Journal FortKnox's Journal: Unread: Anonymity 66
OK, the biggest splash is about anonymous posting. Lets just put it all out in this JE. Here's some of the major points I'd like to start with:
I want to avoid spambots and crapfloods.
True anonymity has its merits, but will be abused all to hell.
Users will have 'egos' and possibly even an 'incognito' ego which has no username (basically like anonymous coward), but the ability to track it back (admin only) to the user to stop abuse.
Basically it comes down to what do you guys want. I don't want crapflooding and spambotting. If you can figure out a (simple) way to avoid it, plus giving users true anonymity, I'm all for it.
Next JE will be about ranking (moderation).
I want to avoid spambots and crapfloods.
True anonymity has its merits, but will be abused all to hell.
Users will have 'egos' and possibly even an 'incognito' ego which has no username (basically like anonymous coward), but the ability to track it back (admin only) to the user to stop abuse.
Basically it comes down to what do you guys want. I don't want crapflooding and spambotting. If you can figure out a (simple) way to avoid it, plus giving users true anonymity, I'm all for it.
Next JE will be about ranking (moderation).
Ever reply to your own JE before?? (Score:2)
Make it an option on individual articles. If you want true anonymous posting, the author can decide to put it in. That way, you have to clean up the mess if it occurs in your article.
Then the question comes down to if its allowed on front page articles (which I'm not too fond of, honestly).
Re:Ever reply to your own JE before?? (Score:2)
If I understand it correctly, a JE that is rated high enough gets displayed on the front page. That means that rules applied to all front page articles override the users rules for that JE if it were in their JE alone. This is fine, because you already mentioned the ability to select an option that does not allow a journal to be voted up t
Re:moderation (Score:2)
Disagreeing with admins and stuff... is nothing. There will (hopefully) be only 1 'downmod' and that's to catch abuse... "Abuse or Offensive" is the only downmod and is used for stuff like GNAA.
The worst post is the one that doesn't get moderated at all. So you will never be 'punished' unless you are doing something that you know is completely wrong to do.
Re:moderation (Score:2)
Re:moderation (Score:2)
just throwing different batteries on the fire (Score:2)
Maybe an option to ignore other users moderations, say you always disagee with someone - you have the ability to ignore 1) all their moderations 2) all their downmods.
Re:just throwing different batteries on the fire (Score:2)
Is there a word that adequately describes, "not generally desired to be a portion of this discussion/site"?
Re:just throwing different batteries on the fire (Score:2)
Re:moderation (Score:2)
Re:moderation (Score:2)
Not in favor of anonymity (Score:1)
Re:Not in favor of anonymity (Score:2)
perhaps account creation should be similar to gmail? invite only? this allows a web of trust to be established. also, if say, 2 or 3 people you invited do stuff stupid enough to get banned, then you get banned? or maybe just aren't allowed to invite people anymore...
that'll prevent so many troll accounts from being created.
Re:Not in favor of anonymity (Score:2)
It will allow those of us wanting a specific account name to be able to get it before the crap flooders do.
Chances are everyone in the JE circle wants to get the same account name so there will be no contention for the same account names.
jason
NO! (Score:1)
Sure, it's fun to be "in," but only if you don't mind keeping your mouth shut to prevent being thrown out.
Re:NO! (Score:2)
If the in-crowd symptom is undesired, then the invite system could expire after a few months and open up the site to all users.
That would be a bit (probably a fiar amount) of coding that would only affect the first month or two of the site, but could be a way to make sure that each slashdot user gets the account they want.
OFF TOPIC:
While I was thinking of this I just thought of a way to make sure each user gets the account they want...
There cou
Re:NO! (Score:2)
There is also signing up without an invite, but it requires more 'hoops' to be jumped through to gain trust.
Re:Not in favor of anonymity (Score:2)
Re:Not in favor of anonymity (Score:2)
Re:Not in favor of anonymity (Score:2)
Re:Not in favor of anonymity (Score:2)
There are questions that arise...
Will each username have it's own visibility prefs?
Will I have to view messages for each alias separately? Will others be able to see comments for an alias as though the user were real? Will it identify itself as an alias, without telling you whose? Can I specify how each alias works?
For instance:
If I go by two names - foo and bar - and wish to be known by either of them, could I alias my foo account with bar and set it up so that if you click b
Re:Not in favor of anonymity (Score:2)
While I don't use that ability/function, I can see it being useful. I read at 0 with no modifiers myself -- there are just enough 'gems' from anon posters that I'm willing to wade through the muck. Most of the 'nasty' stuff ends up at -1 (below my threshold). Removin
Transparent karma? (Score:1)
Re:Transparent karma? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use some of slashdot's tricks (Score:1)
IF you want to allow it. Otherwise I'd just say fuck it and not bother with the overhead that will occur if any acceptable means of control is implemented.
Re:Use some of slashdot's tricks (Score:2)
I mean, Unread is supposed to be a bit more grown up version of slashdot right? Less crap.
If I want to flame someone for an idiotic comment I do it using my username. No reason to do it otherwise. I have posted anon on slashdot about 2 or 3 times. Mainly to join in on a good ad homenim attack party. And I occasionally say some stuff many people don't like, but that is what the friend / foe sys
Well - I agree with you (Score:2)
Re:Well - I agree with you (Score:1)
Agreed -- Slashcode has this, I believe. It comes down to how much trust you have in the admins, but as long as it's made clear that IPs are tracked and cross-referenced (which Slashdot, of course, does not disclose) users are free to trust or not trust as they see fit.
Re:Well - I agree with you (Score:1)
Better tell Homeland Security; I understand there are terrorists in Iraq.
someone suggested using Josh's zoo.pl list or a specific journal (scraped with mad poster's tool?) to get UIDs and stuff, and have the uid/password combo mailed to an address posted there. Makes sure that Sam the Butcher guy can't steal the account of 5am the Butcher.
Re:Well - I agree with you (Score:1)
At least someone is looking out for me.
Re:Well - I agree with you (Score:2)
Trust me, I don't wanna have to learn which personalities go with which user all over again for everyone.
I was thinking about this (Score:2)
Now it would still be generally anonymous. But there would be user level tracking. You could see if someone was trolling you specifically. That there would be something of an accountability for even AC accounts.
Moderated Anonymnity (Score:2)
What about moderated/registered anonymnity? Anyone can post an anonymous post, but it must be checked as "not crapflood" by at least two registered members, one of which can be the original poster using an "anonymous" function.
Let any user see how many anonymous posts are waiting, and then pull up one randomly selected post. (Don't know how you could handle dupes, though...)
Re:Moderated Anonymnity (Score:1)
On the other hand, you could make such voting records public. Or, at least, trackable by an admin. That way an admin might notice if someone's modding up their own posts.
Re:Moderated Anonymnity (Score:2)
Planes idea is as follows:
I write an anonymous post and click 'submit'. The post isn't placed in the article immediately, but is placed in an anonymous posting queue. High 'trusted' users can view the queue for abuse and such. If the post isn't offensive or anything, they vote it 'ok' to post. Once the post gets at least n number of votes and has a better than x% of 'oks', it gets posted... otherwise it gets thrown away
Re:Moderated Anonymnity (Score:1)
Re:Moderated Anonymnity (Score:1)
Re:Moderated Anonymnity (Score:2)
I'm going to assume that we have aproximately 50 active users in this journal group. What will this translate to with the anonymous queue.
By the way - I really like the Anonymous queue idea. Mebbe we should have it rotate between all of us using the system.
Re:Moderated Anonymnity (Score:2)
Re:Moderated Anonymnity (Score:2)
Re:Moderated Anonymnity (Score:2)
There I go, wondering about how to keep each mod seperate--when I forget that the -moderator- doesn't need anonymnity, just the -poster-.
something to consider (Score:2)
But you mention the word "abuse." Now, without getting all buerocratic on your ass, i think it'd be a very very very good idea to spell out, on the site, like in the form of a TOS, what abuse really means... so there can never be anything like "oh, its abuse only if Josh thinks it is"
But aside from that, and the concept someone brought up yesterday about gaining trust will be just dandy!
Whateva (Score:2)
I like the idea of a logged in user being able to post anonymously, but the post isn't tied to them except for the initial "are you a user?" check. This assumes that you trust your users.
Re:Whateva (Score:2)
Re:Whateva (Score:1)
Re:Whateva (Score:2)
Re:Whateva (Score:1)
So be forewarned.
Swing away, TL. swing away.
True Story (Score:1)
Specifically, he'd try to chirp, and would flick his tail much the same way as the squirrels did.
Egos (Score:2)
The ego property of a user just adds another level of complexity to the back end of this app / DB. The alternate Ego function is simplified by just creating another account.
If Egos can be tracked to a base account (for admin / abuse purposes) then the abusive users will create alternate accounts any way. Nothing stops them from doing so.
To provide the Ego functionality may ne
"View Anonymous" option (Score:1)
"Priviledged" Anonymity (Score:1)
Users with an appropriate posting history could be "blessed" with the ability to post anonymously. So if a certain number of admins feel a user has shown a tendency to be mature with his posts, that user could be allowed to post anonymously.
Sorta like brew-masters' moderation queue for content, but with users and priviledges instead.
Probably unpopular opinion (Score:1)
I can count on my hand the number of times a fucking AC said something worthwhile.
It's a big frigging scam.
People that are afraid to post something logged in because it will offend someone or because they want to flame someone need to get some stones and slap their name next to it.
Create a new frigging account if it means that much to you to post anonymously. Nothing says anonymous like a throwaway hotmail account and a garbage account on unread or the dot or whatever.
Do we hon
Re:Probably unpopular opinion (Score:1)
My bad.
I need that vacation.
I still do feel anonymous posting is a load of horsemanure though.
suck on a horse cock, AC (Score:1)
Good one.
hugs-n-kisses,
the Em Emalb community
There's a reason they're called Anonymous Cowards (Score:2)
nothing anonymous for me (Score:2)
That's my vote, i'm not saying it's the best way. Just the way that i prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:nothing anonymous for me (Score:2)
Anon Moderating... (Score:2)
Speaking of which- Slashdot is just like fucking DRM. Don't trust your users ever; not even the paying ones.
Well (Score:1)
Won't help with the crapflooding or FP-style trolls, but at least it will go a little way towards keeping regulars happy.
What about IP tracking... (Score:1)