A proposal

[Slater]

I think that we should ban all images alltogether. Our tallented ASCII artists will be able to make up for that.
Edit: It broke.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

[quote="freerock1"]My personal preference would be for them not to be undercover, simply because I'd want to know who could take action the most quickly. (But that's just my opinion. ]

no you see. The CAA public will know. It's just that the troll wont be all "WOah hes got a GREEN name! So lets like.... stay away" or something. Sure it can be posted on the site, but a backup mod will still be hard to find.

[Scribs]

no you see. The CAA public will know. It's just that the troll wont be all "WOah hes got a GREEN name! So lets like.... stay away" or something. Sure it can be posted on the site, but a backup mod will still be hard to find.

If a troll did see a green name and decide not to post, wouldnt that be better than having them post some filth and then get banned? Prevention is better than fighting if at all possible in my book

[Mr. SmartyPants]

If a troll did see a green name and decide not to post, wouldnt that be better than having them post some filth and then get banned? Prevention is better than fighting if at all possible in my book

... Oh good point!

[Heart of Sword]

4. a 200 post AND 3 month restriction on picture posting and IMG tag usage, if at all possible. I'm sorry, but this is just not acceptable the way it is now... There were KIDS on when this attack happened.

I have my own forum, and I don't think this is really possible...but if it is, it would be great. It would basically eliminate porn trolls. (I have been extremely lucky...I have never seen porn in my life. I clicked a thread on here once that I found out later was a porn thread...the picture didn't load. O__O;;; It was really close...)

Anyway at my board, I think we have 10 mods, and less than 40 members. So we're all set. But they really don't have to "break up arguments" there because debate is allowed...funny thing is, we're never mad at each other even though there are probably a dozen debates going on. Some people think that's too many mods, but it certainly seems to intimidate the trolls. ^^

Boards: 70 | Categories: 17 | Topics: 467 | Messages: 8,939 | Members: 35

(wow I have a lot of boards....o___o;;; So 10 mods is really a good number over there. There is almost ALWAYS a moderator on. ^^)

We have a member right now who has a pretty weird username...I waited a couple of days to register them, and they haven't even posted, so who knows, it might have been an impatient troll.

Oh, and 13 is a kid in my opinion.

[Bobtheduck]

If a troll did see a green name and decide not to post, wouldnt that be better than having them post some filth and then get banned? Prevention is better than fighting if at all possible in my book

But would that be prevention? The trolls attack when they don't see any mods on... They'd just wait again until the greens were offline before they struck.

[Steeltemplar]

But would that be prevention? The trolls attack when they don't see any mods on... They'd just wait again until the greens were offline before they struck.

I think that the main idea is to have no extended period of time in which there are no mods. That's the primary purpose in the third tier mods idea.

[Da Rabid Duckie]

I'm really going to have to beat this fact into the ground, but:

G2G just recently purged its member list of inactive members. We had 800+ before that and 563 active members right now. That's 563 members that actively post or read the forums. We're one of the top two largest Christian Gaming Review sites, and the only one of those two with a forum.

It could be argued that CAA is larger than G2G, and while the post count is higher G2G is linked to directly from the site from a major Christian online reference forum (Christiananswers.net) so the exposure is probably three to four times larger, especially among the 20-25 crowd.

By my point is this: We have 3 admins, and 3 mods.

There have been 0 trolls lately.

Zero.

The background checks on new members really work.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

But would that be prevention? The trolls attack when they don't see any mods on... They'd just wait again until the greens were offline before they struck.

But the question is: Do we want Trolls banned? Or prevented from posting stuff?

[ChristianKitsune]

I say both, MSP

The thing is..there were so many on at once.. no matter what happens they were still on.

I still say a third tier of mods IS necassary. Just because you have the review a member thing doesn't necassarily prove that they are OK. They might seem all nicey nice until they are accepted. People can and do lie..quite often.

Besides won't that maybe sort of push away GOOD members? I mean when I join forums I am almost impatient to start LOL.

In all seriousness, though, I think maybe the 3rd tier on top of the member review and the image posting resrictions would be great. It's better to be over prepared than not prepared at all..

[Godly Paladin]

I think all of Bob's suggestions are excellent, and the sooner they get implemented the better. With all of those (or even some), this sort of thing never would have happened.

It's probably better to keep any "emergency mods" if any unknown to trolls. So having a greenname wouldn't be a good idea

I also like this. It seems probably to me that the trolls timed their attack for when there were no obvious mods online, and apparently they lucked into having no hidden ones, either. Not broadcasting the presence of officials would be a great idea, if you do go for '3rd Tier' mods.

Of course, the lack of colors might indeed prompt an attack, so maybe colors would be a good idea.

My question is how hard would all of this be to implement?

[Bobtheduck]

The issue is what is greater? If the undercover mods can get to trolls that think they've gotten away with something, then it's worth something... It contains the problem. IF there are none undercover, then it WILL be possible to see when no mods are on for them to attack, and you lose both the prevention and the containment... I think maybe two new tiers rather than one. The emergency "green" mods, and the undercover mods... Creates a bigger coverage for both problems... As some have said, though, the problem is there should never be a moment without mod coverage... Well, that's all the ideas I have. I don't have the knowhow to implement this sort of thing, nor the access if I did know how. I guess I have to leave it up to Straylight and Mithrandir to determine what's possible and what isn't.

[Da Rabid Duckie]

IF there are none undercover, then it WILL be possible to see when no mods are on for them to attack, and you lose both the prevention and the containment...

Buuut if an undercover mod can't be seen in the first place then it's going to look like one isn't on... that's not a deterrent, I mean who's going to know that we have undercover mods unless there's a BIG HONKIN BANNER somewhere that says "HEY!! WE'VE GOT HIDDEN MODS!!"

And an invisible mod isn't a preventive action, it's a countermeasure for when something happens unless the name is a dead giveaway and they happen to be looking at the "Who's Online" list.

Ah, here's a good analogy: Air marshalls are a good idea, right? Usually... unless a bomb somehow did make it onto the plane or multiple terrorists are there to outnumber the marshal. Now, with effective passenger screening neither the bombs or the terrorists would have gotten on the plane in the first place.

[Steeltemplar]

I think that even with member screening we still need third tier mods. How could it possibly hurt?

The fact remains that during the recent troll attack, the problem went on for what must have been a full hour or more before a mod could come and intervene. Do we want to risk that again? Especially when it costs nothing and has no real downside to make trusted members into emergency mods?

Also, I think a 24-hour period would be better than background checks. We don't want to make unnecessary work for the mods.

[indyrocker]

I propose a few things.

1. A third tier of mods: Emergency mods... Color them Green, perhaps, and they could be here for one purpose: To take out serious trolls... Not to deal with arguments of normal members... Just to take out porn trolls and harassment trolls... Instead of banning, they could freeze members who they find to be trolls.

2. When 2 or 3 "report this post" comes in on a new member (new meaning the last 3 days) they're account will be suspended...

3. An IP watch... When multiple names start coming in under one IP, especially 5+ people registering on the same day under the same IP, freeze their accound until a mod can review it...

4. a 200 post AND 3 month restriction on picture posting and IMG tag usage, if at all possible. I'm sorry, but this is just not acceptable the way it is now... There were KIDS on when this attack happened.

5. A user report... Instead of reporting messages, we can report users from their profiles...

6. Report thread on the OUTSIDE of threads! That way we don't have to go into threads that are obvious troll threads to report them, and potentially see nasty images...

7. This is gonna be harsh, but we may be at the point we need to have a review process before we let in new members... Da Rabid Ducky told me he does that on his board and hasn't had a troll attack for over a year and a half...

Well, that's my proposal... This could also be considered a hate crime, and I think it shold be prosecuted... I think stuff like this can warrant a tracking of the people involved and arrests... If I had that sort of knowledge, I'd do that, but honestly... There are kids that come here... It's just not right... Number 7 is really harsh on any forum like this, but to keep that crap from happening anymore, it may be necissary...

Great ideas i have modded a now defunct forum that was attached to my website and as far as #4 the time peroud I am not quite sure if it is feesable as far as a quick non programing option tho on many forums you have to have a certen post amount befor you can even go into some threds. But as far as the number I would put it more around the 50-100 mark as to not deture some really amazing users that might really want to be here more for the getting feed back on their art and that way we still keep some sort of restriction up but are still not deturing potentual users that will contribute to this comunity.

[Godly Paladin]

BTW, would we really even need third-level mods if we enacted all these other measures? They seem to be enough by themselves.

[Da Rabid Duckie]

I think that even with member screening we still need third tier mods. How could it possibly hurt?

It wouldn't, I freely admit that. Even if it were unnecessary (which it is) it still wouldn't hurt. It'd be like a speen: it's nice to have, but the body could live without it.

The fact remains that during the recent troll attack, the problem went on for what must have been a full hour or more before a mod could come and intervene. Do we want to risk that again? Especially when it costs nothing and has no real downside to make trusted members into emergency mods?

I've already addressed this on page 3, post 22 and again on this page with the air marshall analogy.

Also, I think a 24-hour period would be better than background checks. We don't want to make unnecessary work for the mods.

First off, if it would keep at least one troll from the site and prevents one more member from seeing something potentially damaging or offensive than it is most certainly not unnecessary. And saying that I check everyone on my own site it doesn't mean that I always have to do an in-depth search, just the ones that would look suspicious. I'd let in someone named "Serena" with an e-mail address of "melissa@christsites.net" but I'd Google someone named Alucard (reference to Hellsing or Castlevania, not that either are bad) with an e-mail of "asmodeus83@hotmail.com" and obviously some types wouldn't even make it in at all.

[Steeltemplar]

First off, if it would keep at least one troll from the site and prevents one more member from seeing something potentially damaging or offensive than it is most certainly not unnecessary.

I think that the same argument could be used for having enough mods for constant coverage. If trolls are smart and patient, they could circumvent the system you propose. While it is a good idea, I think that you should combine it with increased mod presence. The two measures working together make for the best possible solution.

As for the rest of what you say, a 24 hour delay would be enough for mods to see the sorts of obvious indicators you mention. It just takes away the burden of making approval an absolute necessity for the mods.

Edit: I shouldn't say "easily" circumvent the system, but it is possible for them to do so without being experts. So, as I said, I think that both systems together is best as neither on its own would be as tight as we want it to be for the sake of the kids.

[Arnobius]

First off, if it would keep at least one troll from the site and prevents one more member from seeing something potentially damaging or offensive than it is most certainly not unnecessary. And saying that I check everyone on my own site it doesn't mean that I always have to do an in-depth search, just the ones that would look suspicious. I'd let in someone named "Serena" with an e-mail address of "melissa@christsites.net" but I'd Google someone named Alucard (reference to Hellsing or Castlevania, not that either are bad) with an e-mail of "asmodeus83@hotmail.com" and obviously some types wouldn't even make it in at all.

Did you know when I first joined, the mods thought I might be a troll because of my user name? There was some confusion before I was able to post. Some people have to use hotmail or other free accounts.

A clever troll could get through perhaps with a new hotmail account or a disposable account and run through an anonymous server... my ISP makes it easy to do this for example (for sites that demand registration for example, but it could be abused), while someone who chose an obnoxious username or a trash talking username from other sites innocntly could be blocked. Since the mods see their running of CAA as a ministry, I'm sure they don't want to throw away the wheat with the chaff.

The mods have their own lives to lead off line. To expect them to take on extra burdens like this may not be reasonable given the size of the forum. We need to suggest options, not tell them they need to work more.

[Da Rabid Duckie]

I think that the same argument could be used for having enough mods for constant coverage. If trolls are smart and patient, they could circumvent the system you propose. While it is a good idea, I think that you should combine it with increased mod presence. The two measures working together make for the best possible solution.

Yes, it can definitely be used to reinforce your point, but ultimately it doesn't stick as well because of one fundamental problem: if one U-mod (check me out, coining a new term...) and one regular mod was on, and the U-mod zapped a troll it's not as important because had there been no U-mod the troll would have still been zapped by the other mod. The only way it would be applicable is if a U-mod was online and zapped a troll during a time that availabilty was exclusive to them. This brings me to my biggest problem with the idea of having more mods: finding people that would always be able to be on or accessable from 9A-4P EST.

As for the rest of what you say, a 24 hour delay would be enough for mods to see the sorts of obvious indicators you mention. It just takes away the burden of making approval an absolute necessity for the mods.

It's really not that much of a burden, see below.

Did you know when I first joined, the mods thought I might be a troll because of my user name? There was some confusion before I was able to post. Some people have to use hotmail or other free accounts.

*laughs loudly and slaps AH on the back* Pal, I still think you're a troll. ^_^ You bring up an excellent point, well met!

A clever troll could get through perhaps with a new hotmail account or a disposable account and run through an anonymous server... my ISP makes it easy to do this for example (for sites that demand registration for example, but it could be abused), while someone who chose an obnoxious username or a trash talking username from other sites innocntly could be blocked. Since the mods see their running of CAA as a ministry, I'm sure they don't want to throw away the wheat with the chaff.

Again, well met! I'm not saying the case will be the same with every member. We've gotten so good with approving new members that it's fairly obvious who can come in and who needs to leave, and even when there's still some ambiguity we'll just restrict their posting to mod-approved status then introduce ourselves to them, let them sign off as having read the rules (and something we call the noob guide, which lets you know how we expect you to act), and then talk with them a bit until we're satisfied enough to make a decision. It's REALLY good PR work, let me tell you.

The mods have their own lives to lead off line. To expect them to take on extra burdens like this may not be reasonable given the size of the forum. We need to suggest options, not tell them they need to work more.

This is how hard it is to approve new members: *check... check... check... approve members* *check... check... check... check... deny members* There are three admins at G2G, and the new member queue gets checked daily. It's NOT hard, nor is it more work. Actually, checking the member queue is far easier and convenient than having to zap a troll because there were no checks, similar to brushing one's teeth being far easier than a tooth extraction because you didn't brush your teeth.

AH, you've brought up the best counterarguments to date, keep them coming!

[shooraijin]

I think I should hasten to add a semi-official point since discussion in this thread is voluminous -- obviously, despite how people may reasonable or achievable people may consider their particular ideas, the mod staff will determine any site policy changes we make purely internally. We certainly don't mind the comments and suggestions, but there seems to be a real swell of public opinion in certain directions which we may decide not to adopt depending on how easily they can be set up and how maintainable such limitations are. Furthermore, we are a large and unique site and have numerous internal considerations which for security reasons are kept private to the moderator staff.

The basic point of this post is to ensure no mistaken assumptions that any of the suggestions will necessarily be or not be implemented, although all of them are being discussed, including some other novel options proposed by others on-staff. I will post an update to the thread when there is more to say in an official capacity.

[Da Rabid Duckie]

We certainly don't mind the comments and suggestions, but there seems to be a real swell of public opinion in certain directions which we may decide not to adopt depending on how easily they can be set up and how maintainable such limitations are.

Shooby's talking about me! Wai~I! XD

The basic point of this post is to ensure no mistaken assumptions that any of the suggestions will necessarily be or not be implemented, although all of them are being discussed, including some other novel options proposed by others on-staff. I will post an update to the thread when there is more to say in an official capacity.

Oh I'll hold you to that :p

Sir your post is duly noted, and I do apologize if my banter doth offend or irritate in any matter, it's just that I don't get to rant very often these days because while on my own forum I have to act on behalf of both the forums and the leadership and don't often get to speak my feelings on most situations in order to remain objective (I'm sure you understand this QUITE well). Besides, we all know you guys are copying and pasting the ideas that everyone has given and saying "okie, this is a good idea, now let's play twenty questions and watch them squirm until we do it."

In all seriousness, I'm confident that some resolution will come out of all of this. Plus, I know both you and Miss Ashley have seen how I can get when I don't exactly agree on something, and I respect that fact a great deal. I know you'll get it done.

[Steeltemplar]

Understood, Shoo. All of this is suggestion and conjecture

Yes, it can definitely be used to reinforce your point, but ultimately it doesn't stick as well because of one fundamental problem: if one U-mod (check me out, coining a new term...) and one regular mod was on, and the U-mod zapped a troll it's not as important because had there been no U-mod the troll would have still been zapped by the other mod. The only way it would be applicable is if a U-mod was online and zapped a troll during a time that availabilty was exclusive to them. This brings me to my biggest problem with the idea of having more mods: finding people that would always be able to be on or accessable from 9-4 EST.

Well, I don't think I ever suggested that the "U-mods" would be useful any time other than when other mods are not on. So that's not really part of the argument.

As for people being on 9-4EST, I assume you mean 9am-4pm? We can find people, I would imagine. I know that I am on a lot during those times. I think that before we call that a liability, it would be good to find out if it is indeed the case that no one is available. If we can't find anyone, then you would be right. But I don't see any evidence as yet to support such a premise. There are certainly people on during the day as I can attest being one of those people.

Of course, this is all conjecture as the mods are deciding

Let me boil down my argument like this:

More mod presence is better if it can be had.

That is really all I am saying.

Oh. And point conceded about the mod approval of members. If it is easy, then I don't have an issue with it.

[Da Rabid Duckie]

Understood, Shoo. All of this is suggestion and conjecture

Conjecture? Pssh, I'm serious! :p

Well, I don't think I ever suggested that the "U-mods" would be useful any time other than when other mods are not on. So that's not really part of the argument.

Point.

As for people being on 9-4EST, I assume you mean 9am-4pm?

Fixed, for the win.

We can find people, I would imagine. I know that I am on a lot during those times. I think that before we call that a liability, it would be good to find out if it is indeed the case that no one is available. If we can't find anyone, then you would be right. But I don't see any evidence as yet to support such a premise. There are certainly people on during the day as I can attest being one of those people.

But it still cuts the selection down dramatically since they're non-peak times for the forums.

Of course, this is all conjecture as the mods are deciding

Gah! There's that word again! Yet another "Pssh"! :p Not that I'm dismissing the authority of the mods/admins, as one of a similar rank I very much respect the position, but I know so very well that a lot of the ideas here are sound enough that I can promise that if they don't get implimented, I'll be very quick to bring it all up again after the next troll attack. I'm not trying to be an antagonist, I just think it would be very unwise to ignore what we've presented.

[Steeltemplar]

Indeed, I think that a lot of good suggestions have been made here. Not the least the ones we have made. I think the mods will do something good, whatever they do. So I guess all that's left is to see what the powers that be decide.

[shooraijin]

The note wasn't directed to anyone in particular (certainly there have been numerous suggestions from many people), just a gentle reminder for people not to get too attached to one direction or another to go in. None of this is per se irritating or unwelcome; just a reminder to keep the ideas in that perspective. We really do value the feedback.

[Kanerou]

*melodramatic gasp* Are people having a peaceful debate? Or would this be considered a pointed discussion?

*waits for others to fall out*

[Spoiler]OK, I've gotten my jab in. I hope you mods find and implement a good solution, and please ignore my all-too-obvious baiting. I love to poke fun, but I'd hate to have you guys mad at me. (And let me know if I'm setting a bad example and need to cease.)[/spoiler]

[Myoti]

I see a slight flaw in background checks. It might not be a big or common problem but it can happen...

[SPOILER]
Multiple e-mail addresses.

A smart one could make another seemingly hamrless address with no real "background" to check. Thus, a mod could approve and the troll would slip in unnoticed till it was too late.

Not trying to put down anything, but I just thought it should be brought up (unless it already was... bah, I need sleep...).
[/SPOILER]

[shooraijin]

Here is a followup, after some deliberation. First, of the ideas we're not going to implement that were widely discussed:

- The junior moderator idea isn't going to fly, because most of the requests were for ban or freeze power, the single most significant ability that differentiates mod staff. It involves coding a whole new user class that doesn't exist in vBulletin (and an access control list), and appropriate restrictions, and also sets certain internal precedents we didn't want to encourage.

Instead, we are considering simply adding new *mods* and you will hear about that soon. It's just a lot simpler.

- Reviewing every single registration is terribly onerous. I'm not sure how many people know how many new users CAA gets daily, but this is a large burden to screen. Plus, adding a timeout on registration (24 hours) only means that the troll wave comes 24 hours later. (Think about it -- if we send them an E-mail to remind them to come on, what happens then? If we don't, what happens to regular users we *want* to sign up?)

Furthermore, part of CAA's success is that we are a fully open site -- we are already quite parochial in some ways, and it limits the impact of the site to diminish the free influx of potential users.

Instead, since the problem is not delaying individual users during a troll wave but slowing down registration *as a whole*, we will be limiting new user signups to one new registration every few minutes so that trolls can't descend on the site wholesale -- one at a time, so that there won't be a lot of trolls posting in parallel and mods can pick them off one by one.

Ideas we will be implementing:

- IP banning is in the works (the implementation is actually a little more complex but will not be divulged here), and has been in the pipeline for actually quite a while. Please be patient with Mith; he's the only coder and has a life to deal with as well. We also have some other security installed recently which we will not talk about in public, and have changed some policies which will be implemented during troll waves -- again internal to the moderator staff.

- Reporting users directly from their profile is also a good idea and will be implemented (after doing IP banning and limiting regs-per-minute).

- Limiting [img ] tags to a certain post count is certainly a decent suggestion and one that has been considered before. It does involve a fair amount of low-level work to the vBcode parser and is lower priority because of the technical overhead, but we will get to this too.

There will be a public announcement on what changes will occur with the moderation staff. Speaking for the administration, we do appreciate everyone's input in this thread and please understand that all the ideas were reviewed carefully.

[ChristianKitsune]

Sounds Great, Shooraijin! ^_^ Thanks for considering all of our requests and giving us fair answers! ^_^ We love you mods and Admins! ^_^

*huggle*