LPSG Members: become part of the solution.

senor rubirosa · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dreamer

One hundred smiley faces comes around really quickly for some. There are members operating at 25 posts/day that have contributed very little actual text, and they would get the governor removed after 4 days. Too bad there wasn't a word count function that could accumulate text strings.

It wouldn't be bulletproof , but it might help a little bit.

I'm not sure where you sit on this, Big Dreamer.
What you say is obvious, and is a disadvantage of a mere numerical criterion.
On the other hand, if you say 'two weeks,' a lot of people might register on, say, July 3rd, spend no more than, say, 26 minutes on the site in the next two weeks ... know nothing about the site, really ... and then be free to start threads.
Maybe the word count notion is good ... except some arsehat could be cutting and pasting stuff from Wikipedia and passing the set count in 13 minutes.
I don't know how to tackle this problem.

Big Dreamer · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by senor rubirosa

I'm not sure where you sit on this, Big Dreamer.
I don't know how to tackle this problem.

I don't know where I sit either rubi, as every rule appears to have a fairly simple workaround.

The key might just be heavy pressure from the posting public to keep threads on track, and ultimately some support from site admin in a timely fashion if things are slipping.

hootie · 08-01-2007

The suggestion of letting other members vote on someone's post is suppression of freedom of speech. It's one of the main arguments that has been going on since Big Dirigible was banned. It would stiffle thought, and encourage that only like viewpoints be expressed.

As someone who has moderated on three different boards, I'd like to suggest a possible partial rotation policy among all the mods, and powers that be. It could be a standing policy that nobody serve over X amount of time without rotating off.

After a while, the sos becomes a bore, and irritant. With constant irritants, we tend to lose patience. It is part of our human frailty. Also, we tend to interject our personal feelings into situations. I have seen rank pulled over a political discussion on this site. I have seen implied warnings with semi-veiled hostility. As a member of the governing body, we are supposed to not let our personal feelings affect our judgement.

Maybe, a better warning system could be put into place.

rawbone8 · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dreamer

One hundred smiley faces comes around really quickly for some. There are members operating at 25 posts/day that have contributed very little actual text, and they would get the governor removed after 4 days. Too bad there wasn't a word count function that could accumulate text strings.

It wouldn't be bulletproof , but it might help a little bit.

It would certainly be easy to cut and paste a few wiki pages or 3000 word articles to pierce that defence.

I think there could be better use of the thread rating function, and it could flag good as well as stinky threads from a well despised poster. If the threads were to receive enough nasty flags from a number of diverse sources that kick forth a notice to the mods who might put a temporary limit on the offender initiating new threads.

Is that feasible, code wise?

mindseye · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dong20

I'd like to add, selfishly:

Can we have a bit more PM storage? Even us freeloaders...certainly as Gold Members.

Quote:

Originally Posted by senor rubirosa

Now you're talkin'.
I've cleaned out my bins four or five times ... and it hurts.

In case either of you have overlooked it (and for the benefit of anyone else who's interested), there's a download link at the bottom of the private messages folder that allows you to save the messages you currently have to your own hard drive before deleting them from here.

Deleting messages shouldn't have to "hurt".

On a more general note -- I'm enjoying these suggestions. I've seen other boards with a "require X posts before allowing Y" rule (Thundersplace is one, for example), and I believe it lowers overall post quality, thanks to members trying thoughtlessly to reach that X-post threshhold.

HazelGod · 08-01-2007

The only issues I have with the site at present are the lack of transparency surrounding the banning of members and alterations to the Terms of Service after the fact.

I my mind, the resolution is simple: provide a concise explanatory statement whenever a ban takes place. Something along these lines:

Member xxxx has been banned until some date (or permanently) for violating Section ### of the LPSG Terms of Service.

I understand the concern in outing underage users. As such, a minor change to the labeling of the ToS would alleviate this concern. The first four bullets in Section 2 are, in my opinion, account violations that could be collectively labeled Section 2(a). The remaining three offenses in section 2, along with the seven enumerated offenses in section 3, are operational in nature and should be labeled 2(b) through 2(d) and 3(a) through 3(g), respectively. New line items should obviously follow suit.

This flows into my concerns about the alterations of the ToS document itself. There is presently no history available, so unless members make daily snapshots of it, nobody can really know for sure what changes or when. Iterating a version number with each new release, making a revision history public, and perhaps highlighting the most recent changes from the last version would go a long way.

Personally, I'd also like to see complete transparency when a member is banned, including the person who initiated or recommended the vote, as well as how each moderator voted (or abstained). I believe that if those with the power to censure feel strongly enough about a member's behavior to remove them from the community, then they should have no problem having their convictions on the record...and the same goes for regular members who call for others to be banned.

In addition to quelling fears of people being banned for personal or other unjust reasons, it spells out by example which behaviors will not be tolerated in the community.

Implementation is simple and flexible:
First, relabel the bullets in the ToS.
As to making the ban process information available, the simplest mechanism of all would be to provide the data only upon request. This could be problematic as some mods undoubtedly would be inundated with a disproportionate share of these requests, and many requests would come in for info on the same person's banning.

Another idea would be to create a new area for ban reports, with each being a locked topic containing the information items (similar to the TOS) I discussed earlier.

This could be augmented by replacing the banned member's signature line with the simple statement about their being banned. That statement could link to the topic in the Banned Users forum that contains the details of the initiation and votes for the ban.

This all seems complex as I type it out, but viewed in light of the fact that bans are (and should be) few and far between, it shouldn't actually amount to much effort. The rewards would include a much calmer user population and a much greater sense of trust in the moderation staff and their processes.

Matthew · 08-01-2007

I second rawbone8's suggestions. To me they cut closest to the heart of the problems.

senor rubirosa · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by HazelGod

Personally, I'd also like to see complete transparency when a member is banned, including the person who initiated or recommended the vote, as well as how each moderator voted (or abstained). I believe that if those with the power to censure feel strongly enough about a member's behavior to remove them from the community, then they should have no problem having their convictions on the record...and the same goes for regular members who call for others to be banned.

I understand the claimed advantage, but I think this would be too inhibiting.

kalipygian · 08-01-2007

Free, third party adult verification services, I was not remembering in my first post in this thread.

With yahoo, I went through a verification before being allowed to view adult only groups or profiles.

A person could be required to go through one at registration.

That would lighten the moderator's workload, from what we have been told, by more than half.

b.c. · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew

I second

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew

rawbone8's suggestions. To me they cut closest to the heart of the problems.

I too think Rawbone8's suggestions come closer to the heart of the problems and are close to a real common sense approach to it.

His suggestion suggest a form of due process and a certain degree of transparency whereby a person is allowed to plead his case and a decision is rendered based on the severity of the alleged violation and the number of occurrences.

Having bannings by "vote" of certain members (i.e. "gold" members as someone suggested) lends to abuse and bannings via popularity (or the lack thereof) rather than by worthiness of what the poster has to say.

Limited tenure of mods also a good suggestion. Publicizing ip addresses, not so good. (Haven’t there been enough breaches of privacy already?)

I disagree on the idea of setting posting requirements or time limits on new members. It assumes that every new member couldn't possibly have anything of value to contribute.

And why remove non-paying members' access to thumbnails? There are many here who have contributed pictures in spite of the fact that all they can see is thumbnails. If they couldn't see thumbnails there might be fewer inclined to want to post their own.

kalipygian · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by rawbone8

It would certainly be easy to cut and paste a few wiki pages or 3000 word articles to pierce that defence.

I think there could be better use of the thread rating function, and it could flag good as well as stinky threads from a well despised poster. If the threads were to receive enough nasty flags from a number of diverse sources that kick forth a notice to the mods who might put a temporary limit on the offender initiating new threads.

Is that feasible, code wise?

The present thread rating system, with one star for terrible, two for bad, three for average, etc., calls a bad thread to ones attention, with the presumption that it is well regarded. Some different icons are needed for the bad threads.

dong20 · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dreamer

One hundred smiley faces comes around really quickly for some. There are members operating at 25 posts/day that have contributed very little actual text, and they would get the governor removed after 4 days. Too bad there wasn't a word count function that could accumulate text strings.

Exactly - a minimum post length (easily got around)...new members dedicated forum...one thread per day maximum for the first two weeks...

Oh crap, I'm posting Arliss style.

dong20 · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mindseye

In case either of you have overlooked it (and for the benefit of anyone else who's interested), there's a download link at the bottom of the private messages folder that allows you to save the messages you currently have to your own hard drive before deleting them from here.

Deleting messages shouldn't have to "hurt".

On a more general note -- I'm enjoying these suggestions. I've seen other boards with a "require X posts before allowing Y" rule (Thundersplace is one, for example), and I believe it lowers overall post quality, thanks to members trying thoughtlessly to reach that X-post threshhold.

No, I've done so several times but it's a poor subsitute for having them available 'online'.

I suspect threshold posting may do just what yous say, so perhaps some form of "rate my post" button on newbie's posts with access by mods/gold/'established' members only? They could build up a point score to release any restriction. It's less dependent on post count, more dependent on quality? I appreciate all these suggestions have loopholes and flaws but this is a rare opportunity.

Focussing on the nitty gritty practicalities should wait a while yet, IMO.

Lex · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew

I second rawbone8's suggestions. To me they cut closest to the heart of the problems.

You always make a lot of sense. You see a lot of things clearly and always have. Rawbone's ideas are good and I am also all for dong20's suspension of Mod activities.

wldhoney · 08-01-2007

Since gallery access is coming up as a concern and the consensus is to keep it to paying members, perhaps free membership is signed on as thread access only for posting purposes.

I don't really look at the gallery so it doesn't mean much to me. However, I also wouldn't post my own pictures if I couldn't look, and wouldn't respond to pm's outside of interest in my posts. This way forum only members won't be bothered with "Do you have pictures of your ****, and paying members can see each other. If a paying member and a free member wish to exchange pictures then can do so thru their email or pm's.

LPSG Members: become part of the solution.

Originally Posted by Big Dreamer One hundred smiley faces comes around really quickly for some. There are members operating at 25 posts/day that have contributed very little actual text, and they would get the