Janice Caron wrote:
> On 06/03/2008, Lionello Lunesu <lionello@lunesu.remove.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think anyone is suggesting moderating /this/ forum.
>> Oops, that's what I've understood..
> 
> At the start of this thread, Jarrett Billingsley asked the question: "Is there anything that can be done /short of making the boards moderated?/" (My emphasis). So Jarrett was asking how this forum could be made less trolly /without/ making it moderated.
> 
> Sadly, I suspect the answer is nothing. Banning an individual won't help, because individuals are identified solely by the "From" field in an email header, which is easily faked. Thus, a banned individual could just invent a new identity and carry on, and an innocent individual could be impersonated and banned unjustly.

A by invitation/petition only forum, with logins controlled by an administrator, would solve this type of thing. It wouldn't require someone to dedicate their time to reading and approving every post, but if someone got out of hand, their login could be revoked.

Reading the forum could be open to all, but posting would be limited to authenticated users only. This would also remove the posting-as-another forgeries.

Login petitions wouldn't have to be anything more formal than "Hi, my name is Joe, I like D, and would like to participate in this forum.". Petitions would not be denied without good reason.

A formally booted member could of course come back and petition again under a different name/ip/whatever but if they come back and aren't a problem the second time then, it's still problem solved.

Just a thought.

== Quote from Darryl Bleau (user@example.net)'s article
> A by invitation/petition only forum, with logins controlled by an
> administrator, would solve this type of thing. It wouldn't require
> someone to dedicate their time to reading and approving every post, but
> if someone got out of hand, their login could be revoked.
> Reading the forum could be open to all, but posting would be limited to
> authenticated users only. This would also remove the posting-as-another
> forgeries.

A mailing list would probably be better for this sort of thing, as it would require little to no web machinery to operate.


Sean

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>
> "Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.110.1204794093.2351.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> **** I DID NOT POST THIS *****
>>
>>> I dont like bigots or homosexuals , lesbians are alright but those damn Frenchies really tick me off
>>
>> Yes, it is a forgery. I abhor prejudice and bigotry in any context. As far as I'm concerned, the existence of forged posts is one big argument in favor of a moderated forum (which I would gladly join in a heartbeat).
>
> I think moderation is not worth the trouble. These kind of flame-wars or what-you-call-em happen once a year, and are easily stopped (by ignoring them).
>
> I've been ignoring it pretty well up to now. Moderation would impact everyone, just to prevent that 0.01% of bad posts??
>
> It's like frisking everybody because 1 in a billion might have an object that might be used to do harm... It's all about statistics. Getting killed crossing the street is a statistic too.
>
> (If that isn't enough to start a flame war... :)
>
> L.
as a person who lives in a country where what you're describing is the
norm (Israel) I'm already used to being checked/searched/etc everywhere
I go and indeed if I'm not searched at some place I feel less secure. I
guess that's something that you can get used to.
It all depends on the size of the potential damage compared to the size
of the inconvenience. in order to  prevent terrorist attacks and suicide
bombers, it's worth the inconvenience...
I do agree with your point that it can be too much trouble for regular
users. so maybe we should find a better method to protect this forum,
rather than just give up.
from experience i can tell you how stupid the airport security is in
Europe and the US from an Israeli point of view (we do have the best
security due to our unfortunate circumstances) - when I visited Italy
for example a year ago, the security checked my M&M dispenser
thoroughly, and prevented my to have my usb-thumb drive with me, but
they just disregard the luggage entirely. so, if i had a 10kg bomb
that's ok, but a bomb in my thumb-drive was avoided.
the point is - it's not only a question whether there are security
checks in place, but also what kind of checks.

-- Yigal

Ty Tower wrote:
> what you call bigotry is self preservation. We have been using fear of 
strangers to keep us alive for millions of years.
> It won't change just because you quaintly would like it to. 
> 

While you are correct in that, to be totally correct, bigotry and a fear of strangers as self preservation do relate closely and overlap each other. In this day and age the word bigotry has a much narrower connotation; unfounded, unwarranted detrimental behavior to a group based on some demographic property. (If you think that is a pile, I can say with confidence you don't live around here.)

I see nothing wrong with noticing that 90% of group X punches you in the face when you do Y and acting accordingly. But I don't known of anyone (rational) who calls that bigotry.

OTOH the post in question is gratuitous and does *not* fall into the domain of rational self preservation. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 
> as a person who lives in a country where what you're describing is the
> norm (Israel) I'm already used to being checked/searched/etc everywhere
> I go and indeed if I'm not searched at some place I feel less secure. I
> guess that's something that you can get used to.

While I may be /able/ to get used to it, I don't /want/ to get used to it. As long as there are other ways...

> It all depends on the size of the potential damage compared to the size
> of the inconvenience. in order to  prevent terrorist attacks and suicide
> bombers, it's worth the inconvenience...

Your situation differers a /lot/ from mine (USA) but personally my thoughts run with Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." As long as the trip to the airport, the trip from the airport and the meal on the airplane are each individually way more dangerous than the flight its self, I think that the security is more than enough. (I get the feeling that the security you describe is needed to keep things that safe over there)

> from experience i can tell you how stupid the airport security is in
> Europe and the US from an Israeli point of view (we do have the best
> security due to our unfortunate circumstances) - when I visited Italy
> for example a year ago, the security checked my M&M dispenser
> thoroughly, and prevented my to have my usb-thumb drive with me, but
> they just disregard the luggage entirely. so, if i had a 10kg bomb
> that's ok, but a bomb in my thumb-drive was avoided.
> the point is - it's not only a question whether there are security
> checks in place, but also what kind of checks.

I once talk to a collage student over here and near as I can recall he said "I'd rather have security that makes me /feel/ more secure than actually makes me more secure", and that is a near exact quote. The best security in place today in the US to stop another 9/11 is that the /passengers/ wouldn't let it happen.

> 
> -- Yigal

== Quote from BCS (BCS@pathlink.com)'s article
> I once talk to a collage student over here and near as I can recall he said "I'd rather have security that makes me /feel/ more secure than actually makes me more secure", and that is a near exact quote. The best security in place today in the US to stop another 9/11 is that the /passengers/ wouldn't let it happen.

Sealing the cockpit door was a good idea--there's no way to hijack a plane if you can't access the cockpit. I agree that most other measures are pointless however.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> == Quote from BCS (BCS@pathlink.com)'s article
> 
>> I once talk to a collage student over here and near as I can recall he
>> said "I'd rather have security that makes me /feel/ more secure than
>> actually makes me more secure", and that is a near exact quote. The best
>> security in place today in the US to stop another 9/11 is that the
>> /passengers/ wouldn't let it happen.
>> 
>
> Sealing the cockpit door was a good idea--there's no way to hijack a plane if you can't access the cockpit. I agree that most other measures are pointless however.
>
>
> Sean
> 
that idea was borrowed from Israel.
I also can assure you that no one prevents us taking aboard a plane nail
clippers here in Israel as they do at other countries. all those
"security" steps look so ridiculous  for us Israelis...

Sean Kelly wrote:
> == Quote from Darryl Bleau (user@example.net)'s article
>> A by invitation/petition only forum, [...]
> 
> A mailing list would probably be better for this sort of thing, [...]

A forum is not be able to hold a candle to a newsgroup:
* everyone can choose his prefered UI to read a newsgroup
* a newsserver creates a LOT less traffic and is therefore cheaper
* no security risks therefore a lot less work

A mailing list also creates a lot of traffic and is impractical for infrequent users without a really good archive search feature.

=> I prefer the newsgroup solution... if you want to ignore someone, almost any newsreader has some kind of filter for this purpose. Problem solved, case closed. ;-)

LLAP,
Sascha

Saaa wrote:
> Ok, I thought it would only indiscriminate within a company/family (still bad of course)
> but I didn't think about the universities, my bad. 
> 

in this case it's even simpler - when you use the web interface to post here, the only ip you see is that of the webserver.

Janice Caron wrote:
> There is no practical way (that I
> know of) to strengthen poster credentials on a newsgroup.

Sign *all* your posts with GPG or PGP and, unless someone develops a quantum computer, you are practically safe.

Unsigned post can be ignored or at least second-guessed.

-- 
Julio César Carrascal Urquijo
http://jcesar.artelogico.com/