Yep, talking to the wall!

My last point on the subject.

Welcome me to Flyertalk. I just signed-up, got full posting (flaming / trolling / misposting / doubleposting) rights. I just needed a unique e-mail address.

Oh yeah, and while I was at it, I just voted in the Talkboard election. It let me do that even before I ever made a post.

This is cool. I think I'll go back and do that a thousand more times.

Is that your answer to my question?

I'll ask an earlier one again:

What is more important? Getting rid of a couple of trolls or keeping the board growing? Claims that people are leaving are not supported by the huge rise in traffic and posts. Alternative sites with a verification system (www.moremiles.com) are stuck on just 300 members. So, what is better? A trollfree environment with hardly any posts or a growing community like it is now with the occasional troll?

I have no idea what NJDavid is trying to prove with his votingtest user, a multiple handle doesn't make a troll. Trolls are out to do more, trolls get attention and attention seekers get looked into, unless NJDavid used an anonymous proxy his IP is the same as his everyday one and moderators and FT staff could shut him down in a matter of hours. Creating a multiple handle to prove a point in a thread about trolls is the high point or irony.

Now, please for the sake of this discussion give up the "evangalists" and "old times" discussions and wake up to a new Flyertalk where hardly anyone knows JRF or NJDavid, the days of 250 members are long gone.

Judging by the lack of support in this thread from hordes of other members or from Randy I'd say it's an idea we won't see implemented anytime soon.



[This message has been edited by ScottC (edited 08-01-2003).]

You know so little about that which you speak that I can't even comment with a straight face. I mean no disrespect, but there's a whole mess of history here that you would need to live through or at least know about before you could even begin to realize how wrong you are.

Judging from the lack of people in this thread claiming white is white, I must conclude it is black.

But at least you stopped saying verification is not possible.

Good luck in the election. Personally, I voted for you 10 times. So did my dead uncle Harvey.

[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 08-01-2003).]

Given the above, how do you stop voting abuse?

If members can sign up as new people with new email addresses (purposely violating the rules of FT), what can be done to make sure that the Talk Board votes are one person/one vote instead of one handle/one vote?

[This message has been edited by Analise (edited 08-04-2003).]

Yep, for $5 a vote I will sign up as many times as you like and vote for you!

Check here for your answer:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000772.html


[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 08-04-2003).]

Ok, I'm a bit lost. Why link the same thread we are in right now? Most of this current thread discusses whether members should pay to belong as a way of eliminating trolls. I don't see the answer to my question but if I missed something, please just cut and paste the answer. Thanks.


[This message has been edited by Analise (edited 08-04-2003).]

The loop must be an error.

HOWEVER, THIS THREAD DOES NOT DISCUSS IF SOMEONE SHOULD PAY TO BELONG!

It discuses is someone should make a one time payment of around $1 or so to be verified in order to prevent them from having multiple user names. Pay sites charge either monthly, quarterly or yearly or what have you, not $1 once.

In theory, JRF is making a sound suggestion. Perhaps the techies at FT will be able to implement a system that is workable and cost effective for both sides. The vast majority of us were lurkers before actively posting on the boards. I seriously doubt that newcomers would balk at a $1 or $2 one time fee. Something clearly has to be done to rid the boards of people posting under multiple identities. I would like to consider this a "quality of life" issue for FT. Perhaps Randy will clean up the streets of FlyerTalk?

I still would like to know how you can stop the potential of people voting more than once simply by registering a new name from a different email address and/or IP address. Won't this taint the results? How can you make sure that John Q FTMember votes only once even if he later signs up as Jane Q FTMember?

You can't!!! As I said, pay me $5 per vote/user name and I will register vote for you as many times as you like.

The only way to solve the problem of mutliple user names is with a verification system. The system would allows lurkers to lurke, but posters would have to be verified.

I have my credit card on file with many reputable companies. Having total faith in Randy, I would not have a problem giving it to FT. Correct me if I am wrong, but you can get authorization for a dollar amount with a credit card company on a person's account without putting through an actual charge. It that is so, perhaps that would be one approach we can take in a verification system.

Maybe I'm thick. I understand the argument AFAIK, I have never run into a "troll". I'd sure like an example or definition. I followed the link about the pedophile, and I didn't see what the point was, although I admit I only read the first and last page. Was it all a scam? I know my posts annoy some people - am I a troll? Maybe I'm thick.

Voting - what's the point of screwing around with the voting? It doesn't pay anything. The only advantage I can see is to get yourself elected to screw things up, but no -one would stand for that.

As a former juvenile delinquent (I think many have figured that out by now ) I can understand the nihilistic urge to destruction and vandalism - however, most of us outgrow that when we begin to acquire things like personal property and a reputation. Maybe some never do.

Anyway, I'm still in the dark on ethis matter - maybe there's a better class ofpeople of the fora I frequent. Or maybe I just consider them a$$holes and ignore them.

troll v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." 3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

========================================Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


On the Internet, a troll is a person who posts messages that create controversy or an angry response without adding content to the discussion, often intentionally. Though technically different from flaming, which is an unmistakable direct personal attack, trolls often resort to innuendo or misdirection in the pursuit of their objective, which is to create controversy for its own sake, discredit those with whom they disagree, or sabotage discussion by creating an intimidating atmosphere.

Note that this is a highly subjective term, as everyone is affected differently by the nature of the term deemed a "troll".

Originally this term applied to people who were intentionally posting flamebait, by analogy with the fishing technique of trolling: metaphorically, these people were dragging a conversational lure through the group, hoping for a response. The concept of "this person is trolling our newsgroup" became shortened to "this person is a troll", and picked up the association of the monster trolls of folklore.

Trolling mostly maintains its earlier meaning of posting messages specifically in order to elicit a particular response, usually anger or argument.

The noun form, troll, is sometimes used in the more general sense of someone who stirs up controversy, whether or not the controversy itself is their goal.

Frequently this is used to discredit one position in an argument. By asserting that one's opponents are trolls, one is asserting that they are only maintaining their position in order to feed the flames, and that their position is actually indefensible. This use of "troll" is however then an ad hominem argument, and is itself thus usually indefensible - most correct views have historically met with opposition, so the label "troll" used this way is actually more likely to indicate a correct but controversial position that is stirring up flames precisely because it has challenged a doctrine others actually realize is wrong.

That said, it is quite possible to stir up controversy with a wrong argument - but these can more effectively be met by simply responding to the substantive issue.

It is safer to use the term "troll" to apply only to insubstantial irritation:


Common types of troll messages:

off topic messages -- "Can anyone help me make a webpage?" "No, this is a music forum."
inflammatory messages -- "You are an idiot for including this type of message in your list."
messages containing an obvious flaw or error -- "I think Star Wars is Roman Polanski's best movie."
An example of a troll message in the newer sense would be one that denounces a particular religion in a religion newsgroup -- though historically, this would have been called "flamebait".

A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting content obviously severely contradictory to the focus of the group or forum- for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum, or posting messages about how all dragons are evil in the USENET group alt.fan.dragons.

There is some generally-accepted wisdom about dealing with Internet trolls: "Don't feed the trolls, that will only encourage them." That is, do not respond to them, that is the attention they desire. Somebody who does respond to them is likely to hear "YHBT. HAND." from other members of the group, which means "You have been trolled. Have a nice day."