Its not a "big" problem anyway, yeah, but if a small group of those "trash judges" could handle the problem, the whole mass (including me) would have to watch less junk, even if they are not that frequent, and doesnt polluate the bench too, this cant be a bad measure i think :p
Joined: 8/26/2006
Posts: 1139
Location: United Kingdom
I agree with Kyrsimys. The problem isn't sufficient enough to warrant changing a good system that works. If, perhaps, we were getting 1-2 junk submissions per day every day then it may be worth discussing further. As things stand we may have a troll or two and trolls get bored and move on (if they don't get banned first).
One of the main reasons I like the way that this site is moderated is that it is free from all the rules and limits of other forums and we should strive to keep it that way.
I think quarantine judges is a bad idea mainly because it will create more problems than it fixes. What exactly is a 'junk' submission? I wouldn't be surprised if this became construed as 'anything that is a certain rejection'. I'd even go further to say that the freedom to submit something sub-par when very new to the site and have it torn apart on the workbench has been integral to the development of many of the older members here (myself included). Not to say that they would all be considered junk, it's just that complete junk isn't always easy to spot unless you know of the author's intentions.
Its not a "big" problem anyway, yeah, but if a small group of those "trash judges" could handle the problem, the whole mass (including me) would have to watch less junk, even if they are not that frequent, and doesnt polluate the bench too, this cant be a bad measure i think :p
Are the current judges so slow in dealing with them? People who watch the movie are interested in it anyway... they can see what the person has written in the submission text, and they can see the rerecord count. They can judge if they want to watch them on that information. People watching them and providing feedback will only speed up the speed at which judges can reject junk submissions. Mostly though, it's quite obvious already from the start.
One of the main reasons I like the way that this site is moderated is that it is free from all the rules and limits of other forums and we should strive to keep it that way.
Actually, this forum is one of the stricter ones I've seen.
restrict new user's submissions (discourages new users/only adds more clog for judges/coders).
ban new users just because their first submissions are terrible and don't meet guideliness.
Do:
Email new users a link to the rules and FAQ pages.
Create a forum user account at the same time as the wiki/submissions account.
Subscribe new authors to their workbench thread, so any comments on their submissions show up in their email.
This assumes ignorance rather than malicious intent. If the problem is that they don't understand how things work, or their own submissions' weak points, put it right in their faces where they can see it easily.
And if they are making intentionally bad submissions just to be jerks, the resulting bulk of mail to their address could discourage the behavior.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
I would still ask first before subscribing anyone to anything, because I find that uninvited junk mail is always an annoyance no matter how helpful it's trying to be.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
My suggestions:
[a fine list.]
This assumes ignorance rather than malicious intent. If the problem is that they don't understand how things work, or their own submissions' weak points, put it right in their faces where they can see it easily.
And if they are making intentionally bad submissions just to be jerks, the resulting bulk of mail to their address could discourage the behavior.
That last bit is more or less irrelevant, as someone who's going to submit intentionally bad submissions is not going to bother signing up with their real e-mail address.
Still a good suggestion set though.
I think Upthorn's suggestions make the most sense, but with the recent influx of crap/troll/joke submissions (a dozen in a month now, I think?) I say that we should restrict new users to 3 submissions a week.
I think Upthorn's suggestions make the most sense, but with the recent influx of crap/troll/joke submissions (a dozen in a month now, I think?) I say that we should restrict new users to 3 submissions a week.
bad idea, a lot of ppls who like tases never bother registering until they actualy make tases... if a frame war begin with a new user, the 3 submission rule might get in his way...
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Nicos wrote:
Solon wrote:
I think Upthorn's suggestions make the most sense, but with the recent influx of crap/troll/joke submissions (a dozen in a month now, I think?) I say that we should restrict new users to 3 submissions a week.
bad idea, a lot of ppls who like tases never bother registering until they actualy make tases... if a frame war begin with a new user, the 3 submission rule might get in his way...
And if it does happen, then we can always make an exception. It's good enough to catch the majority of bad users with a simple rule that will also affect a minority of good users, so long as the good users can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. What's wanted is to automate the process of dealing with bad users, since they seem to be increasingly common.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
If lurker can't vote, why lurker could post a submission ?
Isn't it about an abuse problem ? Isn't it what we are living right now ?
Voting is easier to abuse, and the problem remains that not all our visitors speak English.
Since it's pretty obvious by now that we're being trolled, I can only recommend using a relatively passive solution (akin to disemvoweling moderated registration) that deprives the troll of attention.
This is an expansion of the 1 submission per day for non "members". How about 1 per day and 2-3 per week?
I honestly can't see how that is going to help. Those misguided/troll submissions are not being submitted several times per day, as far as I can see. If someone wanted to vandalize the submission process, he could well do that by making 3 bogus submissions per week.
It could protect from someone making 100 submissions per hour as some kind of DoS attack, but I don't think that has been happened yet. (OTOH it might be a good idea to protect the site from such a thing in advance...)
I think honestly the best notion is to moderate anybody that's not established, then have the judges or a special moderation only judge either confirm that they're not joke/troll submissions, or quietly kill them before anybody sees them.
The whole "x per day" or "x per week" is a dumb idea, especially since some of them are making dupe accounts to do it.
I think honestly the best notion is to moderate anybody that's not established, then have the judges or a special moderation only judge either confirm that they're not joke/troll submissions, or quietly kill them before anybody sees them.
Which is the whole "quarantine area for first-time submitters" idea suggested earlier.
That's even less sensible, since dial-up users can simply disconnect, reconnect, and get a new IP. Even cable/dsl users can change their IP address, since they have a pool of them. Not to mention proxies.
I'm personally against that, because there are legit n00bs who haven't posted yet want to submit something that is good. Yes, generally most people would post around here a bit, but you don't HAVE to.
Personally, I think the most fair way is that new members are moderated, and once they're established, unless they go ape-shit, they're free to submit anything.
I feel this is the best protected yet most fair method of dealing with submissions.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
Sir VG wrote:
I'm personally against that, because there are legit n00bs who haven't posted yet want to submit something that is good. Yes, generally most people would post around here a bit, but you don't HAVE to.
Personally, I think the most fair way is that new members are moderated, and once they're established, unless they go ape-shit, they're free to submit anything.
I feel this is the best protected yet most fair method of dealing with submissions.
What do you mean "moderated"? Are you suggesting that pre-judge system you suggested before? I really fail to see how that's any different than the system we have now: all you'd do is shunt it off to a select group of people. The way things are now, everyone can establish the legitimacy of a submission the way they establish the quality of a movie and help the judges do their job. We shouldn't take that help away from them for any reason.
I honestly think that the same qualifications for voting need to be applied to submitting as well. It ensures that the newcomer has some establishment here and has a better idea of what we do here in the case of honest but misguided individuals who might have submitted a real-time run. Those who are earnest and have a good submission will hopefully be understanding enough of the situation to not be bothered by making just a few posts (I'm assuming that if a newcomer would try to submit something, a polite message would show up informing them of past and potential abuse, and to please make a few posts so we can come to know him/her a little more). In the case of trolls? Trolls will be trolls, no matter what we do, but this helps increase the chance of catching them before they hit the workbench. Again, the community can help establish who's who in this case.
But what about those who don't speak English very well and wish to submit something? This may sound a little arrogant, but I think that if they are versed enough to make a submission, they are versed enough to make a few short, halting posts. If they are desperate enough, they could probably resort to a machine translator or get a friend to help.
It's either this, or we should just leave it the way it is now.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
