In the A2K playground: Play the Synbot game today!

@Robert Gentel,

So you can in fact track IPs?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I have no idea what you mean by "track IPs" but whatever it is I'm pretty sure we can do it.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I have no idea what you mean by "track IPs" but whatever it is I'm pretty sure we can do it.

Hmmm... I think I'm starting to understand the problem better now.

Well, if the website can actively identify an IP and allow it to only vote once, then a single user with several screen names would still be limited to only one vote.

If the software can do this, then I believe that it can do a block based on IP address and not simply a user account. This would mean that the mods would not have to chase around every new incarnation of a troll because the troll's IP would simply be blocked.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

As I said before, the racial slurs of a troll hurt less than feeling unsupported by the moderators with this issue. I grew a trust in this community and have became attached to many of the people, I feel very let down.

I'm past anger, I'm just disappointed.

I empathize with your position. We had a similar discussion (concerning the same troll) back in 2006 before we had an "ignore" option:

When Shutting Up isn't Cowardice
http://able2know.org/topic/84705-1

Personally, I've been a member of this site since 2004. I participated a lot during my first two years of membership. However, this troll victimized me, horribly. I felt violated to the core. I got to the point where I didn't feel either safe or comfortable. Over the last two years, I haven't participated nearly as much--until recently. Right now, I'm energized by the prospect of new national leadership and I want to talk about it in the political threads. Of course, the vicious troll is back. I placed him on ignore. But even with the ignore option, I do agree with you. A2K management should delete the offensive posts and place a permanent ban on this particular troll. If management does not protect us from the most egregious of offenders, it's going to drive people away.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I've read more since that last post.
But, what? Not to argue poltics here.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law - That's a shame what happened to you. I came to the site around 2006 sometime so it has only been lately that I've been able to read your posts which I enjoy greatly.

I hope you will stick around after the election is over.

As for everything else, it's out of my hands. I don't want to be driven away, and I am not fond of the idea of ignoring the problem. It feels like when we start to have to ignore so many boogie men, we are actually hiding ourselves. I may not be able to see the post that racially slanders me now, but I feel uneasy wondering if it's there.

Certainly they are just words, but in a virtual space such as a forum, words are pretty much all we have. We have no sticks and stones here, so words are the daggers of our little township A2k. The idea that they are just words is meant to deconstruct the harm they can do. I like to think that we all take pride in this community and that we would not appreciate it being "just" a forum. Hell, we make friends here. We've even lost some on the way. I could find another forum to rant about political this or that in but could I find another forum where I could go and read the wisdom of a Timber or a Noddy?

I shouldn't be asked to turn my head away.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Hell, we make friends here.

I agree. As that feeling of comradery grows, a person starts feeling "safe" and shares personal details about one's life and family. Yet, that sharing takes place in a forum where vicious trolls may seize upon those details of your life and use them to victimize you. It makes a person feel violated. I wish the forum owner would have banned this vicious troll two years ago. I wish the forum owner would delete the offensive posts (vicious attacks) so that they're not out there in cyberspace to haunt a person forever and ever. It's not ever going to happen. Complaints fall upon deaf ears. This is NOT a safe place.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

I’ll keep working on it, but try not to be offended by it in the mean time. Those I actually mean to offend are few and far between.

I wasn't offended here...just mildly puzzled.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

After all these years? Really? That's something of a surprise. If anything; I've gotten calmer. The continued presence of the… the misogynist really does bother me… because I know for sure it bother others I know who don’t post as much now.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Well, if the website can actively identify an IP and allow it to only vote once, then a single user with several screen names would still be limited to only one vote.

If the software can do this, then I believe that it can do a block based on IP address and not simply a user account. This would mean that the mods would not have to chase around every new incarnation of a troll because the troll's IP would simply be blocked.

Yeah, but it would also mean a bunch of other things.

For random example - and we had to check this the other night when we had some computer problem - Anastasia and I, when both using our laptop at home, are apparently both assigned the same IP.

So your solution, while locking out the trolls, would also make it impossible for people like us to both post on the same forum.

I dont know how that works with office computers or internet cafes... mainly I wanted to say that, when it comes to these snap solutions you can come up with, there's usual side-effects involved that might well be worse than the problem you're fighting. Which you might just not know about - and which the mods might not feel like explaining at length every time one of the thousand members challenges them to agree with their proposal or be branded as "advocating for trolls" or the like.

Basically, if the moderators dont agree with you on a solution like this, it might well be for any variety of practically reasons like this one relating to an IP ban. It might be because they fundamentally disagree with your proposed strategy - again, either or both because they know from experience it just doesnt work very well (the whack-a-mole thing, the side-effects), or because they believe a different strategy is much more promising in the long run. And what that means is that the fact that they disagree with you on a given solution does not mean they're "advocating for trolls" or "refusing to act" or turning their back on the victims, or any such incendiary allegations you've made.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Let me articulate my current idea that best addresses this:

2) Allow members to automatically ignore users below a certain reputation threshold. The default would be to ignore only the most disruptive members and users would be able to change their preferences to tweak this threshold.

Oh OK. Yeah, that sounds good too.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Cock-up alert...

nimh wrote:

Yeah, but it would also mean a bunch of other things.

For random example - and we had to check this the other night when we had some computer problem - Anastasia and I, when both using our laptop at home, are apparently both assigned the same IP.

So your solution, while locking out the trolls, would also make it impossible for people like us to both post on the same forum.

This doesnt make any sense of course. At least not in re: to what Diest was proposing.

It would only ever come up if say, you'd have two posters like us, one of us would get banned and then the other one would not be able to post either. Which is a much smaller issue than what I was asserting.

So, my bad. My apologies to Diest. Stupidity on my part.

Just vote my post down. ;-)

1 Reply

@nimh,

I don't think that happened exactly like that. Your computers should not have had the same IP... ever. I think your problems stemmed from elsewhere.

For instance a wireless router will have an address like

186.192.1.0

and then all the rest of computers on the router will be assigned an address such that...

computer 1: 186.192.1.1

computer 2: 186.192.1.2

computer 3: 186.192.1.13

computer n: 186.192.1.(some number between 1-255)

if you run the test again, go to run >> cmd and then type "ipconfig /all" in the command prompt, you should find that your IP addresses are not the same.

There are problems with IP ban, but overall, it is an effective tool used at many sites. This problem is not unique to A2K, and this solution has worked well on other sites. This isn't my idea, I'm just relaying the information I know that has worked on other sites.

Better than the IP ban is the hardware ban, but I admit that one is a lot more tricky and I don't personally understand the nuances very well, but it uses the computer's MAC address which is absolutely unique.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

nimh and Stas were using the same laptop, thus - same IP. Set and I use the same computer, same IP.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

No, I was talking about us both using our respective laptops, and upon checking our IP addresses we found out we had the same one. But Diest is probably right that this just means there's something messed up with our wireless router settings or something, cause it's true we've been having a lot problems with our internet connection lately. (That's why we were checking in the first place.)

Lord, I really only muddied the waters with that post, didnt I? So sorry about that..

You've got a good point tho, on the other hand, in the sense that sometimes two users will use the same computer, so then if one of them gets banned, if you use IP bans, the other one cant post anymore either, I guess. That'd be a pretty exceptional case, but under the old-style moderating regime I can imagine it could have happened - like, I dunno, should Set ever have been banned, or BiPolar Bear and Squinney have shared a computer. But since that kind of top-down moderation isnt on the agenda anymore anyway I guess it's all hypothetical anyway.

Clear as mud -- sor-ree...

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Anastasia and I, when both using our laptop at home, are apparently both assigned the same IP.

ahh, I'd read this as being one laptop.

yup, I sometimes wonder if the reason Set doesn't post anymore is that I told him I'd be pissed if he got banned, as I'd end up locked out as well. Cramped his style, so to speak.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

nimh wrote:
Anastasia and I, when both using our laptop at home, are apparently both assigned the same IP.

ahh, I'd read this as being one laptop.

yup, I sometimes wonder if the reason Set doesn't post anymore is that I told him I'd be pissed if he got banned, as I'd end up locked out as well. Cramped his style, so to speak.

Pity, dat.

I don't think it's much of a worry any more...hint...to Set.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Setanta should not worry about getting banned, ehBeth. I think his rants are funny. I sometimes provoke him just for the fun of it.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't think that happened exactly like that. Your computers should not have had the same IP... ever. I think your problems stemmed from elsewhere.

For instance a wireless router will have an address like

186.192.1.0

and then all the rest of computers on the router will be assigned an address such that...

computer 1: 186.192.1.1

computer 2: 186.192.1.2

computer 3: 186.192.1.13

computer n: 186.192.1.(some number between 1-255)

if you run the test again, go to run >> cmd and then type "ipconfig /all" in the command prompt, you should find that your IP addresses are not the same.

There are certain elements of this which are true, others which are not, but from the perspective of a website then it is likely that all devices within a household appear to be coming from the same address.

There is a difference between public IP addresses and private IP addresses. Certain address ranges are designated as private (search for RFC 1918 if you care or dare), and cannot be routed on the Internet. This private addresses are then translated at the gateway (wireless router, firewall, whatever), and typically all devices behind the router look like they have the same IP address.

(Run "ipconfig" to see your local address, then go to whatismyip.com to see what IP address you use on the Internet.)

Diest TKO wrote:

Better than the IP ban is the hardware ban, but I admit that one is a lot more tricky and I don't personally understand the nuances very well, but it uses the computer's MAC address which is absolutely unique.

T
K
O

This might work in gaming, where the local application can read your MAC address, but a website has no knowledge of your MAC address.

1 Reply

Hubby and I usually use different computers and internet accounts but use the same internet access. I don't know if that translates to the same IP address or not. He doesn't frequent threads where he would ruffle anybody's feathers and well. . . .I'm me.

So if there are a lot of situations like that, banning via IP doesn't sound like a really good plan, and I dislike the idea of banning because obviously what some find offensive here, others do not.

I remain opposed to voting down threads and hope there will be a way in the future to move good threads out of the way without having to do that.

I am warming up to the idea of collectively voting down the posts of a troll or trolls who specialize in the most vile personal attacks and/or who so disrupt a thread that a discussion cannot continue. And that isn't likely to happen if the offending member is put on ignore.

And also, whether liberal or conservative or whatever, I would hate for the more small minded to be able to shut up somebody who is not trollish but just offers an unpopular point of view. I appreciate that Robert is also aware of that possibility and it is being included in the process as we move forward.

0 Replies

In the A2K playground: Play the Synbot game today!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know