Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: B.Net Culture & Variable Spam Filters: A Manifesto Followed by ...
  • Subject: B.Net Culture & Variable Spam Filters: A Manifesto Followed by ...
Subject: B.Net Culture & Variable Spam Filters: A Manifesto Followed by ...

Halo3Planet, the place for all things Halo 3..

Need help finding skulls, make sure to go here.

It's an interesting idea. But, the main problem I have with it is that you included "moderator warnings" as something that could make your trust go down. Does that mean, then, that the moderators would have to manually go to your profile and lower your trust rating, or something along those lines? Because, there is no way for any automated system to tell whether a moderator is warning a user in a PM or thread, or if they are having a conversation with them.

Especially with the influx of members that is definately going to happen, there is no way the moderators will have the time to manually lower someone's trust level. They simply will not have the time to do it to everyone they need to warn.

EDIT- Also, will it be the moderators who make your "trust level" go up? Or will it be done over time if you don't get blacklisted, etc.? I don't think the moderators would have the time to lower the trust level of certain members, let alone raise it up for everyone else.

[Edited on 08.01.2007 8:52 AM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 8:49 AM PDT

Proof there is a God.
My RT account page.
My Grifball user page.
So if you really want to get to know me, you're welcome to add me anywhere.

Posted by: roman arrow12
Especially with the influx of members that is definately going to happen, there is no way the moderators will have the time to manually lower someone's trust level. They simply will not have the time to do it to everyone they need to warn.

Achronos's system does not rely on any manual input. The moderators would do nothing different from what they currently do. The system uses some sort of high-level math and calculates a user's "trust rating" on it's own. I would assume that you would raise it by posting enough without getting any sort of warning or blacklist. You would lose "trust" if you received a PM from the Soul, for example. I hope this clears things up.

P.S. Nice job Foman, I haven't found anything to add as of yet.

  • 08.01.2007 9:14 AM PDT

Halo3Planet, the place for all things Halo 3..

Need help finding skulls, make sure to go here.

Posted by: Basilisk666
Posted by: roman arrow12
Especially with the influx of members that is definately going to happen, there is no way the moderators will have the time to manually lower someone's trust level. They simply will not have the time to do it to everyone they need to warn.

Achronos's system does not rely on any manual input. The moderators would do nothing different from what they currently do. The system uses some sort of high-level math and calculates a user's "trust rating" on it's own. I would assume that you would raise it by posting enough without getting any sort of warning or blacklist. You would lose "trust" if you received a PM from the Soul, for example. I hope this clears things up.

P.S. Nice job Foman, I haven't found anything to add as of yet.


I understand that, but I believe Foman said that your trust level would go down if you were warned. And, the only way for the system to tell if you were warned would be for the moderators to manually put it in, unless there is some system I just don't know about that figures out who says what to whom.

EDIT- I found the quote
Posted by: x Foman123 x

Receive a warning or blacklisting from a moderator, and your trust rating goes down. Inversely, your spam filter increases. Log in on an alternate account and your trust ratings on both accounts go down (hopefully). For "untrusted" users, their spam filter goes up to 25 or 30 minutes -- even when not on the blacklist.
(I added the bold)


[Edited on 08.01.2007 9:20 AM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 9:17 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

That sounds like the best solution to the spam problem to me. I haven't read through the rest of the thread yet but the OP was fantastic, good job. The only thing I ask is if someone makes like 10-15 posts that are not flagged as spam or without being warned then their trust rating would slightly increase. The reason for this is that we cannot expect the mods to review every post.

So overall I agree with this idea and I'd love to see it implemented in the forums. Although I do think the name is a bit wordy:


Posted by: x Foman123 x

the Bungie.net Trust Rating-Dependent Variable Spam Filter.


Ð

  • 08.01.2007 9:21 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: roman arrow12
Posted by: Basilisk666
Posted by: roman arrow12
Especially with the influx of members that is definately going to happen, there is no way the moderators will have the time to manually lower someone's trust level. They simply will not have the time to do it to everyone they need to warn.

Achronos's system does not rely on any manual input. The moderators would do nothing different from what they currently do. The system uses some sort of high-level math and calculates a user's "trust rating" on it's own. I would assume that you would raise it by posting enough without getting any sort of warning or blacklist. You would lose "trust" if you received a PM from the Soul, for example. I hope this clears things up.

P.S. Nice job Foman, I haven't found anything to add as of yet.


I understand that, but I believe Foman said that your trust level would go down if you were warned. And, the only way for the system to tell if you were warned would be for the moderators to manually put it in, unless there is some system I just don't know about that figures out who says what to whom.

EDIT- I found the quote
Posted by: x Foman123 x

Receive a warning or blacklisting from a moderator, and your trust rating goes down. Inversely, your spam filter increases. Log in on an alternate account and your trust ratings on both accounts go down (hopefully). For "untrusted" users, their spam filter goes up to 25 or 30 minutes -- even when not on the blacklist.
(I added the bold)
Haha, you seem to have never received a warning from the Disembodied Soul. Good for you!! What happens is that a forum moderator uses the "Moderator Warning" feature of the b.net site to send an "official warning" to a user -- it is not through a personal PM but rather goes through the system and then logs the warning so that other moderators can see with just a click or two how many "official" warnings or blacklistings a user has :-)

And allow me to reiterate now that I do NOT want a system that forces everybody to make long, rambling posts. When I talk about "bad" one-liners, I do not mean merely humorous or witty responses that wouldn't result in a warning or blacklisting under the current system. What I mean is short little flames like "GTFO of this website" and spammy posts like Rick Roll videos. The kind of posts that moderators already warn and/or blacklist users for writing.

This system would not take into account the length or "quality" of your posts at all -- merely your ability to follow the rules and be a "good" user. "Good" users would notice absolutely no change in their ability to post whenever and whatever they want to, provided that it is within the rules. "Bad" users who have been warned or blacklisted many times or otherwise have a low trust rating would find that they would be restricted to posting only once every few minutes.

It seems that some of you think it would be more complicated than that.... it's not :-)

[Edited on 08.01.2007 9:28 AM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 9:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: DarkKnight38
That sounds like the best solution to the spam problem to me. I haven't read through the rest of the thread yet but the OP was fantastic, good job. The only thing I ask is if someone makes like 10-15 posts that are not flagged as spam or without being warned then their trust rating would slightly increase. The reason for this is that we cannot expect the mods to review every post.

So overall I agree with this idea and I'd love to see it implemented in the forums. Although I do think the name is a bit wordy:


Posted by: x Foman123 x

the Bungie.net Trust Rating-Dependent Variable Spam Filter.


Ð


Not to be rude. But I would not agree with any post like this until you do read through the whole thread. This type of topic requires more thinking and concern than you might think. The consequence could be positive or negative. And right now I am concerned about how the community would be impacted by the negative. I am not saying I am right nor wrong. However, until you know all the facts it is not smart to just jump in like that.

  • 08.01.2007 9:29 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: x Foman123 x
This system would not take into account the length or "quality" of your posts at all -- merely your ability to follow the rules and be a "good" user. "Good" users would notice absolutely no change in their ability to post whenever and whatever they want to, provided that it is within the rules. "Bad" users who have been warned or blacklisted many times or otherwise have a low trust rating would find that they would be restricted to posting only once every few minutes.

Good users deserve more than posting 20 seconds faster than we have now. No offense, but I can wait 20 seconds more just to post now. From what I see this is just a way to punish the bad users not help out the good ones. And I hate using these terms "Good and bad" because most users here ARE good, infact great users. Only a small portion of anything is bad. However, that is what we all focus on.

  • 08.01.2007 9:34 AM PDT

Halo3Planet, the place for all things Halo 3..

Need help finding skulls, make sure to go here.

Okay then, I was wondering how moderators knew when others recieved warnings. Anyway, though, how would your trust level go up? The best way I could think of would be just not being warned or blacklisted over time. Or, maybe, if you make a real quality post, then the moderators could bump up your trust level manually.

  • 08.01.2007 9:38 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: odmichael
Posted by: x Foman123 x
This system would not take into account the length or "quality" of your posts at all -- merely your ability to follow the rules and be a "good" user. "Good" users would notice absolutely no change in their ability to post whenever and whatever they want to, provided that it is within the rules. "Bad" users who have been warned or blacklisted many times or otherwise have a low trust rating would find that they would be restricted to posting only once every few minutes.

Good users deserve more than posting 20 seconds faster than we have now. No offense, but I can wait 20 seconds more just to post now. From what I see this is just a way to punish the bad users not help out the good ones. And I hate using these terms "Good and bad" because most users here ARE good, infact great users. Only a small portion of anything is bad. However, that is what we all focus on.


Umm, what is wrong with punishing the bad users?

  • 08.01.2007 9:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: x Foman123 x
I do NOT want a system that forces everybody to make long, rambling posts.


So why increase the timer?

  • 08.01.2007 9:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: twinkiemaker
4. I consider your proposal for the Halo 3 forum (and forums in general) somewhat akin to something Stalin or Hussein would implement. Thats just my opinion. Im sure you disagree with it, but its my opinion to hold nonetheless. I also believe that you're suggesting a fix for something that is more of a societal issue than a Bungie Community issue. When you figure something out that will convince parents to actually teach their kids some basic respect, manners and discipline, let me know.

ps - You'll have to pardon the terseness, I'm short on time this morning.
No problem.

But I do not really agree -- as you predicted. Punishing bad behavior and attempting to prevent it in the future is something that happens in every community and society on this planet. Here in the United States, man who beats up his wife might be subject to a restraining order that does not allow him to come close to her again in order to prevent him from repeating this bad behavior -- like my idea, this restraining order is specific to him and not imposed uniformly upon ALL people. But nobody would argue that restraining orders are facist or dictatorial.

In this same manner, this system would allow users who follow the rules to go about their usual posting practices with absolutely no visible change -- if you like making lots of one-line witty comments that are within the rules, go for it. If you like typing out 10,000-word manifestos, go for it. You would not see any restrictions on your ability to do either one provided that you are a good poster.

But new users would have to earn the "trust" of the b.net "system" before they could post in high-volume. I see nothing wrong with this.... allow users to post only once every few minutes until they have proven that they can stay within the bounds of the rules, and slowly remove that restriction as they become more trusted. "Untrusted" or "bad" posters would need to regain the system's trust before they could post in high volume again. But nothing would restrict or restrain them from making either long OR short posts within the bounds of their variable spam filter. If a "bad poster" chooses to engage in more bad behavior and further lower his or her trust rating, he or she faces the consequence of not being able to post as often. Act within the rules and boundaries, however, and the trust rating goes up and they can post more often.

It's a simple rewards-and-punishments system, but the twist is that the reward or punishment involves the user's ability to engage in further good-or-bad behavior, thus preventing "bad posts" before they even occur.

As far as the societal fix rather than the Bungie community fix goes, you may be right, as I am foced to admit. But I do not really think so from my own experience, as I do not take such a pessimistic view of Bungie.net community members. I was not lying or exaggerating when I said that I have seen the exact same users completely change their behavior based on the forum they are in. This led me to the conclusion that many or most users will conform their behavior to be accepted and befriended by the community in which they are involved. If we create the culture of high-quality discussion in the Halo 3 forum that we currently have in a few other select forums on this site, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the efforts that Halo 3 Forum regulars go to in order to be accepted by their peers :-)

  • 08.01.2007 9:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
I do NOT want a system that forces everybody to make long, rambling posts.

So why increase the timer?
Had you read the rest of the post that you quoted, or any other post in this thread, you would have seen that the timer only increases for users with a low trust rating. That is not "everybody."

The anti-spam timer would increase for users with low trust ratings in order to prevent and discourage bad posting. It does this in three ways -- first, by forcing "untrusted" users to wait between posts, they are more likely to think hard about what they do choose to post; second, by its very nature, it lowers the volume of bad posts by bad posters; third, it encourages all users to maintain a high trust rating.

I do not think that this system would encourage longer, more rambling posts -- and I don't want it to. Once again, users who follow the rules would see absolutely no change in their ability to post, regardless of whether they tend to write 3-word or 10,000-word posts. There would be absolutely no consequence or benefit to posting one type of post over another, provided that they stay within the rules. Bad users would not be encouraged to make longer posts -- they would instead be encouraged to make more appropriate posts, whether such appropriate posts are 1 line or 50 lines.

  • 08.01.2007 10:01 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

ffs foman....

New users who start out with some certain trust rating (we don't know whether it is a comparably "low" trust rating or whether it is comparably "average") are restricted by the Variable Spam Filter to posting say, once every 6 or 8 minutes (sample somewhat arbitrarily chosen for discussion purposes). As their trust rating goes up, their Spam Filter timer goes down. Develop a high enough trust rating, and your spam filter might go down to 10 or 20 seconds. Moderators and site admin, of course, would have no spam filter at all (0 seconds).

Your own words.

You wish to increase the base timer.

This does nothing to help the community. All it does is hinders future development by discouraging new members from full and active participation.

  • 08.01.2007 10:10 AM PDT


Well why not combine those two concepts into a much more severe system that would encourage longer, better thought out posts? I introduce the Bungie.net Trust Rating-Dependent Variable Spam Filter.


So basically Foman you want the rest of us to be more like you. Longer is not necessarily better. In fact, you'd be promoting spam because if people knew they had to waste the next 10 minutes until they could post again, they'd fill their posts with useless rants and/or unecessary information.

We all don't hang out in the Septagon and other like forums, where pontificating and deep discussions are the norm. Certain forums like The Flood are conducive to fast short postings to keep up with the quick thread turnover.


New users who start out with some certain trust rating (we don't know whether it is a comparably "low" trust rating or whether it is comparably "average") are restricted by the Variable Spam Filter to posting say, once every 6 or 8 minutes (sample somewhat arbitrarily chosen for discussion purposes). As their trust rating goes up, their Spam Filter timer goes down. Develop a high enough trust rating, and your spam filter might go down to 10 or 20 seconds. Moderators and site admin, of course, would have no spam filter at all (0 seconds).

Receive a warning or blacklisting from a moderator, and your trust rating goes down. Inversely, your spam filter increases. Log in on an alternate account and your trust ratings on both accounts go down (hopefully). For "untrusted" users, their spam filter goes up to 25 or 30 minutes -- even when not on the blacklist.


This sounds oppressive and overly complicated. I like the current spam safeguards in place, 30 seconds is a happy medium. Once again, we're trying to take our trust to moderate properly out of the hands of those chosen to do the job and replace it or change it with some sort of artificial HAL like system.

  • 08.01.2007 10:13 AM PDT

Strange evolution how people have come to believe
That we are it's greatest achievement
We're barely, we're just a collection of cells
Overrating themselves

Posted by: atomic weggie
Once again, we're trying to take our trust to moderate properly out of the hands of those chosen to do the job and replace it or change it with some sort of artificial HAL like system.

....but ....but Weggie.....

Right click... save target as....

  • 08.01.2007 10:26 AM PDT

.||./

My gamertag is SHADOWRIDERJP.

By restricting posts to only once every few (or several) minutes for new or "bad" users, they would be both encouraged and forced to put some time and thought into their posts.

It sounds like you are putting new users into the same category as "bad users." I think that is wrong. I think this might work, but I don't think you should lose your time to post just because you are new. It might be a good way to punish people who prove they can not be trusted, but I think it hinders community input, even more-so with he influx of new users when Halo 3 ships.

I think it would also harm forums such as the Flood where topics, posts, and debates go so fast. A new user might create a topic and when someone posts that they disagree, the OP might not have a chance to respond before the topic hits to the bottom of the page.

I could see this as a good punishment but I don't think new users should be punished just for being new.

  • 08.01.2007 10:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Destinypedia - The Wiki for Bungie's Destiny
Posted by: DEATHPIMP72
Anyone but Foman. He smells like cheese.

Posted by: elmicker
ffs foman....

New users who start out with some certain trust rating (we don't know whether it is a comparably "low" trust rating or whether it is comparably "average") are restricted by the Variable Spam Filter to posting say, once every 6 or 8 minutes (sample somewhat arbitrarily chosen for discussion purposes). As their trust rating goes up, their Spam Filter timer goes down. Develop a high enough trust rating, and your spam filter might go down to 10 or 20 seconds. Moderators and site admin, of course, would have no spam filter at all (0 seconds).

Your own words.

You wish to increase the base timer.

This does nothing to help the community. All it does is hinders future development by discouraging new members from full and active participation.
That is still not "everybody." That is users with a low trust rating. Not that tough to understand.

And I have presented a ton of arguments in this thread why this does help the community. If you're going to disagree with that, then you should promulgate some counter arguments.

As far as discouraging new members from full and active participation, that is absolutely not true. Like I said in my original post, the 6-minute time limit was arbitrarily chosen for discussion purposes. Perhaps new members could be allowed to post more frequently under this system. But as we have already seen from the activities of new members, the "full and active" participation that they have practice now does not always equate to useful posts.

And contrary to your contention, new members would not be "discouraged" from full and active participation. With only one post allowed every few minutes, they would be ENCOURAGED to partake in BETTER participation.

And if a new user joins this forum and says "WTF I can only post every few minutes until I prove that I can obey the rules? I'M OUTTA HERE," is that really a user that this site should cater to?

[Edited on 08.01.2007 10:44 AM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 10:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: DarkKnight38
Posted by: odmichael
Posted by: x Foman123 x
This system would not take into account the length or "quality" of your posts at all -- merely your ability to follow the rules and be a "good" user. "Good" users would notice absolutely no change in their ability to post whenever and whatever they want to, provided that it is within the rules. "Bad" users who have been warned or blacklisted many times or otherwise have a low trust rating would find that they would be restricted to posting only once every few minutes.

Good users deserve more than posting 20 seconds faster than we have now. No offense, but I can wait 20 seconds more just to post now. From what I see this is just a way to punish the bad users not help out the good ones. And I hate using these terms "Good and bad" because most users here ARE good, infact great users. Only a small portion of anything is bad. However, that is what we all focus on.


Umm, what is wrong with punishing the bad users?

There is nothing wrong with punishing bad users. However, it should not come at the price of good users which may happen if this was implemented. Look at some of my other posts in here for reference on this.

  • 08.01.2007 10:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: x Foman123 x
That is still not "everybody." That is users with a low trust rating. Not that tough to understand.


Why should trust have to be earned? Why should new members be any less entitled to posting than current members?

  • 08.01.2007 11:43 AM PDT

Halo3Planet, the place for all things Halo 3..

Need help finding skulls, make sure to go here.

Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
That is still not "everybody." That is users with a low trust rating. Not that tough to understand.


Why should trust have to be earned? Why should new members be any less entitled to posting than current members?



There are a few other semi-popular forums that have it so that new members cannot post at all for a few days. Even then, I saw that in one of them, you had to have something like 60 posts to make a topic. Now, I'm not saying this is a good idea, I'm saying that it is possible and has been done.

What Foman is saying is a much lower restriction than those of these forums. And, new members haven't shown that they can be trusted to make decent posts. Until then, they should be restricted in how much they can post. Trust is earned, not given.

  • 08.01.2007 11:54 AM PDT

#2 Supporter Halocharts, #11 other account.
"Ordinary love is selfish, deeply rooted in desires and satisfactions. Divine love is without condition, without boundary, without change."
You are all loved beyond measure.
I, like you, am a light-sound-vibration complex that resonates with others. I have hopes and dreams and ambitions, just like you! I AM, and so are you! Yes, we are one and the same, you and I.

Posted by: x Foman123 x
[And if a new user joins this forum and says "WTF I can only post every few minutes until I prove that I can obey the rules? I'M OUTTA HERE," is that really a user that this site should cater to?


Yes. Your idea is about bettering the community, not discouraging participation altogether from new users. This is annoying, and the vast majority of users, assuming they're normal and enjoy active discussion rather than making bloated and rambling discourses that a time limit would encourage, will have their patience tried by experiencing any silly restrictions that essentially say "we don't trust you". There is already a restriction on how soon you can post threads - which is what spammers do, since posting within existing threads doesn't get nearly as much attention. No more initial limits are necessary.


[Edited on 08.01.2007 12:19 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 12:06 PM PDT

Sandswept Studios Design Director

Visit us and check out our games at Sandswept.net!

~~Pardon Our Dust.~~

Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
That is still not "everybody." That is users with a low trust rating. Not that tough to understand.

Why should trust have to be earned? Why should new members be any less entitled to posting than current members?

Trust should be lost and gained depending on behavior. Users who have proven they can be trusted more should get more. Users who have proven they can't be trusted or have shown bad behavior should be punished, or have no chance of increasing their privileges from a standard member.

That's basically how the world works. Of COURSE trust should be gained, not just given.

[Edited on 08.01.2007 12:12 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 12:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: roman arrow12
Trust is earned, not given.


This is not SA, this is not NeoGAF. Trust is given. We're all equal.

We already have a reasonable posting restriction - new members cannot make topics for 24 hours. This works well in performing its role of preventing spam. Its role is not to prevent the participation of new members, which seems to be Foman's goal.

  • 08.01.2007 12:12 PM PDT

Halo3Planet, the place for all things Halo 3..

Need help finding skulls, make sure to go here.

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
That is still not "everybody." That is users with a low trust rating. Not that tough to understand.

Why should trust have to be earned? Why should new members be any less entitled to posting than current members?

Trust should be lost and gained depending on behavior. Users who have proven they can be trusted more should get more. Users who have proven they can't be trusted or have shown bad behavior should be punished, or have no chance of increasing their privileges from a standard member.

That's basically how the world works. Of COURSE trust should be gained, not just given.


I'm not sure about the last sentence, there. All users should be able to gain priviledges over time. If a user can show that they realized they made a mistake, and are farely good members from then on out, then I have no problem with them gaining trust again.

  • 08.01.2007 12:13 PM PDT

#2 Supporter Halocharts, #11 other account.
"Ordinary love is selfish, deeply rooted in desires and satisfactions. Divine love is without condition, without boundary, without change."
You are all loved beyond measure.
I, like you, am a light-sound-vibration complex that resonates with others. I have hopes and dreams and ambitions, just like you! I AM, and so are you! Yes, we are one and the same, you and I.

Posted by: SS_Zag1
Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
That is still not "everybody." That is users with a low trust rating. Not that tough to understand.

Why should trust have to be earned? Why should new members be any less entitled to posting than current members?

Trust should be lost and gained depending on behavior. Users who have proven they can be trusted more should get more. Users who have proven they can't be trusted or have shown bad behavior should be punished, or have no chance of increasing their privileges from a standard member.

That's basically how the world works. Of COURSE trust should be gained, not just given.


If they have not yet had their privileges increased from a standard member, they are, of course, standard members. So you're essentially saying that a standard member has proven that he cannot be trusted. Obviously, this is very different from not having proven the same. It's kind of silly.

[Edited on 08.01.2007 12:18 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2007 12:14 PM PDT