

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

INSANE!

― Super, Monday, 8 November 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

n/a's idea sounds good - until you remember that it wouldn't stop trolls who post from dynamic IPs. Which is anyone who posts from home, essentially.

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

n/a's idea sounds much harder to code and enforce.

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

"Trouble-maker" = "those who are gang-banged by the ILX crew"?

― Bleeding Anus, Monday, 8 November 2004 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Just do it.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm still kind of against it, because I like it when, say, the Junior Boys pop up to say something, and registration feels like too much of an undertaking to the casual reader. even if it does only take a second.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think this will be very useful, as our resident trolls may be a lot of things but lazy they are not, but I'm not, y'know, actively against the idea. It's common enough on the interweb, I don't really think it will scare too many potential posters off.

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:53 (twenty-one years ago)

It would probably be a good idea to wait on this until coders have looked at the email/password/login problem more, since at least some of those cases don't seem to be due to user error -- and if you don't know what's causing it, you don't know it won't happen again and punt people out of a locked board.

― Tep (ktepi), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Let the election bullshit die down for another week
If it gets as intolerable as last winter though go right ahead

-- TOMBOT (my....

I think that, as usual, Tom is right about this, and I would second this course of action.

As far as nuisance posters who are coming in from shared IP addresses go, I wonder if it is possible to code a sort of inverse blacklist for those IP addresses - these people, but no-one else gets in, that sort of thing. Is this possible? I know this would prevent new users from using the boards, but as you say, it's been a trying week, and I don't come to ILX to get annoyed.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

nobody cares anymore

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 8 November 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Quite possibly you're right, Ronan. Quite possibly no more than, say, 10 regulars even cared that much in the first place.

― Pashmina is maudlin drunk (Pashmina), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I think so. each time a thread like this rolls around it becomes increasingly clear that there is no longer any "centre" to ILX.

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the ability to create private boards might be an idea to consider.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

look at the current new answers page, it could be any board in the world, there is very little room for personality on ILE anymore. and before whoever gets themselves in a pre-emptive tizzy about "old school ilxors whinging etc etc etc etc" I mean that in the sense that there are just too many posters and too many threads for ILE to be anything other than what it is now.

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

alba - this is only on ile so it wouldn't make a diff to that particurlar case - as long as mods can selectively implement this.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, I reiterate that I am talking about ILE only here.

If a random annoying person wanted to, say, post lots of trolling threads with alliterative usernames, how would forcing him to register them all first stop him doing it?

They'd have to register each one with a working and unique email, which would certainly slow them down; there would also be the option of coding to prevent new registrations from certain IP ranges, as Norman says. There is no perfect anti-arsehole measure, but there are various things that might help.

I wonder if the coders might think about, for instance, simply not accepting posts from Calum's IP range, unless the poster is logged in as any of the various regulars from the same range? If such a piece of code were written, it might be easily extendable to other people who make this place noticeably worse.

Yes, waiting a while is wise - I really wasn't proposing to do this now, just wondering if the balance had tipped, just opening the discussion again. The comment that there have apparently been password problems of late is another important point - I wouldn't like this to happen when it might exclude innocents.

There may be no centre, Ronan, but I'm not sure a messageboard needs one; and plainly some people do care, or I wouldn't have started this thread, and I wouldn't have received any responses from people with a preference.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm personally for the idea of only doing this for the IP addresses of the troublemakers,

not everyone (in fact, almost no-one) has a static IP so I don't see how this would work.

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

But most are on one or two regular IP ranges.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:18 (twenty-one years ago)

How about instead of having "later" and "unread" (or keep those and add a function) and WITHOUT ADDING KILLFILES FOR USERNAMES, let a logged in user select certain threads which NO LONGER SHOW UP on the screen? Just pass through threads and when you see one that is likely to piss you off, go to it and MAKE IT DISAPPEAR FOREVER from yr ILX experience by clicking on a link right there after the "Ask A Question" link.

Since people have so much trouble ignoring threads on their own, and killfiles would be ineffective. It seems it would be trivial to store 'dead threads' on the user cookies, and it could certainly go a long way to reducing troll presence for most users.

I should post this to the Mod Req forum eh.

― TOMBOT, Monday, 8 November 2004 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously I would totally start logging in again for that feature alone.

― TOMBOT, Monday, 8 November 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

ooh that would be cool. i could hide sports and FAP threads! everyone wins.

― the surface noise (slight return) (electricsound), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

that's clever.

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

As one datum: half the time, I post from a static IP. The other half, I post from one of several large IP ranges (my IP seems to have several discontinuous ones)

I think the ability to create private boards might be an idea to consider.

This really would be the *worst* thing for the future of the site - at least from my point of view.

I too like Tombot's idea.

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

If we can do magic technology things, can we make a bot that will generate random questions on the weekend or when it's slow? People seem to like those 'psychologist simulator' things. (note: I probably don't think this is a good idea.)

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't that what the Random link is for?

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

kevin - there is an archive of threads for you to revive.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

let a logged in user select certain threads which NO LONGER SHOW UP on the screen?

I asked for this feature years ago. I still think it would make ILE a zillion times more enjoyable.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I have two problems with Tombot's idea. One's more "romantic", which is that several troll threads have been derailed into absolute gold. (This is dangerously near admitting that sometimes Calum does raise questions that the rest of the board wouldn't)

More practically: if my cookie contains 100 threads that I never want to see again, and if most people's contain similar, isn't it going to slow down the server parsing all of them?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

TOM's/Chris's idea is very good.

― oops (Oops), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Andrew OTM u fucks xpost

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

how many post IDs are stored on the cookies NOW for the unread messages feature? Am I completely wrong about how that function works?

― TOMBOT, Monday, 8 November 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Caitlin and Julio - oh yeah, cool. I still kind of want half-jibberish questions parsed by computer programmes, but maybe that is what the noize board is for? (sorry. Don't put me on your enemy list, please!)

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I could be wrong, but - from observation - the unread messages feature only seems to keep track of threads you've read in the past week. Wouldn't a similar timeout help performance if the "ignore thread" suggestion was implemented?

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

oh good idea. maybe that can be implemented as part of the last read feature. set the last read time to negative one!

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, you should just be able to put a "skip" value in the "last post read" field. It's OK if missing threads don't get "filled out" at the bottom of the page, even -- if the New Answers page should show 100 threads but I've blocked 90 of them it's OK if I only see 10.

(xpost)

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Caitlen - yes, though I think you are wrong about it actually timing out.

Tom, I think that your cookie just identifies you to the server, which keeps a track of what you've read. So I see the same red/black number if I'm logged in here, or at home. Now that I think about it, it must keep a track of what you've read for every thread, so "they" could use -1 for "always ignore". Maybe.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

It certainly seems to forget the 'last read' data after about a week - a thread that I don't look at for several days changes from "n unread" (red) to "n new messages" black.

I have no idea how it's implemented, but using this feature to implement ignored threads sounds like a handy and straightforward way to do it.

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Any interesting thread that I ignore for a week is going to unreadable.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 8 November 2004 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

We've gone to unreadable for an about now six months, more or possibly

― TOMBOT, Monday, 8 November 2004 22:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Point.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I wouldn't say ILE is completely unreadable. There are still good, useful, interesting threads and posts in-amongst the noize-crap. There is still stuff on ILE that I feel good about being able to read and contribute to.

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I've no problem with this idea, but a) I'm not a coder, b) I couldn't use it - as a mod, I feel duty bound to keep an overall eye on things, and c) I think it would have no effect on trolls. If they didn't get the feeble recognition they are desperate for on the threads they start, they'll just start spraying shit around everywhere else too until they do. Oh, and d) it isn't at all hard to ignore threads you don't want to read.

One point I haven't mentioned, that may support Ronan's contention that no one cares: I am 50% of the moderator population on ILE. To be honest, I think if there were more I'd be thinking of quitting the role, but I don't feel I can right now. I don't want to join the usual chorus from some quarters, but this place has become less pleasant, less civilized, more nasty, and a lot of the best posters have left (not necessarily because of that, but it's a factor). I'm tempted by the registered users move because I think it may offer ways of stopping that drift.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm all for whatever will maximise the number of 'good' posters, and the number of 'good', interesting posts.

I think Martin's right that enforced registration won't stop trolls; but I'm not entirely sure that it will stop drift away. I wouldn't be concerned either way, except that I think that losing the ability to post anonymously would be a *big* loss; I think they can be vital when it comes to asking for and receiving personal advice.

(however, posting anonymously is also, in many ways, the Main Problem that people want dealt with. Is there any way to resolve this?)

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

the more i think about it the more this 'thread hiding' idea appeals.

― the surface noise (slight return) (electricsound), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

what's the point? just don't click on threads you don't want to read!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:27 (twenty-one years ago)

the point is that these threads i don't want to read aren't cluttering my screen and obscuring the good threads, which they often do. congratulations that it's not a problem for you.

― the surface noise (slight return) (electricsound), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:30 (twenty-one years ago)

congratulations accepted.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:32 (twenty-one years ago)

It is an idea sure, but I continue to be baffled by people who say they need this to be able to "ignore" threads/posters. That there are people on this board obsessive/compulsive enough that they have to have at every person and topic they loathe is a pathetic situation, I'm sorry.

There are a ton of threads (and for the most part also a whole board, ie ILM) that I pay no heed to. Why would I want to snipe and reply and complain about the things I dont like and/or cant change? My opinion isnt anyone elses for starters so who am I to tell people who and what to like on ILX? I just enjoy the threads I participate in, be they silly, chatty or thoughtful and long winded.

― Trayce (trayce), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:35 (twenty-one years ago)

There is a gigantic unspoken subthread here titled "Internet Addiction: C/D?"

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Also The Good Old Days, S&D

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 8 November 2004 23:44 (twenty-one years ago)

as a mod, I feel duty bound to keep an overall eye on things

As someone who has had eye problems on a par with my own, Martin, I'd say you should go easy on your eyes.

I agree with Andrew Farrell that trollthread can turn into threadgold. I also agree with Caitlin that the ability to post anonymously is a boon. And 'goodbye random googlers' is a phrase that ranks, for me, alongside 'we're being flooded with asylum seekers'.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Remember when I saved you guys from the right winger fun haters?

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I think this is a political issue, and the three points I listed were political ones. Let me paraphrase them with their wider implications highlighted.

1. I think good and evil are so inextricably interwoven in the human soul that if you try to cut out one you do damage to the other.

2. I think people have the right to be private, even in public, and even if they're 'up to no good' (up to the point of physical harm, which the internet is as yet incapable of).

3. I don't like gated communities.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:24 (twenty-one years ago)

solution: ?

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:39 (twenty-one years ago)

solution: ♥

― :| (....), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:48 (twenty-one years ago)

SOLUTION, REVISED

― Remy (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:51 (twenty-one years ago)

where is the love :(

― :| (....), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:53 (twenty-one years ago)

1. I think good and evil are so inextricably interwoven in the human soul that if you try to cut out one you do damage to the other.

This explains why you want to shout at Bush-voters loudly now, I gather.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 07:53 (twenty-one years ago)

A (probably impossible) thing I've just thought of that would be useful if this was introduced: making it impossible to register usernames that were in some way too similar to existing usernames - only differing in non-alphanumeric characters, for example. It would hopefully get rid of some of the (confusing) trolling we get with posters pretending to be other people.

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 08:01 (twenty-one years ago)

oh! that's a good idea

*scurry*

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 08:07 (twenty-one years ago)

But has there ever been any instance of successful imposture on ILE?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 08:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Not that I know of - not for very long, anyway. It's still, to my mind, the most annoying form of trolling - and certainly the most confusing form. As I've said elsewhere on the board, about half the time I read a Ned post now I have to double- and triple-check the name and address to make sure it really is him.

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 08:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus' first point reminds me of a quote, but I can't remember it. Something like "the line between good and evil is drawn down the middle of each human heart. And who would cut out a piece of his heart?" but I can't for the life of me remember what it is...I think it is quoted at the start of something Russian - perhap if Momus knows what I am thinking of he will help me out?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 09:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know that quote, but I believe it with all my heart.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 09:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Found it! It's Solzhenitsyn, from the Gulag Archipelago:

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Solzhenitsyn? Solzhenitsyn? A former pipe-fitter/welder from Harrogate!

― the surface noise (slight return) (electricsound), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, the Solzhenitsyn quote (not the one from the Young Ones) is quite a good criticism of US foreign policy at the moment.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:05 (twenty-one years ago)

why not have an "anonymise" option which when clicked, your username etc will be hidden from all but the mods? (your username comes up as "anonymous" or "logged out" or something) maybe then when you want to talk about your darkest secrets etc you still can?

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Caitlin, go to user settings and select "show login name" (or whatever it is).

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

oh haha i didn't read the thread properly this had been suggested way upthread

xpost

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, I think the anonymising option is a good one, something that's highly desirable if we ever to switch to registered posting only.

As someone who has had eye problems on a par with my own, Martin, I'd say you should go easy on your eyes.

Well I don't read everything by any means, and my eyes are fixed now after the operations, and resting them is unnecessary.

I'd be very sorry to lose the random googlers, both for laughs and because clearly some of the wonderful people here got here that way. I think we would lose a lot of the funny and inappropriate ones, but I hope most of the ones who like the look of the place might go through a quick and easy registration to post. The other side of this argument is that the misogynist threads and atmosphere of nastiness, that I hope we could reduce by the registration measure, can also put people off. If the first things that had caught my eye when I arrived were hatred between posters and towards women, I wouldn't have hung around.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 10:47 (twenty-one years ago)

How about requiring login to start a thread, but not to post to an existing thread? You don't get random bullshit threads as much, but you still get the entertainment value that comes from Dave Matthews fans.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 12:59 (twenty-one years ago)

i like that idea a lot

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Thirded.

― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh yes, that is good.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:05 (twenty-one years ago)

The other side of this argument is that the misogynist threads and atmosphere of nastiness, that I hope we could reduce by the registration measure, can also put people off. If the first things that had caught my eye when I arrived were hatred between posters and towards women, I wouldn't have hung around.

But any stuff that seems sexist (and also some stuff that just looks like FHM or Maxim copy) gets roundly condemned as soon as it appears. It seems to me that refutation is better than censorship. As Milton said, virtue that is never tempted is not really virtue. And, I'd add, liberal ideas that never meet illiberal ones are not really liberal ideas.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Free Speech!

(with every four gallons)

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow dave 225, that's a truly great idea!! It appeals to me in a kind of cutting the gordian knot way!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

What I'm saying is that thinking is dialectical, and posting and starting threads are both part of the dialectic. They may be the obnoxious thesis to a brilliant refutation or antithesis which I would never have thought of if they hadn't appeared, in all their troubling insolence.

Saying that people must lay claim to their thoughts in a responsible manner just limits the kind of debate we can have here. And will stop people who are in real distress from posting an anonymous question about what to do when their boyfriend loses interest, for instance, but don't want that boyfriend alerted to their anxieties just yet.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Are you really so very troubled by the 'disorder' in this forum? Is it out of control? Must we limit certain freedoms?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I hear ya Momus ... I agree that some discourse may be lost. Any restriction is kind of like the Patriot Act .. What about a combination of what I just suggested, along with the "post as anonymous" option? So it's possible, but it's just a big enough pain in the ass ...

xpost .. and No, I'm personally not that put off by the extra threads - although it seems that there are so many that this becomes less of a community and more of a random wisecracking forum.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Personally, I'm not in the slightest bit bothered. I read threads that look intelligent or stimulating in some way. Almost nothing annoys me -- in fact the one thing that really gets my goat, as you've probably noticed, is do-gooders tampering with the structure of the forum in ways that restrict the range of debate that goes on.

Why is it that the phrase 'a small group of troublemakers who are trying to spoil things for everyone else' makes me think so vividly of Jack Straw? And why is it that whenever Straw utters those words, the people he's talking about never seem to me like 'a small group of troublemakers' but a rather important and sizeable section of public opinion he's trying to dismiss, one that I would like to engage with, either positively or negatively? Why is it that by 'spoil things' Straw invariably means 'get certain issues talked about in ways that the government doesn't want'?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Are you sure you've read ILE before?

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, I've read it. My definition of 'debate' may include more constructive silliness and devil's advocacy than yours, though.

(My point about Jack Straw will be somewhat wasted if Martin Skidmore thinks Jack Straw is a great guy, I guess.)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:30 (twenty-one years ago)

a 'post as anon' option strikes me as pointless - people will just carry on what they're doing now

in practice there HAS to be some censorship (legal etc.)

you make valid points Momus but again in practice, it is tiresome and circadian to witness and/or participate in the procession of trolling, spamming and flaming. to discourage it is akin to discouraging 'bad manners' or etiquette based on 'common sense' (which i'm sure you adhere to as much as anyone else in practice, regardless of the liberal compromise it may result in doing so).

not saying i'm 'right', but the effort to preserve pure freedom of discourse may mean some people will depart this place out of frustration based on their own values, resulting in a loss anyway.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:32 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - Momus i think it reminds you of Jack Straw because Jack Straw reminds us all of a school headmaster

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I like constructive silliness! I'm neutral on the devil's advocate, although I would have liked it if he'd kept that guy from becoming a saint that time.

It just seems your contrarian Momus thing would be more effective if you described the threads people want to prevent in ways that actually sounded somewhat like them.

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.badmovies.org/multimedia/moviesi/lakeplacid1.mpg (1.8m)

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, I described a ~~Kate~~ thread started by someone anonymous about her boyfriend which couldn't happen under the system being proposed here.

BTW, the one thing me, Skidmore, Blunkett and Milton all have in common is blindness, or rather, restricted vision. It's a bummer.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:39 (twenty-one years ago)

What happened to the good old days where whenever Momus said something you knew that the opposite view was good and pure and wise? Though I wouldn't want to be withou Momus for a second.

Momus, does spam annoy you? Calum et al are like spam to me - a little bit is easy enough to ignore, but once it starts clogging everything up, taking time, effort and annoyance to pick your way through it, that's when you need to do something about it.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Jack Straw reminds us all of a school headmaster

He reminds me of The Demon Headmaster, frankly.

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:43 (twenty-one years ago)

(xpost)

Replace the word "Calum" with "Barry" in that last sentence and it would be just as valid.

― Obvans, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:44 (twenty-one years ago)

hmm, only registered can START threads. eeeeee-nteresting.

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Replace the word "Calum" with "Barry" in that last sentence and it would be just as valid.

Oh, rubbish.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Alan speaks my mind here. I am intrigued by this. (Pash also speaks my mind -- it's complete rubbish.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

oh if only there was some way of knowing WHO it could possibly be...

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

And once a week someone can start a thread called "This is the thread where you can post anonymous shit, act like a troll, and generally be an ass" .. it would be like the Amsterdam of ILX.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:51 (twenty-one years ago)

would threads like this Horror comedy with lighthouse be missed, or started if reg user threadposting only was enabled?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Why is it rubbish? Why is it considered acceptable for Barry to throw his abusive weight around these boards whenever he feels pissed off but not Calum?

Standards should apply to everybody otherwise there's no point having them.

― Obvans, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:53 (twenty-one years ago)

There are flies in the room.

Do you never open the door, or do you give keys to the good and wise and not to the flies?

(Ignore me, I haven't thought this through)

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry if I sound a bit naive here, but:
Any further restrictions upon ILX would make it much less interesting, IMO.
We've already lost our ability to create new boards, and I don't even remember the reasoning behind that one.
I like the unpredictability of sometimes seeing a troll-type thread pop up on New Answers, usually good for at least a chuckle or an exasperated sigh, and I can't fathom what the real argument against them (and the ability to create "Other Boards") is besides...what? A waste of server space? The mods having to lock and delete them? Is it that big a deal? This isn't a commercial site. We're not going to lose advertising.
Is anyone seriously thinking of leaving the forum because of a few nonsense threads here and there? I have never been bothered by them in any way.
A little nonsense now and then is treasured by the wisest men etc.

Now if the day comes when it's 90% troll threads up on the New Answers pages that would be something else entirely, but that is simply not the case. The only thing I'm concerned about at all is the identity theft thing, but as was said upthread I don't think anyone has been able to completely pull it off as of yet. Ok, that's my two cents.

― From a Land of Grass Without Mirrors (AaronHz), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

who has 'Barry' been abusive to? remind me

how many 'jokey' threads and posts does 'Barry' make with the specific intention of winding people up?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Which would you click on...

Adjustible Spanners, Classic or Dud (4 new answers)

Adjustible Spanners, Classic or Dud (34 new answers, 1023 total)

Yes. And if you'd clicked 'ignore' you would possibly have missed a significalnt moment thread...

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:59 (twenty-one years ago)

neither

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 13:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think anyone has been able to completely pull it off as of yet

'ironically', it's apparently very easy to pull off masquerading as anonymous/unloggedin trolls

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I've missed a few of those significant moment threads. Somehow the world keeps turning.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Does it really matter if it's truly Calum or just someone acting exactly like Calum?
x-post

― From a Land of Grass Without Mirrors (AaronHz), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:03 (twenty-one years ago)

what if it's someone with the same username and email as the troll but insulting the troll? metageddon?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I fail to see the point of all this.

There are other message boards for those who do not find ILx stimulating. OTF and Dissensus are exactly what ILE and ILM would look like if everyone were on their "best behaviour." I think that OTF does it very well and Dissensus not quite as well, but then these are still early days for the latter. Neither possesses the speed of thought and reaction which is what I like about ILx. It provokes and stimulates.

London is often an annoying and frustratingly loathsome place in which to dwell, but would anyone really swap it for Todmorden or Woking?

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:10 (twenty-one years ago)

who has 'Barry' been abusive to? remind me

theres a litle compendium on this subject on the noise board. im not linking it tho.

― :| (....), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:10 (twenty-one years ago)

London is often an annoying and frustratingly loathsome place in which to dwell, but would anyone really swap it for Todmorden or Woking?

When it's time to settle down and have kids, y'know.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:12 (twenty-one years ago)

'Almost nothing annoys me -- in fact the one thing that really gets my goat, as you've probably noticed, is do-gooders tampering with the structure of the forum in ways that restrict the range of debate that goes on.'

very true but some ppl do get annoyed but also ilx does not have many admins.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Why don't we stop beating a pot of glue?

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

(Alba xpost)

Well that's not going to happen with me now.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:15 (twenty-one years ago)

London is often an annoying and frustratingly loathsome place in which to dwell, but would anyone really swap it for Todmorden

Gareth.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Beating a pot of glue? Some people like the smell, dan. :(

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Why don't we stop beating a pot of glue?

Ooh - I didn't even know we'd started. That sounds fun!

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

they just want to have something to do.

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:18 (twenty-one years ago)

very true but some ppl do get annoyed but also ilx does not have many admins.

ILE has two, ILM still has about 15.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Make Callum a moderator. For maximum freedom of speech.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Frog-with-mohawk, that was a shitty, snidey, passive aggressive thing to say.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

TS: going somewhere else vs trying to influence change so that you don't have to go somewhere else

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I'm not an admirer of Jack Straw. As for 'dogooders' (isn't that usually right-wing cant, Momus?) tampering with things, I'm constantly being asked to do just that as a moderator. Momus might prefer we didn't have moderation, but I think the really vicious and hateful insults need deleting. If all Calum did was start threads about which female celebrities he'd like to shag and which he thinks are fat, he would just be a trivial irritant. He becomes worse than that when he heaps insults on people; the ones aimed at me don't bother me, because he's about as incisive and accurate in spotting my faults and insecurities as when he said "You don't get out much, do you Ronan?", but some are more vicious, and indeed clearly libellous, such as when he labelled someone (using their full name, therefore googleable) a child molester.

I am getting irritated by all this, and I wish I'd not bothered opening the subject for discussion again. I feel very much like quitting as a mod right now, but that would leave just one ILE moderator, and that seems unfair on him.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

hmm, only registered can START threads. eeeeee-nteresting.
-- Jaunty Alan (AlanTrewarth...), November 9th, 2004 1:47 PM. (later)

this is the best idea ever!

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:28 (twenty-one years ago)

The alternative is to de-register everything as it stands and make posters formally apply for registration. Applications would have to be considered by moderators based on the grounds of the poster's past form and behaviour on the boards, and if these were found to be of an unacceptable standard, then registration would be refused. In this way the only people starting and contributing to threads would be people whom you could trust not to indulge in such behaviour.

Similarly more moderators would have to be appointed, and the boards moderated far more aggressively.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Right now I think there shouldn't be any moderators.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

That would be an equally valid option.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

choc chip muffins rock

a worthy, reasonable thread, deliberately devoid of an actual question in order to provoke discussion (perhaps limited to the trivial matter of the quality of chocolate chip muffins, perhaps wandering into other areas?) among willing clientele

or mindless (selfish even) regurgitation/projection of thoughts with no clear purpose other than to clog an already busy public msg board (should people feel obligated to MAKE it a question or MAKE a point behind it themselves?)

not sure there's a right or wrong answer here

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:39 (twenty-one years ago)

You could say the same thing about threads about kittens or the Junior Boys. How would you propose to de-clog a busy community? In Pol Pot fashion?

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I only support the Pol Pot-style of moderation if I am the moderator.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

all that was needed was to have changed that thread to "choc chip muffins, c/d" (or "choc chip muffins, classic or CLASSIC"), and the thread would have been accepted.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean it didn't not get "accepted"

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)

it has been accepted anyway. i just think it's a relatively interesting issue re ILX posting etiquette. personally i'd prefer it if people SAID more about something themselves (reasons, theories etc.) when starting threads. i don't expect i will lose sleep over it tho (much more important matters to lose that over right now - which may explain why i'm wasting my time on here so much)

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I have finally tired of the classic or dud gag, especially when reduced to 'c/d', or worse still 'c/d, s/d etc.'

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

weren't you tired of it a few months ago?

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:54 (twenty-one years ago)

of course we operate on a level by which someone CAN just mention something and it will be talked about (not necess. discussed tho usually that will happen too). maybe there shouldn't be a question or clear point behind a thread - leaving it freer to interpretation and expression.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I was only tired off the abbreviation. CHECK YOUR FACTS, BUCKO!

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:56 (twenty-one years ago)

tired off

I wish I were a moderator again so I could correct my spelling mistakes.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:56 (twenty-one years ago)

what would Pol Pot do?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

To avoid a Pol Pot-style Year Zero, we must learn to discuss matters on this board in a more courtly fashion.

Hence: prithee, sirrah, why hath I surfeit of choc chip muffins and why dost they not make my proud lady rock?

(Thou shalt not essay it)

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, I actually agree with Momus AND Marcello. What is this world coming to?

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:08 (twenty-one years ago)

A sign of bemusement, at the least. ;-)

I would take both Momus' and Marcello's arguments a touch more seriously, however, if they didn't have a certain 'Dammit don't you dare not let me be a shitstirrer when I want to' haze lingering behind them.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

At this point the distinction between "shitstirrer" and "ILE poster" is thin to nonexistent.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

clearly.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

By which I mean the people labelled as "shitstirrers" are as ingrained into the culture of the message board as the other posters and I'm no longer convinced that there is a way to excise "bad behavior" from ILE without sacrificing too much of the board's identity.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Having said that, the ability to mark threads as "ignore" strikes me as a good one but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

One for the coders (of which Jaunty Alan is one, I believe).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

As has been said, we all already have that ability.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Did you say something?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

the ignore thing is actually pretty feasible (instead of marking "last post you read in this thread was" we put in a value that says VAMOOSE

however, i dunno.

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Too close to adding a killfile for my liking.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Remind me again why we don't have killfiles, then? ;-)

― Masonic Laundry Boom (kate), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:52 (twenty-one years ago)

We've got a search function. :Þ

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

it struggles to cope tho

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

i was gonna ask about that.. i seem to get poxy fuled a lot more lately and i thought when the new system got put in there was a stress test done and it passed with flying colours?

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd take it personally, Ken!

― Penelope_111 (Penelope_111), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Where's a picture of Homer basting a turkey in Ned's RV when you need one.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

haw, i do.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

i agree with momus too, somewhat improbably i guess! and i've said this before but i'll say it again, calum would not be a problem if everyone and his/her brother didn't jump all over themselves to post on his threads, even if it is just to put up random images or insults.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

well as it stands people aren't going to stop doing that anymore than he's going to stop doing what he does, so....?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

so maybe we should just ban everybody

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

or put an embedded mp3 of "man in the mirror" on every calum thread

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Everyone return to your blogs and preserve your integrity!

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

So basically, Slutsky, you're saying WWJD?

(x-post after the Michael Jackson comment)

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Everyone return to your blogs and preserve your integrity!

surely a contradiction in terms

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm cool with whatever.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Now I feel like one of those hippy dudes on the Haven last night, I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no sorta thing...did you see the bit where they were meditating on the logo? And they hadn't reached a decision after a year or regular meditation sessions?

So, yes I'm in favour of registering to post, it doesn't sound that painful.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, that's what the plants and fairies told me to say.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

er, stay off the cake dude

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I like how the big threads happen during the day, and I get this bemused feeling of what's been going on here then? Oh, a thread about Star Wars, yay.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Two points:

1) I have been on several messageboards in the past where you had the option to ignore a user, rather than a thread. I think this is a better way of dealing with the snarky regulars. It will also somewhat alleviate anonymous posters, although not completely.

2) I'm curious why it's been so difficult getting some more mods for ILE. Because it seems like if we just gave mod powers to 10-15 of the top users, there'd seldom be a time when a mod wasn't available to instant zap any things.

3) Isn't the whole point of the Moderation Request to speed up mod response times, and hence avoid many of these problems?

Just my 2p.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

it's been good not being able to look at ILX over the weekend as well. maybe if i was not able to look at it for the remaining days of the week that would be even better.

xpost

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:41 (twenty-one years ago)

It will also somewhat alleviate anonymous posters, although not completely.

how do you avoid people not logged in/changing username all the time? these are the only people there is a desire to avoid/ignore it seems.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

ILX is cool on the weekend, it's super laid back, all the drunken threads get started then.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

The top users are snarky

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

would it make sense to vote on this? (Anonymmous posters don't get to vote, by the way.) ..or is everyone happy to debate shit endlessly (which is sort of the life/beauty/point of ILX..)

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha jon williams, _you_ surely are one of the top users at the moment.

There were once a lot more ile mods than there are now. it is probably one of the most frustrating and thankless tasks imaginable.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not snarky :(

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree Jel, you are surely the polar opposite of snarky.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the mods could do better with more power -- The ability to nuke all the posts from an ip in the last X minutes; ability to select and delete multiple posts from a thread. It is really annoying and slow to have to go through like 2 pages to delete one message. There is no way one mod could keep up with a troll. hmmmmm

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

how do you deal with trolling on the noise board jon? i notice you once had some troublesome europeans enquiring about patisseries in London town for example?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)

[MESSAGE EDITED BY N01Z3 DUDE DEPT OF NO1Z3L4ND SECUR1TY]

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not snarky :(

The Hunting of the Snarkies has begun

― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

* Unregistered users locked (HAHA) remove
* amateurist yellow card (stop being creepy) remove
* amateurist yellow card (诎马氓쾕醍띥쑒䒏윱ꗑၿ鮓⡣⎼鮭좠﷦ᑺ씟) remove
* Amazing Randy locked (fucko!) remove
* Anthony Miccio yellow card (cool it cocko) remove
* artdamages yellow card (watch it fucko) remove
* dog latin locked (MUTHAFUCKA\'Z GONE POSTAL) remove
* dog latin yellow card (nu-ANDSFB&PB) remove
* dubplatestyle locked (BYE BYE JACKOFF) remove
* ja=Ack_0FF locked (amazing randy) remove
* jaymc yellow card (easy tiger) remove
* Nick A. locked (\"why haven\'t I been banned?\") remove
* Poltroon locked remove
* Sheena locked (randy) remove
* Wooden yellow card (FAGGOT) remove

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)

jon's not nearly a vigilant enough mod on the noise board, that place was great until they started tolerating amateurist

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)

http://digilander.libero.it/mrn86/CARDS/MASCHERE_DI_MERCADIA/WUMPUS.jpg

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not the only moderator there!

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

If you guys unban me, I'll totally make the NOIZE BOARD interesting again. It's gotten pretty snoozy.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, never mind.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I love that the biggest enemies of the Noize Board - Nick A. and Amateurist - are the only ones concerned that it has "jumped the shark".

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I know, right? We've been texting each other all day!

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.nashville.k12.tn.us/CurriculumAwards/rural_urban_life/cindy2.jpeg

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)

the noise board makes me smile.

ILX trolls, to me, are very much like Bushvoters, in a way

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll be a mod, I'm unemployed now.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i love that the noize board has "enemies". cuteness.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm voting also for logged in users only to start threads.

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

that would backfire

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:21 (twenty-one years ago)

hey blount go fuck yourself.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not, for the simple reason that a regular poster seeking advice anonymously is stopped from doing that as being logged in kind of spoils your anonymity somewhat (unless there's a way round that, of course).

(xpost)

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Couldn't you just register another name to be only used for those particular occasions? Or am I missing something?

― Penelope_111 (Penelope_111), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, I guess you could. That'll be the solution that my small and tired brain was struggling to get to with "unless there's a way round that"...

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

not many people do the anon advice thing really do they? are there more anon advice-seeking threads than anon troll threads? mind you i'm not sure i could tell the difference anymore

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure that having to be logged in to start threads will help - anyone logged out can just revive an old thread or hijack a current one.

The arsehole who keeps insulting people everywhere under various IDs is surely strengthening the case for this. Having to register with a valid distinct email each time would surely slow him down, at the least. I've not checked how consistent his IP range is, so I don't know if he could be completely stopped by not accepting registrations from his range.

Someone suggested a vote. This doesn't seem a bad idea. Maybe I should start a new thread for nothing but voting - I'm seeing this as a way of getting another impression of the overall opinions, not as something binding on anyone or anything.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

anyone logged out can just revive an old thread or hijack a current one

but these aren't anywhere near as common as the thread-starting

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

and they're more practical. part of the complaint re what you might call 'pointless thread starting' is because of the volume and repetition of topics.

remember it wasn't so long ago when there was a 'only one thread per user per day' system supposedly in effect.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Blount - how so? Maybe I'm missing something.

Martin - I think you're right about reviving & hijacks, but I think this debate has always been about freedom vs. security, so to speak, and finding the optimal balance between the two. Requiring valid logins each time wouldn't bother me at all, but I can see where other posters might find it a bit annoying. Plus, mailinator.

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

remember it wasn't so long ago when there was a 'only one thread per user per day' system supposedly in effect.

This was always voluntary and self-regulated, and is theoretically still in effect.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)

freelance hiveminder, not many people post threads about a lot of things, but they should be allowed to if they want (or need) to. I'm not really in favour of changing ILX, except that I wish people would just ignore the trolls and stop meta-threading about it all the time (and yes, I know I weighed in on the Calum v Ken C thread, but I'm a tosser when I'm tired). This thread is probably responsible for the crap going on just now in other threads - why can't people just use their discretion as to what threads they do and don't want to read?

Martin's initial post mentioned "but various events and campaigns of objectionable behaviour have led to the moderators and most others believing this is the right step."

There are regular posters I find objectionable. This won't get rid of them. Incidentally, who are these "most others"?

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

J - i think now yr calumtorywaddell types tend to isolate themselves by begging for attention on selfstarted threads, where they are fairly easy to ignore. where they could be really troublesome is if this avenue is removed BUT they still have the option of crying for attention on other threads. if we're not going to get rid of them completely then keep them in their pins i say.

oh and dave if you want to mock a friend of mine's suicide with 'haw haw stupid southerners' jokes i will feel free to respond by telling you to go fuck yourself. i suppose that makes me the heartless asshole.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe we need a poll to find that out, now, Ailsa: there had been lots of discussion at that time in various places, and it was my strong impression at the time.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I was sticking up for southerners... And thanks for letting me know what you were referring to finally. Sorry if I offended you. I would have preferred to discuss it. Really, sorry.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

why can't people just use their discretion as to what threads they do and don't want to read?

in theory yes, but doesn't some responsibility have to be taken to stop a place becoming too much like an ISP channel chatroom? i think that's what bothers people and that's why they complain/don't just ignore it

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I blame the "this is the thread where I say" threads. They seem like a chatroom for people who don't use chat, and that ethos seems to be spilling over a bit into other threads. Though I'm probably wrong about that.

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, probably.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

how could those threads be responsible for dumb trollers?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:02 (twenty-one years ago)

In fact, I am totally wrong. Ignore me. You mean like a chatroom, not like IM don't you. Like trollers, not just people being random and chatty and stuff (it annoys me irrationally when people pop up the middle of threads going "hiya, how are you" to posters, but that's so not what you meant, I am an idiot, I hate myself and my stupid rash not-thinking-about-things mentality).

*goes off to beat self with big sticks*

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

funnily enough i find it really easy to ignore TITTWIS, tho i do like to pop in now and then - it's perfectly harmless in comparison

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

don't be so hard on yourself ailsa!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:06 (twenty-one years ago)

(Ok, i may be over-reacting slightly, but I do feel really silly now that I've thought about it properly)

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:08 (twenty-one years ago)

it's a bit like a micro-community inside a bigger community - if it didn't exist then there'd just be more threads along the lines of 'my cat died' or 'i have purchased some trousers' perhaps, but that's arguably more appealing than 'calum vs ken c' (i don't really know what i want anymore so feel free to ignore me, if you can ;)

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:08 (twenty-one years ago)

ailsa OTM.

what may annoy me (in reality, nothing actually annoys me) may not be fixable, by ANY measure.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I want more banal threads about banal things, it's my niche.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Obviously certainly e-mails could be prevented from registering. Certain domains, too, even.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm in favor of the problem being solved, and the only problem as I see it is C***m. I know the bit about fluid IPs and proxys and whatnot; is it really impossible to ban all nonregistered posters from that IP range? Forgive my ignorance, just wanting to get a definitive answer and establish my point that it's not so much about setting rules as it is about solving the problem.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't think you even need to ban IP/ranges - being forced to register might actually be enough

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I think teeny meant so that we could avoid the compulsary registration.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:37 (twenty-one years ago)

why is compulsory registration a problem again (bearing in mind it's been established it's simple for people to use multiple usernames if they wish to post 'anon' advice threads)?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)

if there is ever compulsary registration, there will be practically nothing left, to discuss.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

compulsory

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

ban me

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:45 (twenty-one years ago)

The likelihood of c*l*m being able to ab/use proxies = slim to 0 IMO.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, but we have today seen another annoying troll who is that bit cleverer than Calum (ha, setting the bar low there). Some people are very hard to keep away unless we went a lot further than anyone wants to.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

ah, I thought it was one and the same, thanks for the info. I think there are some problems with compulsory registration, but I don't think it's horrible either--I just want to stay focused on exactly what the problem is and the most effective way to solve it.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

"don't feed the troll"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

That's a good thought, but it really is easier to change a few lines of code than it is to get 100 people to change the way they're hard wired.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

That's for sure.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

DHFTT is good advice, but it's time to give up imagining that it will ever be fully implemented, and it only needs a few people to keep them fed.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

aren't the people who feed the trolls generally the ones who complain the most about them?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

can people seriously not control themselves that much?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Plainly they can't - I understand being indignant about that fact, but it is overdue that it was recognised as a fact.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I could go on for a bit about it, but basically any solution to a problem along the lines of "if only everyone were a little bit better" is complete feel-good crap. I'm more irked at this attitude when it's a political one ("the best way to save the environment is if we all do our part and recycle!") than when it comes to message boards but it's the same basic idea. While, sure, we should all be better people and not feed the trolls, this is not a case where our behavior (troll-feeding) is actually the problem that needs to be fixed. Stop the goddamned trolls instead.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i think both behaviors are problematic, honestly

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:12 (twenty-one years ago)

CASUISTRY OTM

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I understand your feeling, Slocki, but I think Casuistry has the nub of it.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Perhaps the new answers page could be changed to reflect the login or email of the poster who started the thread, since the front page already has that feature.

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

That, actually, would be a fine li'l idea.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Perhaps the new answers page could be changed to reflect the login or email of the poster who started the thread, since the front page already has that feature.

I think that might be a good idea.

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)

thirded!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:24 (twenty-one years ago)

That's been suggested before, but someone threw a hissy fit because they thought no one would read their threads.

S1ocki, variations of this thread's conversation have been going on for at least two years, which is as good a sign as any that "so stop doing that" is not a working prescription for "it hurts when I do this."

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Calum is contained, and this new "homophobic" troll is (I'm guessing) a regular having a meltdown/"proving a point". Nothing to see here, folks.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

That's been suggested before, but someone threw a hissy fit because they thought no one would read their threads.

My sympathy level runs pretty low there.

Calum is contained

*arched eyebrow*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I wasn't arguing against it -- it seems easy (I assume) and harmless even for the really broad definitions of harm that are counted against registration.

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

That's been suggested before, but someone threw a hissy fit because they thought no one would read their threads.

Two thoughts about this. First, ISTR that threads don't show up on the new answers page until somebody has responded first. Second, nobody reads my threads and I'm the one who suggested it, so there you go.

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

who does a troll harm other than those who choose to interact with it?

but Tep you can't fault the advice when it's not followed.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

First, ISTR that threads don't show up on the new answers page until somebody has responded first.

That changed ages ago. Threads that haven't been responded to are in bold on the New Answers page.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

http://kuci.org/~nraggett/nedwedding.jpg http://www.voyager.cz/otazky/kvizoveotazky/images/obrazek0216.jpg

CALUM IS CONTAINED.

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

NED, WHY ARE YOU AT A WEDDING WITH LORE?

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

He was a charming dancer, dude.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I'm right in saying that new threads don't immediately appear on New Answers, but can take up to five minutes or so. Because by that time many threads will already have received answers, I can see how people might think that unanswered threads won't appear at all.

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

That changed ages ago. Threads that haven't been responded to are in bold on the New Answers page

It did? I never see these threads. Is there a setting for this? (checks) It doesn't look like it.

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Aha! (weird xpost problem)

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.xplana.com/userimages/worf.gif

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not faulting the advice per se, but if it's clear that it's never going to just suddenly start to be followed -- what's the point of it?

(This is perilously close to the "teach kids abstinence"/"no you can't stop the fuck" argument, but there you go.)

(xpost to oops, I can't really cut and paste with this touchpad)

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

i wonder if instead of banning ips or compulsory registration if it would be possible instead to direct threads and posts from certain calumtorywaddell types to the aja/dante thread instead.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

tep is right - you can't stop the fuck

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:40 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a tempting vision (xpost)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:40 (twenty-one years ago)

but like *I* ignore him. He's harmless to me, so all this registration discussion seems silly. What exactly is this great harm being caused? I could see if Calum entered into every thread, or even just some others besides the ones he started. But, he doesn't.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:43 (twenty-one years ago)

OTMMMMMMMMM

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

And now I'm agreeing with oops and Jon. WTF DUDES?

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe we can just make ilx give calum a GOATSE background on everythread?

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes he does post on threads not his own, quite frequently, under a number of aliases. He bothers me because I have had to delete so much of his shit, when he starts throwing vicious insults around. And because the number one moaner about things, the person who has asked most for deletions and censorship is Calum - I've had dozens of whining emails from him, moaning about people returning his behaviour in kind and throwing threats around - obviously completely ineffectual ones, but it's still very tedious to deal with.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I've had dozens of whining emails from him

POST TO THREAD.

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but so what? Experience is subjective. I don't have much of a problem with anything registration would stop, either, but the fact that I don't have a problem with it has shit all to do with how many other people do, especially if their proposed solution isn't going to cause any problems for me either.

(sorry, to oops again)

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

(Why does every "solve problem X" thread require "X is not a problem for me" posts? In what goateed mirror universe does that help anyone?)

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

In what goateed mirror universe does that help anyone?

Paging Dr. Benway, please report to the center for re-grooving!

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

It's just that based on the voting thread, this isn't seen as a problem for the majority of the people on ILX, at least not a problem that needs to be solved with required registration.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think I am entitled to post private emails to a public place. Even when they are from Calum.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry Martin. I was half-kidding anyway, because I kinda knew that we would be your response!

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

But I do see Martin's points about having to moderate all this mess, so if it's really a big issue for him, I won't make a fuss about it.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, the feeling seems firmly against the registration option - something like 2-1 against, I think.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

INCREASE POWER OF MOD INTERFACE.

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

jon otm!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:03 (twenty-one years ago)

My main two reasons for not liking the idea: (a) I don't have internet from home, and am usually posting from public computers (i.e. not logging on); (b) what Nick said about various notables dropping in to talk about themselves, which is often funny. I was housesitting for a non-music semi-notable this summer and even he turned out to have an ILX page bookmarked -- I sort of enjoy this fact, and don't want to close the doors, so to speak, and make people knock to come in.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

But mostly I don't like the idea of having to log in from school computers.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin's points should be noted -- please recall that for all Calum's protestations about how he 'doesn't care, it's all a big joke, ha ha ha,' he DOES care, he DOES do stupid shit, and he DOES whine about it privately. That most haven't had to put up with that should be seen as good fortune on your part.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Does (b) ever happen on ILE? It makes sense for ILM, but I doubt the Star Wars kid or the stuck-in-a-stout-glass kitten is going to come knocking any time soon.

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:08 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - i just imagined a we3 scenario where all the kittens of ilx show up and wreck havoc!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:12 (twenty-one years ago)

how old is calum?

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't understand the "I don't want to log on because I use public computers" thing - I had to use public computers for about six months recently, and I never found logging on to be a problem.

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Tep, I'm not arguing that since it doesn't bother me nothing should be done. At this point I really don't care if there's registration or not. I'm just saying ignoring him works fine for me and don't see why it doesn't for everyone else.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Calum is something like 23, 24.

Perhaps Nabisco's post offers hope of John Cena showing up on one of the threads about him one of these days!

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Gotcha -- and, I dunno. Calum -- for example -- doesn't bother me, and I've had some pretty reasonable conversations with him, but I'd feel very differently if I were, say, Ned or Martin or Kate. (Mind you, other posters bother me more than they seem to bother others, so it's not like I'm unusually patient or anything.)

(xpost, to oops, as always!)

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i just like the idea of discourse brought to a standstill.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

The public computers thing is admittedly just laziness: sometimes in my few minutes between classes I'll look in and feel like posting something that I otherwise wouldn't, if I had to go through the extra step of logging in. Also there are other people on these terminals who are likely ILX browsers, and I have personal issues about their somehow finding me still logged in. (Especially since I have possibly said terrible things about one of them on here.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

the personal is political then, ho ho.

i can see the benefits and hazards of going either way. i voted yes, but understand ppls qualms about it. and i don't think it'll "fix" ilx either.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i think there are more amusing solutions available maybe

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Mostly a we3 scenario where all the kittens of ilx show up and wreck havoc!

― Tep (ktepi), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I am not of the opinion that registration would solve all the things that I see as bad here, obviously, but I think it would help in varioes ways. However I note that I am out of tune with a clear majority here (I'll leave the thread going for a while, as we are only getting a particular time-slice at the moment, and therefore not a fully representative sample, but I don't expect the balance to change a lot), which may well be because of my role as a moderator. I still feel rather like quitting that job, but I'll leave off making such a decision for a few days - I've not been well the last couple of days, which may have worsened my mood and had an effect on this thinking.

Backstage, we are discussing one or two alternate measures that should find wide acceptance.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 22:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I think if something is found to be a problem by a third of the users and the moderators then that trumps the two-thirds who aren't bothered by the problem.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Or do we have to wait until a majority of people think it's hella annoying?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

democracy just doesn't work

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

there's a reason why "crazy" is part of the word democrazy

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 10:47 (twenty-one years ago)

That's just cracy.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 10:49 (twenty-one years ago)

only if you spelled it that way

more pressingly, why is "emo" part of the word democracy? we need to know

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 10:49 (twenty-one years ago)

democrazy is the american spelling.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

what's so racy about democracy?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Democrazy is coming to the USA.

― Leonard Ochen for legal reasons, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 11:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, this isn't a democracy; but the people voting Yes aren't necessarily doing so because the current situation is a problem to them but not to the 'No's - they may both dislike the current situation but see different solutions, or they may both not care.

My current thinking is to leave this a couple of days at least while one or two alternate things are attempted, to see if that alleviates things enough. I hope this does work, as otherwise it means putting up with things or going against the majority wish, and maybe driving away one or two people. I'd be very pleased to be able to lose Calum's desperate idiocy, but if we'd risk losing Nabisco as a consequence, that strikes me as a price not worth paying, as he seems a far bigger plus than Calum's minus could ever be, for example.

If it isn't a democracy, who is in charge? Andrew, then the other coders, then the appointed mods, I guess.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:05 (twenty-one years ago)

the 'log in to start threads' still seems the best compromise. anyone wishing to seek advice anonymously can probably find a thread in the archives that already covers their predicament - given the vastness and range of subjects within. and that way people like nabisco can still post without logging in (not sure if nabisco has started any threads recently anyway but suspect not).

personally, trolls posting on existing threads doesn't seem to bother me half as much as when they start threads themselves - hard to rationalise i suppose.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:20 (twenty-one years ago)

All nabisco has to do is spend 30 seconds registering/signing in. Nabisco's laziness is not a justification for not making positive steps to improve ILX.

(N1tsuh you know I love you, sorry to single you out here)

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:51 (twenty-one years ago)

it's not laziness dude, it's a bit impractical for him, and others - more than it is for us.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark - I actually would have voted yes to this apart from a few months ago I registered a second username just for the hell of it. It took about four or five days to get my password emailed through.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:55 (twenty-one years ago)

that could be instantaneous surely

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark - I actually would have voted yes to this apart from a few months ago I registered a second username just for the hell of it. It took about four or five days to get my password emailed through.
-- Matt DC (runmd...), November 10th, 2004 1:55 PM. (later)

"Nowell" by any chance?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)

No it was Chantel, he told me. oops I've said too much!

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 14:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I think if something is found to be a problem by a third of the users and the moderators then that trumps the two-thirds who aren't bothered by the problem

But why should that two-thirds change the way they interact with ILX because the other third won't?

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

the vast majority of them wouldn't have to change given how so many of us log in anyway! the anti-reg thing seems too rooted to an admirable but idealistic idea that 'free speech' is being compromised too much by enforcing mandatory registration, but it's something that can't actually be PROVEN either way really.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Andrew nf to thread to point out that there isn't such a thing as free speech on ILX and he's the dictator, albeit an almost entirely benign one?

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think it will harm ILE in any significant way. It won't make a lick of difference either way, which is why I'm against it. Also, people are being overdramatic, making mountains out of molehills, and that always bugs me.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

It won't make a lick of difference either way

We won't know until it's attempted, I should note.

Claims of overdramatizing, it seems to me, misses some key points that have been raised by Martin above regarding the specific frustrations and annoyances of the work here, and that options to improve it would be welcome. For *his* sake alone, looking into what can be done is crucial. Accusing him of playing up the problems caused sounds strange to me.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Well duh it won't be known til it's done. Need I preface everything with IMO?

The problems Martin has to deal with are only problems because he, and others, view them as so. Leave up Calum's childish attacks. Who cares. What's the harm?

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

For the record though, I was not thinking of Martin when referencing the overdramatizing of problems.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Fair enough. But in terms of 'viewing problems as so,' I am also talking about the private crap he's had to deal with Calum, which he's referred to but which others seem to have ignored (largely because Martin, being a standup fellow, will not post such private mails).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin, why do you even read emails from him at this point?

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I was not thinking of Martin when referencing the overdramatizing of problems.

Well then who is overdramatizing the problems?

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Oops, some people have problems with this. That means there are problems whether you're happy as Larry or not.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin, why do you even read emails from him at this point?
Same reason ppl always respond to troll threads I suspect.

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Markleby yes I know that. I am trying to get at the root of the problem. Calum is the deepest root, but he is obviously not able to be "fixed". The next level up on the root (IMO) are those who choose to indulge Calum and let him bother them. I'm a psych major, so I am always trying to get people to alter their thinking or behavior or both in order to fix certain problems and generally make their lives run smoother. In this case, the solution seems so blindingly obvious that I can't help but urge people to follow it.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

and not only obvious, but ridiculous easy to implement.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

i'd agree that thinking of it as a problem IS the problem, but that's getting into pretty hardwired views on behaviour and values for some of us. i won't stop being annoyed by certain things, and i won't ignore them because i don't believe ignoring annoyances makes them go away (and this appears to be true here at least).

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin, why do you even read emails from him at this point?

'Cause that's part of his job? Oops, don't you think that it's possible (hell, even likely) that at some point along the way a normally sane poster will get so fed up with the trolling that he or she will post something about Calum (or another person) that actually does cause a real problem for ILX? Martin's trying to protect us all, and I submit that he's doing a hell of a job.

(xpost)

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

how can anyone be bothered by Calum (other than direct personal attacks obv.)? His jokes are just so obvious. Its almost self parody, esp. with his funny names....

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I don't J. But if that did happen, I would put at least half the blame on that poster. Everyone deals with Calum, and if everyone bar one can deal with him without causing some ILX-wide problem, well then, that's *their* problem.

Also, what function of his job is being fulfilled by reading Calum's emails? How is that protecting ILX? Just block the fucker's email. What can be gained through reading them at this point?

Jon OTM

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I appreciate Martin for doing what he does, but sorry, I'm not buying him as nobel protector of ILX, suffering so we don't have to.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Jon does it surprise you when people are bothered by you? (as you well know has happened)

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

basically, everything annoys me now. i AM barry in nyc.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Honestly, I can see me being more bothersome than Calum since I (used to) go in and try to nuke threads I hated. If you want to be annoyed by Calum for the most part you have to seek out his silly threads.

CONTROVERSIAL COLIN

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I appreciate Martin for doing what he does, but sorry, I'm not buying him as nobel protector of ILX, suffering so we don't have to.

I very much doubt Martin happens to see himself that way. NOW who's overdramatizing?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Jon, you were more annoying that Calum. I believe I let you know at the time.

I suppose if Calum does post and we can't tell it's Calum, then everyone's a winner.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, backtracking a bit:

I'm a psych major, so I am always trying to get people to alter their thinking or behavior or both in order to fix certain problems and generally make their lives run smoother.

Ah good, oops. So would you mind doing that for Calum too?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:23 (twenty-one years ago)

NO SHIT I WAS MORE ANNOYING THAN CALUM

But I was also funnier.

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, I was responding to J's post with that nobel protector post, not anything Martin said.
In case you missed it, I said Calum was a lost cause.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)

i have assumed every single anon poster asking an 'absurd' question in the last two months to be calum, who remains neither as smart nor as funny as jon based on the total of what i've read of them both on the boards (but i can't speak for their aims - i'm always trying to be smart and funny so assume they would be as well but that may not be the case).

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)

oh come on, Calum can be funny. I know even asinine personal attacks suck though.

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Did I mention that I had a dream that I was "discovered" as an outsider artist for my messageboard fuckery and got some gallery show where people could read threads I derailed / embedded shit in, etc

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Did I mention that I had a dream that I was "discovered" as an outsider artist for my messageboard fuckery and got some gallery show where people could read threads I derailed / embedded shit in, etc

i sometimes think cmang had the same idea. the persistence of the 'nicky wire banana suit' thing was almost funny but if someone annoys me with their behaviour and approach then i'll just be even more stubborn when it comes finding anything they write amusing.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 17:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I appreciate Martin for doing what he does, but sorry, I'm not buying him as nobel protector of ILX, suffering so we don't have to.

It's such a pleasure to come home and read things said about you like this. For the record, since I took up the role as moderator, I have felt pretty obliged to respond to requests, even if it's with a no. When someone is threatening legal action against the board, ignoring that person doesn't feel like an option I can take - I know Calum is an idiot and no direct threat, but even someone like him might try something, and no one wants that. Are you suggesting that as a mod I am in a position to ignore requests for action over things Calum says too? If he used your real name and said you were a child molester, in a place that is googleable, would you really not want that removed? Would the thought of friends/prospective dates/employers finding that not worry you? He may not bother you, but he has bothered a lot of people, and you can feel as superior as you like about that, but it's still a fact.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:02 (twenty-one years ago)

you've been very diligent as a mod from what i can see Martin - you should know it's appreciated by the majority.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I dig your moderating work, Martin. It's because I'm impressed with what you do that I volunteered as a mod upthread, though I received no response.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin is a fair, even-handed and reasonable moderator. It's a job I could never do.

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

We had Calum in the hills of Tora Bora and you guys were more concerned with fundraising to get a new server.

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

The creation of mods has for some time been up to Andrew - I hope he will consider creating at least a few more, as then I would feel able to take a break, as I am really pretty tired of it. I'm not after appreciation or anything, I'm just doing something for a site that has given me a lot, but I do get frustrated when I just become the subject of unpleasantness for doing this.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)

You really do need more mods. You'll probably find that with more people sharing the load, Calum doesn't seem like such an annoyance.

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:24 (twenty-one years ago)

You'd be wrong there.

I don't want to accuse anyone of defending Calum -- I don't think he has any defenders. Neither do I want to reduce things down to a 'walk a mile in my shoes' argument, tempting though it is.

The fact remains that the key moderator of this board has now explicitly spelled out exactly what kind of problem Calum is and can be, Calum's hypocrisy in professing to 'not care' about the board only to badger someone about it constantly when he doesn't get his way, and that for all the complaints about him being 'just' a troll he spews a lot more damaging idiocy than many seem to understand -- and complains that it's *him* that is hard done by, it is *him* who is constantly bothered by people who don't 'get the joke,' and that it is EVERYONE ELSE BUT HIM who has to adhere to his way of doing things, and that those who apparently don't find that to their way of thinking don't deserve his alleged respect.

Well, fuck that noise. I salute the astounding patience and excuses many seem to grant his actions, I apologize for not being you in that regard. But I am tired of it.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

If it's that bad then get on with the registration then. The vote has already gone against it, so steal that election and go after Bin Laden or don't.

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)

That was worthy of Momus. And in this case that is NOT a compliment.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha, you got Momused, Dean.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it says more about you than it does me that you think I'm trying to act superior. If you don't want some random moron to say awful shit about you, maybe you shouldn't have used you real name. Calum only hurts you and others because you have made it possible for him to.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Oops, as a psych major, you have the subtle charm and tact of Vince Lombardi.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

If you don't want some random moron to say awful shit about you, maybe you shouldn't have used you real name.

"If you didn't want to be raped you shouldn't have worn that short skirt!"

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

(This is besides the fact, Oops, that your post is complete nonsense that has nothing to do with the situation Martin is describing. I hadn't realized that the moderators of the board should be completely anonymous and unknown so that way nobody knows who to address questions to.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't even know if registered users is a good idea, but Oops's argument here is total bullshit.

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

there are simpler and much more effective ways of going after calum tory waddell that would have no impact on any other ilxors. i can think of several actually.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

What I want to know is, where does Sullivan stand on this Calum business?

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

further to the left than you I'm sure

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:53 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean one reason to keep tabs on republicans is so you don't accidentally spend half your time parroting them. you should look into this (might take a hit on your bank account though).

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Xposting back a bit

Sharing these alternate suggestions is always a good idea.

(I don't just mean giving a basic outline and I'm not targetting you, Mr. Blount. I am merely noting that a lot of the objections and alternate proposals never get followed up on. They MIGHT be if people who have specific ideas/knowledge/computer awareness actually wrote something up and sent it to Andrew, Martin, etc.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - e-mail me ned!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:56 (twenty-one years ago)

or better yet go on slsk real quick!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Noted. ;-)

And I am quite serious. Apologies now for the singling out a bit, but, for instance, Jon Williams has constantly suggested an alternate approach and we all know he knows computers. If he's been waiting for someone to ask him directly, well, I'm a mod for ILM and *I* am asking. So there ya go.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

(No slsk at work, I'm afraid.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I have a degree in psychology and I think oops is being a cock.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

and we all know he knows computers

ha ha, he's a NERD

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:02 (twenty-one years ago)

A better nerd than I!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:02 (twenty-one years ago)

(And since this isn't a democracy in any way, the "vote" was more like marketing research than anything binding.)

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I also have a degree in religion and I think Martin is a god among men.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I have a degree in philosophy and I think

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:05 (twenty-one years ago)

further to the left than you I'm sure

Well, at least we are all democrats. And the vote has been counted. Voila!

(And since this isn't a democracy in any way, the "vote" was more like marketing research than anything binding.)

Oh. I may have spoken too soon.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Do any of you seriously think I give a fuck about tact? Ned, do you think I aim to achieve your inoffensive milquetoastness?

Obviously, Calum is an asshole and worthy of scorn. All I'm saying is one should be aware that the world/internet is filled with such people and thus one should act with that knowledge in mind.

Nicole, your analogy is WAY more shit than my "argument", which isn't really an argument at all.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Nicole, your analogy is WAY more shit than my "argument", which isn't really an argument at all.

I'll say.

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Now I just did. Idiot.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

"I know you are, but what am I?"

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Why don't we take a vote on whether the vote was really a vote or just market research?

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:14 (twenty-one years ago)

This is the part where I chime in to say that my suggestion above had nothing to do with Calum really but just so I could bascially get the computer to remember for me which threads oops and kenan started posting to so I could stop clicking them in moments of absent-mindedness.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Lets vote on whether this is a community problem or a personal problem.

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Let's also vote on the bigger nerd - Jon or Ned.

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:16 (twenty-one years ago)

That hurts me Tom, cause I really like you and think you're a great presence around here.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.fantasyland.co.th/images/violin.jpg

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I like Tombot's suggestion a lot and will be happy to implement it if someone gives me access to the codebase.

― Paul Eater (eater), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

hi, paul!

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:30 (twenty-one years ago)

p.s. oops is an asshole

now, everyone's happy!!

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i have to say if the 'votes' are just completely disregarded that really is a huge 'fuck you' to the overwhelming majority of ilxors.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:32 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.stephenbell.net/images/bush-saddam.jpg

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Blount, even if registration was implemented despite the vote, that's not the same thing as "the votes being disregarded".

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

doing something is the opposite of not doing anything.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:36 (twenty-one years ago)

The assumption that the votes would be disregarded has been started here and for no very good reason. At no point has either Martin or Andrew said or even implied, "It's going in and fuck you all."

This said, my point -- that there is still a problem being willfully ignored or explained away without resolution -- remains. Thus my own point about *inviting other suggestions* -- and Paul, if you're serious, I suggest contacting both Andrew or Martin directly.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

more willful ignorance, please.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

ned check yr e-mail

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Read it, thanks. Will pass it on.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, Jon has already offered his suggestion -- more powerful moderation tools, that would be able to delete more than one post at a time. Something that would allow you to move faster than the trolls, so to speak.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Duh yeah I'm an asshole, but I have a lot of company.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:41 (twenty-one years ago)

: )

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:42 (twenty-one years ago)

If you all weren't such incredible assholes with such large, fragile egos (ie. phonies) and huge chips on your shoulder, none of this would be a problem.

― Super Truthteller, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:43 (twenty-one years ago)

That's true, but I don't know about super true.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:44 (twenty-one years ago)

RJGAY

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm going to ignore everything that's been said since my last post and resubmit my suggestion that the "new answers" page be modified to state the name of the poster who started the thread.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Because otherwise you may click on a thread from some unsavory character and POOF 5 whole seconds are lost!

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, my employer would prefer that my lost productivity at least makes me a bit happier.

― jushinthunderliger (deangulberry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Oops, five seconds without you sounds like a *really* good time right now.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:53 (twenty-one years ago)

well then get up from your computer. do you need instructions on that?

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Why don't you give them to me? Might be more productive then your other contributions to this thread.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Fuck being productive. Seriously, you know I'm going to post on this thread, so why do you keep on clicking on it? Find the answer and you will be close to solving the great mystery of ILE.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

My cock is bigger than both of yours.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

BNWAY

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Prove it Nick!

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Ask your mom, she'll tell you.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously, you know I'm going to post on this thread, so why do you keep on clicking on it?

Well, see, after this post I won't. But I think it's worth pointing out that you've derailed my participation in a perfectly good thread, something that was relatively important to the board as a whole. And maybe my suggestions and comments weren't any good anyway, but I was trying to be positive in the spirit of things. I was trying to empathize with Martin's situation, since I'm not a mod, don't really have either the patience or the time to be one, but I really appreciate what he does. You, on the other hand, can't seem to see the validity of any opinions past your own nose. Which, of course, is why I would like my suggestion to be implemented. Shockingly, Calum doesn't bother ME MUCH EITHER, but there are others who do. Can you guess who one of them might be?

Anyway, I made my point and I'm off to other threads.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not arguing that since he doesn't bother me, nothing should be done. I don't know how many times I have to say that before it registers.
Also, I am indeed attempting to get a handle on others opinions. That is why I have been asking what exactly the harm is, why people are handling the situation the way they are, etc. Nothing anyone has said has convinced me that the problem couldn't be solved at their end (even though obviously they aren't the base cause of the problem) rather on ILX-as-a-whole's end.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

This is the thread where you call out another ILE poster for having sand in his/her vagina

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I've just had a careful read thru this entire thread again (yes really) and it seems one of the crux of the issue here is simply clash of personalities. Some of you bring up other posters as an example of what you'd like to be able to ignore/killfile, others insist person A or B is a troll or annoying. And yet in the same breath, other posters will sit back and think "that person's annoying? Since when?"

Example: the Calum/Ken C thread, quite a few on that were genuinely baffled by accusations Ken was in any way a nuisance (myself for one). Tom above says he'd love to ignore Kenan and Oops, yet I quite like engaging in conversation with both of them. OTOH, I personally get frustrated by the vicious invective and "stop soiling OUR board you wastrels" attitude which seems to come from the "oldskool" and mostly the UK guys (a few others as well). But that is my own reaction to them, and others probably think they're fine upstanding ILXors.

A lot of you hate the TITTWIS and Mongrels threads. Fine, but within those threads we never have any pointless trolling, arguing or nastiness! So what are we doing wrong exactly?

It also came to light recently that several regulars apparently think I am "fucking annoying" for reasons I'm not sure about. But thats fine, now I now this, I can steer clear of 'em.

So all in all, its horses for courses really. EVERYONE is going to find someone who annoys the crap out of them at some point, and the only true exception to this in my mind is vrey obvious disruptive work such as embedded files that crash browsers, or libellous full name/posting addresses type of crap that could actually be taken to court.

All else is just sound and fury - chose the parts you want of it.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

(hahahaha I now wonder how many chats are about how useless I am! I hope all of them, because that means it's all about MEEEEEEEEEEE.)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)

That Darn Perry is often the topic of conversation.

― Leon the Fratboy (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Trayce otm.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

the above arguments have been going on for so long now, that it seems peculiar that they are still going on. I can't remember the last time somebody took issue with the TITTWIS or Mongrel threads to be honest.

I don't read them really, or mind them, I read alot less of ILX in general but I do hang around a bit, I guess I still really like ILM.

The point I'm trying to get at I think, is that I can't shake the feeling that the boards are as much defined by all the conflicts in this thread, and the ones Trayce discusses, as much as anything else.

I'd almost go as far as too say ILE has become a sort of micro-world.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, sure people talk about non-meta stuff, but it's as if the board exists in our interpretation of each other and peoples insecurities and anger as much as anything else right now.

I mean why else would there NEED to be threads like all the sort of clubhouse ones? And again I'm not criticising, it's kind of fascinating really, the transition from small web community to THE SIMS.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

ILE has become a sort of micro-world.

Like Lilliput!

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the fact that there's a borad topic to talk about on ILM makes it that much more impervious to The Horrifying Meta Wars. I Love Everything isn't about anything so it ends up being about itself; ie the people who post to it.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the fact that there's a borad topic to talk about on ILM

http://www.decipher.com/startrek/cardlists/deepspacenine/images/borad.gif

"So, what do you think of St. Etienne and Pulp?"

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

(alternately)

http://www.shillpages.com/dw/story/d6/st--6y14.jpg

"50 Cent is a genius! Everybody knows this."

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Love Everything isn't about anything so it ends up being about itself

This is a cool analysis - it's a good piece of writing, I mean.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I Love Everything is about everything.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

All nabisco has to do is spend 30 seconds registering/signing in.

OK I don't really give a shit either way but dude just said he was posting from a public computer. Have any of you bothered to look at the cookies for ILX? Unless they've been altered recently, there is a VERY GOOD REASON to not want to log in at a public computer. So sitting there acting like this is laziness on the part of some regular who doesn't want to log in is kind of asinine.

But like I said, I don't give a shit. I wouldn't utilize a feature to ignore threads cos I've mostly managed to do that just fine, but if the mods are all ok with the idea and others would, whatever, do it, who gives a shit.

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0445/041110_music_noise.php

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, Mao Tse Tung announced the Chinese Cultural Revolution in 1958 with the slogan 'Let a thousand flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend'. It turned out it was all a trick to see who was against him; the 'contending schools' were rounded up and shot or sent to re-education camps.

What's nice is that on ILE it's totally the other way around. The title of this thread might as well say 'It has been decided that we shall cut the flowers and end the contention'. From there, everything blossoms and no-one agrees. And it turns out that nothing has been decided after all.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Next time I post something about the danger of stored cookies that blatantly list your password on them, remind me to phrase it in terms of a story about Lech Walesa's ascention to the Polish presidency.

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the plaintext cookie issue isn't that big a deal...

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:06 (twenty-one years ago)

hahahahahahahaha jon wins

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Regardless of whether or not you personally think it's a big deal (I log in from public computers all the time), can you not see why some people might wish not to do this?

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

By the way, the phrasing of the title of this thread was deliberate - I started it at a bad time, and intended it to throw a scare into some people, in the hope that some of the bad behaviour would stop without any such move being actually needed.

There are things on this thread that have made me think hard about my position here - not so much the occasional attack, since they have come from people I already had no great respect for, but for instance Ned's supportive posts, about giving great weight to my perspective. You see, I think I am entitled to a different perspective because being a moderator enforces that - you have to pay attention to all the abuses and all the upset they cause, and they really do - but I think I let that influence me unduly in reviving this issue. I think I've developed too skewed a perspective, and that has led me to start a lot of fuss over this, and I think that was a mistake - and the very clear majority against mandatory registration demonstrates that, I think.

I've been a moderator too long, especially in the last several months when there have only been two ILE mods. I have therefore tendered my resignation, and will stop as soon as anyone else is appointed (I don't want to leave just one mod here). I hope I'm clear that this is not out of pique or anything, but is because I think my judgement is deteriorating, and that means I shouldn't be a mod.

On a more selfish level, it will be nice to be on a level playing field again - I have at times felt slightly inhibited in getting overtly angry at others when I have that extra power (my revulsion for bullying has been mentioned many times, so I shy away from approaching it myself). Once I'm not a moderator I can tell someone like, to take a totally random example, Oops, that he's someone I'd be delighted to see off this board, without any implied threat backing up my side of the argument.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:11 (twenty-one years ago)

guess what you can do.

logout.

xpost

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Ally: did you know that your ilx password is sent OVER THE INTERNET

in PLAINTEXT!!!

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sorry to hear that Martin.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, you don't abuse your "power".

I don't like sarcasm.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

martin

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I am too, but it sounds like you're doing the right thing best for you here -- and that's what matters!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Indeed, I'm not sorry for you - it sounds like what you want. Just sorry for us to lose a great moderator.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Jon I'm only forgiving you for being an ass because that Jess link is funny. I don't see how pointing out what I already know makes the argument invalid: someone might not want to log in BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT PLAINTEXT COOKIES BROADCASTING THEIR PASSWORD TO ALL THE WORLD, I really don't see what's wrong with that opinion or why it means someone is lazy. Why the hell are you defending Mark C?

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:15 (twenty-one years ago)

oh and Martin I'm sorry you feel that way. Who is even a moderator now then?

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe Sean is the other current mod (beyond Andrew as uber-mod).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin -- I said waaay upthread that I've always found you very fair, and I'm sorry to hear you won't continue.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's just andrew.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

crosspost

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't wait til you're not a mod, Martin, so you can tell me that! In the meantime you can continue to hit on Luna!

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I DONT SEE ANY POINT ABOUT PLAINTEXT COOKIES. PUBLIC COMPUTERS CAN HAVE KEYSTROKE LOGGERS

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, hey, at least this thread has led to me reading that Jess piece, which is fucking great.

― RickyT (RickyT), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it coincidence though that I had the idea this morning to use the noise board to post a practice proof-of-concept using a redirect to see if I could get mac.com to host a cookie grabber page and collect a bunch of logins?

that's the problem with the plaintext password field in the cookie. at least make it a simple hash?

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

whoa, hang on tom, how would you get those cookies again?

obviously anyone with mod access to ilx could put some nasty javascript in to steal them....

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

haha whoops, there goes my admin rights on the noise bored. i never used them anyway except to change the FAQ!

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Martin, your even hand will surely be missed, but I think you muchly deserve a rest! :)

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

TOM, is that what you did? or is there really an issue that non admins can do this

Did you actually do it?

― Spinning Down Alone You Spin Alive (ex machina), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:41 (twenty-one years ago)

HAHA dude I done told you. Why u break my heart all the time and not listen to me?

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Personal attacks really fucking suck.

― luna (luna.c), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, they don't necessarily; I'm pretty sure not many people around here have problems with personal attacks levelled against, say, George Bush or Calum.

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Wednesday, 10 November 2004 23:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah ok, but ones specifically citing me in them do. Is that better?

― luna (luna.c), Thursday, 11 November 2004 00:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait, someone insulted you? Lemme attem!

― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 11 November 2004 00:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Nicholas Currie, stop trying to drive Ned into the arms of Andrew Sullivan, you pervert.

James Blount, stop calling Nick a Republican. It is only accurate in a lowercase UK context.

I can't believe that Martin has been absorbing all the crap he has for as long as he has, in view of other factors in his life.

AIM correspondents would do well to remember that nothing good EVER comes of whinging about people behind their backs, especially when you haven't *faced* them. I think all of us would be disappointed to be singled out in this way, or disappointed in someone who might do so, especially if the person seriously falls in your estimations as a result. Life's hard enough.

― suzy (suzy), Thursday, 11 November 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Nicholas Currie, stop trying to drive Ned into the arms of Andrew Sullivan, you pervert.

A distressing prospect indeed. For a start, I hate beards. ;-)

(Is this where I bring up all the Talking Points links I post as well or would that upset the portrait painted?)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 November 2004 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

No I didn't actually do it, one because we were really busy this morning trying to track down all the workstations that had PORT 6667 OPEN on them and I would have had to go and read a lot of documentation to make sure I did it right. There's no way to my knowledge that a non-admin could do it ON ILX but any number of other methods could grab the cookie with yr login data without you having to be redirected from ILX itself, do you see what I mean? plaintext password storage for ANYTHING is DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB which is why I am looking forward to OS X Tiger with its encrypted swap file feature. Actually that's just paranoid but it's kind of nice knowing that a person who physically stole my laptop still wouldn't be able to steal me pot o' gold.

Two main security concerns for ILX, the only two as far as I can tell:

1. Repudiation (identity theft issues, being able to post and then say it wasn't you, or post as someone else)

2. Key Escrow (related to the above vis a vis the plaintext cookie problem and how posters are identified to the server)

without solutions to these mandatory logon is a no-go, IMO.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 11 November 2004 01:09 (twenty-one years ago)

MARTIN check yr e-mail. Or if you see this first, look at the "administer board" page (link on main ILE page), at the bottom of the page.

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 11 November 2004 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Ally, does logging out not delete the cookie? If not, then I accept that I misunderstood the way they work and it does make a difference.

But if Jon wants to agree with me, let him, do? It might not happen again.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 11 November 2004 11:22 (twenty-one years ago)

i think we should have one completely partisan and omnipotent moderator rampaging through ILX and deleting/altering anything that doesn't personally interest him or her. They could change every month, like special directors brought in to produce one-off episodes of Columbo.

the main thing you get from this thread is that ilx's problem lies with people not much liking each other and really not being able to let it go.

― debden, Thursday, 11 November 2004 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Excellent suggestion!

― Penelope_111 (Penelope_111), Thursday, 11 November 2004 11:38 (twenty-one years ago)

**can't believe that Martin has been absorbing all the crap he has for as long as he has, in view of other factors in his life.**

Suzy OTM totally.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Thursday, 11 November 2004 11:44 (twenty-one years ago)

dude likes to punish himself

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 11 November 2004 11:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, dude just doesn't want to let his friends down, seen? One of the reasons people are being glib about the impact of trolls in their life v. other posters' is that M heads them off at the pass so they don't impact on us. Once again basic common sense defeats Internet; a bit of perspective might be nice.

I have, in the past, put the shits up trolls. Examples:

We'll follow your IP address to your workplace and make a complaint with HR (sorry Doomie but it did work!)
Spamming now against the law.
Identity theft completely against the law.
Stalking against the law.
Abusive human with OCD, it's really easy to find the guys who show up with butterfly nets and send them to visit you because you are a danger to yourself and others.

Also one good reason NOT to respond to persistent unpleasantness is to establish a pattern of unbidden spamming/abusive emails from one individual, building a case of one-sided abuse which is theoretically pursuable legally (there is actually only one time I felt that ILX should have done this). That might sound like a mallet hitting an ant but if you're the ant, you learn to avoid the mallet or you just get squished.

― suzy (suzy), Thursday, 11 November 2004 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Alan, are you suggesting I should appoint new mods (can't pick up home email while at work)? I kind of feel that's overstepping the mark. I'm happy to join in any admistrators' discussion of potential mods.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 11 November 2004 12:18 (twenty-one years ago)

What about going down the Have I Got News For You route and hiring a different celebrity moderator every week? Get some objective judgement from someone who's outside the catchment area.

Next week ILxor will be moderated by: Natasha Kaplinsky

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 11 November 2004 12:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Week after: Insane Clown Posse.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 11 November 2004 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)

ok discuss over on mod discuss if you like, but in short I don't believe that it really is overstepping the mark. who better to appoint mods on ILE than the moderator who knows ILE (and the behaviour of its regulars) the best?

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 11 November 2004 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Also Martin has been OTM (and a living saint, not that that's news)throughout, as have the other people who have pointed out that Martin is OTM.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 11 November 2004 12:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Alan's point is a fair one, so I will think about this. I would like more volunteers, please.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:00 (twenty-one years ago)

:-)

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:03 (twenty-one years ago)

The phrase OTM really does underline that we're living in an 'attention economy' where attention is the new money.

Now, did I ever tell you my theory that society has become a struggle between decent liberals who claim a pompous universalistic disinterest on the one hand, and narcissistic yet humbly situated people who think of themselves as 'The Other', on the other?

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Alan's point is a fair one, so I will think about this. I would like more volunteers, please.
Heh, obviously none of the volunteers are up to scratch!
(Before anyone jumps at me again, I volunteered too & I'm including myself!!)

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Wooooooaaaaaaaaahh, "The Other"? Eh? Eh? Knowhorrimean, missus? Corrrrrrr.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Which one are you? or is the struggle internal? (xpost)

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:08 (twenty-one years ago)

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:11 (twenty-one years ago)

does momus like a bit of sport? SAY NO MORE

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:20 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I don't remotely think that none of the volunteers so far are up to it, but I want a few names to discuss with other administrators - I am inclined to appoint more than one new mod, as I think our numbers have been too low.
I was actually joking here Martin.
On a serious note though, is the appoinment of new mods solely the decision of the existing mods?

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, it seems to be. That isn't to imply that the opinions of others won't be taken into account, because they will be, but for instance the coders and site administrators, Andrew most of all, have a clear power of veto. It's only me and them who can appoint them, and the administrators can then remove their privileges at will, so de facto this is the case.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 11 November 2004 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Two more points.

1) Why does no one talk seriously and in depth about simply making a larger number of mods? I think 10 regular mods is much more powerful than one or two super-mods.

2) When someone yells "Fire!" in a theater, we don't worry about their right to free speech anymore, nor do we commend them for the other times in their life when they've used free speech wisely. We exile them from the main community and put them in jail. (Okay, realistically it's probably probation, but just follow me here...) Don't go excusing people's gross missteps just b/c they do occasionally have something of value to say.

In a community of hundreds, we are having regular problems with a very very small percentage of people. The solution is not to hog-tie everyone else en masse to a registration system which they don't really want. The solution is to deal with that small percentage of people who aren't behaving within acceptable standards. We have standards, we publish what they are. Logically, that means that we can and will enforce them, and that anyone disobeying them does so at their peril. So punish them, and not the rest of us.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 11 November 2004 14:00 (twenty-one years ago)

admittedly (HA!) i didn't expect this amount of opposition to registration-only, but you've not suggested what you think the best way of punishing is.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 11 November 2004 14:02 (twenty-one years ago)

well if the largest concern is Calum's libel, shouldn't he be threatened with legal action?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 11 November 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

no, he threatened to sue blount and we all just laughed at him, so it would be hypocritical

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 11 November 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

(but who are these people who would see "martin is a child rapist" on the internet and think "REALLY! Well I'll be!")

xpost who cares about being hypocritcal when it comes to calum?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 11 November 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Somehow in my twisted brain, this makes me think that we should go to an Iraqi bulletin board and start attacking posters there. Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here...

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 11 November 2004 15:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Punishment can vary anywhere from having an option to ignore certain users (whereby their posts within threads are blocked, without having to shutdown otherwise useful threads), to severe IP and username blocking. Is anything 100 percent? No. Is some more useful than others? Yes. Some (like the ignore option) could be customized so that individual users can private select whom they wish to skip over, while other more extreme punishments would be solely a mod-reserved power.

Obviously these are just some suggestions and procedure and choice of action needs to be brainstormed first, but I don't see why these aren't at least the start of a debate over implementation of selective moderating, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach which, to my knowledge, has had very few second lines of defense proposed yet, and which is already acknowledged is largely unsupported and highly circumventible to a fair degree.

We should also accept the fact that any forum or messageboard of significant size is going to be trolled and abused no matter what. The question is what is the scale and nature of the problem in relationship to the board as a whole, and what do the answers to those questions warrant in terms of a response. Given what I've heard and seen on this board, I have a hard time believing that the problems here warrant a registered-users-only response.

And once again, I would like to have some discussion about the matter of simply having a greater number of part-time mods, rather than a few seemingly full-time mods. No wonder Martin wants to step down. No one should have to feel like they need to be around so often just to moderate - if we have 10-15 moderators all from among the frequent posters, it seems reasonable to believe that there will be redundancy, high responsivity, and less of a feeling of the job as a burden, since it will be shared among that many more people.

As I've said before, we have a Moderation Request button - this was done to expedite moderation problems, and seems to work well. Why not supplement it with more people to respond to it?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 11 November 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

who cares about being hypocritcal when it comes to calum?

don't want to appear 'no better' than he

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 11 November 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Oops, despite my not saying anything of the sort, you seem to be assuming that Calum accused me of that - it wasn't me. All the things he has levelled at me have been so obviously spectacularly wide of the mark that I've not generally felt the need to even refute them, let alone delete them. (The most recent was that, unlike him, I clearly have no ability to sustain successful long relationships with women. When he has been married for more than the 23 years I can claim, that might carry a little weight, but this seems unlikely to happen. I've also been accused by him of having no interest in sex, and too much interest in sex to the exclusion of real relationships.)

Yes, someone could sue him for libel - he has left himself open to that a couple of times. That's up to the targets of his attacks.

I don't suppose most people would take a statement like that seriously, but employers and potential dates do google people these days, and it doesn't seem implausible that someone who came across that might decide to play safe, on the off chance that there could be some basis to it, and not date/employ the person accused. It's certainly not unreasonable to want that possibility removed. I think if someone aimed it at me I would go straight to legal action, as it would be about as simple a win as you could imagine.

xpost with Girolamo: some of these things have been tried or discussed and found impractical to implement. Some are still being tried. This has by no means been the first or only thing we have considered. For instance, Calum was on a floating IP shared with some regulars, so we couldn't block the IP. We block a username, and he just posts under another. It really isn't that easy.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 11 November 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with Girolamo 100%

Didn't someone upthread say Calum posted that about you? Perhaps I'm misread.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 11 November 2004 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

2. Key Escrow (related to the above vis a vis the plaintext cookie problem and how posters are identified to the server)

Ignoring the high levels of Brentism in that, it's kida funny as I used to post messages to G about the same damm thing. I suppose it should get fixed someday.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 11 November 2004 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I said Calum posted it about someone, without naming them (which would just be compounding the initial offence), and you assumed it bothered me because it was about me.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 11 November 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

The 'brentism' is an unfortunate side effect of my workplace combined with the night school program. I realize it's horrendous.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 11 November 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

It's the 'vis a vis' and the textbook language. Doesn't mean your not right. But some folks have already tried varous things with javascript since the beginning.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 11 November 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Whomever starts a thread should be able to restrict that thread only to registered ilxors or leave it open to all, at their discretion. For those bothered by trollism, they can start trollfree threads and for more freewheeling live-and-let-troll types, they can start threads free to all comers. The basic format on this board is a question with responses and commentary so why not let the poser of the question decide the thread format?

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 11 November 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

some of these things have been tried or discussed and found impractical to implement. Some are still being tried. This has by no means been the first or only thing we have considered. For instance, Calum was on a floating IP shared with some regulars, so we couldn't block the IP. We block a username, and he just posts under another. It really isn't that easy.

Can you go into a bit more depth?

Also, what's to stop Calum from, say, stockpiling a bunch of usernames for a good troll session down the line?

What I'm saying is that instead of trying to automate all moderation issues to banning procedures that are relatively hands-off and less time-demanding, I think that successful mod'ing involves a very hands-on in-the-trenches approach. But that means more mods, b/c I certainly don't expect one or two people alone to enforce the board in its overwhelming entirety. A dozen though, sure. I imagine it's easier to recruit people for the job when they know that they'll be working with a fairly large crew, too.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 11 November 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, what's to stop Calum from, say, stockpiling a bunch of usernames for a good troll session down the line?

nothing, except that would be INCREDIBLY sad and effectively prove the point that he needs this place more than he lets on - and more than anyone else here

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 11 November 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, what's to stop Calum from, say, stockpiling a bunch of usernames for a good troll session down the line?
nothing, except that would be INCREDIBLY sad and effectively prove the point that he needs this place more than he lets on - and more than anyone else here

Sadly, he's already done this.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 11 November 2004 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

hahaha calum robert waddell really did that?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 11 November 2004 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)

He has a bunch of different logins? Because if so, I have this wacky, off-the-wall idea...

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 11 November 2004 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

If I remember right most of these are his. Though he usually denies it, as he does with his other 'characters'.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 11 November 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Cripes. Combined with his pleading letters, he's way more obsessed that anyone guessed. I knew all the 'get a life!' comments in my direction were defensive...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 November 2004 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Arafat's dead: 108 new answers.

Calum lives: 523 new answers.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Number of sites having to deal with our little problem: 1
Number of sites blaring Arafat's death to the masses: ???

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

My dear Momus, you seem okay at the idea that your compatriot challenger of bulletin board mores might not be so fascinating a fellow traveller as all that. I salute your patience at not wanting to admit your error.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

If Mr C is successfully banished (which I very much doubt) I'm afraid I will be very tempted to take over the job myself. I'm a great believer that things are always falling apart at about the same rate. After all, it's the second law of thermodynamics. I'm just not looking forward to having to start all those threads about Nicky Wire and a bananaskin.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry what's the second law of Thermodynamics again?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Entropy, or the tendency of things to fall apart after slipping on a cosmic bananaskin.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sure somewhere, someone at sometime has played a Mozart symphony on a kazoo.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 11 November 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread has been locked by God.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 11 November 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh wait, it hasn't. Sorry.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 11 November 2004 23:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Can you go into a bit more depth?

Not really, for two reasons: 1) I'm not the person doing these technical things, so not expertly informed on all details, and 2) I don't think we should give away everything we try here, as informing The Enemy (and I don't mean just one person there) of all your weaponry is bad strategy.

We did have lots of active moderators at one point. It did have its advantages, but it certainly had its problems too, which was what led to Andrew cutting it right back again.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 12 November 2004 13:16 (twenty-one years ago)

those who don't like having to log in or censored posts, please go here http://ilcman.proboards38.com

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 12 November 2004 13:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Woo, the one thousandth post I claim!

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 12 November 2004 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)

We'll follow your IP address to your workplace and make a complaint with HR (sorry Doomie but it did work!)

no, actually, it didn't suzy. i just told HR that the person phoning this info in was a 'gay stalker' - that - unfortunately - he had been doing everything within his power to destroy my life. ala enduring love. cue: semi-breakdown in hr offices. cue: 'informant' being told off and threatened with police action. do i think this is the way to go? no. and did i think this was right? no.

― doomie x, Saturday, 13 November 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

We'll follow your IP address to your workplace and make a complaint with HR (sorry Doomie but it did work!)

no, actually, it didn't suzy. i just told HR that the person phoning this info in was a 'gay stalker' - that - unfortunately - he had been doing everything within his power to destroy my life.

It also depends on where the person works. Like, is there even an HR department or does this person work with friends in a loft space? Or often from a laptop by pointing it out the window and riding "free internet" from offices across the street? Or perhaps this person gets free internet from "a friend" at a small local ISP? Perhaps all of the above?

TIPS FOR OFFICE STIFFS:
Doomie's gay stalker cover-up is pretty extreme and unbelievable. I doubt anyone would have to offer anything beyond, "not me" to convince their coworkers, unless the look of guilt and paranoia is plastered all over hir face. Keep all your personal bookmarks on http://del.icio.us/ and trash your browser history whenever you are done using the internet. Always use open proxies; there are good ones that are just as fast as your regular connection and can be found using Google. You can also chain a couple of proxies together and you can find instructions for this on Google as well. For all of these reasons, it is not necessary to make up a "gay stalker" story like Doomie did. An employer will be more annoyed with someone calling to complain about such frivolous bullshit and will most likely eventually start yelling at the caller. Because really, who has time for this bullshit? Notice, this is what Doomie says happened with his situation and I believe it.

With all of this said, I think it becomes clear that the Register-Only approach is the only one that will work. If everyone agrees this is a retarded solution, show some self-restraint and stop whining. This is a lot of hoopla about a few posts here and there from some people who take themselves far too seriously, if you ask me. It kind of reminds me of the Howard Stern solution: if you don't like it, turn it off (or in this case, ignore it).

And if the problem really gets out of hand, use register only. I mean, cripes, that's what every other board does. Either you're a free and open community or you're not. (Incidentally, even Register-Only won't really work, anyway, because anyone who wants to register some emails is still "welcome" to post and sometimes, the more you push people away, the more determined they are to come back.)

― LISTEN TO ME (aka Logged Out to prove a point), Saturday, 13 November 2004 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

extreme and unbelievable? hr and i had a good laugh!

he's right - most people would just shout you down if you write or call employers. someone from ilxor.com emailed one of my editors. he just laughed and wrote to the someone - 'waste of life' or something to that extent.

― doomie x, Saturday, 13 November 2004 20:06 (twenty-one years ago)

one year passes...

I just locked the board to unregistered users. I did this because of the amount of spam the board is receiving daily. This is a persistent nuisance both to regular board users, and to the moderators who have to delete it all. As a result of the board beng targeted by spambots:

http://ilx.p3r.net/adminlog.php?board=1

...many board posts are already locked to unregistered users. I believe Andrew is planning to code a captcha function as an anti-spambot measure. when this is implemented, the board can be unlocked again (I am in favour of this)

If Andrew, Alan, Noodles, Teeny or any ILE mod wishes to unlock the board, that's OK by me.

Any thoughts about wether this should be done to the (similarly spam afflicted) ILM, how to find a way to allow "loggedout" to ask his/her personal questions, or whatever issues may arise, fine. You can talk about hitler as well if you want & think it relevant. I'm off out with my wife & child & will be back online tomorrow (Thursday)

best etc.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:51 (nineteen years ago)

WEll done Pash. Have fun!

― Tracey Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

HOORAY FOR PASHES

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

Thank you, Pashmina. Suggestion for "loggedout"--have one account called "loggedout" with the password "loggedout" (if there is some way to prevent this from resetting the password you'd have to set it obviously, otherwise it's not much cop). Alternately, we stop giving a crap about anonymous logged out problems, the board isn't a psych's office and the ratio of seemingly remotely genuine logged out posts to actual trolling and most-likely-regulars logging out to flame people is really not worth the trouble ultimately? Esp with the spam attacks going on, it just doesn't seem a concern that should be top priority.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 14:59 (nineteen years ago)

you can already create a new account in about 3 minutes anyway... if the problem is that pressing and you really need anonymity from most people's already pretty-anonymous online personas, it's probably worth the time.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:00 (nineteen years ago)

To think that Calum or Randy or Jakc or the anonymous abusers couldn't bring it to this, but it was Phentermine that did.

Oh, Internet.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:00 (nineteen years ago)

alanbanana suggested that you guys code a feature to disallow urls in posts from non-logged ins. This is a pretty good intirm solution IMHO.

― JW (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:00 (nineteen years ago)

Just to be absolutely clear, this is only for ILEverything, other boards are still open counties, right? (cuz we get some fun not-entirely-random googlers on ILComics sometimes)

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:03 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, s1ocki is OTM, you can create a new account pretty quickly if you need some alternate persona to post stuff under so I don't think this should be a problem from ppl who have genuine issues they wish to discuss undercover?

Disallowing URLs is ok but why would that prevent the bot from pushing the post through anyway? ie would they be able to post it, just without the URL working, or would they be blocked from posting it at all?

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:05 (nineteen years ago)

I think the idea would be that the post wouldn't be inserted if it had a url and unreg'd users would get a little message.

― JW (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:06 (nineteen years ago)

Alternately, we stop giving a crap about anonymous logged out problems, the board isn't a psych's office

This seems awfully hard-hearted. I thought you've logged out for sympathy and advice before...? Maybe I'm misremembering.

― pixel farmer (Rock Hardy), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:07 (nineteen years ago)

logged out has some lol threads

― JW (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

I am against the idea of being unable to post anonymously. But I am for reg'd only.

OH THE DICHOTOMY

― steal compass, drive north, disappear (tissp), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:09 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think it's particularly healthy or sane to air serious problems on this board. Actually, I've never thought it was particularly healthy or sane to air serious problems on an open messageboard where anyone could take any kind of potshot at you but people get offended when I offer that opinion.

― Dan (Get One (1) Therapist) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:09 (nineteen years ago)

Says the man that helped me solve one of my problems on this very board! Admittedly, that problem wasn't particularly serious, and it was semi-anonymous rather than completely anonymous.

― steal compass, drive north, disappear (tissp), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:11 (nineteen years ago)

dan on one (1) money.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:11 (nineteen years ago)

! Which problem was that?

― Dan (Mr. Short-Term Memory) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)

RH, I think you're misremembering. I have asked for a thread which I said something way too personal about myself to be deleted, though, which is maybe similar.

I'm sorry if it's hard hearted but not requiring some kind of registration before making a post doesn't seem to be doing much besides inviting spam, anonymous flames and harrassers. I feel a bit of sympathy for the v. small number of people who don't abuse the unregistered option but I don't see how that outweighs the amount of hassle and problems involved with leaving the feature open.

If people really need to post anon, we could have one mass "logged out" account, or they can do as s1ocki pointed out is very easy and quick to do...

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:13 (nineteen years ago)

people kept forgetting about his problems! (xp)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:13 (nineteen years ago)

I was a jerk. You told me to call her. It worked.

BUT YOU JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE :(

(xpost to Dan)

― steal compass, drive north, disappear (tissp), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

Haha slocki

― steal compass, drive north, disappear (tissp), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

And yeah Dan OTM that since quite a few people around here just assume logged out "serious problems" are fake at this point thx to a couple of trolls, I mean those threads end up with at least a handful of people ridiculing and taking potshots at the poster--not very healthy for the person if their problem is actually serious?

xpost hahaha ;__;

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

The only problem with having one logged out account is that mods can link the IP of the person posting anonymously with another post where they aren't anonymous, but as I said on the mod board there are ways around this.

― steal compass, drive north, disappear (tissp), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:16 (nineteen years ago)

Albeit not particularly un-complex ones

― steal compass, drive north, disappear (tissp), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:16 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not really tied emotionally to the issue, to be honest the only big deal about leaving the board open to unregs is A) spam B) fake anonymous posters just logging out to be douchebags to ppl. It seems like it'd be a lot easier on the mods to just cut this problem out completely.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:17 (nineteen years ago)

hooray for pash!

i'm for reg only. It's easy enough to work up an anonymous id if you want to post s/t that way.

― someone let this mitya out! (mitya), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

Create one I Love Advice board for registered users with marital/reproductive organ questions so ILE can remain reg'd only?

― StanM (StanM), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:37 (nineteen years ago)

why

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

the amount of effort it takes to make a new account

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

1 - Good, I say.
2 - why not just try it this way for a month or two and see if the world ends because of it? If everyone dies, open it back up for anonymous posting.

― dave's good arm (facsimile) (dave225.3), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

can we make A Nairn anonymous

― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

my post there got cut off!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

can we call him anairnymous

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

booooo

― -+-+-+++- (ooo), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

Dude everyone knows who you are all the time anyway!

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

Poor old logged out! He never will get it right, will he?

― The Mercury Krueger (Ex Leon), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

whatfor?

― A Nairn (moretap), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

ban a nairn

― -+-+-+++- (ooo), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

ban a nairn

-- -+-+-+++- (-...) (webmail), May 3rd, 2006 1:11 PM. (ooo) (later) (link)

― JW (ex machina), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

banning a nairn is gangsta

― accountsettings (account), Wednesday, 3 May 2006 16:32 (nineteen years ago)

one year passes...

Bravo!
-- Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, July 26, 2004 5:04 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark Link

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Monday, 7 April 2008 20:13 (seventeen years ago)

pwnt

― gff, Monday, 7 April 2008 20:13 (seventeen years ago)

two years pass...

3,599 registered users

― markers, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 00:46 (fifteen years ago)

i'm doing the inception music in my head rite now

― cant believe you sb'd me for that (darraghmac), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 00:47 (fifteen years ago)

wonder what Trayce was talking abt upthread when she thought me or ally or millar was maybe posting under a sock at some pt

― honkin' on joey kramer (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 01:12 (fifteen years ago)

you and ally and tom and dingbod in collusion to create a fiendish Frankensteinian super-troll

― Feel Adele (sic), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 01:24 (fifteen years ago)

I included you in that cos that was at the time of the ILX book "just a bit of fun" foorforaw, as I recall.

NFI why I mentioned Ally or Tom tho. Maybe for the same reason?

Wow I was an obnoxious cow on this thread.

― Sunn O))) Sundae Smile (Trayce), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 03:59 (fifteen years ago)

...actually im not even sure if that *was* what I meant.

Maybe I was drunk.

― Sunn O))) Sundae Smile (Trayce), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:03 (fifteen years ago)

"on this thread"

― the questeon, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:12 (fifteen years ago)

who are you, dude?

― sarahel, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:13 (fifteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure I know who.

― Sunn O))) Sundae Smile (Trayce), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:16 (fifteen years ago)

also, lol.

― Sunn O))) Sundae Smile (Trayce), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:17 (fifteen years ago)

share it with the rest of the class then, please!

― sarahel, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:17 (fifteen years ago)

I'd rather not get into it.

― Sunn O))) Sundae Smile (Trayce), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:19 (fifteen years ago)

fine then, message me!

― sarahel, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:20 (fifteen years ago)

got the message -

hey questeon - i wanted to ask you a question about morning after etiquette but i'm banned from IRE

― sarahel, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:26 (fifteen years ago)

welp - looks like you're off for a bit - i gotta go see my friends' awesome metal band - catch ya later!

― sarahel, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:33 (fifteen years ago)

why deny the obvious sock?

― buzza, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:40 (fifteen years ago)

KARL MALONE

― T-Rex's erotic imagination (Z S), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:42 (fifteen years ago)

― overtheseas aeroplanes I have flown (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 17 November 2010 04:44 (fifteen years ago)

socks are great - so was my friends' metal band!

― sarahel, Wednesday, 17 November 2010 10:25 (fifteen years ago)

two years pass...

3,000 registered users

― pplains, Thursday, 17 January 2013 14:52 (thirteen years ago)

all squeezed into two feet

― lemmy's rabbles (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:05 (thirteen years ago)

down by about 600 from two years ago. should we be out recruiting?

― whose black line is it anyway? (how's life), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:06 (thirteen years ago)

that's only 300 pairs tbf

― lemmy's rabbles (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:07 (thirteen years ago)

the place is deathly quiet these days.

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:08 (thirteen years ago)

fairly sure i argued against registered users but people said nothing because they were registered users.

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:08 (thirteen years ago)

I don't think that's really a registered-only thing though - reg-only became basically unavoidable once we ended up with spambots all over the place.

― Matt DC, Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:16 (thirteen years ago)

I do miss random Googlers though.

― Matt DC, Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:16 (thirteen years ago)

Me too.

― Ulna (Nicole), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:23 (thirteen years ago)

we're all fading away

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:23 (thirteen years ago)

and the ability to post anonymously without having to register a sock

― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:24 (thirteen years ago)

Chief Keef: why is he so bad and hated

― whose black line is it anyway? (how's life), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:24 (thirteen years ago)

you try to tell that to today's posters and they wouldn't believe you xpost

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:24 (thirteen years ago)

"random googlers, we used to call them!"

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:25 (thirteen years ago)

you could kick a sock in the street

― non-elitist melted poo (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:25 (thirteen years ago)

"if you wanted to start a thread as a sock, you started it by god!"

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:25 (thirteen years ago)

do ppl really feel like ilx is dead?

― Mordy, Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:28 (thirteen years ago)

84 logged in users are fucking the cold dead corpse of ilx

― Roberto Spiralli, Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:30 (thirteen years ago)

less socks we're talking 15-20

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:31 (thirteen years ago)

Real-time stats from right now: 6 pages per second, 134 browsers (doesn't include zing/mobile/etc)
Most read thread right now: this one.

― stet, Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:34 (thirteen years ago)

it's too cold not to have a couple of pairs of socks on the go

― non-elitist melted poo (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:34 (thirteen years ago)

There'll probably be a 'Post Anonymously' checkbox next to submit button, for those who wish to post something sensitive.

http://media.tumblr.com/1651ac6b5cb5f06649fbbbcfbb9fc6a9/tumblr_inline_mfcf1124YA1ro2d43.gif

― pplains, Thursday, 17 January 2013 15:47 (thirteen years ago)

part of the reason registered poster number is down is that now the system culls unused accounts now after a certain period of time. iirc at one point i had 15 dormant sock accounts, so i was like 2.5% of that missing number. RIP "FREE HUGS!"

― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:13 (thirteen years ago)

i forget the passwords for my socks after a bit

― non-elitist melted poo (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:18 (thirteen years ago)

That's why I never wear any.

― Ulna (Nicole), Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:21 (thirteen years ago)

I always forget the yahoo email addresses that I sign up for them with.

― whose black line is it anyway? (how's life), Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:21 (thirteen years ago)

jjjusten, poll these socks pls

― lemmy's rabbles (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:31 (thirteen years ago)

i am trying to remember all of them

― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:42 (thirteen years ago)

try to keep a handle on it

― lemmy's rabbles (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:54 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.