What can we do to improve this forum?

[mugaliens]

Interestingly, I visited the site today just after 6pm MST, and walla! I'm already logged in!

What did you change?

[RayTomes]

I logged in automatically too. Now I don't know what it used to do.

[tom]

I logged in automatically too. Now I don't know what it used to do.

hah I didnt change anything ;-)

[Coelacanth]

hah I didnt change anything ;-)

It's been quite dodgy for me, but that might have to do with my constantly shifting IP address. Load a web page, then hit reload, and the two requests may well originate from different IP addresses.

For what it is worth, one of my IP addresses seems to be blacklisted at BAUT, which is damn near unusable for me these days.

[astromark]

Its interesting that when I find a spare hour or so I come here to be entertained.. A learning curve.. but entertainment.. So BRAVO and be encouraged.

I read some disgruntled contributor's post and find it amusing that he complains for not being banned outright..

No thats not what he said but it looks that way now... All power to you's for remaining calm.. and moderating tactfully..

Just as you said.. just as you said...

Some idiot has banned me from beut for telling it how it is... It happens to often there. My view of things must always be right...yea right.

and like many I struggle to understand why the apparent crime was dealt with buy shutting the door..

When I am allowed back.. I will press for a better process.. I will be disappointed.. which is itself a fools folly..

Why do I go there.. ? because I saw a obvious abuse of logic.. The force of which enrages my passion.. I am very pleased for a discussion and

expect that.. but because I said someone was a woo woo supporter / advocate ...'poof'... 'slam'... they shut the door..

well I think thats what happened..

Until I'm allowed back, I can not know... which in itself seems wrong.. why I'm telling it here.. because you are better than that..

and the above conversation with a disgruntled contributor proves it.. SO BRAVO...

[mugaliens]

It's been quite dodgy for me, but that might have to do with my constantly shifting IP address. Load a web page, then hit reload, and the two requests may well originate from different IP addresses.

You might talk to your ISP about that. Whether you're on cable or DSL, the settings between your modem and server can be modified to allow you to keep an IP address for a very long time. Even so, these days most people's IP addresses aren't their own, but shared with dozens or hundreds of other users over time.

For what it is worth, one of my IP addresses seems to be blacklisted at BAUT, which is damn near unusable for me these days.

Ah, the joys and stupidity of IP address banning! It's built into all forum software, so it must be ok to use it, right? If IP addresses were actually unique, it'd work. With proxies and NAT, however, it's cheaper for ISPs to allow, 30,000 customers to use one of perhaps 5,000 to 20,000 IP addresses in their pool. Very few people are on all the time, and those who're on intermittently might have a new IP address assigned several times an hour, depending on usage. The greater the ratio of users to addresses, the more frequently the system has to release IP addresses to service all users. Meanwhile, one's actual IP address isn't very important in cyberspace, as servers, from Netflix to Ooma to Amazon use cookies to track sessions, not IP addresses.

Standard acceptable administrator practice these days is to avoid using IP address banning. It's an undesirable practice, as it very often leads to denying access to legitimate users, particularly if an admin gets a wild hair and blocks a range of addresses, as may have happened in your case.

[astrotech]

How about an unreliability index for posters.

Some kind of tag under their name in posts in addition to the other info about join date number of posts etc.

I propose several tags in the index.

Number of factual errors the poster has posted.

Number of logical fallacies.

Number of lazy questions that he could have looked up himself. This is tasking a poster unneccesarily and is used frequently at BAUT to overload a disliked poster by peppering him with a multitude of idiotic questions.

number of baseless disputes.

Number of unsupported assertions. Only in cases where someone disputes an asserston and the poster doesn't support it and then only if the assertion is not an easilily found fact.

number irrelavant replies. Unsupported support for another poster for instance "yea, whut he said."

Number of thread hijacks.

The numbers would be added up, a minus sign would be set in front of the sum and that would be his reliability index. Grapes for instance would have a reliability index of (at least) -100.

I suggest only tags that indicate unreliability as tags that indicate reliability could be skewed by a poster simply posting a plethora of facts.

Assignment of these tags and numbers would be moderator tasks.

The mechanism for assignment would be, for example, a member messages a mod that a poster has made a factual error and makes his case for why it is an error. If the mod agrees the message is stored in a public forum and the tag would be assigned. The poster charged with unreliability could respond and the responses would also be open for reliability examination. The accusation of unreliability would also be open for reliability examination.

This would be a better indication of reliability than members claiming reliability because they claim they are teachers or physicistss or just because they have a lot of posts or have been members for a long time. Or worse because they are henchmen of mods and are supported by mods despite all their factual errors and unreliable postings like they do at BAUT. Not saying that mods here have henchmen but many forums do and if this forum gets big it is a temptation.

[grapes]

Q: How many points would you get for repeatedly making unsubstantiated personal attacks?

[astrotech]

If someone claimed you have BO, your mama wears army boots and you are homosexual and those were not easily found facts and are disputed and he doesn't substantiate the claims then there would be one point for every instance. If the clams are substantiated or the facts are easily found the points would be on the baseless disputer.

"unsupported assertions. Only in cases where someone disputes an asserston and the poster doesn't support it and then only if the assertion is not an easilily found fact."

Extra points if the claims are part of a fallacious ad hominem argument.

I suppose there should be some mechanism for removal of points. If a person got a point then admitted his mistake the point should be removed. But then only if he didn't make it a habit.

[Bananas]

How many unreliability points does one get for using accusation of homosexuality as an insult?

How many moderators would it take to fully administer this system?