h a l f b a k e r yi v n i n seeks n e t o
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
For a content provider (such as a newspaper), their website provides a place where users can read articles and comment on them.
A comment can either enhance a discussion by offering an intelligent or provocative view of the subject or detract a discussion by showing just how stupid your users really
are.
We already know various ways of filtering out crap, we already do this in Digg (by the voting system), or in email (spam filters).
The problem is, people can easily subvert filters or the voting process by changing what they say or falsified voting. For example, if a comment is blocked for profanity, the commenter can just use euphemisms, double entendre or misspellings. In a voting system, the commenter can simply embed their detracting message in humor and earn votes.
On the other hand, people also downvote people they just don't like.
So the voting system is flawed. Filtering works sometimes. In the end, however, what works best is moderators.
But then we have the problem of anger. People get angry when their stupid comment is blocked. They become repeat offenders, or even personally threaten, or hack, the content provider.
The solution here would be to not block the comment outright, but rather block it only for people other than the offending commenter (and his IP address, so he doesn't see it when he logs off). Also, blocking would be delayed.
This isn't censorship. After all, you're commenting on *someone else's* work, they have every right to moderate. What this is, is vandalism control.
I have a feeling this might've been baked or halfbaked, but I haven't found any proof. Please forgive me if this is the case.
hellban defined
http://www.urbandic...ne.php?term=hellban
per urbandictionary [calum, Jul 15 2008]
[link]
|
| |
On the half bakery I believe this is baked, Its called a fish bone, here try one, they are yummy, and why is everyone always talking about filtering Spam, I think it taste quite good right out of the can, I like to have it with crackers, it tastes even yummier that way. I do agree that the voting system is flawed however, I mean seriously, do you really think we actually elected Mr. Bush? Well Im off to attempt to hack Jutta's content filtering system, Wish me luck. Now if I could just figure out where that content filter system went......**begins unwinding a can of spam** |
|
| |
I love this idea because it's just a little evil. |
|
| |
I wouldn't want [jhom] to be angry ;) |
|
| |
//but rather block it only for people other than the offending commenter (and his IP address, so he doesn't see it when he logs off)//
Isn't this a hellban, per the Something Awful forums, or am I misunderstanding? |
|
| |
- Aside: even if a work's author moderates comments on their work, it can still be "censorship". For example, if a government prevents people from commenting on *its* work, we'd call that "censorship", right? |
|
| |
- Aside: there's a continuum between stupid comments online and humankind's eternal struggle for appreciation. This isn't really solvable; all we can do is move arbitrary boundaries around. Wherever it ends up, the comments on either side are going to look an awful lot alike. |
|
| |
- This approach works a little bit, but breaks down with multiple people working together (e.g. labmates egging each other on), and with smart, paranoid people who use multiple accounts or computers. Trolls really like attention, and will notice it lacking quite quickly. |
|
| |
- If you delay the ban, you'd have to ban a whole conversation, not just a single provocateur. For each troll, a small cluster of well-meaning regular users gets drawn into the feeding frenzy. If they notice the banned user's comment gone, they will talk about that, drawing the conversation further off-topic (and signaling the banned user). If they notice their conversation about the ban gone, they talk about that, drawing the conversation further off topic (and signaling the banned user). |
|
| |
If different groups of trolls get caught "egging each other on", they could be stuck on the same hellban so they get to see each other's comments and think they're still "in the game". |
|
| |
The don't "get caught" easily. They communicate offline, you don't see them, and the distinction between normal and disruptive groups is unclear. |
|
| |
Sounds like your saying that some of us are disruptive in a good way. Or put another way, sometimes its good to be bad. |
|
| |
Two trolls enter, one troll leaves |
|
| |
Sys op declares a war between two notorious trolls. |
|
| |
They are forced to fight each other with on-topic profanity free comments. Only the troll who can fake being a productive generous kindly knowledgeable helpful friendly courteous kind obedient etc. gets to stay. The other gets banned. |
|
| |
//not block the comment outright, but rather block it only for people other than the offending commenter (and his IP address, so he doesn't see it when he logs off). Also, blocking would be delayed. // |
|
| |
So the censored user is the only one who can see her comment, right? This is shadow banning, and it's evil. |
|
| |