Unfortunately, since AT&T bought up two major cable networks, they have a monopoly on cable modem access in large parts of the country, so it's not necessarily so straightforward. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Wow, now we're to the point that if the Last-modified date on a webpage is older than 20 minutes ago, it must have been reported on slashdot before and therefore slashdot is wrong to post it. Pretty high standards, eh? --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Guy skis down Everest, after having lost two fingers the last time he tried it, with a camera on his head, sees a dead body on the way down, another person who thought they had it in them but didn't.
You can't tell me that isn't neat. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Slashdot has more journalistic integrity than most places which claim they do. As for professionalism, heh. People have honest beliefs about others. If Dubya thinks a NYTimes reporter is an asshole, he says it under his breath, and if you asked him, he'd tell you the guy was his best friend in the world. So "professionalism" apparently means "Lying to you". I'd prefer honesty. Ask yourself: would you really rather have someone who gave you PR answers to your questions? --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
What does "pompous"-ness have to do with the ICANN story being important? Paying attention to ICANN is important. They are the U.N. of the internet. If I said, "The U.S. presidential election is important", would that also be "pompous"? Maybe you should also bookmark www.dictionary.com. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
That's a problem we cannot solve. We *depend* on users to moderate accurately, meta-mod is a partial solution only. If people don't moderate
"correctly", the only other solution is to employ professional censors, errr, moderators to moderate these forums.
That isn't the solution we're looking for. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I think slashdot has bent over backwards not to censor anybody, and your post shows those efforts. I waver back and forth between thinking K5's approach is better vs. thinking slashdot's is better. Both have advantages.
Agree with you that karma is a game. I think slashdot's goal now should be to get rid of that game. It's destructive. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Show me a constructive suggestion amongst the complaints... then we'd have something to listen to. I honestly don't think any "complaints" from people who flat-out say they're here to destroy the site represent anything that the slashdot crew should pay attention to. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
No, I don't think you want to see the place get better and succeed. You just quoted:
Trolls don't care for the very web page in which they operate...
Pick one or the other. Either you do or you don't. Most trolls don't. I have no idea about you personally.
Most of the trolls are basically in the "class clown" frame of mind. They think they're funny. Most of the other people in the room think they're annoying.
Shift gears. You say you want slashdot to get better? Okay, give me your plan for making it better.
Page views? Don't make me laugh. I get paid the same regardless of page views. This isn't a commission job! My previous employer begged for me to stay and promised that if I ever wanted to return I could. My l337 skillz are in high demand; if VA Linux folds (unlikely) I'll have another job within three days. So I don't give a fuck about page views. What I care about is making a good discussion site. Right now the choice is between censoring the clowns (which k5 does, and which works, but nobody wants censorship) or letting them clown. Everybody who thinks k5 is the greatest thing since sliced bread is saying, "Please censor us!" and that's what slashdot is headed for. It will work to keep up the signal/noise ratio. But it won't be pretty. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I never said my actions were justifiable on any grounds other than the very best one; that they're funny.
I didn't realize this was stand-up comedy hour. The primary difference between kuro5hin and hear is that adolescent crap like yours gets tolerated here, so you abuse it. Again, it's nothing to be proud of.
Slashdot doesn't need trolls. Contrary to popular belief, we don't post anything on the basis of page views. I posted the ICANN story today because it's important - this flamebait crap story will outstrip it in page views by an order of magnitude probably, and none of the slashdot authors are doing anything except cursing it.
Forever? You think so? Some of the worst spammers have been banned permanently from the site; you just haven't stuck your head up far enough to get it chopped off. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
There is. Occasionally. The slashdot authors do have unlimited mod points (as of a fairly recent code change) which helps in the occasional spam outbreaks. But going around moderating all the time is not my idea of a fun time, and I avoid it whenever possible.
My opinion about microsoft: most people who defend microsoft here do it dishonestly, that is, they're purposefully trolling. It's sad, because I'm sure sometimes MS is treated unfairly and a rational defense would be beneficial - but nobody makes that rational defense, only inflammatory trolling ones. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I didn't post that story, and wouldn't have posted it. It's a stupid headline, not even related to the story. But it seems odd for you to justify your actions over the last year or more with a story posted two months ago.
We post a stupid headline. Flame the slashdot author responsible. Flame the submitter. Flame away in the comments for that story. But it doesn't justify posting crap in other comment threads. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You can blame trolls all you want to, but that doesn't fix the moderation system. The fact that any troll can get moderated up to 5 in a matter of minutes is proof that it does not work.
The site depends upon user moderation. If the users want to moderate up crap, there is NO moderation system that will stop that.
I lump trolls and spammers together. Most trolls spam. Most spammers troll. They feed off each other. I see little distinction.
Trolls don't care for the very web page in which they operate...
Exactly. They're purposefully destructive. Nothing noble or honorable about that. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
That's what I tried for. Those are links to all of the places that I know of that ventured opinions on the ICANN elections. Some of them like Lessig, some like Auerbach better, some didn't make recommendations but just posed questions to the candidates.
My question to Ron Harwood is why is it necessary to attack slashdot for imaginary faults?
Not necessarily true. EFF has made some extremely poor choices in the past, and in fact just got done with purging some of them. I don't think Lessig is a poor choice, but joining EFF's board is not a guarantee of a strong commitment to civil liberties.
If there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of TLDs - effectively unlimited - then trademark holders will not be able to police them all, and with the artificial scarcity eliminated, domain squatting will cease to have value as well. It neatly solves several major problems at once.
Well, yes. The word I was using was "read" (sounds like the color) rather than "read" (sounds like what an oboe player blows).
But in general, no, I can't read all the comments down to -1. My default threshold is set to 2, because sometimes I'm on a very slow connection, and when the story is interesting I'll read the comments down to 1 or 0, but very rarely do I look at -1. If I'm moderating I always do it at threshold 0.
You're confusing "caring enough to criticize" with "criticizes on some rational basis". I scorn posts that fail to do the latter one. Let's recap:
You posted a turdy little comment about people misunderstanding due to the "useless" writeup.
I said the writeup has nothing to do with their understanding or lack of it.
You agreed with me, and acted like a turd once again. (And you're probably misreading my comment, to boot; specifically I would guess that you've misread the last sentence of the first paragraph.)
So we're in agreement: you had no basis for criticism.
I don't think slashdot has ever been hacked with the exception of the two publicly announced incidents. As to CmdrTaco's post on the troll forum, well, I imagine he was screwing with the trolls. None of the slashdot authors are particularly fond of the troll population...
All the actions taken are intended to promote better discussions on the site. Can't post more than once per 70 seconds. Karma cap. Bitchslapping (note that most sites would just yank a user's account permanently, change the password to something random - this gives them the chance to salvage that account if they so choose). None of these are really restrictive, when you think about the alternatives.
Rob actually has a pretty deep belief in a censorship-free site where people are free to speak. Otherwise, the job would be quite simple: go through and IP-ban everyone who posts crap, and in about one week, the site would be troll-free.
As to involving the community, well, it's Rob's call. I think it would be nice if he did, but the final decision is going to come down to him anyway, there's no way to have a committee of a few hundred thousand people voting on every new moderation decision.
I believe that the newest 25% of the user base is not eligible to meta-moderate - the theory being that you need to have been around for a while to get a feeling for the system. (Of course, if you're an old reader with a new account, well...) In any case, I would guess that sooner or later you will suddenly be allowed to meta-moderate.
Slashdot Mirror
Also rejected were the other 30 people who submitted this story.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Unfortunately, since AT&T bought up two major cable networks, they have a monopoly on cable modem access in large parts of the country, so it's not necessarily so straightforward.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
It's a different story, I'm afraid. AT&T is greedy in one way, Time Warner in another.
Well, they're probably both greedy in all the same ways, but you know what I mean.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
It must have been reported here before, too.
Care to back that up with a URL?
Wow, now we're to the point that if the Last-modified date on a webpage is older than 20 minutes ago, it must have been reported on slashdot before and therefore slashdot is wrong to post it. Pretty high standards, eh?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
"When it's really cold out, I drink FooBar Cocoa!"
<lifts mug with three-fingered hand>
"Cheers!"
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Because I thought it was neat.
Guy skis down Everest, after having lost two fingers the last time he tried it, with a camera on his head, sees a dead body on the way down, another person who thought they had it in them but didn't.
You can't tell me that isn't neat.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Slashdot has more journalistic integrity than most places which claim they do. As for professionalism, heh. People have honest beliefs about others. If Dubya thinks a NYTimes reporter is an asshole, he says it under his breath, and if you asked him, he'd tell you the guy was his best friend in the world. So "professionalism" apparently means "Lying to you". I'd prefer honesty. Ask yourself: would you really rather have someone who gave you PR answers to your questions?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Totally dependent on the submitter.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
What does "pompous"-ness have to do with the ICANN story being important? Paying attention to ICANN is important. They are the U.N. of the internet. If I said, "The U.S. presidential election is important", would that also be "pompous"? Maybe you should also bookmark www.dictionary.com.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
That's a problem we cannot solve. We *depend* on users to moderate accurately, meta-mod is a partial solution only. If people don't moderate
"correctly", the only other solution is to employ professional censors, errr, moderators to moderate these forums.
That isn't the solution we're looking for.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I think slashdot has bent over backwards not to censor anybody, and your post shows those efforts. I waver back and forth between thinking K5's approach is better vs. thinking slashdot's is better. Both have advantages.
Agree with you that karma is a game. I think slashdot's goal now should be to get rid of that game. It's destructive.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Show me a constructive suggestion amongst the complaints... then we'd have something to listen to. I honestly don't think any "complaints" from people who flat-out say they're here to destroy the site represent anything that the slashdot crew should pay attention to.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
No, I don't think you want to see the place get better and succeed. You just quoted:
Trolls don't care for the very web page in which they operate...
Pick one or the other. Either you do or you don't. Most trolls don't. I have no idea about you personally.
Most of the trolls are basically in the "class clown" frame of mind. They think they're funny. Most of the other people in the room think they're annoying.
Shift gears. You say you want slashdot to get better? Okay, give me your plan for making it better.
Page views? Don't make me laugh. I get paid the same regardless of page views. This isn't a commission job! My previous employer begged for me to stay and promised that if I ever wanted to return I could. My l337 skillz are in high demand; if VA Linux folds (unlikely) I'll have another job within three days. So I don't give a fuck about page views. What I care about is making a good discussion site. Right now the choice is between censoring the clowns (which k5 does, and which works, but nobody wants censorship) or letting them clown. Everybody who thinks k5 is the greatest thing since sliced bread is saying, "Please censor us!" and that's what slashdot is headed for. It will work to keep up the signal/noise ratio. But it won't be pretty.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I never said my actions were justifiable on any grounds other than the very best one; that they're funny.
I didn't realize this was stand-up comedy hour. The primary difference between kuro5hin and hear is that adolescent crap like yours gets tolerated here, so you abuse it. Again, it's nothing to be proud of.
Slashdot doesn't need trolls. Contrary to popular belief, we don't post anything on the basis of page views. I posted the ICANN story today because it's important - this flamebait crap story will outstrip it in page views by an order of magnitude probably, and none of the slashdot authors are doing anything except cursing it.
Forever? You think so? Some of the worst spammers have been banned permanently from the site; you just haven't stuck your head up far enough to get it chopped off.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Karma is capped at 50. Currently if your karma is 50 or greater, it cannot increase.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
There is. Occasionally. The slashdot authors do have unlimited mod points (as of a fairly recent code change) which helps in the occasional spam outbreaks. But going around moderating all the time is not my idea of a fun time, and I avoid it whenever possible.
My opinion about microsoft: most people who defend microsoft here do it dishonestly, that is, they're purposefully trolling. It's sad, because I'm sure sometimes MS is treated unfairly and a rational defense would be beneficial - but nobody makes that rational defense, only inflammatory trolling ones.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I didn't post that story, and wouldn't have posted it. It's a stupid headline, not even related to the story. But it seems odd for you to justify your actions over the last year or more with a story posted two months ago.
We post a stupid headline. Flame the slashdot author responsible. Flame the submitter. Flame away in the comments for that story. But it doesn't justify posting crap in other comment threads.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You can blame trolls all you want to, but that doesn't fix the moderation system. The fact that any troll can get moderated up to 5 in a matter of minutes is proof that it does not work.
The site depends upon user moderation. If the users want to moderate up crap, there is NO moderation system that will stop that.
I lump trolls and spammers together. Most trolls spam. Most spammers troll. They feed off each other. I see little distinction.
Trolls don't care for the very web page in which they operate...
Exactly. They're purposefully destructive. Nothing noble or honorable about that.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
That's what I tried for. Those are links to all of the places that I know of that ventured opinions on the ICANN elections. Some of them like Lessig, some like Auerbach better, some didn't make recommendations but just posed questions to the candidates.
My question to Ron Harwood is why is it necessary to attack slashdot for imaginary faults?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Not necessarily true. EFF has made some extremely poor choices in the past, and in fact just got done with purging some of them. I don't think Lessig is a poor choice, but joining EFF's board is not a guarantee of a strong commitment to civil liberties.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
If there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of TLDs - effectively unlimited - then trademark holders will not be able to police them all, and with the artificial scarcity eliminated, domain squatting will cease to have value as well. It neatly solves several major problems at once.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Well, yes. The word I was using was "read" (sounds like the color) rather than "read" (sounds like what an oboe player blows).
But in general, no, I can't read all the comments down to -1. My default threshold is set to 2, because sometimes I'm on a very slow connection, and when the story is interesting I'll read the comments down to 1 or 0, but very rarely do I look at -1. If I'm moderating I always do it at threshold 0.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You're confusing "caring enough to criticize" with "criticizes on some rational basis". I scorn posts that fail to do the latter one. Let's recap:
You posted a turdy little comment about people misunderstanding due to the "useless" writeup.
I said the writeup has nothing to do with their understanding or lack of it.
You agreed with me, and acted like a turd once again. (And you're probably misreading my comment, to boot; specifically I would guess that you've misread the last sentence of the first paragraph.)
So we're in agreement: you had no basis for criticism.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I don't think slashdot has ever been hacked with the exception of the two publicly announced incidents. As to CmdrTaco's post on the troll forum, well, I imagine he was screwing with the trolls. None of the slashdot authors are particularly fond of the troll population...
All the actions taken are intended to promote better discussions on the site. Can't post more than once per 70 seconds. Karma cap. Bitchslapping (note that most sites would just yank a user's account permanently, change the password to something random - this gives them the chance to salvage that account if they so choose). None of these are really restrictive, when you think about the alternatives.
Rob actually has a pretty deep belief in a censorship-free site where people are free to speak. Otherwise, the job would be quite simple: go through and IP-ban everyone who posts crap, and in about one week, the site would be troll-free.
As to involving the community, well, it's Rob's call. I think it would be nice if he did, but the final decision is going to come down to him anyway, there's no way to have a committee of a few hundred thousand people voting on every new moderation decision.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I believe that the newest 25% of the user base is not eligible to meta-moderate - the theory being that you need to have been around for a while to get a feeling for the system. (Of course, if you're an old reader with a new account, well...) In any case, I would guess that sooner or later you will suddenly be allowed to meta-moderate.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org