11/23/24
April 16, 2005
Let's Examine Our Members: SportsFilter is beginning to have some trouble with new members who are either excessively abusive or hopelessly subliterate. What would you think about having a short period in which a newbie is a Trial Member who can either become a full-privilege Member or no-privilege Visitor, based on the private recommendations of members? Would you have joined this site under such a system?
posted by rcade to editorial policy at 05:34 PM - 120 comments
How would it work if you just kind of happened upon the site and wanted to take part... but didn't know anyone here who could recommend you?
posted by jerseygirl at 07:38 PM on April 16, 2005
Jerseygirl, I think what rcade is suggesting is that the trial period be one where older full-privilege members could recommend if a new member is granted full-privilege by their initial posting history. I could be wrong, and nothing is set in stone yet (hence the question), but the basic premise is that the community would be able to have a say in what kind of membership is desired, instead of admins making totalitarian decisions.
posted by justgary at 07:50 PM on April 16, 2005
Entrance essays! Entrance essays! Make them submit an essay (200-word minimum) about why they are a fan of a particular sport/team/player. If it comes in as sub-literate or they don't want to take the time to do one, they don't get posting/comment priviledges. They can view front page posts and the discussions about them still, but they won't be able to dilute the discussion with garbage. I would have been fine with this system if it were imposed on me...
posted by grum@work at 10:59 PM on April 16, 2005
WHY I AM A DODGERS FAN. BY USER NO. 2000. FIRST TIME I WENT TO A DODGERS-GIANTS GAME IT WAS AWESOME. SOME DUDE N THE PARKING LOT WAS WEARING A GIANTS HAT AND MY BUDDY WAS LIKE WRONG COLORS. AND THE GUY SEZ HUH? AND MY BUDDY WAS ALL LIKE WE SPEAK IN FULL SENTENCES IN LA UNLIKE YOU SANFRANDERTHALS. AND WE WERE GONNA WASTE HIM RITE IN THE P-LOT BUT THEN WE WERE LIKE GOTTA GET IN THE STADIUM AND KNOCK DOWN SOME BEERS CAUSE I GOT A AWESOME FAKE FROM MY BRO. SO LATER BARRY-ROIDS BONDS COMES UP AND IM HOPIN TO HELL THAT THEY BRING IN ERIC GAGNE EVEN THO ITS IN THE FIRST INNING JUST TO THROW A 100 HOUR HEATER RIGHT AT HIS FAT STEROIDS ASS. INSTEAD HE GETS WLAKED BECAUSE WHATS SANTIAGO GONNA DO BUT THEN SOME OTHER GIANTS FAN BEHIND ME IS LIKE WAVING A RUBBER CHICKEN. LIKE THE DODGERS GIVE A SHIT THAT THEY WALKED BONDS SO HE COULDNT STICK A NEEDLE IN THE BASEBALL SO IT COULD GET OVER THE FENCE. YOU THINK MILTON BRADLEY NEEDS ROIDS, BITCH? THATS WHAT I SAID TO THE GUY WITH THE CHICKEN. AND THEN MY BUDDY SAYS TO HIM -- YOUR GONNA CHOKE YOUR CHICKEN IF YOU THINK THAT SHIT FLIES IN CHAVEZ RAVINE. AND EVERYBODY LAFFED TOO HARD AT THAT ONE. AND I GOT SO WASTED I DONT EVEN REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED IN THE REST OF THE GAME BUT OF COURSE IT WAS A W FOR THE L-A-D. AND THATS WHY I AM A DODGERS FAN.
posted by holden at 11:36 PM on April 16, 2005
A few thoughts:
- How well can we articulate the standards that we'd like posters to adhere to? "Excessively abusive or hopelessly subliterate" is a good start, and may cover 99% of the waterfront. OTOH, we need to be able to describe the difference between, say, "excessively abusive" and the sort of taking-to-task and calling-of-bullshit that we often perform on each other in the course of some of these discussions.
- Related to the above, we need to be able to articulate what we're for, not just what we're against. As it happens, I think the Posting Guidelines do that just fine, but maybe could be beefed up with a few examples and an explanation of why they're good posts.
- Pantheons get created in online forums because most sane people want to stay out of making that kind of judgment. Accusations of cabal-hood aren't always off the mark. If a system such as rcade suggests is put in place, its legitimacy will rest on members participating, and not sitting on the sidelines letting the Membership Committee become an institution.
- Would it be worthwhile having probationary status, in case someone gets member status and then falls off the trolley and starts posting GIRLZ SPORTS SUK and the like?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:06 AM on April 17, 2005
That post was scary, Holden. Please promise you will never use that power for evil. My thinking behind a limited trial period is that users wouldn't like a system that put them under review for their entire membership.
posted by rcade at 08:31 AM on April 17, 2005
I say resist the urge to become so elitist. Basing privileges on the quality of posting during some sort of probationary period is basically forcing people to audition to become members, which is not necessarily a good thing. I've always been somewhat of a lurker, having posted only 3 FPPs in over two years. What would my status have been under this system? IMHO, the shit always settles at the bottom. Abusive posters should be warned then banned... what's to stop someone like that from being on their best behavior until they get full member status? As far as "subliterate" goes, that's a little too subjective to regulate. Spelling errors or syntax issues can be found in the most compelling of posts. Like it or not, anything with a central theme of "sports" is going to attract all levels of literacy, from Mike in Des Moines who'd like to address the subtleties of the growing number of athletes restructuring their contracts to Joe from Queens who just called in because the Mets bullpen sucks big time.
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 08:55 AM on April 17, 2005
I tend to agree with thatweirdguy2 (by the way, is there a thatweirdguy1 running around out there?). I definitely don't want this to become eltist -- I would much rather err on the side of getting good discourse going and getting different points of view even if it means getting a fair amount of crap thrown in there as well than have civilized discussion within an insular group that eventually reflects a kind of group think (although we do have a fairly diverse set of opinions now even within the "civilized" group). So perhaps warn then ban people on abusive behavior or some other standard. But even determing what is "abusive" may be problematic. Does abusive mean abuse directed towards other members, abusive language directed towards anything in a post or comments, etc.? Maybe we go with something akin to Justice Stewart's definition of indecency -- I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it. I think rcade and the other moderators have done a good job removing comments and FPPs since I've been a member -- but who knows, maybe that's becoming too much of an administrative burden for them or maybe longterm we don't want a small group of people making decisions on what's appropriate or not. And sorry about the all caps monstrosity above. It's just that two of my favorite FPPs of all time were recent entries on "Why bring out the rubber chicken when Bonds isn't even playing, boy are Giants fans dumb" and "Dodgers beat Giants last night, like it was ever in doubt."
posted by holden at 09:54 AM on April 17, 2005
rcade/Pantheon: Can you give us examples of other community sites that use trial-type systems so we can do a little more research?
posted by smithers at 10:01 AM on April 17, 2005
I say leave it open, no pre-screening, no essay tests or IQ tests. Maybe put a link at the top of the FP to the posting policy site and leave it at that. (it's ugly but it's a reminder that we're watching) When the trolls show up, spank 'em, give'em one warning; if they persist, boot 'em. I think admin actions have been just fine.
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:16 AM on April 17, 2005
Maybe pull a MetaFilter and require a $5 payment up front? I guess that would weed out the trolls. Just a thought.
posted by NoMich at 11:49 AM on April 17, 2005
Kill em all and let God sort em out.
posted by squealy at 01:44 PM on April 17, 2005
somebody has to throw together a greasemonkey script like they did at boing boing with a script to remove Xeni's posts. so alls we need is a script that could remove the comments from the less favourable users. problem solved!
posted by gspm at 02:13 PM on April 17, 2005
Rcade, some of the new users are clowns, but for the most part, people whose comments aren't well-received don't seem to stick around for very long. As far as abusiveness goes, I don't think it's been TOO bad. Your trial membership idea is a little too complicated to be useful just to avoid the few real unnecessary attacks we see around here. Also, you are a stupid dick. Seriously, though, if you're willing to implement this sort of trial system, then then more power to you, bub, but it seems like a lot more work for you and the rest of the Pantheon than it's worth. As always, we appreciate the work you do to keep this site running smoothly. I remember when the biggest problem we had around here was the lack of members. Problematic new members are just a symptom of this site getting more popular, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, like many people said earlier: ONE WARNING THEN BANNINATION LOL END OF DISCUSSION
posted by Samsonov14 at 04:49 PM on April 17, 2005
As far as "subliterate" goes, that's a little too subjective to regulate. Spelling errors or syntax issues can be found in the most compelling of posts. I've got no problem with spelling errors or syntax (I'd be just as guilty as anyone else on this site...) . What I have problem with is the ALL-CAPS response (nice job, holden), or the "who-needs-punctuation-or-capitalization?" message that occasionally pops up. It shouldn't be a struggle to see where a sentence ends and a new one begins.
posted by grum@work at 04:56 PM on April 17, 2005
Gertrude Stein said that commas are servile, but what did she know, anyway? There are those who say that the solution to garbage is to inject more signal, but I don't think that works; dogs can crap faster than people can plant begonias. But I do like the idea of pointing posters at good examples, and maybe at bad examples too. I forget -- does the reg process lead them through the New User section? If not, maybe it can/should. I'm also in favor of a rule that requires all posters to refrain from using the word "suck" unless they can do so in a way that isn't just a tiresome and repetitive way of saying, "I don't like X." Failure = instant ban forever. I know, they'll just pick another word...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:43 PM on April 17, 2005
suxx0r?
posted by worldcup2002 at 07:21 PM on April 17, 2005
I think squealy has the right idea. I know I haven't been a member of SpoFi for long, and I usually keep my mouth shut, but I vote for 1 warning, then oust 'em. More hate the world doesn't need.
posted by gac at 11:31 PM on April 17, 2005
WHY I AM A DODGERS FAN. BY USER NO. 2000 I feel like I'm driving through the night listening to JT the Brick. But, it's morning. I'm all out of whack now.
posted by YukonGold at 06:45 AM on April 18, 2005
YANKEE SPANKEES! I HATE THE YANKEES! Neat
posted by jerseygirl at 09:11 AM on April 18, 2005
OMG RCAED SAID LETS EXAMINE R MEMBERZ!!!11 OMG UR SO GAAY! LOLZ UR PROBALY A SANFAGSICO GINATS FAN!!!! LA DODGERZ R00LJ00!! (yeah, it's been done better) As far as I can tell, a lot of the new users have been one or two post drive-bys. I'd just let them be, and deal with persistent cases of idiocy individually. Temporary suspensions, possibly. I wouldn't worry too much about the illiterates...either the person wises up and puts some effort into their posts, or they just get ignored and fade into Bolivia.
posted by mbd1 at 09:37 AM on April 18, 2005
I'd say that just using a delay between signup and being able to post would take care of the most egregious cases. Those who want to pop in, create a quickie account and type "YANKKEEE HATRZ SUX LOLOL!!!!!" in a thread would probably not bother if they had to wait a week, or even a day, before posting. Hell, they probably wouldn't remember they had signed up by the time they were able to post. We would still see the occasional new member whose written skills were less than one might wish for, but most likely the new member would be at least trying to contribute. Most of the problem posters are, at least in my experience, are just stopping in for a moment to throw a crap-bomb, and then moving on.
posted by deadcowdan at 09:52 AM on April 18, 2005
Two words I have added to my working vocabulary in the last 24 hours: 1. Spankees 2. Sanfranderthals Subliterate, my butt. The drive-by one-shotters don't stick around long enough to do any more than talk like they're caller #76 on Mike & the Mad Dog show, and there's not much we can do unless the problem gets worse. I believe some of those people will have cogent and viable opinions, though. The focus should be on playing up the "community discourse" side of things and not the "Crossfire" stuff. Nothing productive or enlightening comes from that crap. I actually like deadcowdan's idea. That'll help, I'd think.
posted by chicobangs at 10:00 AM on April 18, 2005
I second deadcowdan's idea. A week waiting period before they can post, works.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:11 AM on April 18, 2005
I too (three?) think a waiting period is worth implementing. I think there is a 24hr post-signup waiting period at Fark. That works pretty well. The level of discourse there is pretty solid.
posted by gspm at 10:19 AM on April 18, 2005
24 hours is sufficient. And who approved our marketing strategy? We can't handle the customers. I don't know which is funnier - the newbies or our crotchety asses getting all bent out of shape about it. Either way as soon as SpoFi hits 2500 members, I say we abandon the place and set up a newer, secreter club... I've said too much already. Shhhhh.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:33 AM on April 18, 2005
I'd say that just using a delay between signup and being able to post would take care of the most egregious cases. Perhaps, but we'll also lose people who join solely to cuss me out because they believe that I have insulted them personally or insulted the memory of their dead friend and could not get laid in college. Do you really want to lose that?
posted by rcade at 10:50 AM on April 18, 2005
Either way as soon as SpoFi hits 2500 members, I say we abandon the place and set up a newer, secreter club... Suggested titles: The Masters of Filtered Sport. The Ancient and Elucidated Brethren of sub-1000 user id numbers. --- Suggestion, don't know how it'll work in practice: Delegate some admin tasks to trusted others (more regular users than myself), allowing them to do simple things like 'block user', 'delete comment', if the offender is a new user (how you define 'new', I have no idea).
posted by BigCalm at 11:23 AM on April 18, 2005
The Ancient and Elucidated Brethren of sub-1000 user id numbers. Curses!
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:43 AM on April 18, 2005
The Ancient and Elucidated Brethren of sub-1000 user id numbers. SpoFite Club!
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:48 AM on April 18, 2005
wc2k2 beat me to the reference, but here are the rules for Spofite Club... #1 - The first rule of Spofite Club is, you do not talk about Spofite Club. #2 - The second rule of Spofite Club is, you DO NOT talk about Spofite Club. #3 - If someone says "sucks", "rawks", "you're gay", the thread is over. #4 - Everyone is allowed in the comments. #5 - One post per subject. #6 - No shirts, no shoes. (girls especially =D) #7 - Threads will go on as long as they have to. #8 - If this is your first night at Spofite Club, you *cannot* post.
posted by MeatSaber at 12:16 PM on April 18, 2005
Obviously the best way to examine our members is with piss tests. We'd be all trendy that way too. rcade, I still don't get the original suggestion. Trialites would be able to post comments but not threads. Then when their comments please the masters, they FPP rights? Please keep signups free and open.
posted by danostuporstar at 12:36 PM on April 18, 2005
I had in mind something like this: 1. When you join SportsFilter, you are a trial member for the first 45 days and have full site privileges. 2. During that time, members could visit your profile page and click a "decline this membership" link. 3. A trial member who accumulates 5 or more declines becomes a visitor who can't post. 4. Otherwise, the person becomes a full member and is no longer subject to this system. Only the admins would see the decline votes. Perhaps it is too negative, but I expect it would be rare that someone is so bad that they received that many declines. I feel like we need to find a way to nudge new members into caring about the membership guidelines. Enforcing them as an admin, on a case by case basis, ends up becoming a parent-child relationship in which the new user feels an obligation to fuck with us under the "you're not the boss of me" principle.
posted by rcade at 01:03 PM on April 18, 2005
Obviously the best way to examine our members is with piss tests. I don't think you pissing on anyone is going to prove anything, dano. Well, if you gotta go, you gotta go.
posted by jerseygirl at 01:11 PM on April 18, 2005
I'd support a three day delay between joining SpoFi and being able to make comments, and a week's delay on posting links to the front page.
posted by squealy at 01:16 PM on April 18, 2005
I had in mind something like this:... Hey, I like that. Basically a user flagging system which is virtually transparent. Is this an rcade invention or has such a system been implemented elsewhere? * dano begins to hand JG his sample, then thinks better of it.
posted by danostuporstar at 01:41 PM on April 18, 2005
3. A trial member who accumulates 5 or more declines becomes a visitor who can't post. The only problem with this system is that it's open to abuse. I can see some assholes clicking on a potentially great new user's "Decline" checkbox just becuase s/he's an Orioles fan. Will that ever happen? Who knows, but I thought I'd throw that potential drawback out there. I think that deadcowdan's suggestion is a great compromise.
posted by NoMich at 01:47 PM on April 18, 2005
...deadcowdan's suggestion... Oops. I meant deadcowdan's reasoning for a delayed entry system is a great compromise.
posted by NoMich at 01:49 PM on April 18, 2005
I'm against delaying the ability to post. Some of the best Spofi content has come from the first post of a new user. For example : one who has been moved to post because of a breaking story of which they have first-hand knowledge. Another example : a called-out journalist who feels the need to respond to criticism. Perhaps more emphasis on posting guidelines during the assimilation process would reduce the number of problem posters.
posted by garfield at 01:52 PM on April 18, 2005
Well, there could be a manual bypass for cases like that, garfield. On the signup page, you could say something like: "If you have a good reason for bypassing the two-day waiting period (if you're part of the subject being discussed, for example), let us know and we'll work something out."
posted by chicobangs at 02:53 PM on April 18, 2005
"Dear Esteemed Pointyheads, Please waive the two-day waiting period as I have a trade offer on the table from the Boston Red Sox, and wanted to discuss it with fans on SoxFilter as soon as possible....."
posted by smithers at 03:05 PM on April 18, 2005
As long as Frank and Jen, who were at the party where 2 freshman teammates of a nationally reputable athletic program were hazed beyond all recognition, are able to post the next foggy day and corroborate or refute the national press release by the under-fire AD, fine by me.
posted by garfield at 03:28 PM on April 18, 2005
Have things really been that awful? I saw a couple of shitty posts, but would be saving ourselves from bad posts or losing out on some good ones? My problem with the system described above is it assumes the only people who would ever bother to find/ click on a "Decline this membership" link are the people in this thread and that it would only be done for egregious displays of bad conduct. I tend to be an ideologue on the side of letting everyone say whatever they want, but I don't have to administer the site, so take my thoughts with more than a grain of salt.
posted by yerfatma at 03:34 PM on April 18, 2005
I really don't think it's all that big a problem. I understand admins don't wanna have to be the "bad guy", but maybe it just comes with the territory. Basically, just let it all hang out (like it has been). If there's enough of a problem, you'll see complaints in the LR, or if it's clearly egregious, just boot 'em (just like it has been). You're hosting it, maintaining it, we ain't payin', so that's just the shit. That's just the shit. (I'm turning this paragraph into a rock anthem or blues riff.)
posted by worldcup2002 at 04:30 PM on April 18, 2005
The problem with the problem (!) is that, if it follows the trend of problems in online forums, the amount of noise is somewhat of a slippery slope. It's not at an intolerable level now -- really more amusing than anything -- but that can change overnight. Good forums go bad in a hurry, and once they do, efforts to curb the flood with signal are futile. As far as implementing restrictive measures, it's hard to do and even more controversial once things have started going to hell. If restrictive measures work at all, I think they need to be done quietly, without a lot of fanfare, in small ways, and before there's a major problem. I'm in favor of some solution that is both simple and proactive. IOW, don't ignore it, but don't try to do anything real complicated now. A complicated system draws more attention and creates more resentment, including among those who would otherwise be your allies. I'm also in favor of banning for being a pointless stupid racist dickhead, but I agree with deadcowdan that a waiting period will filter out nearly all of these. I think a 24-hour period would be sufficient. As for the once-in-a-blue-moon dickhead who has 24 hours worth of patience, I think it will work nto deal with them on an ad hoc basis.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:03 PM on April 18, 2005
In happier days, I would have gladly waited 24 hours to post SENS ROX LEAFS SUX. However, I believe I'm the exception, and that a waiting period will be perfectly adequate. I'm all in favour of a "Do you really really need to post on this thread, i.e. is it about you or your mother? Tell us." message during the waiting period. Threads here don't scroll off the front page too quickly to make this pointless.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 05:58 PM on April 18, 2005
I don't know. I still think the Pantheon's wielding of the invisible Hammer of Thor upon errant posts, the slamming down and immediate wiping out of those puny posts from out of nowhere is still pretty cool. I'm just saying.
posted by worldcup2002 at 06:57 PM on April 18, 2005
Maybe new members should be required to post a certain about of times prior to posting a subject. Essays seems a bit much for what should be a forum open to all, and yes this place is full of people who have nothing better to do than cause a riot by being abusive of such sites as this and many others. Maybe just watch over the site with a 'minder' system we have this on another forum I use on which is the BIG V League at this place the owner of the forum reviews the content of all posts. This avoids any abusive posts towards refs or particular players it works well and the forum is great if your involved within the basketball league itself.
posted by bballcoachreid at 07:57 PM on April 18, 2005
I've got the best idea yet. Everyone has to read Strunk and White's The Elements of Style and pass a test on the knowledge therein. Make it stop, make it stop...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:51 PM on April 18, 2005
Death to those who do not use the Harvard comma!!!
posted by holden at 09:22 PM on April 18, 2005
I'm going to break my own rule and use a real-life example. Read 'em and weep. At a minimum, we're going to add a Visitor membership level that blocks all posting from people trying this hard to be dinks. (Or should that be TRYING THIS HARD TO BE DINKS). For starters it will be a double-secret admin power, like justgary's ability three times a year to make a top closer blow a save.
posted by rcade at 10:52 PM on April 18, 2005
I thought that poop thing was fake, someone showing up like that...so, its real? That's an actual person "seriously" writing that shit? How is that for timing?
posted by chris2sy at 11:17 PM on April 18, 2005
I figured it was someone from this discussion, trying to provoke a change.
posted by grum@work at 11:41 PM on April 18, 2005
That, folks, is irony. Fighting poop with POOP.
posted by dusted at 12:18 AM on April 19, 2005
rcade, for the Visitor membership level, maybe it could be like a Learner license. L as in Luh-ooooo-zer. Maybe some special tag or font color (pink?) for the lucky poster's name. And a little extra comment (uneditable except by admins) in his profile: "This user is currently on a Visitor pass." In pink. This would be nice.
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:33 AM on April 19, 2005
I'm thinking...blink tag.
posted by chicobangs at 01:54 AM on April 19, 2005
For starters it will be a double-secret admin power, like justgary's ability three times a year to make a top closer blow a save. Going with Riviera again this season, huh Gary? Thumbs up on that selection. You da man. You da man.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:07 AM on April 19, 2005
My guess is that POOP is a member of present company trying to make a point. Okay. Point made. Now make it stop. Make it all stop.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:52 AM on April 19, 2005
I gotta go with lbb on POOP's identity. As such, let me propose an alternate solution. We can't actively police the site, meting and doling out rough justice to all n00bs lest we wind up with a site that never grows. I do propose policing can be done successfully through alter-egos that are so clearly marked as fake one is hard-pressed to offend a newbie. While rcade yelling at you to stop talking all in caps might drive a new visitor off, Old Irish Cop telling you to walk a different beat, appearing everytime you do something stupid and saying the same thing, has a less harsh effect (none of which is to say certain accounts shouldn't be banned). Mayor Curley (from Mefi) and I did some experimentation with this back in the early days of online Jeopardy! (geek alert), double-teaming the competition and responding to all feedback, whether positive or negative with "I AM THE ALPHA MALE! I HURL MY FECES AT YOU!" and thoughts to that effect. It took a lot of work to actually hurt peoples' feelings like that. But we did it. And then people started memorizing all the questions and it took away our drunken fun.
posted by yerfatma at 07:16 AM on April 19, 2005
Alternative options: Donnie from Dawchesta Beta Ray Bill Thurmon Munson Capt. Jason Varitek (ret.) You get the idea.
posted by yerfatma at 07:19 AM on April 19, 2005
I agree with the comments above from lbb and yerfatma re POOP's identity. There is something that reeks of trying a little too hard to be bad in those comments -- the combination of ALL CAPS plus inane comments that often don't remotely try to address the issue at hand, etc.
posted by holden at 07:56 AM on April 19, 2005
Can someone tell me again what's wrong with rcade's original idea? The only objection I've noticed raised was potential abuse of the 'decline' button, and that can be corrected easily by only presenting to the button the 20-25 moderators. I like it because there's no callout neccessary and most folks won't know a trial member from a regular one. Also the default action is that new members graduate to full status automatically. What I see as it's primary drawback is that it seems like a fair amount of work to implement and there are probably more important items on the to do list.
posted by danostuporstar at 08:52 AM on April 19, 2005
dano: Here's a scenario: someone shows up, makes half a dozen idjit posts one day, half a dozen more the next...then nothing. So what do the mods do? Wait 45 days to see if he's going to have something else to say? Hit the decline button as soon as they see something st00pid? The latter is clearly simpler, but if the newb sees the error of his/her ways and starts posting reasonably, can the mods un-decline? And how will they know when someone's 45 days are up -- would an uber-mod be responsible for saying, "Okay, today we have to have a final vote on RedSoxSuk, SanFranderthal, and MiltonBradleyIsMyHouseboy,"? That would be administrative work enough if we're just talking about newbs who intend to stay here, but what about the drive-bys who post MY TEAM ROOLZ and then nothing -- do you track them and vote even though you're pretty sure they're gone? I dunno. It could work. But you'd have to tell the newbs when they join that their membership depended on participation adhering to certain standards. So...people couldn't really lurk, cuz you'd have nothing to vote on. Or would we just let people become full members based on complete silence, as long as they didn't say anything st00pid?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:32 AM on April 19, 2005
OT, but every time I come to this thread and try and be serious, the thread title makes me giggle, like its some perverted official decree: "Let us examine our members, Sportsfilter. Let us massage our members. Gently, forcefully, whatever your pleasure, but make sure it happens in the privacy of your own cube."
posted by garfield at 09:44 AM on April 19, 2005
danostuporstar's member no. is 86.
posted by worldcup2002 at 10:13 AM on April 19, 2005
Are you suggesting we hold the dano, WC? Or something about 86's member and my number being bound together? Hey, what happened to the #anchor links on the timestamp (on the posted by line)? They show up on preview, but not in the actual thread.
posted by danostuporstar at 10:26 AM on April 19, 2005
Oh yeah, it moved the thought bubble icon...never mind me.
posted by danostuporstar at 10:27 AM on April 19, 2005
Or would we just let people become full members based on complete silence, as long as they didn't say anything st00pid? Yes. Not much different then things are now. You act stupid, you get banned. Otherwise, you're full-fledged whether you're active or not. And how will they know when someone's 45 days are up? I would assume this would be handled programatically. No final vote neccesary. can the mods un-decline? Yes. I don't think we're talking about replacing the omnipotent powers of the Pantheon, but merely allowing some folks to be their little angels.
posted by danostuporstar at 10:42 AM on April 19, 2005
I think for posts you definitely want to have the ability to remove the assinine, but the comments don't bother me as much. Seems like an admin task to lock or hide a bad post or block a user if they get out of control in the comments. For anyone w/o admin access... Fight fire with fire.
posted by YukonGold at 10:52 AM on April 19, 2005
Hey dano & wc, leave me and my member out of this. garfield - Hilarious. As for the rest of this, I understand the concerns, but find the ability to ignore idiots to be a powerful weapon. That, and mocking them. And rcade banning people. I trust him. But no banning for commas. I don't know how to use them. I sprinkle them all over the place for no apparent reason. That said, if someone uses "however" when they mean "nevertheless" we should bust out the tar and feathers.
posted by 86 at 11:06 AM on April 19, 2005
That said, if someone uses "however" when they mean "nevertheless" we should bust out the tar and feathers. Only if we get to ram poin-ted sticks in their orifices in retaliation for run-on sentences. ...or cut off their members...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:35 AM on April 19, 2005
This is all too complex. I think I'll just link to a pretty song when a member leaves an inane comment. For example: i think TO is the best fuck those qb's like the mannings, TO kick ass he sacrifice his body to play in the superbowl and he didnt reinjured his body so if those want to say hes the shaq of the nfl he is hes the top dog TO and Micheal Vick is the best out there they prove they could run the game without the best qb peyton is the best qb right now but mcnabb got into the superbowl posted by annoying_spofite at 1:54 PM CST on April 15 ahem posted by annoyed_spofite at 1:55 PM CST on April 15
posted by dusted at 11:39 AM on April 19, 2005
brilliant
posted by garfield at 11:44 AM on April 19, 2005
TO and Micheal Vick is the best... He forgot (Ron) Mexico. Feh, that was too much of a reach. Sorry.
posted by NoMich at 12:24 PM on April 19, 2005
dano and 86: yeah, I just noticed dano's member no. was the nickname for, well, 86. That's all.
posted by worldcup2002 at 12:49 PM on April 19, 2005
Way to notice things, WC!
posted by Samsonov14 at 02:29 PM on April 19, 2005
Water Closet?
posted by yerfatma at 03:54 PM on April 19, 2005
Samso, thanks. I am very pleased to be of assistance in the noticing of things.
posted by worldcup2002 at 04:03 PM on April 19, 2005
How perfect is it that A Complete Loser is user 2000. Kind of indicative of how things are going at SportsFilter. Whichever one of us registered that name has their finger on the pulse. *Paging rcade, paging rcade - cleanup on aisle 4362.*
posted by dusted at 06:28 PM on April 19, 2005
Another thought, occasioned by some recent FPPs: maybe the intro can be enhanced to try to get across the concept of "general interest". While many (if not most) FPPs are specific to a degree, dealing with a particular team or athlete, the good ones all contain something that make them of general interest. A good example was the recent thread about the Gary Sheffield fan incident, which raised a more general issue and created interest beyond people who care about the Yankees or Red Sox. Of bad examples we have all too many lately.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:15 PM on April 19, 2005
I don't know which is funnier - the newbies or our crotchety asses getting all bent out of shape about it. Exactly how is throwing out some ideas to the community regarding the future of sportsfilter getting "bent out of shape" weedy (or was your comment meant to be ironic) ? Sure, it's not a big deal now, but as lil brown bat said, that can change over night. Boy scouts, be prepared, ya know?
posted by justgary at 02:20 PM on April 20, 2005
I try not to get bent out of shape about stuff around here but... any admin gonna do something about 4371? The link is broken and even if it worked as intended I presume there is nothing special about it, no point for it to be a thread and the whole thing could've been bundled into a recent NBA thread. New user, first post, and I don't wanna go in there and be negative since I can't actually do anything about it (and I already pointed out a defficient thread once this week).
posted by gspm at 03:01 PM on April 20, 2005
just to be clear, we are all losers who have hurt some anonymous loser's feelings.
posted by garfield at 03:35 PM on April 20, 2005
I will not have this anonymous person question my sexuality, my manhood, or speak of my wife's posterior end...damn you Internets.
posted by chris2sy at 04:19 PM on April 20, 2005
This is getting old. I've changed my mind about the probationary period. It would be great if the Pantheon could do that. I'm not sure this is one of those "ignore it and it will go away" things. I tried that with scabies. It didn't work.
posted by Samsonov14 at 05:11 PM on April 20, 2005
is there some sort of IP banning thing that can be done? included in the membership surge is multiple accounts to one person (just a guess). which makes the naughty user problem a moving target which may be easy to deal with if they use the same computer all the time.
posted by gspm at 06:23 PM on April 20, 2005
I'm glad you folks beat me to it. Obviously the same guy, IP ban please.
posted by yerfatma at 06:31 PM on April 20, 2005
just to be clear, we are all losers who have hurt some anonymous loser's feelings. "That wasn't a mean thing, chubby, it was the truth. Hurts, don't it?" - Cheech Wizard I say crush them all into a bad-smelling paste.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:55 PM on April 20, 2005
*sigh* This shit really has to stop, and soon. Can we stop talking and start doing?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:06 PM on April 20, 2005
Pantheon....Please....Make it stop.....
posted by gac at 10:18 PM on April 20, 2005
It is time to BRING DOWN THE HAMMER!
posted by worldcup2002 at 12:17 AM on April 21, 2005
Bah, some of it's cleaned up. The ban hammer will be out soon. This at least shows, in my opinion, that doing something now is not an overreaction.
posted by justgary at 01:33 AM on April 21, 2005
This POOP should have been banned the first time he did anything. He was clearly trolling.
posted by jerseygirl at 04:27 AM on April 21, 2005
I think worldcup should interview all prospective Sportsfilter members...and then we all vote at the end of the thread... Who's with me?!?
posted by StarFucker at 09:13 AM on April 21, 2005
here here. (of course this will basically ensure that the membership stays exactly as it is).
posted by gspm at 09:36 AM on April 21, 2005
Hahahahahahahahahaha. All interviews will be one question, randomly selected by me. Eloquence, wit, sports trivia knowledge, will all contribute to a favorable recommendation to the Board of the BanHammer.
posted by worldcup2002 at 10:15 AM on April 21, 2005
I'll be Chairman...
posted by StarFucker at 10:39 AM on April 21, 2005
Who will be the Mohel?
posted by danostuporstar at 10:45 AM on April 21, 2005
I want a job similar to those incredibly arcane roles that you get in royal service or maybe the Vatican, like Keeper of Linens and Cough Drops, or Carrier of the Big Book of Holy Mysteries. Maybe I could be Polisher of the Banhammer or something like that. All my life I've wanted to be useless...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:11 PM on April 21, 2005
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?
posted by chris2sy at 12:23 PM on April 21, 2005
Polisher of the Banhammer How dare you call fluffers useless.
posted by danostuporstar at 12:27 PM on April 21, 2005
I know i said it in jest, but i really think the interview is a good idea...maybe alot of work, but how many new members do we get everyday? Plus, it would make prospective members feel special with all the attention they would get...
posted by StarFucker at 12:43 PM on April 21, 2005
Maybe we should make new users stare at the new dancing banana for 24 hours straight. If they don't go insane, then they can post. 
posted by NoMich at 12:49 PM on April 21, 2005
We've had about twenty in the past three days, anyway. On preview: twenty users, not bananas.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:51 PM on April 21, 2005
Polisher of the Banhammer (snicker...) Is it just me, or does the banana's dance routine get longer every time I see it?
posted by smithers at 01:15 PM on April 21, 2005
Lookin' like every day of the week, garfield :-( Interviews could tell us a lot (and would weed out a bunch of weenies), but OTOH I'm not sure that some of the homers couldn't shuffle through on their best behavior. That's assuming we could manage the current influx, which is questionable. 'sides, I like the interview as it is now: a sort of directed multilateral chat with someone who seems kinda interesting. I'm gonna go polish the banhammer now, in anticipation of rcade's return from being a big ol' media ho. He's gonna want to have it in good working order to smite the wicked, because there's a whole lotta people incitin' for a smitin', right rcade???
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:48 PM on April 21, 2005
180 members in the last month seems that you can find all the users by searching for "." as your search term.
posted by gspm at 02:04 PM on April 21, 2005
Can we close down new membership just temporarily to slow this craptastic troll juggernaut down? it seems like everyone who is joining lately is a fuckhead.
posted by jerseygirl at 02:04 PM on April 21, 2005
Wow, mattsapp is a serious asshole...
posted by StarFucker at 02:32 PM on April 21, 2005
NoMich, that Dancing Banana is da bomb! His moves are getting better every time I see him. I think he would actually attract more nutballs (I mean, look at me), not scare them away.
posted by worldcup2002 at 05:06 PM on April 21, 2005
Expanding on SF's idea, we could pick a few hardened graybeards (including SF) to do one-question interviews. You know, pick a demi-Pantheon to handle this bureaucratic task (bill, SF, etc.). Hold the interview in LR, post one question, get the answer, see the community response. Interviewer makes the recommendation to the Pantheon. Pantheon makes final decision. Man, that sounds like an on-line hazing.
posted by worldcup2002 at 05:10 PM on April 21, 2005
the problem i'd see with that is that if the questions and community response are not anonymous then some trolling new user will pick a personal vendetta against those with any negative vibes.
posted by gspm at 05:40 PM on April 21, 2005
can we make the lockerroom visible to members only? this conversation seems to have spawned the GUYSrLOSERS and POOP... and uh, then we shut down membership for a while, or restrict newb posting. Something. It's out of control. I feel like the entire board is being spammed to the point of uselessness.
posted by jerseygirl at 06:08 PM on April 21, 2005
Maybe the Pope can help. An exorcism or something.
posted by worldcup2002 at 06:41 PM on April 21, 2005
rcade is holding his website hostage until he does.
posted by dusted at 07:27 PM on April 21, 2005
can we make the lockerroom visible to members only Y'know, I usually don't believe in these kinds of elitist things, but that makes sense. Why let them in our basest plans?
posted by yerfatma at 08:47 PM on April 21, 2005
Expanding on SF's idea, we could pick a few hardened graybeards (including SF) to do one-question interviews. It's late and I just switched over to a new ISP and my brain is melting, and the only question I can even think of at the moment is, "Are you a fuckhead?" Maybe that would even work, who knows... Hey NoMich, can you modify the Dancing Banana so it's holding up a sign saying, "No Fuckheads Allowed"?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:40 PM on April 21, 2005
Actually, we should ask them, "are you a fuck head" in a post that also has the banana holding up a sign that says "Only fuckheads allowed." Make their head a splode!
posted by Mr Bismarck at 06:30 AM on May 01, 2005
Please avoid the urge to talk about specific newbies in this discussion. Some of them might turn out OK, and giving them a public MetaTalk-style flogging would probably remove that possibility.