Okay, we're going to change to registered users only.

Anything relating to the operation of this site.
mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Okay, we're going to change to registered users only.

Postby mgormez » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:56 am

It was fun while it lasted but as so many board before, this is turning into a mess. As of 15 December only registered users have posting rights.

Take a hotmail account or whatever and come back then. This is obviously not working anymore.
Last edited by mgormez on Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Gormez

sparks
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:17 am

THANKS

Postby sparks » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:08 am

Dear Mike, thanks for acting.

Its a pity that one individual has chosen to disrupt what was a well functioning and highly useful forum.

Could you combine all Sandra's / Sandy's / Matt Stollar's recent threads into one or just delete them if that's easier!!!

I assume that under the new system it will be possible to block any new postings from his/her IP address if he/she registers as a user and then continues to abuse the forum?

Thanks again, this is a crucial time for all - re enquiry so its important that forum continues to function effectively.

Sparks

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:08 am

Mike - can I sugges (if you can) that you NOT allow registration with only a web-based email account? As if you DO allow such reg I doubt it will deter the trolls.

If people are worried about using their real email you CAN assure them it doesn't show and won't be used. Also many IP's allow you to have more than one email addy - so if you main one is your name people could always make another addy for themselves.

Glad you deleted that thread - but wasn't the first post a legit "normal" one? If so maybe you could repost it?

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:15 am

You're right Mike.

You would have thought that there are enough places on the net in which people can enter into inane chatter without having to resort to filling up a place like this with mindless drivel too.

It's a shame, but as usual, it is the few that spoil it for the many.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:17 am

a different guest wrote:Mike - can I sugges (if you can) that you NOT allow registration with only a web-based email account? As if you DO allow such reg I doubt it will deter the trolls.


Good point but at least it gives a little more grip on the users. Should this als be violated than we can make the rules again strickter.

a different guest wrote:If people are worried about using their real email you CAN assure them it doesn't show and won't be used. Also many IP's allow you to have more than one email addy - so if you main one is your name people could always make another addy for themselves.


I think your text would make that clear. People can hide their email addy under the profile button at the top of the page.


a different guest wrote:Glad you deleted that thread - but wasn't the first post a legit "normal" one? If so maybe you could repost it?


It was by the same poster.
Mike Gormez

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: THANKS

Postby mgormez » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:23 am

sparks wrote:Could you combine all Sandra's / Sandy's / Matt Stollar's recent threads into one or just delete them if that's easier!!!


No, I can't put them in a thread because of a design failure on my part making this board. Here's what I wrote to someone earlier today:

I made a design error in the beginning because I wanted to seperate the SES stuff from all the other groups on this site. So instead of making proper catagories on the front page I just made a single entry to SES and tucked everything under that. I can't make a third level to put new threads under.

When you give this a look you'll understand what I mean. This is the propper way.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/index.php



What I can do is lock the 'Sandra' threads and that way they will quickly sink to the bottom of the page. I'll be doing that righ away.


sparks wrote:I assume that under the new system it will be possible to block any new postings from his/her IP address if he/she registers as a user and then continues to abuse the forum?


The person is blocked on IP level and only using a different IP will it be able to wreck more havoc.
Mike Gormez

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:48 am

ADF -- As addenum; I know Hotmail, Yahoo etc are frequently used by trolls but there are also good reasons not to ban them. For example when peope have no Internet at home. Here are a couple of points on why they shouldn't be banned (right away)
http://www.mgforums.com/forums/archive/ ... 10480.html
Mike Gormez

The Analyst
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:24 pm

Postby The Analyst » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:19 am

I know I've only started coming onto this site recently, but it is clear how hard you work keeping it going. I think everyone is very grateful for this opportunity to discuss and debate etc. So a BIG THANK YOU , mike.
:eggface:

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Re: THANKS

Postby Daffy » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:53 pm

mgormez wrote:The person is blocked on IP level and only using a different IP will it be able to wreak more havoc.

As you will know, most ISPs allocate a different IP address each time you log on, so the only way of barring a particular user is to bar the entire range of IPs allocated to his ISP. That could bar many legitimate users too if they happen to share the same ISP.

Judging by today's further streams of consciousness from Matt Stollar/Sandra/Sandy since you banned him, it may take a while to get rid of this pest. However I have a suggestion: there is a theory that graffiti vandals lose interest in a site if their work is painted over immediately it is discovered each time. They quickly learn not to waste their time and energy creating something that will be erased after a few hours.

The logical equivalent on this board is to delete Matt Stollar's posts as soon as they appear, without any exceptions. He will soon learn that it is a waste of his time and energy to continue posting here.

The Analyst
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:24 pm

Postby The Analyst » Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:07 pm

Isn't this very time-consuming? I also want to apologise for possibly encouraging this behaviour - possibly some sort of reaction to these experiences - . I am truly sorry and grateful for the opportunity to even just read the debates and posted topics on this site.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:43 pm

The Analyst wrote:Isn't this very time-consuming?


It depends. Often I don't have to do a thing for days and sometimes there's a bit of work involved.


.
Mike Gormez

User avatar
mike_w
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:25 pm
Contact:

Postby mike_w » Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:10 am

I personally don't agree with deleting all of Sandra/Mattstollar/whoever's posts. Some of what's been posted is definitely relevant...the manner of the posting is also relevant as an example of what the SES can do to a person (in my (inexpert) opinion).

Yes I know it has been disruptive and in some cases offensive, but it was calming down on its own anyway, wasn't it?

I think a bit of careful moderation by MikeG and some voluntary 'policing' by the more down to earth users can keep things in order.

(Just my 2p worth;)

Regards

mike :cool:

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:06 am

Mike W, not all of those postings were delete. The only postings that were was a thread that started out seriously (I believe) and then the person followed up on him/herself with vulgar language using all kinds of anon pseudo nicks. When we consider that perhaps children read here from the schools than we have to keep that in mind.

It is possible you didn't saw the thread because it was gone before you had a chance seeing it. So no, it was certainly not winding down despite the promise not to create anymore threads.

I think a bit of careful moderation by MikeG and some voluntary 'policing' by the more down to earth users can keep things in order.


In this case I see it differently. I like the soft approach but when someone is just out to wreck havoc then it is over as far as my tollerance is concerned. I am not talking about making a mistake of having some fun but this was way beyond that.

Also, what should a parent think who got the letter from Boddy, came on here via search engines and saw all that language? I'd think they would take the strories much less serious.


About moderators, yes that should be dealt with. Perhaps soon more news.
Mike Gormez

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:19 am

Mike

I am also rather surprised at your decision to prevent Matt / Sandra / etc from posting altogether.

mgormez wrote:When we consider that perhaps children read here from the schools than we have to keep that in mind.

Are you sure that this is your true motivation? I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to it - this guy is expressing some views, hidden in between his crazy utterings, that don't fit in the mainstream of the postings so far. Are you sure that protecting innocent kiddies is what you are about? I am not suggesting any deliberate manipulation, but maybe subliminally ...

mike_w wrote:I think a bit of careful moderation by MikeG and some voluntary 'policing' by the more down to earth users can keep things in order.

In this case I see it differently. I like the soft approach but when someone is just out to wreck havoc then it is over as far as my tollerance is concerned. I am not talking about making a mistake of having some fun but this was way beyond that.

About half of readers' responses to MS' posts have been positive, half negative. Hardly a ringing endorsement by this community of your view that he "is just (sic!) out to wreak havoc". I feel you are overstepping the boundaries of an objective moderator.

Also, what should a parent think who got the letter from Boddy, came on here via search engines and saw all that language? I'd think they would take the strories much less serious.

That is outright disturbing. That really says it all. It cannot be the role of a moderator to block certain contributions on grounds that they might undermine the credibility of others.

With arguments such as this, all you are going to achieve is the loss of some of this forum's hard-earned credibility.

Mike, think again!

Something obviously has got to be done, and I agree with mike_w that "a bit of careful moderation by MikeG" and "some voluntary 'policing' ..." might do the trick.

AH

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Postby Daffy » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:22 am

Abel,

You really are totally off the mark in everything you say.

You don't have to look very far to see that Mike Gormez does not censor views just because they are pro-SES or pro-St James. The board is full of views that disprove this half-cocked theory.

Matt Stollar has been banned because he littered the forum with pointless, infantile and profane posts that did nothing to contribute to the debate. Sure some of his posts were on-topic, but many of them were unacceptable for any forum, let alone one that deals with the serious subject of child abuse.

Have a look at this thread: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... .php?t=219. What kind of contribution is that? What would that do for the reputation of this forum if it were allowed to continue?

You probably missed his one and only thread that was actually deleted. It was littered with obscenities, insults and provocations. Mike G had no choice but to delete it.

As for the argument that Stollar was going to quieten down by himself, just look at his reaction to being banned: http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... .php?t=222. Does that look like a mature approach to you?

Just about the only reason I can think of allowing Stollar to continue is that he stands as an example - an extreme example - of what can happen as a result of a cultish education.

Please get over the self-deluding idea that Stollar is just expressing 'alternative' views. His vandalising form of self-expression was quickly dragging this forum into the gutter.

Remember that this is a serious forum with the serious purpose of discussing cults and their victims. That doesn't mean we have to treat everything with the utmost gravity, but it does mean that we have to remember why this board was set up, and to moderate the way we talk accordingly.

Please also remember that running a forum takes considerable time and energy, not to mention a financial investment. Mike Gormez should not have to spend all his time justifying action that any self-respecting forum owner/moderator would be bound to take.


Return to “Housekeeping”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest