|
Negative. It creates a potential for retaliatory responses (which in turn would create a blood feud between various cliques).
Whichever clique is the biggest wins, everyone else becomes an outsider.
Positive. It creates a form of self government so the hamsters don't have to monitor everything.
---
So um... I guess the question is... Is this the best form of stopping abuse? I'm not sure it is, but I don't have any other suggestions that don't include manual effort by the staff.
Wouldn't it be possible to track which accounts were closed unjustly (based on response from the closed account) and then see who is abusing power...
|
|
|
|
|
Pualee wrote: Wouldn't it be possible to track which accounts were closed unjustly (based on response from the closed account) and then see who is abusing power...
I agree. Is it a big enough issue that something needs to be done?
Good points all around. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Pualee wrote: Wouldn't it be possible to track which accounts were closed unjustly (based on response from the closed account) and then see who is abusing power...
Yes, and we have this already.
However it feels...undemocratic, for want of a better word. We see who does it, we talk to them, they do it again. We nuke their account and no one sees the debate or the reasons.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: t feels...undemocratic
Democracy gave us George Bush (both of them), Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin.. perhaps it's not all it's cracked up to be? 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Or as Churchill is claimed to have said: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
But then he also said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: Democracy gave us George Bush
You seem to have a different understanding of American politics than I do. 
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: American politics
Okay, I'll give you that one 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I think some will probably think twice before reporting something, which might not be a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
When I vote, I vote for a reason. If I can't back it up, I shouldn't dish it out. So, go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it'll be a net positive, but I do worry about retaliation. I think the net positive will be that since your name will be published, then only those who have a legitimate beef will report the account.
The retaliation could probably be minimized by listing the reporting members *only when* the account is closed.
In addition, perhaps you should require a reason or comment.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: only those who have a legitimate beef will report the account
Theoretically, yes, but I think a lot will just think it's not worth the potential hassle to report something, even if they have a legitimate issue with it (not rocking the boat, and all that).
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't change what I said at all.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Reporters should NOT be made public; only visible to the administrators/moderators.
If made public, then it will be a constant battle between self-appointed vigilantes and the different "gangs"
Reports should have "weights"; a new user can report users; but it will have less impact then a higher-level user reporting a user.
Reporting an abusive user should be "difficult" and blocking abusive users should be done in a serious manner; and follow a known set of rules.
Reporting spammers is easy, and it is easy for moderators to handle those.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Go Chris, go.
I fully agree with Pete on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Whether positive or negative (only time will tell), I do however promote public accountability.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: public accountability
And this, in a nutshell, is what it's all about.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: And this, in a because of the nutshells, is what it's all about.
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO it will stop those trigger-happy members...However it may call for a UI separation so no report by mistake could be possible...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Negatory rubber duck,
There's a bigger issue on the road to better code here and I believe it's not going to be solved by adding baggage to the claims area of the site air terminal. First, I suspect the greatest aggrevation for cp server maintenance reinstaters is having to make judgments without bias.
Secondly, this so-called problem is really only a Q&A thing. I would suggest starting to fix it by reevaluating the point system. I for one see a lot of Answer that doesn't even rise to the level of Comment. This after half a year of silence, having done a few months of service doing Answer that was actual code.
To that point, what ever happened to code? Most of todays answer is link? Granularity increase there. This is BIG. Whoa, I'll stop being foolish right there.
THAT, as the first adjustment to the point system, would be a more fruitful place to begin altering the business.
To recap: Negative, leave it alone ...
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with most that there will be an overall net benefit. I quite like Oz's suggestion of publishing it after the account is closed to minimise retaliation (which happens anyway based on assumptions).
Perhaps an email to anyone reporting an account when it is finally closed so they can retract ... although I wouldn't fancy that with the current wave of baba-spammers around
|
|
|
|
|
Net positive.
Accountability is important, and there may be retaliation by the person getting reported, but since I'd wager it takes more than one vote to nuke an account, one person retaliating wouldn't have too much effect. The only problem I see with this, is say if I were to go on a joy ride and looking for what are obvious spam accounts to report (say on a good day I get 5) for a week or so, and all of them individually retaliate on me (right or wrong doesn't matter) then I nuked.
So, I see the best solution to this is to have a simple check and balance. Let's say John Doe reports an account that's bogus for John Smith. Then any vote for John Smith against John Doe's account will have no effect. This would make it impossible to retaliate and rely on the community to remove an account, without there ever being a one-to-one consideration.
Of course, this can be abused too if a spammer creates and account and starts randomly voting on crap to stop people from voting against him, but it's a better check than nothing and you can put a limit on the amount of votes per day to help. And of course his votes will be public, so there's that as well.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
First, Yes, It should be public. If abuse report can't be justified, it shouldn't be reported else you are misusing the power.
Second, As MaxiMillen said already, banning of account or even a message should not be just depend on number of reports it received if it is that way currently as it is wide open of misuse by creating dummy account to take revenge.
Ideally, current rep of user reporting and user being reported should be considered to get weighted result. What it means is some senior member must be reported by few heavyweights or good amount of normal members to get banned.
Thanks
Thanks,
Milind
|
|
|
|
|
It's a win-win (pardon the BS bingo), IMHO:
- Reporters will likely use more discretion when reporting abuse.
- Potential abusers will likely use more discretion for fear of being seen in the Hall of Shame.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
The retaliation problem some people are worrying about is already around.
But I believe it might rather get lowered since the retaliators are getting named aswell.
Pressing a button is so much easier than standing for your opinions.
As an addition I vote for a field where you can have to add your "Reason for reporting" (Not for spam).
Not just because some reports are a complete mystery to me, but also because having to add a motivation might also stop a few itchy fingers.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, my 2c worth:
Accountability is good, although retaliation is bad and could well be pernicious. If a party retaliates, then it sort of confirms the bad report. The real potential problem is buddies who retaliate or even creating new accounts for the purpose.
A better mechanism might be to allow a reporter the option to be publicly shown, but always store who reports for admins to see.
A lot will depend on the relative workloads created:
- How much effort and inconvenience is it now to restore an account now?
- How about dealing with retaliation, especially as it might be somewhat hidden?
- Maybe a reasonable compromise would be a more flexible system where any account with high rep is harder to remove (perhaps only after manual confirmation) and low rep accounts, not so much
- Do you currently tap over-zealous reporters on the shoulder? How much effort would it be to do so?
Only last week I reported someone with high rep for spamming. In that instance, you intervened and read them the riot act. I removed the links on S&A after a nudge from Nelek, but I don't believe there's a mechanism for me to withdraw my actual report on the user (I believe you reduced his abuse report count). I don't think I was trigger-happy, and I was glad it got resolved. I have no problem with my name being seen on a report and anything short of concerted retaliation isn't likely to bother me. I'm not here for rep points!
If you want a hard Yes or No, then I'd say give it a go.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
