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

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.

What makes you say 51 is definitely too small, Tuomas?

It depends on what's for breakfast. xxp

Keith has already given me a souped-up Suggest Ban function with lasers, a flamethrower and neon pink go-faster stripes, so ner.

What makes you say 51 is definitely too small, Tuomas?

Because no way is it 50% of regular posters, hence it's not really democratic at all. (Plus non-regular posters can click SB too.)

It's got a bottle opener on it as well, that's useful.

The "tourists" in your metaphor are not clicking the SB button, Tuomas, as the mods have said and as we've reminded you.

Look, I don't think the SB system is a net gain for the site, and it definitely has its downsides for me, as I made clear last night, but you're talking about altering it (both from a design and implementation p.o.v.) to solve a problem that literally does not exist.

Many people who read the boards are lurkers. They're not lurkers, they just don't post very much. It's a little harsh to call them 'tourists' if they've been reading for six years.

And the thing about these people, who don't post much - they don't post much because they don't have the rock hard skin required to be a regular ilx poster. I'd imagine if you were in that position, SB would be a godsend, and you'd be pretty unhappy about having your contribution to it marginalized.

The "tourists" in your metaphor are not clicking the SB button, Tuomas, as the mods have said and as we've reminded you.

Has there ever been a case where a mod has removed SBs from someone's total because they were made by unfamiliar posters? I'm asking this seriously.

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?

'tourists' don't get SB powers, but people that have just moved into town the week before do, if we want to make this even worth going with (good grief what am i saying)

I have removed several Suggest Bans from, for example, known sockpuppets and users registered the previous day and with 0 posts to their name, yes. On one occasion it actually prevented a poster from falling over the 52 mark. It's usually incredibly obvious when there's a sockpuppet at work and yes, those SBs are removed.

Because no way is it 50% of regular posters, hence it's not really democratic at all.
Even if it were 50%, I don't think that'd change its democraticness very much. But I don't think the level it's at is very far from representative: the turnout's a lot higher than many polls here get.

(Plus non-regular posters can click SB too.)
As I said upthread, SBs get a lot of scrutiny, but it's done by mods not by algorithm. If someone with no posts who only signed up last month SBs someone for something innocuous, that's not going to carry a lot of weight. It'll most likely get deleted. Whereas if, I dunno, estela SBs someone, I'm going to take notice. Also: it's not just posting history we look at -- if someone's been reading this site every day for 2 years, I think there SBs should count just as much as some hyper-poster's.

jjusten, upthread: "almost every SB vote has been from posters whose names i recognized immediately"

like ten clusterfuck threads back another mod said that when they looked at SB totals they did disregard ones that were from sockpuppets &c, which i'm guessing as a class includes people who are suspicious cos they appear never to have posted here.

'tourists' don't get SB powers, but people that have just moved into town the week before do, if we want to make this even worth going with (good grief what am i saying)

Okay, let's say the villager who's fate is being decided has a Tourette's Syndrome. The people who've lived in the village for long know this and have gotten used to it, that's just the way he is, and he means no harm. But the new villager doesn't know about the Tourette's, so he thinks this person should be kicked out because he's saying all those awful things all the time. Is that fair?

I have removed several Suggest Bans from, for example, known sockpuppets and users registered the previous day and with 0 posts to their name, yes. On one occasion it actually prevented a poster from falling over the 52 mark. It's usually incredibly obvious when there's a sockpuppet at work and yes, those SBs are removed.

Okay, thanks for this info.

OK, you just need to stick to ILX and not traipse off to The Sound of Music of the Damned.

xxp, No. The mods would act appropriately. You do not need to come up with an algorithm to ensure this.

Because no way is it 50% of regular posters, hence it's not really democratic at all.
Even if it were 50%, I don't think that'd change its democraticness very much.

You don't think a majority vote is democratic?

Okay, let's say the villager who's fate is being decided has a Tourette's Syndrome. The people who've lived in the village for long know this and have gotten used to it, that's just the way he is, and he means no harm. But the new villager doesn't know about the Tourette's, so he thinks this person should be kicked out because he's saying all those awful things all the time. Is that fair?

Yes. Everyone in the village has the same rights.

so he thinks this person should be kicked out because he's saying all those awful things all the time. Is that fair?

This thing isn't run by automatons. It wouldn't be fair if the villagers actually kicked the guy out, but that's not going to happen either here or in the village.

You don't think a majority vote is democratic?
I think that an election can have a 27% turnout and still *be* democratic.