I've lived in Salem, MA. I've seen where the witches were hung. I know the story well. I think that there's a big difference between targeting innocent people and creating a system designed to identify professional trolls.
The idea provides an intermediate place to discuss the shill-like behavior. (Keeping it out of the main forum). It also opens the discussion to the entire community and helps mods focus on real problems.
Who cares if 3,000 people with 1 vote each get nominated to /v/shillreport? If they have 1 vote each we ignore it. I'm interested in the nominee who has 1400 votes. Chances are he's a troll/shill. This method leverages the wisdom of the crowd. It could occasionally be abused but, I think that it would prevent more abuse than it creates.
That's why I suggested a board. Just because a name gets posted doesn't mean the person gets banned. If 2,000 people all think that same person is a shill, then chances are the crowd is right. This way the mods would only have to pay attention to the top-voted people and wouldn't have to deal with 5,000 individual emails in their inbox.
Hmm quite honestly, I would think of a way to make people offer proof of work before obtaining moderation position so it is easier to ban those who abuse it and lose their proof of work (if it is not easy to obtain.)
There is also a lot more experience from users besides myself with dealing with these issues who will have ideas on what to do.
I'd just like to see that the community doesn't go 'nutty' because of a group of folks who stumble here and want to trash the place - so to speak - which will be easier to do while the community is just starting off.
The problem is that professional shills get paid to waste time. You could write a 40 page dissertation that completely destroys their argument and they would ignore it while posting more garbage. A week later, they're back: throwing out more disinfo and posting lies. So, someone else sets the record straight. And again. And again. Serious contributors get tired of dealing with the same garbage. New users get sucked into the lies and the cycle starts all over again. I do hope that you (and the other mods) will swing the ban hammer freely on people who are known to be abusive time-wasters. Those people have made the other board completely unusable.
Okay...But here's the thing: Who's the mod in this sub? It looks like it's fenixrisin. They're the sole mod. Okay. Fine. They need to be notified of this kind of shill behavior and this new conspiracy sub needs to NOT at all be afraid to in the least ban the absolute living fuck out of every shill or troll around. Simple as that. Keep this damn place clean, folks. Don't let it get infested with roaches again.
(no disrespect meant to roaches by the comparison)
What do you think is the best way we go about protecting /v/conspiracy?
Maybe, we could nominate a 'Sergent at Arms' mod who'd be responsible for policing ad hominem attacks, shills & trolls?
I'd prefer we had some sort of system. Like, a /user/ has to first submit a complaint to the Sergent @ Arms about another before anyone can be removed from the forum. Then a 'Sergent @ Arms' could review and make the final decision based on the user's history on Whoaverse.
It would be pointless to limit it - considering the ease of registering accounts. By allowing it it allows us to see patterns and 'power users' easier anyway.
Canalize ago
Nah its a form of democracy....you do like democracy dont you? We can shove it down your throat some more. :p /s
casualwhoaversereade ago
I've lived in Salem, MA. I've seen where the witches were hung. I know the story well. I think that there's a big difference between targeting innocent people and creating a system designed to identify professional trolls.
The idea provides an intermediate place to discuss the shill-like behavior. (Keeping it out of the main forum). It also opens the discussion to the entire community and helps mods focus on real problems.
Who cares if 3,000 people with 1 vote each get nominated to /v/shillreport? If they have 1 vote each we ignore it. I'm interested in the nominee who has 1400 votes. Chances are he's a troll/shill. This method leverages the wisdom of the crowd. It could occasionally be abused but, I think that it would prevent more abuse than it creates.
casualwhoaversereade ago
That's why I suggested a board. Just because a name gets posted doesn't mean the person gets banned. If 2,000 people all think that same person is a shill, then chances are the crowd is right. This way the mods would only have to pay attention to the top-voted people and wouldn't have to deal with 5,000 individual emails in their inbox.
ProgressiveRevert ago
Hmm quite honestly, I would think of a way to make people offer proof of work before obtaining moderation position so it is easier to ban those who abuse it and lose their proof of work (if it is not easy to obtain.)
casualwhoaversereade ago
Here's how you stop it:
Kolossol ago
I think its worth a shot, it is an alternative worth trying. You should set it up.
fenixrisin ago
I agree with you...I prefer discourse.
There is also a lot more experience from users besides myself with dealing with these issues who will have ideas on what to do.
I'd just like to see that the community doesn't go 'nutty' because of a group of folks who stumble here and want to trash the place - so to speak - which will be easier to do while the community is just starting off.
casualwhoaversereade ago
The problem is that professional shills get paid to waste time. You could write a 40 page dissertation that completely destroys their argument and they would ignore it while posting more garbage. A week later, they're back: throwing out more disinfo and posting lies. So, someone else sets the record straight. And again. And again. Serious contributors get tired of dealing with the same garbage. New users get sucked into the lies and the cycle starts all over again. I do hope that you (and the other mods) will swing the ban hammer freely on people who are known to be abusive time-wasters. Those people have made the other board completely unusable.
no1113 ago
Okay...But here's the thing: Who's the mod in this sub? It looks like it's fenixrisin. They're the sole mod. Okay. Fine. They need to be notified of this kind of shill behavior and this new conspiracy sub needs to NOT at all be afraid to in the least ban the absolute living fuck out of every shill or troll around. Simple as that. Keep this damn place clean, folks. Don't let it get infested with roaches again.
(no disrespect meant to roaches by the comparison)
EDIT: Messaged fenix.
fenixrisin ago
What do you think is the best way we go about protecting /v/conspiracy?
Maybe, we could nominate a 'Sergent at Arms' mod who'd be responsible for policing ad hominem attacks, shills & trolls?
I'd prefer we had some sort of system. Like, a /user/ has to first submit a complaint to the Sergent @ Arms about another before anyone can be removed from the forum. Then a 'Sergent @ Arms' could review and make the final decision based on the user's history on Whoaverse.
Persona_Manager ago
/v/ConspiracyFacts: "To dispel any lies told by conspiracy theorists."
Assuming they all tell lies? /u/WeRTheIlluminati is the definition of pathetic.
Empire_of_the_mind ago
Is there any good reason to allow a user to 'mod' more than one /v forum?
r0fl ago
It would be pointless to limit it - considering the ease of registering accounts. By allowing it it allows us to see patterns and 'power users' easier anyway.
Empire_of_the_mind ago
Good point.
AssuredlyAThrowAway ago
Let them come in droves; popcorn is good for driving traffic and this places needs users at the moment.