Missin U <3 - lamentations for those felled by the SB

"major" party of cawse

because of the gross displays of fundamentalist Christianity?

<3 u jesus!

i am american and i love the suggest ban

I am an American woman and I eat corn using the lathe method.

"To-morr-ow be-longs to meeeee...."

xp

Morbs reminding me that it's been too long since I listened to Siouxsie & the Banshees "The Lord's Prayer"

51 active users!

When I noticed the starting page now shows how many messages you've posted, that gave me an idea: the value of a suggest ban should be weighed according to how many posts the suggest banner has made. So, for example, a SB from a poster who's made 20000 posts should count for more than a SB from a poster with 20 posts. This would effectively cancel the possibility of sock puppets or lurkers getting someone banned, and the opinions of regular posters (who suffer more from trolling and dickery than some occasional poster who only reads, say, the techno bobbins threads on ILM) would be taken more seriously. For example, if Ned decides to click SB on someone, that person should be immediately banned.

would effectively cancel the possibility of sock puppets or lurkers getting someone banned

I think it was pretty clear in yesterdays discussion that this isn't happening anyway.

if that happens i'll just post 15,000 nonsense posts on the church or something so my sb's will be worth as much as tuomas's

I think it could be something like this:

100-500 posts = your suggest ban weighs 0,1 "objective" suggest bans

500-1000 posts = your suggest ban weighs 0,25 "objective" suggest bans

1000-2500 posts = 0,5 "objective" suggest bans

2500-10000 posts = 1 "objective" suggest ban

10000-20000 posts = 2 "objective" suggest bans

20000-30000 posts = 3 "objective" suggest bans

30000-40000 posts = 4 "objective" suggest bans

...and so on.

Maybe we can set up a market for sb power.

if that happens i'll just post 15,000 nonsense posts on the church or something so my sb's will be worth as much as tuomas's

If you actually bother to do that, then I think you deserve a rise in your SB total. It takes helluva lot more effort than registering a sock puppet anyway.

But registering a sock puppet wouldn't make your SBs worth anything!

the church would suddenly become compulsive reading if that happened to be fair

But registering a sock puppet wouldn't make your SBs worth anything!

Yes, my point was that with my system abusing SBs would be much more difficult. Now all it takes to get one full SB is to register a sock puppet, whereas in my system you would have to register one, and then make 2500 pointless posts, which takes much more effort.

what he's saying is it's already hard to abuse....

like, a sock puppet's sb is already worth 0

Also, this would put a stop to the argument about whether 51 SBs is a significant number compared to the number of active ILXors, because regular ILXors vote would count for more than that of occasional posters.

It's pretty obvious the mods are completely on top of this SB thing and that the SBs are not coming from socks!

like, a sock puppet's sb is already worth 0

What gives you this impression? Everyone with a registered account has the right to SB, and I'm sure even the mods can't tell all the sock puppets among thousands of registered users.

Yes they can.

Anway, the sock puppet thing is a side issue, the most important thing is that it would make the SB system more fair, as regular posters are the one who are most likely to be negatively affected by trolls and assholes.

if you don't recognize a name you can click the username and find other usernames with the same ip. if you are a mod. i never need to do this though, because sockpuppets are welcome on ask dr. freud.

i think more weight should be given to posters who are easily annoyed tbh

so, tuomas:

mods shouldn't have full ban power, as it's undemocratic.

users shouldn't have ban power, as it's mob rule.

some users should have more ban power than others, to reflect their worth to ILX.

is there any part of this that i've maybe misunderstood?

This would effectively cancel the possibility of sock puppets or lurkers getting someone banned

There are problems with SB, and this seems like it would be one in principle, but it turns out not to be in practice (see this thread and others).

For example, if Ned decides to click SB on someone, that person should be immediately banned.

Uh, no.

There are valuable posters who have just recently joined ilx, such as for example sarahel who might have a couple hundred posts. Whereas there have been cases of good ilx posters of long standing who have turned into real jerks.

There are lots of problems with Tuomas's suggestion that can perhaps be worked around by changing exactly how weights are assigned to each SB in some very clever way that better reflects his goal, but the fact is, it solves a problem with the SB system that simply doesn't exist.

such as for example sarahel who might have a couple hundred posts

PER HOUR you mean ;-)

so, tuomas:

mods shouldn't have full ban power, as it's undemocratic.

users shouldn't have ban power, as it's mob rule.

some users should have more ban power than others, to reflect their worth to ILX.

is there any part of this that i've maybe misunderstood?

Well, I think the whole SB system sucks, so the best thing to do would be to get rid of it. But apparently that's not happening. The second best option would be to make an estimate of the number of active posters, and make the number needed for a suggest ban to be 50% of those posters, because the number 51 seems to be pulled out of a hat, and is definitely too small. This change would make it truly a democratic ban. But it doesn't look like this is happening either, so I tried to make a suggestion how the SB system could reflect the number of regular posters instead of working arbitrarily.

Posting more doesn't necessarily make you more valuable to ILX. I have been known to post far, far too much in my time. Surely all the extra posts should count as demerits? Quality not quantity, as KKVG says.

such as for example sarahel who might have a couple hundred posts

PER HOUR you mean ;-)

Okay, here's another solution: the number of "objective" SBs you have is calculated according to how many posts per day you make in average. This would mean newbies aren't discriminated, if they've become active posters.

i think you should be the only mod tuomas, with full sb power worth 51 every time.

To be honest, yesterdays posting between caek, stet, keith, jjjusten, hidere, et al. finally fully convinced me that the SB system is a right and good way of doing things. I just want to say that right out. If there was a "Suggest Rad" button, I would click it for all of you who spelled your arguments out so well yesterday. It's worth a read, for anyone who hasn't.

boy it took this thread a long time to troll Tuomas into his permanent-response-loop but once that goal was met he really delivered the goods

What do you mean "permanent response lopp"? I haven't really rehashed my old arguments rather than offered a bold, innovative new solution to this whole problem! And yet I'm being treated like the Church treated Galilei.

Tuomas, your solution would not solve the problem you claim it would solve without serious work, and that problem does not exist. Do you see?

jjjusten has always been pretty good value in explaining this all on his own, tbh.

tuomas, at what stage does stating your opinion clearly begin to be enough? and don't bring the church into this, or i'm gonna fall out with the mods again and i've made such progress that'd be a disaster on a personal level.

So you think an SB from a poster who's posted once should weigh the same as an SB from someone who's regularly posted here for 9 years?

(x-post)

i think so. certainly, you've not made any case otherwise, other than believing it yourself.

for some reason i am lolling really hard

because you are watching a master at work. it's like an old wrinkly samurai getting you to fight him to prove he can kick your ass, even though you know perfectly well he's a samurai

Did you know that the Church actually sb'd Galileo, using an elaborate system involving wooden pegs, down pillows, and bread crumbs? It's all spelled out in this recent biography.

he was the only guy ever to be sb'd for expressing unpopular opinions

So you think an SB from a poster who's posted once should weigh the same as an SB from someone who's regularly posted here for 9 years?

What problem would it solve if it didn't?

i think so. certainly, you've not made any case otherwise, other than believing it yourself.

Okay, think of ILX as a little village. Now, one of the villagers has been causing trouble, making other villagers irritated, so a village council has been called in to decide whether this person should be banished from the village. Would you say that a tourist who just happens to be staying overnight at the local B&B should have a vote in the issue of throwing this villager out?

Please restrict your answer to problems that exist in the real world.