Verification System
Jul 29, 2003 | 8:41 am
#31
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: AUS
Programs: DL Flying Colonel
Posts: 4,027
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ScottC:
I host and maintain over 4 boards that are in size and traffic twice the size of Flyertalk and can assure you that the situation here is pretty amazing, the DL troll seems to be just one person if I am not mistaken, many boards have 100's of these people, rendering the board completely useless.</font>
I host and maintain over 4 boards that are in size and traffic twice the size of Flyertalk and can assure you that the situation here is pretty amazing, the DL troll seems to be just one person if I am not mistaken, many boards have 100's of these people, rendering the board completely useless.</font>
Jul 29, 2003 | 8:52 am
#32
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: AUS
Programs: DL Flying Colonel
Posts: 4,027
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NJDavid:
As I said before, dont let yourself get caught-up in the circular logic of those who do not want verification. It is a waste of time.</font>
As I said before, dont let yourself get caught-up in the circular logic of those who do not want verification. It is a waste of time.</font>
Jul 29, 2003 | 8:52 am
#33
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: CH-3823 Wengen Switzerland
Programs: miles&more, MileagePlus
Posts: 27,043
the good old days were really good - the good new (present) days I judge as good as the old ones (some things got worse, others got much better).
I meet new pleasant FlyerTalkers online daily - I meet new pleasant FlyerTalkers in person at least once a month (in August a total of 12 FlyerTalkers will visit us at our Wengen place, in individual small groups of 2 or 4).
I like the way FlyerTalk did (and still does) grow.
Looking back, I believe that while the absolute number of 'trolls' (by any ones definition) increased, the percentage of such decreased - and my own FlyerTalk-friends-address book just got past 1'000 addresses lately.
I meet new pleasant FlyerTalkers online daily - I meet new pleasant FlyerTalkers in person at least once a month (in August a total of 12 FlyerTalkers will visit us at our Wengen place, in individual small groups of 2 or 4).
I like the way FlyerTalk did (and still does) grow.
Looking back, I believe that while the absolute number of 'trolls' (by any ones definition) increased, the percentage of such decreased - and my own FlyerTalk-friends-address book just got past 1'000 addresses lately.
Jul 29, 2003 | 12:30 pm
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JRF:
So, we should give any weight to your advice when your boards are "completely useless". We are trying to prevent just what you have wound up with.</font>
So, we should give any weight to your advice when your boards are "completely useless". We are trying to prevent just what you have wound up with.</font>
Jul 30, 2003 | 6:49 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 12,004
Folks, I think you are missing JRF's point. If we had a verification process, it would eliminate people posting under multiple identities. This has taken place many times and on many boards during the short life of FT. It is not something unique to the DL board. Randy has a business to run as well as supervise FT problems. Often times he is traveling and unavailable. A verification system would make everyone's experience on the boards more enjoyable.
JRF is right on the money in making his suggestion.
JRF is right on the money in making his suggestion.
Jul 31, 2003 | 2:52 pm
#36
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 873
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ScottC:
I don't believe this at all, the "good old days" were often much worse than they are now. There hasn't been a lifetime ban or timeout for over a year now.</font>
I don't believe this at all, the "good old days" were often much worse than they are now. There hasn't been a lifetime ban or timeout for over a year now.</font>
IMO trolls and other unwanted posters still pop up every now and then in almost every active forum. However I agree that until now the mechanisms already in place (other posters unmasking the troll, time outs, etc.) are sufficient to keep the anoyance limited.
[edited for UBB code]
[This message has been edited by ql2112 (edited 07-31-2003).]
Jul 31, 2003 | 5:30 pm
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ql2112:
Not correct, as recently as last week sanramon got a time out for his behaviour in this thread.
IMO trolls and other unwanted posters still pop up every now and then in almost every active forum. However I agree that until now the mechanisms already in place (other posters unmasking the troll, time outs, etc.) are sufficient to keep the anoyance limited.
[edited for UBB code]
[This message has been edited by ql2112 (edited 07-31-2003).]</font>
Not correct, as recently as last week sanramon got a time out for his behaviour in this thread.
IMO trolls and other unwanted posters still pop up every now and then in almost every active forum. However I agree that until now the mechanisms already in place (other posters unmasking the troll, time outs, etc.) are sufficient to keep the anoyance limited.
[edited for UBB code]
[This message has been edited by ql2112 (edited 07-31-2003).]</font>
If you violate the TOS you get kicked off, if you are annoying you get flamed back by other members.
Jul 31, 2003 | 5:34 pm
#38
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: AUS
Programs: DL Flying Colonel
Posts: 4,027
It is like arguing with the wall!!!!!
TOS prohibits multiple user names.
The ONLY way to stop this is with a verification system.
TOS prohibits multiple user names.
The ONLY way to stop this is with a verification system.
Aug 1, 2003 | 5:16 am
#39
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,081
Surely the easiest way is just not to respond to the Troll !!
Nigel
Nigel
Aug 1, 2003 | 5:24 am
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 13,344
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by beergut:
Surely the easiest way is just not to respond to the Troll !!
</font>
Surely the easiest way is just not to respond to the Troll !!
</font>
However if they want to do a credit card, or some other verification system, no problem at all registering. I don't hide who I am.
------------------
Too late is tomorrow's life; live for today.
Martial (1st century), Epigrams, I, 15
Aug 1, 2003 | 6:53 am
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JRF:
It is like arguing with the wall!!!!!
</font>
It is like arguing with the wall!!!!!
</font>
My arguements are very valid and with my experience in hosting boards I feel that I know what I am talking about. I'm not trying to dispute your claims, just offer a different (my) view on the matter. If you don't like that then take your ideas to email (Randy) as this is an open discussion forum.
Aug 1, 2003 | 8:41 am
#42
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: AUS
Programs: DL Flying Colonel
Posts: 4,027
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ScottC:
If a troll violates the FT TOS then the moderators should request a timeout and/or ban based on email and/or IP.
</font>
If a troll violates the FT TOS then the moderators should request a timeout and/or ban based on email and/or IP.
</font>
Mutiple user names is against the TOS.
What am I missing here Scott?
Editied for clarity.
[This message has been edited by JRF (edited 08-01-2003).]
Aug 1, 2003 | 10:37 am
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JRF:
The only real way to prevent multiple user names is with a verifacation system. IP is not a sure way unless you involve law enforcement or the courts.
Mutiple user names is against the TOS.
What am I missing here Scott?
Editied for clarity.
[This message has been edited by JRF (edited 08-01-2003).]</font>
The only real way to prevent multiple user names is with a verifacation system. IP is not a sure way unless you involve law enforcement or the courts.
Mutiple user names is against the TOS.
What am I missing here Scott?
Editied for clarity.
[This message has been edited by JRF (edited 08-01-2003).]</font>
Aug 1, 2003 | 11:31 am
#44
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: In protest of Flyertalk's uncalledfor censoring of my point of view, I cancelled my InsideFlyer subscription. So long, and thanks for everything.
Posts: 3,325
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ScottC:
Someone that wants to troll will just pull a different card, or create a virtual card number, or get a prepaid card etc... Verification based on CC isn't watertight either. </font>
Someone that wants to troll will just pull a different card, or create a virtual card number, or get a prepaid card etc... Verification based on CC isn't watertight either. </font>
If verification limits the trolls and multiple posters to only those who are willing to commit bank fraud, it would have done OK IMHO.
Back to my earlier points....
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
They will tell you that it is not technically possible to have a functional, cost effective safe verification system, and you will spend hours going over each objection point by point showing them in great detail that it is technically possible, done at lots of other sites, and not a problem. Then, just as youve made your point and expect an oh, I see youre right, theyll change tactics and begin to argue why it will keep people away and they would never have joined if they had to be verified. Youll then spend hours debugging that myth and showing why a slightly greater level of exclusivity wouldnt keep away anyone except those we want kept away and show how it has worked at many other websites. Then again, just when a normal person would say oh, I see youre right, theyll change tactics and begin to argue about technical impossibilities again as if you hadnt already proved that one incorrect.
Xenophobes opposed to the idea of verification just are, and no amount of showing them facts will make them see black as anything other than white.
*****><><>><><><& gt;<>>>>><>><>< ;><><*****
Dont try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
</font>
They will tell you that it is not technically possible to have a functional, cost effective safe verification system, and you will spend hours going over each objection point by point showing them in great detail that it is technically possible, done at lots of other sites, and not a problem. Then, just as youve made your point and expect an oh, I see youre right, theyll change tactics and begin to argue why it will keep people away and they would never have joined if they had to be verified. Youll then spend hours debugging that myth and showing why a slightly greater level of exclusivity wouldnt keep away anyone except those we want kept away and show how it has worked at many other websites. Then again, just when a normal person would say oh, I see youre right, theyll change tactics and begin to argue about technical impossibilities again as if you hadnt already proved that one incorrect.
Xenophobes opposed to the idea of verification just are, and no amount of showing them facts will make them see black as anything other than white.
*****><><>><><><& gt;<>>>>><>><>< ;><><*****
Dont try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
</font>
Aug 1, 2003 | 12:21 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2000
Programs: BA, AA, DL, KLM, UA
Posts: 37,489
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NJDavid:
If verification limits the trolls and multiple posters to only those who are willing to commit bank fraud, it would have done OK IMHO.
Back to my earlier points....
They will tell you that it is not technically possible to have a functional, cost effective safe verification system, and you will spend hours going over each objection point by point showing them in great detail that it is technically possible, done at lots of other sites, and not a problem. Then, just as youve made your point and expect an oh, I see youre right, theyll change tactics and begin to argue why it will keep people away and they would never have joined if they had to be verified. Youll then spend hours debugging that myth and showing why a slightly greater level of exclusivity wouldnt keep away anyone except those we want kept away and show how it has worked at many other websites. Then again, just when a normal person would say oh, I see youre right, theyll change tactics and begin to argue about technical impossibilities again as if you hadnt already proved that one incorrect.
Xenophobes opposed to the idea of verification just are, and no amount of showing them facts will make them see black as anything other than white.
*****><><>><><><& gt;<>>>>><>><>< ;><><*****
Dont try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
</font>
If verification limits the trolls and multiple posters to only those who are willing to commit bank fraud, it would have done OK IMHO.
Back to my earlier points....
They will tell you that it is not technically possible to have a functional, cost effective safe verification system, and you will spend hours going over each objection point by point showing them in great detail that it is technically possible, done at lots of other sites, and not a problem. Then, just as youve made your point and expect an oh, I see youre right, theyll change tactics and begin to argue why it will keep people away and they would never have joined if they had to be verified. Youll then spend hours debugging that myth and showing why a slightly greater level of exclusivity wouldnt keep away anyone except those we want kept away and show how it has worked at many other websites. Then again, just when a normal person would say oh, I see youre right, theyll change tactics and begin to argue about technical impossibilities again as if you hadnt already proved that one incorrect.
Xenophobes opposed to the idea of verification just are, and no amount of showing them facts will make them see black as anything other than white.
*****><><>><><><& gt;<>>>>><>><>< ;><><*****
Dont try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
</font>