Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for anon@216.23

Real Name anon@216.23   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname anon@216.23
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Aug 20, 2002, 15:54
Total Comments 306 (Amateur)
User ID 13872
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Older >


News Comments > Out of the Blue
78. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 17:54 anon@216.23
 
Right. That is contained within one of my posts way way way down, where I suggested acceptable solutions that encompassed options like that. Unfortunently, no one responded with their criticisms of its feasibility.

I also want to know about what we're going to do when the trolls come back, and Blue has to spend more time banning accounts and removing messages.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
75. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 17:48 anon@216.23
 
I think, however, that when "we have to make choices about what level of interaction is needed to post here", then it ought to actually be up to us, not one person.

And no, I don't want to get silly. I think this is important. *shrug*

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
73. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 17:43 anon@216.23
 
Absolutely not. However, when I meet someone on the street, I don't immediately volunteer my name, email address, and other information.

I understand your point, and it is good, but there is a difference between meeting someone on the street in real life, and talking with a nameless, voiceless, figureless person over the internet. If you've already established that trolls say whatever they want, because they are nameless, voiceless, and figureless, why do I want other people like this with my information?

Perhaps you have never needed privacy in your life, and you should consider yourself very fortunate if this is the case.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
72. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 17:39 anon@216.23
 
Not to be rude, but I fail to see how your setting a strawman is topical to this post.

The issue of banning anon posts (from where I am coming from) is now moving into the idea about privacy and whether it is acceptable to desire it, when realizing that you can be prosecuted for what you say or believe, by those who wish to silence you. I don't know where you are getting the assumption that I am on an agenda to talk about gay people being beaten to death on fences.

However, I am very interested in your opinions on how to solve the trolls while trying to remain as ethical as possible to everyone on these boards, who wish to post (assuming you'd want to do that).

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
67. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 17:21 anon@216.23
 
I wasn't trying to connect those four things at all, so I'm not sure how you're getting that. If you substitute "someone doing something less than moral with your personal information" for the last phrase, you'd be more correct.

In your sentence, the first two phrases are examples of how privacy is breeched and can be extrapolated into what will happen in extreme cases. The third is simply a result of what can happen, again in some extreme cases. The last is what sparked everything to begin with. I don't understand the point you are making -- I believe you misunderstand me (or I wasn't being clear, in which case, I apologize).

In all honesty, I was more concerned that someone would misunderstand me and assume that I meant that releasing personal information on a messageboard would result in something as serious as being beaten to death, which of course, I doubt would happen.

The point I was trying to make was that what other people do to you or think has a definite repercussion on you. For one poster, it was making a joke about asthma, which resulted in the straw breaking the camel's back, in regards to Blue and the messageboard.

Unfortunently, we cannot all be privy to what is going to set someone off. I am sure that you have heard gay jokes, or sexist jokes, or race jokes, and probably laughed at some of them, not realizing how offensive they were to others (or even realizing, but simply not caring because the jokes were (accurately) amusing). How was the first poster to know that MsBlue was an asthmatic? But, you say, he shouldn't have made such an insensitive joke about it in the first place. To which I say I hope you never laughed at a joke which could make someone feel offended.

Because of this, it's impossible to accurately not offend everyone. No matter what you say, you'll offend someone, and rather than not say anything, it has to be a two-way street -- the person saying or writing the offense needs to take into consideration the feelings of others, but the person receiving it needs to not overreact.

Unfortunently, I am at a disadvantage -- what I am trying to say is not coming out as well as I want it to.

However, I apologize in advance if either you took my post the wrong way, or I typed something incorrectly.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
65. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 16:46 anon@216.23
 
Irony in wanting privacy, on a public message board? I am to assume then, that you conduct your public life completely openly?

If this was a world where we could 100% stand behind our words and comments, there would be no problem. But as long as people take offense and hack someone's website because of what they said on IRC, someone committed credit card fraud because an elderly lady unknowingly gave them her social security number or VISA number, or gays like Matthew Shepard get beat to death, tied to a fence, because of his words and comments, the neccessity for privacy is still a looming sword of Damocles over our heads.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
64. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 16:43 anon@216.23
 
But you obviously do care about my privacy, because you said before that requiring registration is useful for tracking you down.

As I said way way back ago, Blue can (and should) do whatever he wants because it's his website. I'm just trying to give him a view from the flip side of the coin, in order to give him a better appreciation for my point, and to help him make a well informed decision.

As for you questioning my need to be anon, no, I am not a criminal at all. I simply don't feel the need to announce to the world who I am, in order to do my business. Benjamin Franklin was a proponent on the ability to write anonymously, to avoid the very tracking down that you are describing feeling necessary to do so. Why do you not volunteer your home address? Or the building your wife works in, and what time she arrives? Because it's none of anyone's business, and once that information leaves you, you can't control it's use. Unfortunently, like trolls, everyone is not trustworthy. This is not to say that Blue is untrustworthy at all -- this is simply an explanation of why I don't want people having my personal information.

Trolls lose interest, only to be replaced by new trolls. This is a cycle, and it happens. There is one Blue, there is one George Broussard, there are endless trolls. It is useless to fight a losing battle -- rather, one must learn how the enemy works, and use that against the enemy. Trolls get off because they know they're upsetting people. Showing that you are upset simply encourages them.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
60. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 16:23 anon@216.23
 
Of course there is justification -- why do you want to control my privacy? Flaming without consequence is another non-issue, since you can just as easily flame with a username as you can without one. In fact, it may become easier, because as far as I know, while there was an option to hide anon posters, this board doesn't have a "Hide Only Registered Trolls" button.

The justification for using anon is simply respect for someone's wish for privacy, regardless of the reason.

Blue's goals, from what he's said, is that he actually wants to do less maintenance on this site in the form of banning or removing offensive posts. How is this going to stop this from happening, if all the trolls now become registered (bannable) users, and there is no "hide annoying trolls" option?

As far as tracking them down, my information contains nothing except a hotmail address. A good troll (which are the ones you have to watch out for, as I am sure you are aware of) wouldn't put anything in his profile that could be traced back to him easily.

Again, the entire assumption that registered users will behave is based entirely on the assumption that they will suddenly mature upon registration. How does this work?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
57. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 16:11 anon@216.23
 
Not to sound rude, but if anon posters constantly worshipped your game on these messageboards, would you have the same opinion?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
56. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 16:10 anon@216.23
 
As an avid reader of Blue's News, I have never seen any other posters with the anon name of anon@216.23 (which is my IP truncation, and why I chose it as my nickname). I would guess that the chance of this happening are fairly slim. At any rate, shouldn't a poster be able to decide if they want other people following them around? This is one of the points of remaining anonymous.

The clickable name certainly is a difference, but ideally, each message ought to be interpretted based on how valid the points it makes are, not what the author has said before (this is IMHO, obviously).

I certainly think that being registered provides some enhancements to the entire experience of posting on a messageboard, but I am not entirely convinced that these warrant dissolving the concept of anonymous postings in general. Ideally, the more choices, the better -- customization is a function of good design.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
53. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 15:56 anon@216.23
 
#48, I am not intending to be mean, but of course you would have had the luxury. You simply choose not to pursue it because you are letting a few people ruin it for you.

This is not the fault of the system, nor is it the fault of the trolls. This is the fault of yourself, as you would rather sacrifice the good with the bad. This is why changes to the system will solve anything -- ultimately, the only troll filter is yourself.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
51. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 15:53 anon@216.23
 
To an extent, I agree. I think that certainly you won't see any massive trolling occurring today, because things are still settling down. When everything becomes routine, then you can expect for more serious stuff to start happening. I've used a lot of messageboard systems, and this is always the cycle. I'm trying to simply warn off Blue from doing this, both because I don't think it won't work (and I think Blue will ultimately either be dissapointed with the results, or he won't notice a difference), and because on a personal level, as a former anon, I think it's unethical.

Finding any series of posts in any thread on Bluesnews as you challenge me to is useless, because you're trying to compare what is still an entirely new thing (the banning of anon accounts) to a previous scenario. Unless you're planning to ban anon accounts every day (which doesn't make sense anyway), I will take your offer in a month, when things have quieted down.

My main concern, which no one has addressed yet, is what happens once the trolls come back? The only solution I can see is Blue having to ban accounts and remove messages, and I think this is more work than he's been doing in the past (which goes against his goal of reducing the removal rate of messages). The only solution otherwise is to allow the community to police itself, and that's also a lot of work and database management for Blue.

I just think he really needs to sit down and rethink all this, with the insight from everyone who has posted to this so far.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
46. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 15:43 anon@216.23
 
#44, it took me a grand total of about 40 keystrokes and 10 mouse clicks to register and log-in. This is not going to stop a troll. All it's going to do is inconvienice people who want to drop by and say a few words about Game "X". Why are we predetermining the quality of someone's post, just because they are anonymous?

Anyway, I guess I should start numbering these things. Even I'm starting to get confused.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
45. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 15:39 anon@216.23
 
The quality of the writing here is up because there are no trolls on this page. You can claim this is because of Blue, or you can claim that this is simply because none have signed up and posted yet.

If Ray Marden stopped posting today, would you claim that he left the site, never to return? Why are you claiming that because you don't see any haxx0r speak as of this morning, that the trolls have been utterly vanquished?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
40. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 15:35 anon@216.23
 
The trolls simply aren't registering yet. This is only the first day of the instatement (really, only a few hours).

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
38. Re: Anon posting Aug 20, 2002, 15:30 anon@216.23
 
Please explain to me the difference between posting as "anon@123.123" (and unless you switch ISPs, this will never change) and "YouDontKnowMe".

This is not a sarcastic remark, I am genuinely interested in why this is assumed to be a difference.

As far as anon people not wanting responsibility, do you really think that a troll turned "YouDontKnowMe" suddenly cares? If anons have their entire IP logged, then so do registered users. The only difference is a registered troll has an entire page of made up information, linked to a hotmail account. So what's the difference?

If anon@123.123 never changes, why isn't that a name?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
37. Re: Quick observation Aug 20, 2002, 15:27 anon@216.23
 
I can only speak for myself, but I am a former anon poster. Had I not registered, these comments would not be posted. Would the site better for that? Is destroying any chance of having a discussion like this worth keeping someone from making a joke about asthma?

In fact, my original post I intended to post as anon, but then I found Blue had disabled it. However, this was important enough to say that I registered. Hopefully, none of the trolls think likewise.

If anything, this shows that anon or registered, it matters little. The quality of a post is determined by the quality of the write, not his status. And this is why a universal banning of anon is counter-productive to the ultimate goal of a message board, which is transferrance of information.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
34. Re: Anon posting Aug 20, 2002, 15:23 anon@216.23
 
Absolutely. All human societies segregate themselves -- it's a survival instinct that must be purposefully repressed.

However, there is a definite difference between a society that segregates itself by united choice (for example, here, registered people hiding unregistered posts), and one which is artifically segregated, as is an example in regards to Blue turning off anon posting. The difference between these societies, and the quality of connection and morale is what is important here.

You are absolutely right about the newcomer issue though. Newcomers who must immediately begin a drawn out process (and regardless of how drawn-out this may appear would vary obviously -- but the point is that it is additional requirements that simply posting as an anon) would be intimidating and daunting towards a newcoming, and could elicit an image of "This is an elitist news site for the priviledged". Whether we want to do this or not is of course, of importance.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
31. Re: Duke Nukem Guy Aug 20, 2002, 15:10 anon@216.23
 
Because the benefactor's interest is in the community.

This is why he runs a website, yes? I can't honestly assume he's putting this much work into a website that he intended for his own private use.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
29. Re: Anon posting Aug 20, 2002, 14:54 anon@216.23
 
Psychologically (actually, socially) speaking, can this attachment be attained as well by opening everyone with welcome arms?

To put it another way -- would you assume that a society in which clubs and cliques don't form, but which an all-accepting modus operendi is practiced, would be less connecting than one which selectively raises one person's status over another? Think very carefully about this, especially in societies and communities that are more primative, in how they engage their day to day lives, and what role the community plays.

For another observation, observe societies in history that actively practice segregation of their members, through class (as would seem most appropriate here), sex, or gender, and ask yourself about the quality (and the visible social result after the segregation) of the connections which result.

I agree that this is not in and of itself a argument for or against anon posting, but it's lesson can be extrapolated into the realm of anon/registered posting.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
306 Comments. 16 pages. Viewing page 15.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo