My solution to cleaning up the Zoo (and 2+2)

[jek187]

I have been on a posting hiatus for about 3 months now. I've still lurked some, but mostly I've left 2+2 and the Zoo alone. The reason for this is the incredibly poor signal: noise ratio. Yes, I'm aware of people periodically bitching about the decline of the Zoo, and maybe it was just poster burnout, but it seems that almost all of 2+2 has gone to shit. We're in a relatively good period here in the Zoo, and the place is still crap.

However, instead of just bitching about the problem, I actually have a solution. We need to bring back the rating system for posters. For those too new to remember rating posters, it allowed every registered poster to rate other posters from one to five stars, and then all the ratings were average together. This system is inadequate for our purposes. The worst aspect is that it allows the trolls to register a bunch of accounts and rating bomb whoever they have an issue with. The end result of this system was 80% of posters had a 3 star rating.

My proposed system would work like as follows. Everyone is once again able to rate other posters. However, everybody’s rating has a weight attached to it. The weight is given by the following formula: N^.5*D.

N = Number of posts made
D = Days since registration

So, some troll who pumps out 100 posts in a week gets a weight of 70. Compare to an icon like Granny, who has 4,929 posts in a little over 2 years, gets a weight of 52,655. Granny’s opinion counts about 752 times more than your run of the mill troll. This seems about right to me.

For those mathematically challenged, this means that if Granny rates you a 5, and the troll rates you a 1, your rating is 4.995.

To clear things up a little further, we’ll take an “average” poster like Cubswin (Cubs is actually one of our best posters, but his numbers are average). He has 1,811 posts in 1y3m23d. This gives him a weight of 20,342. So, if he decides to rate the aforementioned poster a 3, that poster’s rating is now a 4.43.

So, now that everyone understands how a rating is determined, wtf does it mean?

Here is my proposed benefits/penalties for certain ratings:
4.01-5.00: Top level. You are able to bask in the adoration of 2+2ers everywhere
3.01-4.00: Normal poster, no restrictions
2.01-3.00: You need to work on thinking before you post. You are limited to 20 posts/week.
1.01-2.00: You are either a troll, or post such idiocy that you’re best off “contributing” to RGP. You are limited to 5 posts/week to redeem yourself.

I am certainly open to all criticisms/revisions of this plan. If it looks to be popular, I’ll contact Mat/Mason and see what they think, and work out the tech aspects.

[GimmickAccount]

...this is a GREAT idea.

Regards,
Gimmick Account

[BigDoggie]

I like the idea and look forward to it.

[Thythe]

I give it a thumbs up.

[GrannyMae]

gets a weight of 52,655.

i've tried atkins AND south beach. currently, i am on the wendy's biggie diet and am happy to report that i am down to 51,800 pounds.

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1293.gif

(how's that for signal? or would this be noise?)

[nolanfan34]

Besides the fact it gives almightly power to El Diablo (ole!), I like it.

Kidding, o' powerful one, kidding.

[sammy_g]

I prefer systems that rate individual posts rather than posters. The Slashdot (http://slashdot.org) moderation system works quite well.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
how's that for signal? or would this be noise?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are our stereotypical Zoo signal, which says quite a bit about those who are considered noise.

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
To clear things up a little further, we’ll take an “average” poster like Cubswin....He has 1,811 posts in 1y3m23d. This gives him a weight of 20,342

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that mean im worth as much as one of granny's thighs? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

PS I like the idea but the problem with rating posters is that they can change over time.... for the better or worse.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
PS I like the idea but the problem with rating posters is that they can change over time.... for the better or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

One tech aspect that is a must for this is to be able to change your vote. I agree with you completely here.

[jek187]

Hi Sammy,

I followed your link, but didn't see anything related to moderation. Can you give me a bit of direction where to look on that page?

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Sammy,

I followed your link, but didn't see anything related to moderation. Can you give me a bit of direction where to look on that page?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try this (http://it.slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm600) link. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-Mike

[GrannyMae]

You are our stereotypical Zoo signal

this is very sad. are you certain we are not way beyond help?

just curious, how would gabbyyy score? i could answer that myself, but i have been prohibited from ciphering. i've also been prohibited from siphoning since i swallowed all that diesel fuel, but we will save that story for the next thread on scoring narcotics....

what were we talking about again??

http://techhelpers.net/e4u/drink/trink07.gif

[Cubswin]

[ QUOTE ]
If it looks to be popular, I’ll contact Mat/Mason and see what they think, and work out the tech aspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Id also like to see if we can get the list of registered users back. I know there were some problems with it being used for spaming purposes but i know im willing to put up with the occasiional spam if it means i get get in touch with another poster easier. I dont want to ran on your parade though.... maybe this could be your next project /images/graemlins/smile.gif

cubs

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
just curious, how would gabbyyy score?

[/ QUOTE ]

10,413.12 (1,236^.5*295)

[FIJIMAN]

Whats the "zoo"?

Note my post count for the ignorance, and search yielded nothing but more references...

[thirddan]

the zoo is the internet gambling forum...

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats the "zoo"?

Note my post count for the ignorance, and search yielded nothing but more references...

[/ QUOTE ]

You're in it; it's the Internet Gambling forum. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

-Mike

[jek187]

This method of moderation, while possibly prefarable, does not appear to be a fit for 2+2.

From what I read, it seems this involves a group of moderators. Mason has said that he doesn't want to add additional moderators due to the finicky nature of things. So, unfortunately this option probably won't fly for us.

[FIJIMAN]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whats the "zoo"?

Note my post count for the ignorance, and search yielded nothing but more references...

[/ QUOTE ]

You're in it; it's the Internet Gambling forum. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

-Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha, just call me Captain Obvious then....thanks for the explanation, just didnt want to miss another source of good information.

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
This method of moderation, while possibly prefarable, does not appear to be a fit for 2+2.

From what I read, it seems this involves a group of moderators. Mason has said that he doesn't want to add additional moderators due to the finicky nature of things. So, unfortunately this option probably won't fly for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at it closely, what they're referring to as "moderation" is actually a post rating system, which is what you're proposing. It's not about giving someone the power to delete posts and ban users; it's about giving some number of people a few points to spend on rating posts. They can spend all of them on one post, or they can spread them out. The "karma" scores are analogous to your weighting system; the more "good" posts you put out (i.e., that other people have awarded points to), the better your karma gets (plus newbies don't get the opportunity to rate anyone else's posts; they say that the newest N thousand are ineligible to be "moderators" - again, in their usage; it really means "post graders" - but we could make it time/post-based instead), and the more likely you are given the ability to rate posts; the more negative ratings you get, the lower your karma gets (with a low enough karma, you don't get the opportunity to rate any posts). And the actual moderators can cripple someone's karma if they're caught abusing the system.

-Mike (who uses way too many parentheses)

[Synergistic Explosions]

What would you rate a poster who layed this fried egg down on this board?

[ QUOTE ]
Does Choice owe you money? No worries!
#743022 - 06/09/04 08:14 PM Edit Reply Quote



As you all know, I'm hardly a Choice Poker fan. However, I have it on good word that all players who are owed money by Choice, will be paid off reasonably soon. I'm sorry I can't give out more info (as I don't want to betray any trust) but thought that this should brighten some peoples' day.




[/ QUOTE ]

[Neil Stevens]

Ratings encourage groupthink, not discussion.

Also, if you want the forum not to have visitors, instead only valuing the opinions of long-time posters, just turn off the registration feature and do it the right way.

[axioma]

seems like a pretty geeky idea to me, no offence.

im quite capeable of juding a users worth on his posts, rather than by some number that has been asigned to him or her.

why was this feature removed the first time around? what do you hope bringing it back will achive?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
-Mike (who uses way too many parentheses)


[/ QUOTE ]

parentheses are totally underrated (I won't put some useless sentence in parens just to be clever here, i promise)

-sossman

[jek187]

I made the mistake in thinking that the owner of a good sized software company was either competent or honest. I'm not sure which quality failed there, but either way, the result is the same. I ended up looking like a jackass who believes supposedly respectable people too easily. I certainly learned my lesson there, and will be much more skeptical in the future.

Rate me however you so desire.

[Lori]

why was this feature removed the first time around? what do you hope bringing it back will achive?

These two questions are answered in the original post.

Lori

[Slacker13]

I think you have a great plan. My plan was to charge $5 a month as a membership, the trolls would definately scatter and to me it's well worth the money because of the knowledge gained. Just my two cents.

[bigfishead]

Try humility instead of ego. Who gives a [censored] how many posts you or I have made? I have been here for 6+ years actually. moving, new isp, old names passwords, etc...so what. I know many players that have played for many many tears for a living that either dont have a cpu or care to have, or give 2 cents about this forum yet if they should happen to come here you would "rate" the value of those opinions as idiotic because they are new.

There is no benefit to "rating". Take what you read here on the forums that you like with you, leave what you dont like. Make your own decisions, think for yourself after hearing/reading the thoughts of others on topics as it relates to you and your style/questions.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Ratings encourage groupthink, not discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is your idea of discussion, then it's obvious your words should be given a great deal of weight.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you want the forum not to have visitors, instead only valuing theopinions of long-time posters, just turn off the registration feature and do it the right way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. And to think that if we did close the registration a measley 3 weeks ago, you wouldn't be here to speak for me. What an awful thought.

[Neil Stevens]

I think you just proved me right.

Admit it, under your plan, you'd have replied then rated me down, attempting to silence me so you can have your last haughty word.

That's exactly why your plan is such a bad idea.

[jek187]

This would be certainly help clean things up here as well. Did your idea get shot down by Mason and/or Mat?

[axioma]

[ QUOTE ]
why was this feature removed the first time around? what do you hope bringing it back will achive?

These two questions are answered in the original post.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

they were?

i didnt see where he said HOW his idea would make this place better. nor did i see any explanation of why the old system was removed.

mabey im blind or...

[tyfromm]

Jek,

you were always a notorious spammer who contributed to the loss of a lot of the nice features this board used to have. Why should we welcome you back, let alone listen to your ideas?

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
I made the mistake in thinking that the owner of a good sized software company was either competent or honest. I'm not sure which quality failed there, but either way, the result is the same. I ended up looking like a jackass who believes supposedly respectable people too easily. I certainly learned my lesson there, and will be much more skeptical in the future.

Rate me however you so desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Choice Poker is still up and running, encouraging players to deposit from the looks of it. Maybe the occassional post warning people about this scam site would be in order instead of passing on false information from obvious greedy software executives.

Now call your buddy and tell him to at least remove Choice Poker from his own website listings. If possible, tell him to do what it takes to get Choice Poker off the internet entirely.

It's just not good for Dobrosoftware, or for Victor himself!

[GrannyMae]

My plan was to charge $5 a month as a membership


punk and family would need to mortgage the castle.

http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/spit.gif

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
My plan was to charge $5 a month as a membership


punk and family would need to mortgage the castle.

http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/spit.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

haha, not the castle! maybe the boat.

[Lori]

i didnt see where he said HOW his idea would make this place better. nor did i see any explanation of why the old system was removed.

mabey im blind or...


Only people with over 2000 posts can understand his explanation.

Lori

[Slacker13]

[ QUOTE ]
Did your idea get shot down by Mason and/or Mat?

[/ QUOTE ] This is actually my first time presenting this idea though I have been thinking about it for some time. I am sure that it would not be a very popular decision for Mason or Mat to make as I am sure that it would get a lot of resistance. Also, I am not sure if it would be profitable compared to their advertising dollars they receive. I personally would pay for the right to use this board and keep it clean as it once was. Too much good and insightful information is getting lost by the BS that is posted here.

[axioma]

[ QUOTE ]
i didnt see where he said HOW his idea would make this place better. nor did i see any explanation of why the old system was removed.

mabey im blind or...


Only people with over 2000 posts can understand his explanation.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

or mabey you realised you were wrong /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[BreakEvenPlayer]

E.A.D. Gregorio

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
im quite capeable of juding a users worth on his posts, rather than by some number that has been asigned to him or her.


[/ QUOTE ]

I too am quite capable of judging a user's worth... however, that fact doesn't stop numerous weak/useless/repetitive/boring/negative posts from cluttering these forums... any system that limits the number of posts someone such as blank can post until some demonstrated level of usefulness is something that I think would be worth considering.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Only people with over 2000 posts can understand his explanation.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck, you don't even need 2000 to understand it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Regarding Slacker's idea, I seem to remember the pay idea being discussed a few months back. A lot of people didn't like the idea since this is supposed to be a "public" forum. But considering the fact that Mat has the power to ban people, and rightly so, I don't see a reason that people wouldn't pay a small fee to keep out the riff-raff.

[Terry Funk]

[ QUOTE ]
Jek,

you were always a notorious spammer who contributed to the loss of a lot of the nice features this board used to have. Why should we welcome you back, let alone listen to your ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's right, Jek is a notorious spammer. Just look through his posts, and you'll see almost none of it has to do with poker. If Jek or any other crybaby doesn't like it, then they should just leave.

[jek187]

I think you're missing what this system actually does.

[ QUOTE ]
I know many players that have played for many many tears for a living that either dont have a cpu or care to have, or give 2 cents about this forum yet if they should happen to come here you would "rate" the value of those opinions as idiotic because they are new.

[/ QUOTE ]

New posters would not have their opinions rates as idiotic. Their opinions would be rated based on what they post. However, their opinion of other posters wouldn't be weighted for much. Which is as it should be. Obviously a new poster won't be very familiar with another poster's writings.

[GrannyMae]

Also, I am not sure if it would be profitable compared to their advertising dollars they receive

i'm sure you noticed that there are only 6 visible banners on this site. this is not to say that they only sell 6 banners, because it is a rotation system.

however, in all seriousness regarding your proposal;
there are many of us that wish this place was our little secret. however, these guys (conjelco) are clearly motivated by the money as well as the quality experience. you could make this a premium site, but that would immediately decrease hits. whether they want to admit it or not, conjelco loves the growth. this is evidenced by mason's 'progress reports'.

i'm certain the advertising revenue they have coming in now would be unaffected by this being a pay site. i.e. with only 6 visible banners, the banners could still fly. but, don't think for a second that these guys don't get woodies when they look at the growth charts.

perhaps a second site as a premium area would be successful, but this would dilute their numbers. also, the spammers and noise people are just as likely to pay the $5 as anyone, then they would have even more complaints.

finally, i don't think these guys have time to wipe their asses properly, much less start a new venture or make significant changes here.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
Admit it, under your plan, you'd have replied then rated me down, attempting to silence me so you can have your last haughty word.

[/ QUOTE ]

How I would have reacted to your post is nearly immaterial. However, if many established posters end up thinking that you post trash, your rating will reflect that. If I'm the only one who's skin you get under, and everyone else thinks you're great, your rating will reflect that as well. Everyone here controls their own destiny.

[tyfromm]

btw, did you ever sell any banners with this spam post? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=748762&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have a great plan. My plan was to charge $5 a month as a membership, the trolls would definately scatter and to me it's well worth the money because of the knowledge gained. Just my two cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think this is a great idea.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
Jek,

you were always a notorious spammer who contributed to the loss of a lot of the nice features this board used to have. Why should we welcome you back, let alone listen to your ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, jackass. Stop spamming us with those banner ads.

[axioma]

noone has yet tried to explain exactly HOW this idea will 'clean up the boards'...

[jek187]

I'm a "notorious spammer" and this is the best you can come up with? Maybe you should go back to plagiarizing other people's posts.

[tyfromm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jek,

you were always a notorious spammer who contributed to the loss of a lot of the nice features this board used to have. Why should we welcome you back, let alone listen to your ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, jackass. Stop spamming us with those banner ads.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is ok for jek to promote the sale of banner ads to be placed on his site on 2+2?

I am not talking about the banner ads he buys here, that is perfectly fine. Has he ever paid 2+2 for all the business he rounded up through the thousands of spam PMs he sent?

[Lori]

noone has yet tried to explain exactly HOW this idea will 'clean up the boards'...

Try here (http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1)

Lori

[jek187]

Basically, everyone will have a rating. It will take quite an effort to get down to the 1-2 range. This will have a dual effect:
1) People will be able to see your rating and in an instant have a good idea of the quality you post.
2) Those people who are truly terrible will have their posting abilities limited.

Both of these effects will serve to clean the place up some.

[Synergistic Explosions]

You think he's bad here? You should go to Bonuswhores.com. He's spamming a rake rebate system there all the time. I'm amazed Bonuswhores.com doesn't ban him entirely!!

Go to Bonuswhores.com and see for yourself.

[tyfromm]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a "notorious spammer" and this is the best you can come up with? Maybe you should go back to plagiarizing other people's posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to come up with "great insults" or something. I am making sure that the new people who have arrived in the 3 months of your absense are aware of your history and character.

If everyone says your past is ok, then I will accept that.

Does anyone here want to honestly discuss jek's history and character before he floods these boards with his posts?

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
So you think it is ok for jek to promote the sale of banner ads to be placed on his site on 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet you thought I'd skip over this part.

I don't think it's okay. However, if that is the worst offense of his you can find, then you can certainly not say that he is a notorious spammer.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not talking about the banner ads he buys here, that is perfectly fine. Has he ever paid 2+2 for all the business he rounded up through the thousands of spam PMs he sent?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you've ever received a spam PM from jek, respond to this post.

-- Homer

[Thythe]

I find bonuswhores and 2+2 to be somewhat linked. Any talk about bonuswhores here or any talk about 2+2 there is all good in my mind regardless of the content.

[Lori]

Does anyone here want to honestly discuss jek's history and character before he floods these boards with his posts?

If all people with an honesty level less than Jek's were kicked off the site, you guys would have to teach the tumbleweeds to type.

Lori

[axioma]

[ QUOTE ]

2) Those people who are truly terrible will have their posting abilities limited.



[/ QUOTE ]

sounds kind of facist to me.

[GrannyMae]

Does anyone here want to honestly discuss jek's history and character before he floods these boards with his posts?

this will probably rekindle the troll attack-siege that i was recently faced with, but you can't possibly find someone here with MORE integrity than jek. in all seriousness, i feel he takes this integrity too far sometimes. almost to a fault.

if you want credibility in attacking him, find another issue. this one has no merit.

[Burno]

Jek,

What will happen on the Other Topics board? Won't people give bad ratings to people simply because they disagree with their ideology?

I like the idea. Whore.

Burno

[Slacker13]

Well then if they could just instal a little button that when pressed would make a trolls head explode I could let go of the charging idea. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
What will happen on the Other Topics board? Won't people give bad ratings to people simply because they disagree with their ideology?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm living in a dream world here, but I like to think that the established posters won't down rate other posters for just disagreeing with them. They may do it because the other poster is trolling, or is incapable of making a point though.

[Alobar]

I think its funny that this thread on how to "fix" the zoo is basically just turning into whats wrong with the zoo, a bunch of bitching and stuff. (or am I the only one who sees the irony in this?)

I think jeks rating system is a good idea, but I dunno if in practice it will work the way everyone wants it to.

basically whats needed is just a way to keep the spammers and trolls at bay. I dont think the rating sytem does this, I can still open a butt load of accounts and troll and spam crap even if Im only allowed 5 posts a week to do it with. I think it also puts a stop to people really speaking their minds, whos gunna wanna argue with someone with 4K posts when they know that if they get pissed off its really gunna hurt their "Score". I think it kinda makes it elitist and kills the prospect for heated discussion.

A much much simpler and hella good idea is slackers $5 a month plan. Maybe that in conjunction with a new poster only being able to make X amount of posts a week, until they have been around a certain length of time. Or a new poster not being able to start more than 1 thread a week, or something. I think that solves all the issues the rating system is striving to solve, with out adding any of the BS the rating system is going to add.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
whos gunna wanna argue with someone with 4K posts when they know that if they get pissed off its really gunna hurt their "Score". I think it kinda makes it elitist and kills the prospect for heated discussion. I think it kinda makes it elitist and kills the prospect for heated discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

The plan here is not to be elitist. The plan is to make it hard for spiteful trolls to cause much damage. That being said, the original formula could be flawed a bit. This may work better:

log N*D (Besides the Zoo loves the log function.) This greatly demphasizes # of posts.

3 posters, all been around 2 years:
5,000 posts: 2,700
1,000 posts: 2,190
100 posts: 1,460

It makes longevity more important, but once again, this lets those who actually know 2+2 give heavier weighted ratings.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe that in conjunction with a new poster only being able to make X amount of posts a week, until they have been around a certain length of time. Or a new poster not being able to start more than 1 thread a week, or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does do a lot of the things the rating system does. However, it's not without it's own downfall in that it can easily be too inflexible being both too restrictive and not restrictive enough at times. Not a bad idea, but not my fav either.

[thirddan]

I think that limiting the number of posts a person can make per week/month is a poor idea, especially for the strategy forums. With the number of posts as high as it is, allowing someone to only post X times will hinder both their ability to learn and the their ability to help others. Sometimes a person will post more than 5 times in a single thread in order to understand a concept or to help others understand a topic. This would also prevent people from responding to all threads even if their input will be productive, this will also hinder their ability to learn and help others. Then it will cause old threads to be bumped blahblahblah....

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
im quite capeable of juding a users worth on his posts, rather than by some number that has been asigned to him or her.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, but a moderation system is nice if there are more posts than you can read or if most of the posts are just bad. I'll let you all decide if the zoo has reached that point. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Graf Orlock]

http://silentmoviemonsters.tripod.com/nos2.gif

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Ratings encourage groupthink, not discussion.

Also, if you want the forum not to have visitors, instead only valuing the opinions of long-time posters, just turn off the registration feature and do it the right way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more. Last thing we need is a herd mentality or a snotty in-crowd. Real life is tedious and snobby cliquish enough; who needs to come here for more of that?

All the boards without exception that I've been on that had rating systems had people become obsessed with them. All had people ignoring ideas as they stood -- one heck of a big part of the whole point of a net forum, especially a poker one -- to just heap praise on virtually any post written by those with the highest ratings and ignore or put down most everything else. This is a forum, not a personality cult. They had people making "revenge" ratings on others for disliking their posts, had people getting their friends to register and registering different accounts themselves to do the same, etc... Ugh.

What next, are we going to nail a couple of boards to our treehouse and paint on them, No girls alowed! with a backward "S" on the "girls"?

[jasonHoldEm]

Hi jek,

I consider you a friend, but we differ on this issue.

I think 2+2's current system is fine. There is a fine line between keeping out the crap/spam and outright censorship (i.e. banning someone just because their opinions/ideology/ego/attitude/etc doesn't jive with what you think is right). Mat and 2+2 has done a very good job (IMHO) toeing this difficult line with the guidelines that have been established already and I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. If and when Mat ever feels the forums have grown beyond his control I'm confident he'll inform the powers that be and it will be dealt with internally.

I know you're asking, "But why doesn't Mat ban people faster? Poster SoAndSo made this post [insert link here] which is clearly useless, why can't we get rid of him right away?"

The answer is that trolls can (occasionally at least) make brilliant posts (sometimes this is by accident, sometimes by design, but it does happen). This is one of the reasons I've stopped using the ignore function. Mat gives them some leeway before he shitcans them because he wants to make sure they are really trolls and not semi-trolls (like Vehn for example...who I thought was an ass most of the time but he did contribute quite a bit when he was on topic).

Anyways, I trust Mat's judgment, and I think most people need to lighten up a little in regard to these sort of issues. It's better to deal with a little crap/spam occasionally then to have the pendulum swing the other way.

Just my .02
J

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
All had people ignoring ideas as they stood -- one heck of a big part of the whole point of a net forum, especially a poker one -- to just heap praise on virtually any post written by those with the highest ratings and ignore or put down most everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one reason why it's better to rate the posts themselves rather than the posters. Again, one community that has made this work well is Slashdot.

[busguy]

What he said.

I couldn't agree more and can't think of anything that was missed.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif busguy

[itsmarty]

[ QUOTE ]
Admit it, under your plan, you'd have replied then rated me down, attempting to silence me so you can have your last haughty word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the recommended rating system (Slashdot's), you can't post to a thread in which you've rated a post or vice versa.

Martin

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that limiting the number of posts a person can make per week/month is a poor idea, especially for the strategy forums. With the number of posts as high as it is, allowing someone to only post X times will hinder both their ability to learn and the their ability to help others. Sometimes a person will post more than 5 times in a single thread in order to understand a concept or to help others understand a topic. This would also prevent people from responding to all threads even if their input will be productive, this will also hinder their ability to learn and help others. Then it will cause old threads to be bumped blahblahblah....

[/ QUOTE ]

good points

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm living in a dream world here, but I like to think that the established posters won't down rate other posters for just disagreeing with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other reason would there be to rate someone poorly? Clearly anyone who disagrees with me is just plain wrong and deserves to be restricted to a single post consisting of an apology and a promise to never do so again.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Jimbo

[AncientPC]

I don't know, you can just use the ignore user's post feature to block out any troll / spammers.

If you're concerned about troll / spammers making 2+2 a pay site (even if it's something measly like $5 a year) will weed out the majority of troll / spammers. I doubt most people are going to pay $5 just so they can start trouble and get banned. Forums could be still visible to unregistered users, just that they couldn't post / reply.

However that's unlikely to happen, next best solution is just limiting the number of posts a new user makes until they reach a certain date / post count. However, I'm not sure if this feature is already available in the forum software. If it's not then it's highly unlikely that someone's code it . . .

[Terry]

I’ve been gone for a few months, too. The signal to noise ratio is the exact phrase that kept (keeps) going through my mind. There seem to be some other MIAs, judging by the past week or so of lurking.

Oh, well ... I could ramble on ... the good old days, and the downfall, of rec.gambling and r.g.p. ... there too, some of the posters with the least worthwhile to say have been spouting off at great length on a daily basis for over 15 years ...

No answers. No suggestions. Back to occasional lurker status. /sigh

[TerraUbrett]

Excellent idea.

[Graf Orlock]

[ QUOTE ]
No answers. No suggestions. Back to occasional lurker status. /sigh

[/ QUOTE ]



http://www.nosferatuscoffin.com/Synopsis/NosLookingOutWindow.jpg

[westmt01]

Add me to those completely in favor of this plan.

[elric]

two thumbs up on this idea!

[tyfromm]

[ QUOTE ]
You think he's bad here? You should go to Bonuswhores.com. He's spamming a rake rebate system there all the time. I'm amazed Bonuswhores.com doesn't ban him entirely!!

Go to Bonuswhores.com and see for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very funny.

Believe it or not, I lurk at BW. If a reload comes up the thread doesn't fall off the front page like it would here.

I appreciate jek and homer's website work there. I am just saying that jek also has a history here (ie- the spam in his sig. issue).

Since nobody else has objected to his return, I will drop the issue and welcome him back too.

Happy posting jek.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
I am just saying that jek also has a history here (ie- the spam in his sig. issue).


[/ QUOTE ]

The only person I've received complaints of spam from were trolls. The sig was required by 2+2 (for those new it was a stating of my affiliation with my site. It was not an advertisement like nearly all of my counterparts at the time.) It's trolls like you that make me repeat this same bit over and over again.

Please cease and desist with your and libel.

[tyfromm]

[ QUOTE ]

Please cease and desist with your and libel.

[/ QUOTE ]

jek, you seem to be going off the deep end here. I was welcoming you back.

Your over-reaction doesn't surprise me though, at your forum you have the "death penalty" and have used it. To quote your post of 7/13/04: "Yes, but unlike at 2+2, if a banner poster returns, they'll be banned again."

Helpful advice to 2+2 posters: <font color="red">When at BW, be sure not to piss off jek. </font>

Despite your intemperate remarks, I will not go back on my position: Welcome Back as a 2+2 poster.

[Jim Kuhn]

Jason,

Please ignore this troll like most of us are doing. It wants attention and will stay around as long as it is fed enough attention. Mat has been doing a good job but he needs to make another round of cleaning up!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[jek187]

You're right Jim. I tend to forget that everyone else has been reading him for 3 months just because I haven't been. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

Jason,

We have been ignoring it for several months hoping Mat will ban it. Sorry for singling you out but your reputation should be above needing to defend yourself from these trolls. Great job with the bonuswhores.com website!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Greg J]

I would not have a problem paying for posting here, but it would be nice if the people at the site did this they could also get "special" deals with various poker sites. Like a "2+2 members only" reload bonus for sites that advertise with banners. It would be cool if we got other benefits beside just posting... but then that mean the trolls would nor scatter after all.

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
Compare to an icon like Granny, who has 4,929 posts in a little over 2 years, gets a weight of 52,655. Granny’s opinion counts about 752 times more than your run of the mill troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who has 4,929 worthless troll posts would have count more than someone who had 423 well thought out informative posts? That sounds retarded. Nobody cares what GrannyMae thinks.

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
You are our stereotypical Zoo signal, which says quite a bit about those who are considered noise.


[/ QUOTE ]

So with your new system you want to supress newer trolls who strive to be as big of trolls as granny?

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally would pay for the right to use this board and keep it clean as it once was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your idea, however not many people on here remember or know what it was like on here 5 or 6 or 7 years ago.

[Freudian]

If you want to reduce noise, why on earth would you want to introduce a system that rewards the creation of noise?

Reading what people actually post is good enough to figure out if they are a poster you want to read more/less from.

[Miss Liza_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Compare to an icon like Granny, who has 4,929 posts in a little over 2 years, gets a weight of 52,655. Granny’s opinion counts about 752 times more than your run of the mill troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who has 4,929 worthless troll posts would have count more than someone who had 423 well thought out informative posts? That sounds retarded. Nobody cares what GrannyMae thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]


Only idiots care what GrannyMae thinks. Most of the people on the IG forum don't have a mind of their own. They just follow grannymuck.

[Miss Liza_]

Sincere, your friend Ryan is a smart and nice guy. This place was better when he was here.

[GrannyMae]

how long did it take to create the account, confirm the acct etc?

seems like you care alot about grannymae. most people would not have bothered to set up an account just to make a troll post. most just do it in their own name.

i appreciate the compliment tho. if time = money then this post cost you.

what a waste