It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
Kleetus: But he's abused, wished harm and said the most appalling things about people and their families.
You frequently make fun about tiny's medical history, and you would use every detail that he opens up about as an emotional rapier right through his heart.

You feigned compassion for rtcvb32's personal life and family situation in order to make him open up to you in an attempt to gain information you could use to emotionally devastate him, even though you knew about his mental illness.

To my knowledge, no one, absolutely no one has made fun of e.g. rwarehall's family situation, which to my knowledge has seen an immeasurably shit turn in 2016. And I'd gladly maim and kill anyone who would make fun of it.
low rated
avatar
Vainamoinen: You frequently make fun about tiny's medical history
Because he abused my family.

Regardless, you haven't answered my question and you won't, because you and his group protect him.

Ultimately, it's you and your group who have enabled and encouraged him through your unwavering support.

avatar
Vainamoinen: You feigned compassion for rtcvb32's personal life and family situation in order to make him open up to you in an attempt to gain information you could use to emotionally devastate him, even though you knew about his mental illness.
What a load of claptrap, where do you people come up with this stuff?

You SJWs really can weave a story and outrage to suit your ends.

And I'll go back to my original question which you dodged, do you support tinyE getting banned?

Because he has done far, far worse than the people you want banned.
low rated
avatar
Vainamoinen: Oh great. Now I have to start another collection. THANKS OBAMA.

Which is especially great because I absolutely agree with rwarehall's opinion ("piracy is theft") in that thread, but exactly zero of his abusive posts.
I actually agree with at least some things he tries to say too (though not that one, at least in case of otherwise unavailable abandonware). Unfortunately for some time now he has been entirely unable to have a conversation without calling someone a "fuckface", which is really the only thing anyone is aking for.
avatar
Breja: calling someone a "fuckface"
tinyE has done much worse yet you protect and support him.

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking, you people don't really want fair moderation, you want to get rid of people you don't like and excuse and ignore behaviour from those you do like.
low rated
I told Fables several times, and by all means ask her yourself if you don't believe me, to take some time and monitor everyone's behavior. If at that time she felt I needed to go, so long as I could keep my games, then I would go and do so without any objections.

I stand by that.

If there are people in here that feel I am as bad as Kleetus and can show as much, than by all means go to her with that. If she thinks you make a point and I need booting, I won't try to stop her.
low rated
avatar
Kleetus: What a load of claptrap, where do you people come up with this stuff?

You SJWs really can weave a story and outrage to suit your ends.
Not sure what face you're making while you're writing this, but I assume it to be a big ol' smirk. Like in your avatar. Because yes of course you absolutely know what I am talking about. I can't remember tiny ever doing something this malicious. I didn't take it lightly when I saw it. In fact, I'm going to go back to that thread right now and pray that I stepped in at least once and said something against it. In any case, Kleetus, I don't deny that you were heavily personally insulted. I won't tone police your anger, man. But at least man up and take a look at your own posts. The moral high ground that tiny handed you just now... I don't think you deserve it. And I do like you, even though I assure you there's no shortage of dirt on you that I get handed.

You have a really, really silly feud with tiny, and I honestly don't see what the initial spark even was between you two. It may be too much to ask to finally drop it. :|

And what are you going to do when those minus 973 are finally wiped off your profile with one fell swoop (which I will welcome)? Continue just like that? :(

avatar
Breja: (though not that one, at least in case of otherwise unavailable abandonware).
This is just too funny, I think I could bolster that argument too (as "otherwise unavailable" and "abandonware" are two entirely different things, and all too often the first is purposefully mistaken for the latter, which legally sees only very few examples). You certainly won't see me in that thread though. :p
Post edited February 28, 2017 by Vainamoinen
avatar
Bookwyrm627: While the principles behind your ideas don't bother me, these two points have some specific implementation issues.

As long as rep is tied to things like being able to post links, then end users need to know. Otherwise you have complete newbies showing up going "why can't I post links", and people who know have to say something like "you've got an invisible rep score that is influenced by x, y, and z. When it is high enough you can post links, but there is no way to check its current value. Also, don't piss anyone off or you might suffer serial downreps, thereby hosing up your linking ability".

There is disentanglement that needs to occur before hiding/discarding rep entirely. That also means inventing replacement systems to deal with some of the issues that we've got (like when someone can start posting links). And talking about it here made me realize we probably won't see rep go awhile for a good while.

For this method to have any meaning, GOG would have to have staff available to check on these flags. Thinking about the implications of this statement will be left as an exercise for the reader.

Edit: I do like the idea of having a neutral button. Currently, the only recourse to a misclick is clicking the other button, and I'm not entirely sure what that ends up doing on the back end.
If people can bypass things and post a link by doing this anyway: then preventing people from posting links unless they have a 20+ rep is meaningless anyway. It's the wrong solution to the problem completely. People should be able to use things without a masters degree and without having to read a big list of site specific idiosyncrasies to figure out how it works or it is just pure failure. This is the only web forum online that I've ever used that has this problem and this non-working solution. There are various ways other sites deal with this and perhaps GOG needs to explore them. Even the CDPR forums are much smoother and stable in my experience, of course they're actively moderated also from what I understand.

At any rate though, even if the numerical rep system stays in tact behind the scenes, a rep score does not need to be visible. Most people new to the forums are not generally going to know what rep score even means, nor that it is why they can not post a link. It's no more difficult to tell someone "because you haven't been here long enough" than "your rep score is too low". If they wanted to put some visual indicator they should put some kind of non-score flag up that indicates the permissions you have, and clicking on it leads to a page that describes what all of the available flags/badges/whatever indicate and how the system works.

If the system has to show someone their internal rep score, then it is a pure failure IMHO. If it exists at all it should be an internal part of the software engine, not something user visible.

Let me make it easy for GOG. Here is a free solution for no consulting fee:

1) Keep a whitelist database of URLs considered acceptable for anyone to post anytime, and a blacklist for those that are inappropriate. These may contain wildcards, and perhaps even be specified as regular expressions for maximum flexibility.

2) As someone is typing, or if that is too much server load, then after they submit their message have it scanned by the system against any whitelists/blacklists and/or any other filtering mechanisms you use internally. It's probably a good idea to use Bayesian filtering as well, however it may take a bit of effort to get the filter trained initially.

3) When a new user tries to post content that contains URLs, words or other data/materials that triggers the system to consider it possibly spam/scam/inappropriate/whatever, pop up a message to the user indicating that their message contains a URL or other content to which they are not permitted to post currently because "<insert reason here that is appropriate for the situation, concise and clear using positive proactive language>". Depending on the reason for blocking the message, possibly offer an example of what they can do as an alternative.

4) Give the user the ability to dismiss that information/warning dialogue and edit their message and try to submit it again. Let them do this repeatedly until they have a message considered acceptable by the system.

5) When the user has posted enough times or had an account for N days or whatever other criterion you decide, upgrade their account from level 0 to level 1 internally non-visible to user. If they gain privileges, send them a notification in their chat inbox or via email that they can now post URLs or whatever.

Try to think out the design from the other side of the monitor rather than all technical. The less technical things displayed to the user, the more user-friendly it is. If something needs to be shown to the user, convert it into something non-technical non-numerical that the user understands easily like a colourful icon that they click on and get the information needed, or a dialogue box popping up informing them with instructions or whatever.

'tis not rocket science. :)

Worst case, see if Joel Spolsky (for those not familiar with the name, Google is your friend) is available for hire and have him whip up something. The end result might be a product that could be sold to other sites online. :)


Some additional tips:

- The system should prevent users from creating new forum threads more than N per minute/hour/day to rate-limit to a reasonable amount nobody is likely to hit if they use the forums like a normal person instead of an idiot or bot/spammer script or whatever. If someone goes over a threshold reasonably estimated to be non-human or some other eye-raiser, put measures in place immediately to halt the action depending on the severity of what was detected. If enough sensors are tripped to be certain it is a scammer/spammer or other similar troublemaker with no purpose, lock the account down pending administrative review and inform the account via email why their account was locked.

As many things as possible should be automated because with a massive and growing userbase, it is not scalable to hire people to do this stuff manually. It should be done with by software as much as possible, but that should be transparent to the user experience and any interactions with the user should be user-friendly and simple and easy to understand as possible.

Rep score is not necessary for any of this.
avatar
Vainamoinen: Because yes of course you absolutely know what I am talking about.
Considering you were one of the loud opposition to RT's Infowars thread and I actually supported him, it's laughable you try to suggest otherwise.

Anyway, why don't you let RT speak for himself, I'm willing to bet he doesn't have an issue with me?

But I again go back to my question which none of you will directly answer, do you support tinyE getting banned?

It's a simple yes or no, the fact that you skirt around it speaks volumes.
low rated
avatar
Vainamoinen: Because yes of course you absolutely know what I am talking about.
avatar
Kleetus: Considering you were one of the loud opposition to RT's Infowars thread and I actually supported him, it's laughable you try to suggest otherwise.

Anyway, why don't you let RT speak for himself, I'm willing to bet he doesn't have an issue with me?

But I again go back to my question which none of you will directly answer, do you support tinyE getting banned?

It's a simple yes or no, the fact that you skirt around it speaks volumes.
To answer an honest question that is being completely ignored and not trolling (fables) then I say YES.
low rated
Cute.

I invite everyone so pissed about my being here to go ahead and, with my blessing, take the issue to Fables, and what do I get?

'I don't want to troll Fables'. :P

Look, if you don't like me here then do something about it, if not then SHUT THE F@CK UP!
Don't bitch about my existence and "preferential treatment" and then sit there refusing to lift a fucking finger to remedy the problem.
low rated
Now that's CUTE.
avatar
Kleetus: But he's abused, wished harm and said the most appalling things about people and their families.
avatar
Vainamoinen: You frequently make fun about tiny's medical history, and you would use every detail that he opens up about as an emotional rapier right through his heart.

You feigned compassion for rtcvb32's personal life and family situation in order to make him open up to you in an attempt to gain information you could use to emotionally devastate him, even though you knew about his mental illness.

To my knowledge, no one, absolutely no one has made fun of e.g. rwarehall's family situation, which to my knowledge has seen an immeasurably shit turn in 2016. And I'd gladly maim and kill anyone who would make fun of it.
Strong words,I've seen it several times but will not search for it.
Post edited February 27, 2017 by Tauto
avatar
tinyE: Don't bitch about my existence and "preferential treatment" and then sit there refusing to lift a fucking finger to remedy the problem.
I actually don't want you to be banned, I don't want anyone to be and unlike you I've never run and whined to the mods.

Your protection and support simply makes a mockery of cries for moderation and shows the favouritism and hypocrisy at play.
low rated
avatar
tinyE: Don't bitch about my existence and "preferential treatment" and then sit there refusing to lift a fucking finger to remedy the problem.
avatar
Kleetus: I actually don't want you to be banned,
Of course you don't. If I wasn't here to harass you'd have no reason to come into this forum. XD

End of discussion. :D

Goodnight!
avatar
skeletonbow: <response>
Hopefully I remember to come back and reply to this. Out of time now. tl;dr what you say is generally fine, except that it is more of an ideal and not the system we currently have. The forums are a lower priority for GOG, and thus work-hours allocated to them will also be lower.

avatar
Kleetus: But I again go back to my question which none of you will directly answer, do you support tinyE getting banned?

It's a simple yes or no, the fact that you skirt around it speaks volumes.
I don't think moderation needs to start with anyone, at all, getting banned. Just put it in place and start enforcing it. People will either clean up their act or suffer the consequences, and either option suits me.
high rated
avatar
Vainamoinen: I'd like to report rwarehall for pathetic alt account up- and downvoting, which has been utterly proven here.
avatar
fronzelneekburm: Did it ever occur to you that your downreps might be due to the fact that people here are sick and tired of your obnoxious bullshit?

Keeping and uploading a pdf file over some other user's infractions. Who the fuck does that???
Borderline insanity. I've known a few trolls like that and they're the absolute worst because they never let go. The worst of them was Flaglerchat. A PI hound that drove a number of people off the internet with real-life harassment. Not sure how many forums he killed. I know of at least two.

Some of the people here should be forced to use jerkmuter. lol