Forum Entries

Quantity versus Quality seems to be an issue. I don't like limitations and restrictions but maybe it is time to limit the number of possible entries per person and month? Maybe something like allowed number of entries = 20 for non members and 30 for members. What do you think?

Cheers Ricardo

As a suggestion: maybe we could try it out on a voluntary basis?

I dont agree

i dont agree

i dont agree

I'm against it. If it was to be implemented I would suggest a much higher value in order to allow discussions. Alternative: count all the posts in one topic as just one. Alternative to alternative: count up to xx (say 10) posts in the same topic as just one

Changing subject entirely, my mind is so Facebook oriented these days that i'm frequently looking for the like button here in the forum 8-)

I don't like it but must agree that Waka Waka is spamming a lot these days (I guess thats what this is about)

Moderation would be an option then...

Trolls will be trolls. Forums are always healthy right up until they're not. It was happening before the great barbarian AOL invasion of '95, and ever more rapidly since then.

I seldom read forums that are not sorted by rating (like Reddit upvotes, or Slashdot user moderation) -- i have a low tolerance for a lousy signal to noise ratio. I was a little annoyed with the five-game requirement to post on LG, but it does serve as a barrier to a lot of nonsense. Obviously not a complete solution though. Modern forums really need a way to "disconnect his buzzer" when people go waka.

My suggestion would be something like this: Players with more than X finished games can vote on a players profile to remove his forum posting priviliges. If the votes exceed a threshold Y, then the player isn't allowed to post in the forum any more.

Maybe something like X = 100 and Y = 50.

i dont agree.

on Lg forum we don't have too much trolls.

(i don't know what kind of thing smoke Carroll last day , but anyway)

we don't need moderation or limitations.

@Thnikkaman "WAKA WAKA" wjajwjawjajwa LOL ! jajaj

A little extreme but comprehensible... anyway, I would exchange any more for say, a year

you know....could it be worst...

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/forum/forum2.jsp?forum=200&page=11

I agree with MRFvR, it's too extreme, only a certain time span would be better.

ypercube made the suggestion in the Carroll thread, that you can't see posts of blacklisted persons, what is also a nice idea. The problem is, threads will still be moved to the top if a blacklisted person posts something.

@maraca: It may be complicated but no, it doesn't have to be that way. Different ordering of forum threads per user (and his blacklistings) can be used.

Let me rephrase my suggestion: If A blacklists B, then B's posts are completely invisible to A.

and A's view of the forums is as if B never posted anything.

WOW, that's quite an ingenious suggestion by yper! May be quite server consuming (programmers please manifest) but currently it seems a reasonable price to be payed

Yes that was my concern too, the pages can't be cached that easy then and I guess the server's load is much bigger, but I'm also no expert. The implementation would be simple, you can let the database do the filtering and sorting by just modifying the query a little bit.

Another suggestion would be troll ostracization. Everyone can vote that someone is a troll. Or - more detailed - some post is a troll-post.

Or - more complication - everyone can vote that someone or some post is a troll or opposite can vote that he likes that user or post.

Then, simple calculations would make that user's posts (or specific posts) ostracized (banned from posting temporarily, forever or posts removed).

All these would make it complicated too, but not very intensive as the forum looks would be the same for all (so caching would work fine too).

----

A variation on the above: Instead of harsh measures like banning, removing users/posts, make them less visible. The colour of every post would variate from standard post (black) to dark gray (voted as troll), light gray (heavily voted as troll), to even lighter gray/white, same as the background colour (so simply invisible).

Dealing with uncooperative jerks is a hard problem. Easy fixes often have unforeseen consequences that are undesirable.

Banning doesn't work well because the jerk just creates another account and starts over. You need something like a proper reputation system, where good behaviour results in more privileges over time. I've thought about a number of methods, including yper's "volume control" (e.g. smaller font and lighter grey, until the volume finally goes to zero). I think it's good to "dredge the bottom of the pool" once in a while...

However, given the history of feature requests on LG, i would put this in the category of "not gonna happen". Richard focuses on what we need, not on what we want. That direct to-the-point design is actually a strength.

LG has a high-minded community, so perhaps it is possible for most to simply ignore the trolls, until they get bored and find another forum to poke with a stick.

I like the suggestion from Ypercube about linking the blacklisting of persons to what posts you see... another solution would be to have a comparing of number of thumbs up and down in order to prioritize which post comes higher up...the "volume control" is also interesting. But all these will take time and need new programming solutions:

Ignoring would also be a good thing, if we together help out in this we could isolate and visualize some threads as troll thread by NOT writing in these threads. The threads would then only be for the trolls...

I think also a limitation on number of posts could help to visualize the problems, this could also be implemented without any new programming, just a disciplined and wise community would be needed. Little Golem has this! :)

I'd support locking threads. Perhaps having some forum admins who can do this, so the workload isn't on Richard. Perhaps requiring multiple votes before locking is actually performed. Fully accountable, so that if a forum admin starts running wild, it can be detected easily.

I'm in favor of ignoring the trolls. I know the threads I don't want to read, and the users I want to ignore. They are really few of both. I'd rather have richard code a new game than something for the forum.

Me (3) Also in favor ignoring those TROLLS cHECK-MATE!!

At this moment there are only 2 real spam threads, and they're both pretty old. Blocking won't help, WY will just find another thread to go to...

We could also create some FireFox/Chrome script that does this "shadowing". No stress on the server.

I'd vote for just simply ignoring the trolls - when scanning through an otherwise interesting thread you can just skip postings from people you consider trolls, right!?

Well, unless someone idiotically runs a denial of service attack on the forum such that you can't see anything you want to see at all...

I really like the forum like it is. Any programmed control has a big brother feel, and I don't think we need that. Let those HOT SYNC WAKAI be and use the forum without restrictions.

?!?!?

But this *is* a (benevolent) dictatorship. It's not your website, it's not our website, it's Richards. End of.

Several sites promote some of their trusted users to "moderators". These moderators have varying tools, like options of muting a specific person for a period of time or deleting posts. Perhaps, in extrem cases, they can suggest to the real admins that a person should be banned from the site altogether.

There are several trustworthy players on this site. I'm sure some would be willing to take on the part as moderators in some form or other.