Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:How to stop Trump (Score 1) 191

That's fine, and I envy your optimism and your available time, but I'm just asking that you do it elsewhere. I'm confident he has the same poorly reasoned opinions in other venues, even if he is one of those especially crazed butterflies who just wants to stir up bad feelings wherever he alights.

He's already reminded me of Omega Man (and I'm increasingly curious if he really recovered from his antisocial trollness before he passed away), and now you've reminded me of the original cross-posted flame war. I believe one side was a newsgroup that wanted to save the whales, and the other newsgroup was some ancient predecessor of a Rushbaugh newsgroup?

Comment Re:How to stop Trump (Score 1) 191

The complexity is not helping. In that regard slashdot suffers from emacs disease with aggravated feeping creaturitis. The interface was never designed, but seems to have evolved in an almost cancerous way, and the Sophists tend to be more motivated to study the rules and find the loopholes.

I think better economic models could help a lot. In particular, I think slashdot should use at least one economic model of a type such that badly designed features would tend to get prioritized for improvement or replacement, and unused features should just go away for lack of users. I'm not arguing for a purely mob-driven prioritization process, but I do think there is some wisdom in crowds if you can figure out how to find it... (Actually, one of the most important "how" things is to keep the individuals independent.)

Comment Re:How to stop Trump (Score 1) 191

Have you read my three-part suggestion to improve the situation? The latest long version was attached in a poll, but I think whipslash is about to switch polls... I'll probably redo the idea here in my journal, notwithstanding the predicable attempts to shout it down by the usual trolls and their freshest sock puppets. (However, the feature I want more than that would still be the dynamic background search, and that's where I'd be donating my money if the option existed.)

This suggestion would involve three parts:

(1) Some sort of kill list for long-lived trolls. (That term needs to be defined, but a short definition could be "rude and insincere Sophists".) I think a natural approach for slashdot would be an improved "foe" option, but the entire friend/foe thing is so borken (sic) that I wouldn't even donate towards fixing it (unless the proposed project was amazing).

(2) A maturity filter. If enabled, then identities younger than the maturity setting would become invisible.

(3) A sincerity check on replies. The basic idea is to let the trolls flag themselves as insincere liars without even bothering the actual targets of their harassment (and this suggestion is therefore a time-saving measure against trolls). The sincerity check would be triggered when someone tries to reply to a post. It would do a check from the other side to see whether or not the designated ostensible recipient (DOR) will see the reply. If the DOR will see it, then no problem, reply away. If the DOR will not see the reply, then it displays a warning along these lines: " cannot see your reply. If you wish to reply, then your reply will be preceded by an insincerity notice. How about moving your comment to the top level of the discussion?" If a reply has failed the sincerity check, then it would get a pre-subject warning such as "This reply was NOT seen by the author of the parent post. Whatever the reply is, it is NOT part of a sincere dialog."

Actually, I'd want a fourth part, but I'm not sure how to implement it without making the complicated filtering of posts even worse. Essentially I would like to filter by karma, not moderation, but multidimensional karma that is symmetric with the moderation.

Of course, all of this is probably moot. Gamesters will continue to cheat no matter what rules you create, and Godel proved you can't even fix the rules.

In tangential conclusion (with a nod to the OP), I think Trump's next book should be titled How to Surf the Rising Tide of Mass Insanity and Win so Insanely Greatly that the Country Can't Stand It .

Comment Re:How to stop Trump (Score 1) 191

Sorry, I got confused by the cloud of trolls and their sock puppets.

I think that it has become kind of pointless even to try to talk with them these days. If they feel that their belief's are threatened in any way, they will just go back to the google and fill themselves up on their favorite propaganda. Apparently I've become something of a pervert (or even a prevert) for persisting in so much random reading?

Comment Re:Reducing the abuse of anonymity (Score 1) 353

That XKCD guy is pretty amazing in his perceptiveness and depth. Also the recursion.

As regards deterring trolls, my own feelings are mixed. The goals are clear. I like an interesting and rational discussion. Even when I'm on the wrong side, I can learn something, though these years it's getting harder and harder to get enough data to change my mind on anything major. (Perhaps my most recent major "evolution" actually involved reaching a much better understanding of DNA, but that led me to a much better understanding of the pseudo-scientific confusion of some of the religious extremists. They think DNA is like a tiny set of blueprints defining a unique human being, whereas a much more useful metaphor is to understand it as a kind of recipe book. (Can't remember if I got that from Dawkins or the inner fish guy, or maybe somewhere else.))

On one hand, it is clear that the rules of the game are being abused for the sake of stupidity, so perhaps adjusting the rules would help.

On the other hand, it seems to me that this is another case that fits into Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. If you extend the system (in this case the rules of the discussion game) to eliminate one kind of meaningless statement (in this case various forms of Sophism), then the system remains broken for a new kind of meaningless statement. No completeness to be found there.

On the third hand, trolls are pretty stupid, so it will probably take them a while to figure it out. Perhaps if that time is longer than the lifespan of an individual troll, then the problem might be effectively solved?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill