|
519. Nostradamus - 11/29/1999 11:35:56 AM CalGal
I'd love to talk dirty with you, but I've got bigger fish to fry. Have a wonderful week. Say hi to Spawn from Uncle Nost.
==):-) 520. wabbit - 12/4/1999 2:08:25 AM The past few days have seen a couple fake posts made. One was clearly identified as such, two were not.
I'd like some feedback. Is this a breach of security or privacy? Is it something we should have an outright ban on (meaning we would write the ban of such posts into the RoE)? Lawyers, do we have a legal issue here regarding fraud? 521. CalGal - 12/4/1999 2:16:43 AM Per Wabbit's request, I'm posting here on the conversation in Suggestions about "fake" posts.
I have seen people get really freaked out about this, and in most cases the faker was Ace, who was clearly just kidding. But if people get that freaked by it when the faker is obviously goofing, just think how much trouble it will be if a fake post is made for what are questionably malicious motives.
Another consideration is the newbie who sees it for the first time and gets the impression that we're not a secure site.
I'm just throwing these into the mix for consideration. I'm actually not sure what I think of an outright ban.
If you want to know what I'd like to ban, it's those damn sound posts. Wizard, this isn't a slam at you in particular, I just hate hearing whatever noise it is whenever I enter a thread, post, or hit refresh. 522. AceofSpades - 12/4/1999 2:21:41 AM
If you want to know what I'd like to ban, it's those damn sound posts. Wizard, this isn't a slam at you in particular, I just hate hearing whatever noise it is whenever I enter a thread, post, or hit refresh.
I was going to say this myself. 523. CalGal - 12/4/1999 2:51:22 AM Ace,
Great minds, etc. 524. CalGal - 12/4/1999 3:00:36 AM Irv asked in the Suggestions thread if there was a way to put the post heading outside the text body, so that posts couldn't be faked.
I have spent some time over the past few months mulling this. I am not an HTML expert, but I've tossed it around at work too, to make sure there is nothing I've missed.
The obvious solution is to format the post heading, either in position or appearance, in such a way that can't be duplicated. I can't come with any possibilities for appearance. Position is the obvious approach--indent the post text from the heading, putting the heading in an area that can never be duplicated by a fake post.
The one way that I can think to do this is to format the posts into a table. That way I can put the post heading in one row, split the next cell in two and leave the first one blank. That would cause an indentation.
But I worry that this would cause a performance degradation, since that would be a lot of formatting. I'm also unreasonably attached to simplicity, and this is a messy solution for a problem that can be addressed procedurally.
There may be a gloriously simple solution that I've missed, and I'm open to suggestions. 525. IrvingSnodgrass - 12/4/1999 3:03:04 AM CalGal:
I'd hate to sacrifice performance for this relatively minor issue. But maybe with all the great minds here, we can come up with something.
But don't ask me... I have no idea what's possible and what isn't. 526. IrvingSnodgrass - 12/4/1999 2:47:38 AM My 2¢:
I think that fake posts should be banned, until we can find a way to make them impossible.
Regardless of intent, all fake posts should be deleted. Otherwise we risk opening a huge can of worms.
I know fake posts are usually harmless and can be humorous, but as I mentioned elsewhere, the few can easily ruin it for the many.
Sure, they're usually easy to detect (though there are tricks to make them less detectable), but not everyone is checking every post for time stamps and post numbers.
We should fix the posting software so that the post number appears outside the column (iow, the posts are indented). would this be difficult?
Until then, I saw ban fake posts altogether, or risk continual meltdowns and hassles. 527. CalGal - 12/4/1999 3:11:35 AM I could also use the block tag, I suppose. I tried it and didn't like it. Should have mentioned that. Still, the same issue--it's more formatting, and I jes don't like it.
I need to be clear, though--I'm a purist. I don't know that the performance problem would be that bad, and the hit would be on the client side, not the server (at least, I think that's how HTML works?). But it just seems so....messy.
There are other possible problems: - As it is now, a badly placed table command can screw up a page. This would make the problem worse.
- Someone could, possibly, figure out how to forge a post even with this approach. They would probably screw up any formatting downstream of it, but the post itself would look real.
In general, I would prefer a procedural approach to a sloppy code approach. Best of all is a clean code approach, which I haven't been able to think up yet.528. CalGal - 12/4/1999 3:14:22 AM Oh, I meant to say--I think it is imperative that we start deleting fake posts immediately. I've thought of that before now and forgot to mention it; I'm glad you brought it up.
Someone reading back over old posts could get very confused, otherwise.
Ideally, the fake post and any comments about it should be deleted--once it has been firmly established that the "victim" understands what happened, obviously.
This would be enough of a hassle that wabbit and thread hosts would start to get very cranky about forgeries, since it would cause extra work. 529. PelleNilsson - 12/4/1999 3:34:00 AM We may be building a molehill here. But OK, delete and withdraw HTML privilegies until the offender has apologised in public and promised not to do it again. A bit childish, but then we are a bit childish around here. 530. CalGal - 12/4/1999 4:59:29 AM I don't think it's a huge problem, but I have seen the panic that occurs when someone doesn't know what happened. It isn't fun, even for those few minutes until the explanation comes. But I really would rather not overengineer a solution to what is an infrequent occurrence.
531. AceofSpades - 12/11/1999 5:07:42 AM
Well, how about my new twist:
While we were down I posted "fake posts," but I changed the names. There is no "CelGel" or "IrvingSnootgrin" or "EricCartass" or "VonKredulous" or "pseudointellectus."
Is THAT against the rules, too? 532. CalGal - 12/11/1999 5:19:04 AM I hope not, because they were very funny. 533. CalGal - 12/11/1999 5:32:55 AM But then, you acknowledged that it was your work. As far as I was concerned, it was nothing more than creative writing, with special effects. 534. Candide - 12/11/1999 7:28:22 AM I don't know how one creates a fake post, but I can get myself into enough trouble unaided without the added horror of a very easy parody. 535. Candide - 12/11/1999 7:47:52 AM AceofSpades - 12/11/99 9:07:42 PM
Was that your congress with a reindeer?
Very, very funny. 536. EricCartman - 12/11/1999 10:19:03 AM For newbies, fake posts might be a problem. Most of the rest of us seem to be able to tell 'em pretty quick, especially since the times are nearly impossible to get right. Ace seems to be the one that does the most of it, and he usually makes it pretty clear that they're for comedic purposes. So my 2¢ is that it's basically too infrequent to even be worth getting worked up over. I thought Waffles' posts were so intentionally obvious, I'm almost surprised Stone even bothered to get worked up about it.
Almost.
Tempest in a teapot, anyone?
537. AceofSpades - 12/11/1999 2:30:22 PM
Cartman:
They're only "intentionally obvious" to those who are in on the gag.
Which is the problem.
I'm not really up for a per se ban on the trick. But it is a good idea to, at minimum, NEVER play the trick on someone who isn't in on the joke.
In addition, we should NEVER but nasty words into anyone's mouth. Goofy stuff only.
Finally, the name on the "post" should always be faked. No real monikers; you should always change it.
The latter step would be reassuring to newbies. They can understand that anyone can come in and sign up under a name SIMILAR, but not the same, as someone else's. (Not that that's what we're doing, but that sort of thing can be done in ANY forum.)
By the way:
I pointed this out when the topic first arose all those months ago, but YES, you can play the exact same trick at Salon. I've done it-- I posted a fake post from myself. (I wonder if that's why they banned me...?) 538. EricCartman - 12/11/1999 2:40:56 PM Ace:
That all sounds reasonable enough to me. No one's really done it much in quite a while anyway; it kinda petered out because we wore the novelty out back in the beta stage.
And if Stone had just let Nostradamus' most recent disguised shots at him go, it'd be a moot point by now. I just have the feeling that there's more dirt being kicked up than actual punches being thrown, if you know what I mean.
But yeah, maybe we all oughta just have a gentlemen's agreement to save those sorts of pranks for the Playpen, and not spam the other threads with them.
|
