patrick.net

turtledove says

Just to clarify... Are you saying 120 abuse votes in 24 hours from 5 different users/hour

No, that's not what I meant. Let's make it all days to be clearer:

5 "abuse" votes in a day (each vote from a distinct user) gets you banned from the site for a day.

I feel this forum will pick up, when the PC curse on this country gets lifted on November 9th.

rando says

5 "abuse" votes in a day (each vote from a distinct user) gets you banned from the site for a day.

I think I'd be inclined to make that number higher. I feel like there are a few people on this site who could too easily rack up five in an hour. In other words, if I can name five people off the top of my head who'd likely click "abuse" on a set of people I can also name off the top of my head, just out of spite, it might be too easy. So, I think I'd be inclined to make it 10 unique user votes in an hour.

That said, and since I find whiners and tattletales kind of irritating, there might need to be something reciprocal to let people know that the "abuse" click isn't supposed to be frivolous. Maybe I'm over thinking this... But if for every click of the abuse button by a user, that user would accumulate a whiner point. 10 "whiner" points in a day (or a 12 hour time period, or whatever) also results in a temporary ban. That would help to keep people from clicking "abuse" over every discourteous word or opinion they disagree with. And, as much as I think it would be ridiculous that someone would troll someone else to give that person a vote every hour on the hour, a mechanism like this could prevent that. I think most people understand what ABUSE means, but there will be those who think any perceived slight is worthy of a click.

Also, I'm thinking maybe the ban should be for a smaller amount of time. The goal, I think, is to make it inconvenient for people to be disgusting, extremely offensive/nasty, or predatory to others and to allow cooling off periods. So, I'm not sure how easy or difficult it would be to do... But, maybe the first time you get banned in a day it's for four hours. The second time, it's for 12 hours. The 3rd time, it's for 24 hours. Then it starts over again, as obviously a person wouldn't be able to accumulate abuse votes -- that count -- while they're in timeout. And people can't whine about others when they are in timeout. So for whiners who click abuse every time he/she confuses "colorful" with "abuse," there would be a consequence for that... so make your abuse vote count... and opt for "dislike" instead if you aren't sure.

I'm typing out loud, at this point. Just trying to make it fair and consider users' different thresholds when it comes to perceived abuse. It needs to be useful, but a pain in the butt to abuse.

rando says

5 "abuse" votes in a day (each vote from a distinct user) gets you banned from the site for a day.

What's the point of banning for a day? It would do nothing to discourage trolling, and in fact, would give trolls a reason to cooperate with other trolls. Five trolls could easily permaban a person under such a scheme. A single troll with five accounts could do the same. A clever programmer who knows HTTP could automate the process.

rando says

Is that likely to work in keeping things more civil?

I tried to think of an automatic algorithm, based on trollishness (Dislike/Like ratio) and Ignores, but nothing seemed to work automatically. Also, some of the worst Users do get some Likes, mainly from alts or each other.

A better model is your method of dealing with spammers, which does generally work.

A determined Nazi or Church Militant, e.g. TOB or Fortwhine, might evade algorithms. Ultimately, if you want to give a platform to someone who wants you dead, that's your choice. The issue is, by emphasizing "free speech, no matter how offensive", you walk into these situations. You can only have one highest priority. If it is to enable people to say anything, no matter how pointless and stupid, then the home page suffers from the most intolerable abuses, as it would from spammers if you decided to allow that.

I hesitate to say that, because some people have elevated the slogan "free speech" the way others have elevated "multiculturalism," sacrificing all else to the cherished fantasy, no matter what the cost. In reality, America has always had (and must have) the ability to respond to defamation, yelling "fire" in a crowded cinema, cutting off people's heads in the name of Islam, and treason (e.g. advocating the violent overthrow of our government, as Islam says to do). We've had a similar exchange about "hate crimes," where I proved to you that racially motivated crime against a white person can and does get prosecuted as a hate crime, and that mental state has been an element of criminal law since Roman times. As I said at the time, all the convicts currently in prison for murder are there only because they thought about the crime before committing it; otherwise, they would have been convicted of manslaughter. Murder requires "malice aforethought," but that doesn't make murder a "thought crime," nor a speech crime. I am probably swimming uphill (block that metaphor!) when trying to explain the scales of justice to computer programmers who tend to think in binary terms.

You might consider an algorithm to promote certain threads on the home page, which would have the effect of demoting others. Or letting people flag as "miscategorized" posts that belong in a different thread, e.g. a thread for "people flinging crap at each other." Meanwhile, just as Wikipedia suffers from too many editors deleting too much, PatNet suffers from too little editing. It's your forum, with your name on it, so the question is this: what do you want to say today?

I realize the topic in this thread has changed by now, but I'd like to point out that the closer of the deletion discussion (who, by the way, was not involved in any way up until deleting the page and closing the discussion) did say that an article on Patrick himself may be notable enough. Of course, the article would likely mention Patrick.net somewhere, and the page Patrick.net, which was deleted, can be recreated as a redirect to the article on Patrick. I would still recommend going through the Article for Creation process, as well as, from the beginning, declaring any conflict of interest the page you guys have as the page creators/editors with the site and its owner.

Dan8267 says

rando says

Well, it was deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick.net

This definitely lowers Wikipedia's credibility.

Well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick.net-2 is still available. How long until we run out of integers?

In order to prevent vandalism (you'd be surprised how much vandalism we get there), pages that look at least nearly identical to a deleted page can actually be speedy deleted (hidden from the public without discussion, most likely with 24 hours or less of it being marked for speedy deletion) because discussion would likely inevitably lead to the same result. As another way to prevent vandalism, accounts and IP addresses that repeatedly recreate pages can actually be blocked for different amounts of timefkr vandalism, depending on the situation and past blocks the user has gotten. If one account gets blocked and another new account does the same thing soon after, they can also get blocked for abusing multiple accounts.
I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to explain Wikipedia's policies.

Gestrid says

In order to prevent vandalism

One person's vandalism is another person's free speech. Simply labeling material you don't like vandalism doesn't make it so.

Vandalism, by definition, involves the damage or destruction of property. A page on a wiki does not in any way damage or destroy other pages, and therefore cannot be vandalism.

What you are really doing is demonstrating that Wikipedia is not a democracy and is not a repository of all human knowledge. It is a brochure that represents the interests of those in control. And anything they don't like is labeled vandalism and deleted. Don't like evidence that a nation state engaged in torture? Delete it. Don't like evidence that a company's product causes obesity? Delete it. Don't like a quote from a former president that opposed the right of women to vote? Delete it. History be damn when there is money, power, or politics on the line.

This is exactly why Wikipedia is worse than worthless. It's harmful.

Gestrid says

declaring any conflict of interest the page you guys have

Wikipedia suffers from chronic conflicts of interest, including potentially lethal misinformation and disinformation on vital subjects like health and medicine. Some of that results from paid publicists and delusional zealots editing pages, and some of it results from bias in the commercial and government publications that Wikipedia relies on as sources. In contrast, Patrick doesn't pay anyone to write here, and doesn't even get paid for his work running the site. It's conceivable that somebody might be getting paid to shill for something, e.g. Otto for NPVIC, but spammers get deleted. PatNet is privately owned by Patrick, nobody else has any direct stake in it, so somebody from Wikipedia accusing PatNetters of "conflict of interest" is like pointing one finger here and three back at yourself.

The "What I Know Is" (WIKI) function of Wikipedia tends to get washed away by a tsunami of phony commercial and government disinformation, manufacturing consent and too often driving a misguided consensus. It comes down to the difference between facts and truth. The earth is in fact round and does in fact revolve around the sun, but Wikipedia "consensus" would surely have favored the "truth" of geocentrism and maybe even a flat earth for most of human history. In this regard, other WIKIs do have clear avantages, e.g. RationalWiki and WikiIslam. They cover fewer subjects but with often greater objectivity. Whether they have undeclared conflicts or not, they prove what they say, instead of manufacturing "consensus" based on unreliable sources.

curious2 says

A better model is your method of dealing with spammers, which does generally work.

That's rather complicated. See https://github.com/killelea/patrick.net/blob/master/html/accept_post.php#L179

But spam is much simpler than "incivility". A new user from a foreign country posting a link is always considered a spammer, and that works pretty well for me.

How do you measure the tone of a post or comment? What if someone wants to quote it?

curious2 says

America has always had (and must have) the ability to respond to defamation, yelling "fire" in a crowded cinema, cutting off people's heads in the name of Islam, and treason (e.g. advocating the violent overthrow of our government, as Islam says to do).

Woah woah there. You jump from
1. defamation to
2. putting lives in immediate danger to
3. cutting off heads to
4. advocating violence

Those things are not in the same categories and certainly not all applicable to a blog. #1 is already covered by my prohibition on personally identifying information and #4 is covered by my prohibition on threats (now extended to cover incitement to violence).

So for me, the question remains about civility. Is there some way to get people on an anonymous forum to agree to argue in a polite tone without inhibiting the content of what they are trying to say?

Some would argue that it's impolite to even question multiculturalism, for example.

rando says

Those things are not in the same categories and certainly not all applicable to a blog.

They are all restrictions on speech though, with the inherent consequence that speech is never entirely "free."

Also, I have not used the word "incivility," which I hardly even care about anyway. I was thinking in terms of particular users, e.g. TOB. You have banned certain Users, based on your own decision. When a Nazi says he wants you dead, and your family and readers too, that's a good reason to ban him. Also, his alter ego rootvg, and maybe their "friend" Fortwhine. Online as in life, you choose whom you want to associate with. If you want to tolerate incivility, that's up to you, but promoting self-declared Nazis and obvious racists and homophobes comes at a cost. They have already other sites for their stupidity, so the question is whether you want to add your name to their list.

curious2 says

They are all restrictions on speech though, with the inherent consequence that speech is never entirely "free."

Yes, we actually agree more than we think. Remember I do have 5 forbidden categories of speech:

personal threats or incitement to violence
child porn
spam
copyright violations (upon notice)
personally identifying information

curious2 says

When a Nazi says he wants you dead, and your family and readers too, that's a good reason to ban him.

Here's his post: /I+hope+you+all+die

He did not actually threaten anyone, or incite anyone to violence.

I think it's super-important not to ban Nazis and homophobes from speaking, because those terms and many others are routinely used to shut down legitimate debate by the guardians of political correctness ( our very own zampolit ).

rando says

those terms and many others are routinely used to shut down legitimate debate by the guardians of political correctness

You have a point there, and I have witnessed the sometimes debilitating effects. That's why I don't focus on indivual comments or posts. I look at the pattern, and what inferences the pattern supports. TOB is a Nazi, supports Hitler and calls him "a genius," and advocates civil war, as does his alter ego rootvg, who bragged his house was "well fortified" and looked forward to bringing a concealed weapon to San Francisco. The fact he says openly he hopes we all die is only one more data point confirming that pattern. Arguing with such people is a waste of time. The world can always crank out morons faster than you can type. The question is, do you want to spend your life promoting them?

Like creationists pushing "intelligent design," Nazis look for ways to wedge their way into respectability. We've seen a few attempts here already, e.g. TWP, and sadly they seem to fool initially some software engineers, who read literally but don't always recognize the intent behind the words.

curious2 says

The question is, do you want to spend your life promoting them?

I don't see the site as promoting them, but merely as not censoring them.

curious2 says

TOB is a Nazi, supports Hitler and calls him "a genius," and advocates civil war, as does his alter ego rootvg

I can't see any evidence on the server side that those two are the same person. They use different IP addresses at least.

curious2 says

Arguing with such people is a waste of time.

OK, so don't argue with him. Put him on ignore. But don't ask me to prevent other people from hearing what he has to say, no matter how odious.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.

rando says

But don't ask me to prevent other people from hearing what he has to say, no matter how odious.

Fair enough, but I think his vandalism of your home page and your Wikipedia article is a principal reason why the latter got deleted. Wikipedia speedily deletes vandals, with good reason. You can choose to give them a platform if you want, but you shouldn't expect everyone to have the same priorities.