One bad apple...

Posted by sdesapio 10 years, 2 months ago to The Gulch: General
42 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

From URBAN DICTIONARY ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph... )
Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

- - -

Unfortunately, as the result of a single individual's downvoting madness yesterday ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/51... ), we were left with no choice but to immediately implement "Producers Only" voting in the Gulch.

In an attempt to bury member comments, a rogue troll was creating new accounts with the sole purpose of downvoting everyone taking part in the discussion... accept of course for the trolling accounts (EdvardHovanesian, AbdulRahmanKarimi, MertonDabney, IlanRosenberger, LouGranger, CaitlinOClery, JackieEly, LorenMuttoone, PatHaden, DaleTipton, ShelbyGarner). Thankfully, a few members flagged the discussion and alerted us to the suspicious activity. Our reactive attempts to mitigate the damage however were proving to be an exercise in futility - we would suspend one account, they would create another.

Because we had very little in place to stop and/or prevent further activity, the simplest, quickest and most effective solution was to "turn on" Producers only voting. Several months ago, as the result of another Gulch conversation, we had actually gone through the exercise of writing code that would accomplish this so the code was already in place, just not active. Last night, it was simply a matter of turning that code on.

This move to Producer only voting should in no way be interpreted as punishment of guest members. Most guest member activity is honorable, and valued, and we may reinstate guest voting in the future. Until we have mechanisms in place to more effectively combat this type of intrusion however, Producers only voting will remain in effect.

Scott

EDIT: 03-03-2014: Unless the voting privilege was explicitly revoked from your account, if you have 100+ points, you can now vote. Thanks to blarman for the suggestion ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/51... ) and of course jbaker for making it happen so quickly.


All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So can Hiraghm. The question remaining in my mind is when khalling will get the same treatment for an even more egregious expression of the same topic, made immediately after her faux outrage...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by cp256 10 years, 2 months ago
    "This move to Producer only voting should in no way be interpreted as punishment of guest members."

    Regardless of how it "should" be interpreted, it has degraded the Gulch experience enough for me so that I think I'll be moving on. It just isn't enjoyable canceling the stupid popup over and over again because I am used to voting. Ciao.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 2 months ago
    And I missed the whole firestorm! Drats!
    I absolutely agree with people [both members and admins.] taking quick action, and I also agree with cp256. Remember "a person can't be argued out of something he wasn't argue into"? If you are a certain type of person, you can't help but feel a stab of hurt when something you did not do ends up penalizing you. All that you, the admins., can do is to say what you said, pay attention, and when a good patch is proposed, jump on it - all of which you did. Congratulations.
    Now, curious human that I am, I want to know what went on - but not enough to push the invisibility button!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sounds as though someone abused the system in another way: he used a script to log on and set up accounts. CAPTCHA, anyone?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just lots of down voting by a troll that was trying to stifle ideas that they didn't like. I don't know if Scott was able to wipe out those votes or not, and it's not worth my time to go and look. Suffice it to say it has stopped, and that's what is important.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Doesn't mean it still doesn't happen. And the only way to make that effective is to be able to delete the duplicate accounts. That's what the moderator attempted to do, but was frustrated in that effort by the speed of which new accounts were created.

    Policy only works by the voluntary self-enforcement of the users. When you have those that choose to abuse, it falls apart and more restrictive measures, as instituted by the moderators, are necessary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Correction: UNLESS they've been specifically flagged anyone with 100+ points can now vote.

    btw, if you're an example of an Objectivist, I think I prefer communists. I expect deceit from them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 2 months ago
    Instead of killing everyone, why not just restrict voting until you yourself have contributed enough to receive say 100 positive votes. This would provide a proving ground that would essentially make the participant put skin in the game before they could vote - without having to pay the $50/yr. It would also make it very easy for other participants to downvote someone and effectively ban them from voting until they got back in line.

    I'm really disappointed that this individual chose to do this, but also very disappointed in the heavy-handed response. I had been enjoying the Gulch for the free thought.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed, and that was my proposal. Establish the value of someone's opinion by how valuable it is to the community.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I completely agree taht $50 is skin-in-the-game. 100 up-votes by others? Much more difficult to achieve.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by cp256 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wish I could have +1`ed you for that too. Since I am now a second class citizen moocher, I think I'll just move along.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know if it's feasible to distinguish points that are just postings and points that are awarded by others (I'm guessing that it's possible, just not sure how difficult it is to make and track those distinctions). Thus, if the criteria was to garner some number of positive votes by others, that would seem to limit the ability just to go in and copy/paste your way to the required number of postings to achieve the level of points.

    Just my 2 cents. Use if for what it's worth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    but $50 IS "skin in the game". Very real skin when it comes to trolls playing games. 100 points is "doable" in a day, that's not much skin.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 2 months ago
    I read thru all that -Question about filming of AS3-, even the hidden stuff,
    where I am proud to announce I got a personal insult, and had a good laugh.

    The downside of the new rule is that should I want to show appreciation of a post, as a non-paying member, I cannot now do it by flicking the mouse button but I have to actually write something.
    (Work is the curse of the drinking classes).

    There is a lesson here-
    it is tempting when faced with something written that goes against core ideas to become angry, abusive or sarcastic, then thump out a rejoinder. Ok, but do not press the send button until sure that is what you want sent.

    "The moving finger writes,
    and having writ, moves on,
    nor all thy piety nor wit can wipe out a word of it".
    The moving finger is your own.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 10 years, 2 months ago
    Ugh. Makes one wonder just who this troll is working for. The Chicago Gang, perhaps?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 2 months ago
    When you sacrifice liberty for the sake of security you will lose both :/ I hope things get solved quickly.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo