 | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
-snip-
> It needs fixing. I suggest that codeing'll do it, either as the person posts,
> or as people display. It's been done before in other areas and I think it'll
> work here.
Hey Dave,
Thanks for the thoughtful responce. The effort has been to fully enforce
incidents of cursing, regardless. I've suggested a few times in enlisting more
people as 'Mods' for whom their sole purpose is seeking out ToU violations and
bringing them to Admin's attention.
The thing about a word filter is that it won't necessarily catch all incidents
of a curse word, in which case we are back to square one again: how do the
Admins deal with posts that break the ToU? Direct post editting by Admins,
without user consent, is the easiest solution.
-Len
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> -snip-
> > It needs fixing. I suggest that codeing'll do it, either as the person posts,
> > or as people display. It's been done before in other areas and I think it'll
> > work here.
> The thing about a word filter is that it won't necessarily catch all incidents
> of a curse word, in which case we are back to square one again: how do the
> Admins deal with posts that break the ToU? Direct post editting by Admins,
> without user consent, is the easiest solution.
That's my sticking point too... we can technically put a filter in place, but
that won't stop people from going around it. If they are going to violate the
ToS, they're going to work at it.
It's more a matter of understanding that rules are in place for a reason, and
that it's expected that they be followed. I think that's the root of Willy's
goodbye post - "you can't tell ME what to do!"
Direct post editing would solve this immediate problem, but surely ignite
others. This is a proud bunch, willing to fall on swords for matters of
principle - which I admire, actually. But the bottom line is, every society has
rules to follow, and LUGNET has its share, which I don't believe are onerous by
any means. We're still at the simple stage of "yes, there are rules, and you
should follow them."
I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
without permission :)
OK, I put a smiley there, although it's not funny. I really think that a big
part is the fact that it all seems so random, done by random guys at random
times, that LUGNET members have no say in. Maybe that needs to change first, and
then once there's a feeling of "ownership" some changes can be made that won't
ignite the LUGNET forest.
Having said that - ya, Len, it's not a bad plan. AS LONG AS it's something that
is understood by everyone before it happens, and agreed upon by the LUGNET
administration.
- Kelly
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing
> posts without permission :)
Kelly, I think you misspelled "poopstorm."
Anyway, that reminds me: when the posting authentication stuff went in
a few years back, the architecture underneath was such that a post goes
through "stages" of life: submitted, pending, then live or dead (dead
being when someone kills it before posting it). The pending stage is
actually implemented as two half-steps, and the labels used intenerally
are "pen1" and "pen2". (Here, the word "pen" means holding area, not
"pending," althought it's a double meaning.) Currently, only "pen1" is
ever used -- this is where articles sit and wait for authentication. The
purpose of "pen2" was to (someday, perhaps) have a second pending stage
where, after authentication, an article then sits and waits (cue the "I'm
Just a Bill" music) for a moderator to approve the message.
I don't know that bringing that partial implementation to fruition,
however, would really address the issues at hand, since it would create
bottlenecks everywhere.
I am wondering what life would be like if offensive posts were simply
flagged as such (somehow) after the fact, and then (by default) any
flagged article's text would be hidden behind a warning.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
> without permission :)
if/when?
Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins.
I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I
wrong in this assumption?
M
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
>
>
> > I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
> > without permission :)
>
> if/when?
>
> Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins.
>
> I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I
> wrong in this assumption?
>
> M
I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is and what is
not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team.
M
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I can't wait to see the firestorm if/when LUGNET staff start editing posts
> > > without permission :)
> >
> > if/when?
> >
> > Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by the Admins.
> >
> > I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing it. Am I
> > wrong in this assumption?
>
> I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is and what is
> not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team.
Well I dunno about any other editing, but I don't consider changing the FUT as
editing, as it is only a suggestion anyway. All they are changing is where
they'd like followups to go - you are still free to override that. And NNTP
admins have had that ability since the dawn of time. Well OK maybe the dawn of
NNTP time.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> > Does Lugnet not view editing the FUT editing? This is widley done by
> > the Admins.
> >
> > I thought if you changed anything about a post than you were editing
> > it. Am I wrong in this assumption?
>
> I would actually like an aswer to this. I would like to know what is
> and what is not considered 'editing' by the Lugnet Admin team.
This hasn't been discussed on the list, and I'm sure there are probably
a variety of opinions, but I'll offer mine.
Overriding the FUT of an article alters the article's metadata item known
as the "Followup-To" header. While this is not part of the article's
content per se, it is part of the object that comprises the article as a
whole. When the FUT is overridden, the value of the original "Followup-To"
header is copied to a new "Original-Followup-To" header so that this
information is not lost. In my view, this is not editing an article's
content in a fundamental way. Strictly speaking, yes, it is editing an
article's content, since the file in which the article is stored on the
server is altered during this process.
What I would call "editing" is going in and changing, adding, or deleting
words in the the body or subject of an article, or in various other human-
language header fields such as "Organization." No admin is authorized to
make any such editing changes to articles, and there is no admin interface
for doing it, nor plans to create one.
Let me know if that didn't answer your question.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> Let me know if that didn't answer your question.
Yes, it did.
Thank you for taking the time.
M
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> -snip-
> > It needs fixing. I suggest that codeing'll do it, either as the person posts,
> > or as people display. It's been done before in other areas and I think it'll
> > work here.
>
> Hey Dave,
> Thanks for the thoughtful responce. The effort has been to fully enforce
> incidents of cursing, regardless. I've suggested a few times in enlisting more
> people as 'Mods' for whom their sole purpose is seeking out ToU violations and
> bringing them to Admin's attention.
>
> The thing about a word filter is that it won't necessarily catch all incidents
> of a curse word, in which case we are back to square one again: how do the
> Admins deal with posts that break the ToU? Direct post editting by Admins,
> without user consent, is the easiest solution.
>
> -Len
If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru'
would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#.
The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5.
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect.
Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave
the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip
would be taken care of most of the time. I think that'd be good enough.
-JSM
David Koudys wrote:
>
> If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru'
> would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#.
>
> The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5.
>
> Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The problem is that we're not dealing with momentary issues where someone
mistypes or whatnot. Willy went out of his way to use a cuss, and then went out
of his way to obfuscate the Admin's process of dealing with his cuss.
A filter won't deal with the core issue here - which is how to deal with people
who are doing the cussing.
-Lenny
In lugnet.admin.general, Jason S. Mantor wrote:
> Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect.
> Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave
> the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip
> would be taken care of most of the time. I think that'd be good enough.
>
> -JSM
>
> David Koudys wrote:
>
> >
> > If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru'
> > would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#.
> >
> > The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5.
> >
> > Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
OK, maybe we really do need two different discussions to happen, but the
two are inextricably intertwined. Filters would catch the slips and
that'd be a Good Thing(TM). Admins then have to deal with the bad eggs
who intentionally try to beat the filters. I think there are two ways
to deal with that :
1. Make better filters
2. Find a way to convince people to play nice.
#2 can either be draconian or "soft touch" but, human nature being what
it is, I think #1 is the most effective way to meet the intended goal : (
If a filter had caught Willy's transgression then there likely wouldn't
have been any further discusion. It'd be done and over with.
Just think of it as validating user input. Not only can't some joker
buy negative quantities of widgets, we won't let them drop f-bombs in
the comments field.
I'll even volunteer to help code said filters : )
Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> The problem is that we're not dealing with momentary issues where someone
> mistypes or whatnot. Willy went out of his way to use a cuss, and then went out
> of his way to obfuscate the Admin's process of dealing with his cuss.
| | | | | | |
