Simply requiring log-in to read some posts, and limiting the rate of new users (maybe even make it invite only most of the times, like a private torrent tracker), should go a long way to prevent mob attacks.
A quiz and a day’s wait before adding a new user is another option. Make it something that a regular lurker who read the rules would be able to pass easily, but a rando couldn’t. SCP wiki did something like this, it seemed to help with quality control.
Rotate through 3 different quizes, or scramble the quiz order sometimes, if you want to make automated sign-ups annoying for mobs and spammers. Have the web people track the number of sign-up-quiz fails (it’s a nice metric for “is there a mob at the doorstep”).
(Edit: Ah, someone already proposed a more-elaborate variant using GPT-X. Simple quizes with a few mild gotcha-questions should be enough of a screen for most cases, though.)
A proposal I think I haven’t seen posed is giving new members a “trial period.” If an average (or randomly-selected) post doesn’t have a karma score of at least X by the end of the period (or if it dips below Y at any point), they’re out and their stuff is deleted. Ban them from handing out karma until after the trial, or this quickly breaks. This probably still has weird incentive consequences that I’m not seeing, though...
...it does mean having a bit of an evaporative-filter for quality-ratings, and it means links to crappy posts turn into deadlinks in just a matter of time.
If log-in is required to read posts, I am afraid there would be no new users. How would anyone find out that the interesting debate exists in the first place? But if you have no users, there is no one to talk to.
I meant hiding just the CWish posts. There’re enough non-CWish posts to attract people that value the way of thinking in general.
Also, it doesn’t sound that bad to attract users through 1 to 1 recommendations only. Or allow unlogged people to read all, but only little by little release the power for new users to interact with the content. Maybe release it all at once if a high karma user vouches for you (they lose it that person gets banned or something). Maybe instead of karma, there could be another value that better reflects how much you are likely to value proper manners and thinking (e.g., it could be obtained by summing karma from different topics i in a way that overvalues breadth of interest k=(∑√ki)2).
I’m just thinking out loud in real time. My main point one can go a long way just by limiting the rate at which new users can invade and screw with the content.
Simply requiring log-in to read some posts, and limiting the rate of new users (maybe even make it invite only most of the times, like a private torrent tracker), should go a long way to prevent mob attacks.
A quiz and a day’s wait before adding a new user is another option. Make it something that a regular lurker who read the rules would be able to pass easily, but a rando couldn’t. SCP wiki did something like this, it seemed to help with quality control.
Rotate through 3 different quizes, or scramble the quiz order sometimes, if you want to make automated sign-ups annoying for mobs and spammers. Have the web people track the number of sign-up-quiz fails (it’s a nice metric for “is there a mob at the doorstep”).
(Edit: Ah, someone already proposed a more-elaborate variant using GPT-X. Simple quizes with a few mild gotcha-questions should be enough of a screen for most cases, though.)
A proposal I think I haven’t seen posed is giving new members a “trial period.” If an average (or randomly-selected) post doesn’t have a karma score of at least X by the end of the period (or if it dips below Y at any point), they’re out and their stuff is deleted. Ban them from handing out karma until after the trial, or this quickly breaks. This probably still has weird incentive consequences that I’m not seeing, though...
...it does mean having a bit of an evaporative-filter for quality-ratings, and it means links to crappy posts turn into deadlinks in just a matter of time.
If log-in is required to read posts, I am afraid there would be no new users. How would anyone find out that the interesting debate exists in the first place? But if you have no users, there is no one to talk to.
I think this is a problem, but not an insurmountable one (note that Facebook requires login to see most things)
I meant hiding just the CWish posts. There’re enough non-CWish posts to attract people that value the way of thinking in general.
Also, it doesn’t sound that bad to attract users through 1 to 1 recommendations only. Or allow unlogged people to read all, but only little by little release the power for new users to interact with the content. Maybe release it all at once if a high karma user vouches for you (they lose it that person gets banned or something). Maybe instead of karma, there could be another value that better reflects how much you are likely to value proper manners and thinking (e.g., it could be obtained by summing karma from different topics
iin a way that overvalues breadth of interest k=(∑√ki)2).I’m just thinking out loud in real time. My main point one can go a long way just by limiting the rate at which new users can invade and screw with the content.