Troll management



  • There are a few DailyWTF users who are, to borrow words from a famous UseNet quote, terminally caustic twits. Any thread to which they post becomes an instant flamewar.

    The simplest, most peaceful solution to this is to add a personal, per-user blacklist capability to the site. What I envision is that next to each user name is a "Block posts from this user" link or something similar. To accommodate the possibility of accidental blockings, a DailyWTF user's profile page would need a section wherein blocked users could be individually removed.

    When I block a user, I would no longer see that user's posts. They simply would not show up in the discussion when I view it. Moreover, all descendants of that user's posts—that is, all replies to such a post, and all replies to those replies, and so on—would also be hidden. Obviously my settings would not affect what anyone else sees.

    Alex, please consider adding something like this. These idiots are ruining my experience here by making the site less useful and less pleasant. I'm sure you've noticed it as well.



  • Whoa, that was blunt.

    Meanwhile, maybe [url=http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/27130]this[/url] will help.



  • You would miss a lot of fun Blocking direct replies to a trolling post would be nice, but by blocking replies to those replies and so on you could miss a lot of useful stuff. Sometimes a user can just use a small sentence requesting the troll to STFU and then add a handful of paragraphs of good-hearted wisdom.

     Wouldn't it be nice having an option to either block all related replies, or just direct ones?



  • @VGR said:

    When I block a user, I would no longer see that user's posts.
     

    What about their stuff that's quoted in replies that are not decendants of blocked posts? 

    It would be nice functionality, but CS already seems to chug along hard enough. This might be enough to go belly up entirely. 



  • @MarcB said:

    @VGR said:

    When I block a user, I would no longer see that user's posts.
     

    What about their stuff that's quoted in replies that are not decendants of blocked posts? 

    That would be nice, but I'm not looking for perfection. Just blocking the user's posts and their descendants would eliminate around 95% of the flames. Trying to suppress all traces of a user would require more effort than it's worth. I'd like to think that the simpler the solution, the more likely it can be implemented.



  • @VGR said:

    Alex, please consider adding something like this. These idiots are ruining my experience here by making the site less useful and less pleasant. I'm sure you've noticed it as well.
    As far as I know, this forum is just off-the-shelf CS. It's doubtful that Alex will add anything.



  • @bstorer said:

    @VGR said:
    Alex, please consider adding something like this. These idiots are ruining my experience here by making the site less useful and less pleasant. I'm sure you've noticed it as well.
    As far as I know, this forum is just off-the-shelf CS. It's doubtful that Alex will add anything.

    Alex, plz add the ability to make users smarter so I don't have to call them idiots.  kthx 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    @VGR said:
    Alex, please consider adding something like this. These idiots are ruining my experience here by making the site less useful and less pleasant. I'm sure you've noticed it as well.
    As far as I know, this forum is just off-the-shelf CS. It's doubtful that Alex will add anything.

    Alex, plz add the ability to make users smarter so I don't have to call them idiots.  kthx 

    You're an idiot. Quit being an idiot.



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    @VGR said:
    Alex, please consider adding something like this. These idiots are ruining my experience here by making the site less useful and less pleasant. I'm sure you've noticed it as well.
    As far as I know, this forum is just off-the-shelf CS. It's doubtful that Alex will add anything.

    Alex, plz add the ability to make users smarter so I don't have to call them idiots.  kthx 

    You're an idiot. Quit being an idiot.

    Goddammit, you just had to ruin VGR's thread, didn't you?  You know he's talking about you, right?

     

    VGR, I'm sorry about this.  Apparently pstorer can't see a thread without taking a dump on it.  It's pretty much a Pavlovian response by now. 



  • @bstorer said:

    As far as I know, this forum is just off-the-shelf CS. It's doubtful that Alex will add anything.

    If that's the case, obviously my request is pointless. I thought I had recalled his saying that he wrote some of it himself.



  • @VGR said:

    @bstorer said:
    As far as I know, this forum is just off-the-shelf CS. It's doubtful that Alex will add anything.

    If that's the case, obviously my request is pointless. I thought I had recalled his saying that he wrote some of it himself.

    I think only the front page stuff. To my knowledge, the forums are the standard, poorly written CS forums.


  • Its bad enough when someone jumps into a thread without reading the first 45 pages - can you imagine how messed up it would get if people can't even see what others have posted that same day?

     

    If you blocked everyone you considered a troll, you'd soon have to block everyone else, since everyone would be flaming you for posting without having any idea of what was going on. Seriously, how can you contribute to a discussion when you have no idea what a third of the people are even saying? 

    If people on the net can actually get under your skin, you really should consider upgrading your ego to a much larger model.



  • @BeenThere said:

    Its bad enough when someone jumps into a thread without reading the first 45 pages - can you imagine how messed up it would get if people can't even see what others have posted that same day?

     

    If you blocked everyone you considered a troll, you'd soon have to block everyone else, since everyone would be flaming you for posting without having any idea of what was going on. Seriously, how can you contribute to a discussion when you have no idea what a third of the people are even saying? 

    If people on the net can actually get under your skin, you really should consider upgrading your ego to a much larger model.

    See, that's the thing about cupcakes -- they're like regular cakes, but in handy cup format.  Now, a lot of folks will tell you that you can't put meat in a cupcake, but those people are just plain wrong.  Smoked Virginia ham and pineapple make great additions to any cupcake recipe.  I'm partially to steak tips myself, but you need to avoid using dairy ingredients if you have Jewish friends because mixing meat and dairy is not Kosher.  I hear you asking, though "Morbius, what about small game?  There's no way that would taste good in a cupcake!"  Well, you'd be wrong.  And stupid.  Way to be stupid and wrong, ugly.

     

    Anyway, small game actually taste fantastic when mixed with cake ingredients and baked, just be sure to remove any remaining shot from the meat before use.  Possum cupcakes are definitely an acquired taste, but I think you'll find yourself pleasantly surprised at the subtle flavor the meat adds.  Recommended wines: something dry and red, perhaps a merlot.



  • @bstorer said:

    I think only the front page stuff. To my knowledge, the forums are the standard, poorly written CS forums.

    Generally it's not that hard to add this kind of a feature even to a poorly written forum. Inevitably the thread display consists of a loop going through every post returned by the database. All that needs to be done is wrap the actual output statement into a conditional that compares the author of the post to a string of ignored names. If there's a match, then skip to the next post.

    The same modification works for thread lists for filtering threads by the original author. The database / user records need an extra field per user to store this string, as well as a text box on the preferences page to modify it. That's usually the most difficult part. If the forum software isn't too awful, this should be around 2-3 hours or work to get a mostly-perfect solution that filters the majority of drivel.

    Extending this to filter posts descending from those of ignored users is going to more work, but might not even be needed. 



  • @Nandurius said:

    Generally it's not that hard to add this kind of a feature even to a poorly written forum.
    I'm not disputing how difficult it would be, but whether Alex would even take any notice whatsoever, let alone bother to implement it.



  • @Spectre said:

    Whoa, that was blunt.

    Meanwhile, maybe this will help.

     

     LOL, I see a pattern here.



  • @Nandurius said:

    All that needs to be done is wrap the actual output statement into a conditional that compares the author of the post to a string of ignored names. If there's a match, then skip to the next post.
     

    Then you'd be flipping page by page, most of which showing zero to three posts per page.  You'd have to modify the query if you want the paging to remain consistent - but it could work if you filled in a 'dummy' post that simply explained "this post has been skipped because it might hurt your feelings" or such.

     

    Maybe we could add content regex support, so any posts that include "bambi" + "mom dying" could be blocked, so my coworkers don't make fun of me for crying at work.



  • @mrrooster said:

    @Spectre said:


    Meanwhile, maybe this will help.

     

     LOL, I see a pattern here.

    Nice. Thanks to you and Spectre for pointing these out. I'm not using any of them yet, but I'll investigate them when time permits.

    The fact that they're all dated 2008 is rather telling.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    See, that's the thing about cupcakes -- they're like regular cakes, but in handy cup format...
     

    Why do I get that feeling of dread that somehow, the ghost of swampy will make an appearance and totally run with a long winded story involving meat and cupcakes? 



  • @BeenThere said:

    Maybe we could add content regex support, so any posts that include "bambi" + "mom dying" could be blocked, so my coworkers don't make fun of me for crying at work.

    You are my new hero. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @BeenThere said:

    Maybe we could add content regex support, so any posts that include "bambi" + "mom dying" could be blocked, so my coworkers don't make fun of me for crying at work.

    You are my new hero. 

    Because he QQ's at work? That doesn't surprise me at all.



  • @BeenThere said:

    Its bad enough when someone jumps into a thread without reading the first 45 pages - can you imagine how messed up it would get if people can't even see what others have posted that same day?

    By definition, a troll is someone who isn't contributing anything to the discussion. Someone whose posts most of us could do without.



  • @VGR said:

    @BeenThere said:

    Its bad enough when someone jumps into a thread without reading the first 45 pages - can you imagine how messed up it would get if people can't even see what others have posted that same day?

    By definition, a troll is someone who isn't contributing anything to the discussion. Someone whose posts most of us could do without.

    But everyone's definition of a troll varies. And sometimes relevant discussion comes out of a troll. Why not just skip 'em? Does it really hurt you to see their posts?


  • @bstorer said:

    Does it really hurt you to see their posts?

    That's the problem we're facing, pstorer, sometimes it does hurt.  You see, VGR has cancer.  Of the butt.  Butt cancer.  It makes him particularly sensitive to off-topic discussions.  The doctors say if he reads one more off-topic reply or another "joke" that puts a forum user down, he could die.  You (yes you) can help, though, by showing your support in the form of a trendy awareness ribbon.  The image is in my new signature, feel free to add it to your own if you don't want to see VGR die.

     

    Remember, if you're not part of the solution, your name is probably MarcB or Simon Adams.



  • @bstorer said:

    But everyone's definition of a troll varies.

    That's why I suggested per-user settings.

    @bstorer said:
    And sometimes relevant discussion comes out of a troll.

    How often? (In my experience, never.)

    @bstorer said:
    Why not just skip 'em? Does it really hurt you to see their posts?

    It's about signal-to-noise ratio. One or two posts? No big deal. How about if 10% of the posts are garbage? 50%? 80%?

    And yes, even 100% is possible, not only through posting volume, but by hijacking a thread with flamebait. If you're reading a forum about TCP/IP stacks, and someone posts political bait or any other sensitive subject there, people are going to respond with some fervor. The volume of it will drown out the TCP/IP material. Are you okay with wading through 40 posts about Obama in order to read two posts about TCP/IP?

    The parallels between applying "can't you just ignore it" to trolls and applying the same question to spam should be apparent. Which is not surprising, since trolls aren't all that different from spam. And anyone who's familiar with UseNet knows of at least one (probably several) groups which became unusable and were ultimately abandoned because the noise made it an unreasonable chore to find the signal.

    Yeah, I can just ignore it. If the kiddies want to make a playground of it, I have no power to stop them. I'll probably just read the site a lot less often. I'm not on a crusade here, I just thought I'd appeal to what I believe to be Alex's desire to keep the site at a certain level of quality.



  • @VGR said:

    ...40 posts about Obama...

    Obama??  But he's black!  We're voting for President of the United States, not R&B or Hip-hop Album of the Year. 



  • @VGR said:

    The parallels between applying "can't you just ignore it" to trolls and applying the same question to spam should be apparent. Which is not surprising, since trolls aren't all that different from spam.

     You are forgetting something rather important:  Spammers are universally sending crap, and there is no community discussion involved (its a you and them relationship).

     When you say "trolls" you are assuming a "troll" only posts "troll" comments.  From my observations, you'll have people who respond to other posts in various ways:

    1) friendly debate
    2) 'wtf are you smoking' plus points
    3) the complete rip-to-shreds post
    4) the major non-sequitur/thread hijack

    The same users can often make posts that fall into all four categories - there is no universal troll/not-troll way to define a user.

    The end result:

    1) someone hurts your feelings, and you loose the warm fuzzy feeling in your belly, so you block them
    2) you go to another thread, and see someone's comments on asychronous key encryption
    3) you post some comment, and find people react in a "wtf??" manner because your post was rendered irrelevent or already stated by someone you blocked.


    You are basically asking us to all suffer along while you make entirely disjointed comments because you don't want to see all the potentially relevant posts in a thread to protect your feelings.

    Or, right after you get out of your sweet race car bed and before your roommate packs your lunch, listen to this (text if audio fails) once and get on with your day.

     

    If that sounds harsh to you, remember that if you got your way... you are asking me to put up with irrelevant posts from people like you who don't know what's even being discussed, because you had others write code to accommodate your weak stomach.
    Sounds like a personal problem to me, and I'd rather not have my quality of experience here drop to accommodate it.



  • @VGR said:

    @bstorer said:
    But everyone's definition of a troll varies.

    That's why I suggested per-user settings.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ability to ignore certain user's posts. If I had never read a single thing Lysis had said, I would've been no worse off. But for the most part, those kinds of trolls go away after a while. @VGR said:
    @bstorer said:
    And sometimes relevant discussion comes out of a troll.

    How often? (In my experience, never.)

    There's probably a few people here who would consider me a troll-- BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR -- ahem, sorry about that. As I was saying, there are those who would call me a troll, but I like to think I can engage in intelligent conversation and provide cogent points, too. But maybe I'm deluding myself, I dunno. @VGR said:
    And yes, even 100% is possible, not only through posting volume, but by hijacking a thread with flamebait. If you're reading a forum about TCP/IP stacks, and someone posts political bait or any other sensitive subject there, people are going to respond with some fervor. The volume of it will drown out the TCP/IP material. Are you okay with wading through 40 posts about Obama in order to read two posts about TCP/IP?

    I can't pretend you're exaggerating, considering that gun thread that started out being about... well, I don't remember. But if the back-and-forth about some other topic is interesting, then I don't care. If it's just constant flaming, then the all-seeing, all-knowing ammoQ has been pretty good about stepping in lately.

    But I get it: you aren't here to read about gun laws, or presidential candidates, or any of that stuff. All I can tell you is to stop reading the thread and just ignore it. Especially because those threads will likely contain a bunch of users you don't consider trolls.

    @VGR said:
    The parallels between applying "can't you just ignore it" to trolls and applying the same question to spam should be apparent. Which is not surprising, since trolls aren't all that different from spam.
    Perhaps we need some sort of per-user Bayesian filtering, then... That's actually an intriguing idea. @VGR said:
    And anyone who's familiar with UseNet knows of at least one (probably several) groups which became unusable and were ultimately abandoned because the noise made it an unreasonable chore to find the signal.
    I know it. But the signal-posters don't just melt away; they're still out there somewhere. They've just moved on to a new location. @VGR said:
    Yeah, I can just ignore it. If the kiddies want to make a playground of it, I have no power to stop them. I'll probably just read the site a lot less often. I'm not on a crusade here, I just thought I'd appeal to what I believe to be Alex's desire to keep the site at a certain level of quality.
    I'm actually curious what Alex's thoughts on this matter are, too. But I don't think any forum can grow and avoid this problem. If you want signal and don't mind small numbers, start a mailing list or Google Group or something and invite only those you want there. I don't know that there's any other way to be sure the signal-to-noise ratio stays consistently high.


  •  

    @mrrooster said:

    @Spectre said:

    Whoa, that was blunt.

    Meanwhile, maybe this will help.

     

     LOL, I see a pattern here.

     

    heheh, i should have searched the userscripts first :)



  • @BeenThere said:

    3) you post some comment, and find people react in a "wtf??" manner because your post was rendered irrelevent or already stated by someone you blocked.

    Because that never happens currently.



  • @BeenThere said:

    @VGR said:
    The parallels between applying "can't you just ignore it" to trolls and applying the same question to spam should be apparent. Which is not surprising, since trolls aren't all that different from spam.

     You are forgetting something rather important:  Spammers are universally sending crap, and there is no community discussion involved (its a you and them relationship).

    [/snip]

    He did say 'all that different', not 'exactly the same as', most of the really bad trolls don't really enter into discussion, I think it's the threads that have 1 salient point buried amongst the same 2 people going 'my cock's bigger than yours', 'Well /i/ can pee round corners' over and over..

     @BeenThere said:

    When you say "trolls" you are assuming a "troll" only posts "troll" comments.

     He doesn't say he's assuming this does he?

     @BeenThere said:

    The same users can often make posts that fall into all four categories - there is no universal troll/not-troll way to define a user.

    This is true, but it's often fairly easy to spot.

    @BeenThere said:

    The end result:

    1) someone hurts your feelings, and you loose the warm fuzzy feeling in your belly, so you block them
    2) you go to another thread, and see someone's comments on asychronous key encryption
    3) you post some comment, and find people react in a "wtf??" manner because your post was rendered irrelevent or already stated by someone you blocked.


    You are basically asking us to all suffer along while you make entirely disjointed comments because you don't want to see all the potentially relevant posts in a thread to protect your feelings.

    Hurt feelings? Suffering? Perhaps a little context here, it's an internet discussion forum, not the spanish inquisition (although everyone expects this joke about the spanish inquisition.) It's sometimes just inconvenient to scroll through a page of crap to see the 1 or 2 salient points.

    @BeenThere said:

    Or, right after you get out of your sweet race car bed and before your roommate packs your lunch, listen to this (text if audio fails) once and get on with your day.

    Or post a good 5 paragraphs telling them they're wrong. ;p

     @BeenThere said:

    If that sounds harsh to you, remember that if you got your way... you are asking me to put up with irrelevant posts from people like you who don't know what's even being discussed, because you had others write code to accommodate your weak stomach.

    That's a rather big assumption isn't it? He asked for some kind of filtering, but was inspecific as to it's implementation (ie, it could just collapse posts rather than removing them.) Who's to say that if he is going to reply to a thread he isn't going to take the time to ensure the point is relavent. (I read a lot more than I write on these forums, I'm happy to toggle the filtering of idiots to check one of them hasn't already made the point, it's just a basic courtisy.)

    @BeenThere said:

    Sounds like a personal problem to me, and I'd rather not have my quality of experience here drop to accommodate it.
     

    Hey, if his only 'personal problem' is some extra noise filtering when reading a web forum then life's probably pretty good. :)

    Ian



  • @mrrooster said:

    Perhaps a little context here, it's an internet discussion forum, not the spanish inquisition
    NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQU-- @mrrooster said:
    (although everyone expects this joke about the spanish inquisition.)
    Oh.
    @mrrooster said:
    Who's to say that if he is going to reply to a thread he isn't going to take the time to ensure the point is relavent. (I read a lot more than I write on these forums
    Well, you need to read even more, because there are WAY too many replies without bothering to ensure the point is relevant.



  • @bstorer said:

    <snip>


    @mrrooster said:

    Who's to say that if he is going to reply to a thread he isn't going to take the time to ensure the point is relavent. (I read a lot more than I write on these forums
    Well, you need to read even more, because there are WAY too many replies without bothering to ensure the point is relevant.
     

    Heh, I can't read any more I'll get fired for not doing any work!

    In all seriousness that's just the internet (It really is just a large room full of people shouting and waving their hands about a bit.) but I don't think it'll be influenced more or less by hiding peoples posts. People tend to be either considerate, or not. (Yes, I'm looking at you the 43 people who'll rush to publish the pertenent XKCD link several hours after the first person did.)

    It's one problem with things like TDWTF, sometimes if you don't get there just as it's posted there's 3 pages of comments to wade through to check noone's made your point before, and I do think it's worth doing.

     



  • @mrrooster said:

    In all seriousness that's just the internet (It really is just a large room full of people shouting and waving their hands about a bit.) but I don't think it'll be influenced more or less by hiding peoples posts.
    Nor do I. I don't see a solution other than restricting the people allowed in your specific shouting room, and good luck finding 2 people to agree on this.
    @mrrooster said:
    (Yes, I'm looking at you the 43 people who'll rush to publish the pertenent XKCD link several hours after the first person did.)
    Amen!
    @mrrooster said:
    It's one problem with things like TDWTF, sometimes if you don't get there just as it's posted there's 3 pages of comments to wade through to check noone's made your point before, and I do think it's worth doing.
    So do I, but so many people don't. I don't blame people when they've got similar post times, because they were probably posting before they saw the other similar comments. But when you're hours behind? Completely unacceptable.



  • @mrrooster said:

    Hurt feelings? Suffering? Perhaps a little context here, it's an internet discussion forum, not the spanish inquisition (although everyone expects this joke about the spanish inquisition.) It's sometimes just inconvenient to scroll through a page of crap to see the 1 or 2 salient points.
     

     The OP has just a touch of emotional charge, imho. It is inconvenient to scroll through pages of crap - yes.  However, its very inconvenient to others to ignore what is already said all together, as your own post will just add to 'the noise' for everyone else, even if it seems more 'clear' to you and your own idiosyncratic idea of what is relevant (non-blacklist posts).  In my mind, its a very self centered solution to the problem being discussed.  

    I don't think the OPer intended to suggest a self centered solution - I am sure he actually felt it would be useful to others as well.  I am just saying, if you break down how the system would impact the community, the end result creates more noise for the people who take the time to skim posts (even by trolls) to ensure they post relevant comments. 

     @mrrooster said:

    That's a rather big assumption isn't it? He asked for some kind of filtering, but was inspecific as to it's implementation (ie, it could just collapse posts rather than removing them.) Who's to say that if he is going to reply to a thread he isn't going to take the time to ensure the point is relavent. (I read a lot more than I write on these forums, I'm happy to toggle the filtering of idiots to check one of them hasn't already made the point, it's just a basic courtisy.)

     The goal of the request is to filter out (with invariable overkill) posts that could be trollish.  Forums (including this one) often have "noise" added because people don't like to read - and just skim - what is already said.  This happens, but is manageable.  Adding some a system - through any implimentation, will increase that effect.  That is afterall, the goal of the request.  The individual believes (based on their blacklist) that the discussion would be better if it was disjointed towards the bias of their blacklist, but if we don't happen to agree with that individual (use a different blacklist) - we then have to deal with discontinutity to a much larger degree.

    If we all had the same blacklist - then it would be easy.  Different blacklists will cause discontinutiy, no matter what.  We already have a universal blacklist - its called 'banned users'.

    I do not enjoy reading through a lot of the posts that are posted, and so I speed read, get the jist, and if its too much, don't even bother to post on the original topic, since the discussion as the thread seems to have moved to a topic I am not interested in.  Why should I hijack the discussion towards an OP when people are enjoying a thread on Obama's momma?

    The only way to be courteous to others is to see what's posted, even if you only skim it.  I don't see any other way around that, filters or otherwise. 



  •  I didn't read any of this really except the first post. You guys are all retards.



  • @JimBastard said:

    I didn't read any of this really except the first post.

    Come on, it's easy!  Just sound out the big words and if you get stuck ask your mommy for help.  Or get high again.  Either way, your neurons will be under assault. 



  • @JimBastard said:

     I didn't read any of this really except the first post. You guys are all retards.

    I know you got all excited when you saw the word "Troll" and figured someone was talking about you, but that's not the case. So put it back in your pants, chief.



  • I don't want to hear anything from anyone who has ever trolled even once in their life. THEY SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!! 



  • @BeenThere said:

    the end result creates more noise for the people who take the time to skim posts (even by trolls) to ensure they post relevant comments. 
     

    i used to skim posts (even by trolls) and found it a bit repetitive task, and computers are actually made for such tasks ... 

    let's say you would like to build a fully automated system that can read all posts inside a single thread and filter out the ones you find irrelevant ...

    the major problem here is not reading posts, analysing them or actuall filtering, it's finding the discriminative features of the trolly posts ... for me (and not only for me, since there are at least 4 scripts on userscripts.org which employ the same feature and who knows how many people have their own homebrew version which is not uploaded) the username is one really good approximation ...

    @BeenThere said:

    Adding some a system - through any implementation, will increase that effect. 

    Not really ... If I put someone on the blacklist it is because of posts like the one from "Jim Bastard" in this thread (another nice addition to my blacklist) ... After reading a lot of the posts by users currently on my blacklist, I can guarantee that in 97% of my posts I would never repeat anything they might have already said (simply because they are so predictable, you could write a bot which emulates them) ...

     

    btw. Swampy is not on my list, since he is kind enough to stick to his own threads and does not hijack others... and he actually made me laugh ... 

     



  • @Nelle said:

    the blacklist
    I think that if you've got a script that filters out posts made by certain users, you should publish this list so that those of us who don't have filtering (i.e. aren't pansies) have a better understanding of what parts of the conversation you might be missing, so that we can explicitly quote people on your blacklist for you in case they say something interesting.



  • @Welbog said:

    I think that if you've got a script that filters out posts made by certain users, you should publish this list so that those of us who don't have filtering (i.e. aren't pansies) have a better understanding of what parts of the conversation you might be missing, so that we can explicitly quote people on your blacklist for you in case they say something interesting.
     

    wouldn't work ... because this pansy knows regular expressions ... every post that contains something like (quote user="blacklisted")text(/quote) is automatically removed ... 

    frankly i spend less time reading the forums when they are filtered like this ... and i do not feel like I'm missing much ...

    oh, and I do turn the filter off and skimm the thread once before replying ...



  • @Nelle said:

     ...

     

    You know, this would really explain a lot of Nelle's post quality issues.



  • @Nelle6781 said:

    every post that contains something like (quote user="blacklisted")text(/quote) is automatically removed
    Wait a minute, the whole post is removed, just because it contains a blacklisted quote? Isn't that a bit harsh? What if I reply to you and also quote a troll to respond to him? Also there doesn't seem to be anything stopping me from quoting someone with a pet name of some kind. Theoretically I could just append some numbers to the end of the username in the user attribute and your script would miss it... Unless you verify the name against the WTF members list and block it if it's not on the list, in which case you'll miss this post.



  • @Welbog said:

    Theoretically I could just append some numbers to the end of the username in the user attribute and your script would miss it... Unless you verify the name against the WTF members list and block it if it's not on the list, in which case you'll miss this post.

    Seriously, this butthurt over a few "trolls" is really pathetic.  If someone resorts to this, they are the ultimate pansy. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You know, this would really explain a lot of Nelle's post quality issues.
     

    ??? 



  • @Welbog said:

    Wait a minute, the whole post is removed, just because it contains a blacklisted quote? Isn't that a bit harsh?
     

    its not like the future of the planet is discussed here ... if i miss a couple of posts, its not the end of the world ... 

    @Welbog said:

    Theoretically I could just append some numbers to the end of the username in the user attribute and your script would miss it...

    You have a point there, but I can live with that. Its like the v1agr4 thing in spam mails ...

    and there is no motive for someone to do something like that ...

    @Welbog said:

    Unless you verify the name against the WTF members list.

    i am saving that feature for the "Enterprise" version of the script :) 

     



  • @Nelle said:

    its not like the future of the planet is discussed here
    Clearly you've missed quite a few posts!



  • @Nelle said:

    if i miss a couple of posts, its not the end of the world ... 
     

    No, but it will probably annoy us all, and result in more flaming. So you would actually be reducing the quality of any thread you post in... Kind of like now!



  • @JimBastard said:

    Stealth Post


    Testing if Nelle actually blacklisted JB and, if so, I am assuming this post will never be seen by him(her,it?). 

    Maybe this whole blacklist script bs has an unintended beneficial side effect - throw in a decoy quote of a troll, and then you can say whatever the hell you want without it getting hijacked by some emo with a litany of  "you guys are mean" posts.  If coherencey is going down the tubes anyway, may as well find some way to have fun with it.

    Nelle I heard you have a thing for farm animals, but feel free to set the record straight if that's not true.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.