Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Suggestion for sockpuppet karmaFollow

#1 Oct 21 2004 at 1:48 AM Rating: Decent
Recently, there's been quite a few people who create an account just to make 15 trolling posts with it. While they're usually massively rated down, they still get those 15 posts at 3.00. Here's a possible solution:

If a person gets 60 ratings, their posts start at their average karma, but until they hit 15 posts, this can be no higher than 3.00.

This way, let's say someone creates an account named Albergooooo and posts a "YOU ALL SUCK" thread. It gets rated with 20 1s, bringing the post rating to 1.18. That makes Albergooooo have 22 ratings, with an average rating of 1.18. (When someone posts a post, they "rate" themselves twice at their average karma)

Now if Albergooooo was to start posting informative posts, not getting rated again, at 15 posts Albergooooo would have 40 ratings, and an average of 2.2. This is the same as in the current system.

Now let's say after the "YOU ALL SUCK" post, Albergooooo posts a "GET **** HERE" post. This gets rated 1 36 times, bringing the post to 1.10. This would cause Albergooooo's post rating to 1.13 with 60 ratings. Under this proposal, all of Albergooooo's posts would start at 1.13 after a mere two posts, instead of Albergooooo having 13 more posts to spew filth over the board at 3.00.

Any thoughts about this?

Edit: Just realized that Albergo already created Albergooo, so changed it to Albergooooo Smiley: tongue

Edited, Thu Oct 21 03:05:30 2004 by Kesac
#2 Oct 22 2004 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
Illia the Tulip wrote:

ya and that pattern isn't changed by people whining for bannings of usernames or IP. The same pattern occurs.

<ban ip>
<get new dial in addres>
<ban ip>
<use new proxy>

<flag user>
<new user account created>

See? If you care deeply about never seeing annoying or offensive material, I'm going to suggest you just cancel your internet access now. You might also consider not leaving your house, and turn off the TV, god knows what kind of crap might come in through that.

The reason I responded to this thread saying "yeah so?" when someone posted something that a great many people might not expect or want to see on this site is that I can't control it. I can't control it at all, not by banning IP, not by flagging user. It's life, it's the universe, people say sh*t you might not agree with, and people post things you might find exciting disgusting pornographic, or whatever. So what?

It takes more effort for someone to post crap than it does for the community to get rid of it. In cases of spammage, I even have a few admin tools which make it reall easy to get rid of. Don't sweat it. Don't worry about it, and don't by any means get in a stink when someone posts sh*t to a message board that you don't think is right. This is the Internet - you're less likely to meet offensive people randomly walking though New York.



And if its a sockpuppet, they are the easiest things to kill. they have so few posts even if they hit scholar and start nuking people. just go back and rate down all thier posts and its done (I should know, people have dones this to me several times LOL!, that is, nuking me with sockpupets ;) )

Edited, Fri Oct 22 14:52:58 2004 by Lienna
#3 Oct 24 2004 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Lienna the Sly wrote:

And if its a sockpuppet, they are the easiest things to kill. they have so few posts even if they hit scholar and start nuking people. just go back and rate down all thier posts and its done (I should know, people have dones this to me several times LOL!, that is, nuking me with sockpupets ;) )


More talking about the Albergo-type sockpuppets, who post **** for 15-16 posts, then create a new account (Unless an admin gets to it first). With this suggestion, they'd have to create a new account at 3-6 posts. Just some inconviences for those that like to make trouble, as we'd be able to kill the socks a whole lot quicker.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 266 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)