Scratch

SJRCS_011 wrote:

PaperMario123 wrote:

I just want a 3-flag rule. If anything is flagged/reported by 3 users, they'd have a quick little checkbox with something like: "should this be hidden from the community?" If 3 people report/flag and check that box (I want the checkbox because, sometimes, they might just want to move the topic, etc.), the topic/post would be completely censored until a mod approves it, if they choose to approve it.

Maybe two.
Because it sometimes seems to me that by the time three users come along who know to actually use the report button report the pictures, they have been exposed for a while.

But the smaller amount, the easier it is to defeat the system. The person/people who did it could create accounts on proxies and easily get tonnes of posts removed. Their goal is to mess up as much of the forum experience for Scratchers as possible.

HiddenPerson wrote:

They aren't disabled on the TBG forums, as the supposed to happen?

There were no troll attacks in the TBG.

I guess the Scratch Team would use that argument, but still, it’s just as possible if not more so.

Is it definitely permanent? Or is there a slight chance that they'll be enabled again eventually?

cheddargirl wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

Is it definitely permanent? Or is there a slight chance that they'll be enabled again eventually?

They'll be enabled again at some point, it's just more of a matter on how quickly a solution to reduce or prevent the problem in the future cam be implemented.

That's what I've been trying to tell people!

cheddargirl wrote:

ProgrammingFreak wrote:

joefarebrother wrote:

how about parental controls?

Hmm, perhaps. But I think it would be better to have it safe automatically.

Not to mention preferably a filter that fits the ST guidelines. People have different definitions of a safe pic.

I had some free time to think (a good walk outside to get away from the mayhem of the recent forum negativity nowadays does some good), and I was thinking about the way dA doesn't allow for images to be posted in comments unless it was an avatar image of a dA user, or a thumbnail of an image already uploaded to dA - there is the occasional even that someone does upload something against the dA rules, but because images are secluded to dA, the problem was less likely to occur.

It then occurred to me that maybe one way to deal with the image attack would be to allow images only if it was hosted on something like Scratch or Scratch Resources since the images from there fit well into Scratch guidelines and are more easily monitored (witch Scratch Resources being the more secure of the two since content is usually screen first). I brought it up with one of the ST members just today, that seems like the most quick and doable idea considering the resources we have at our disposal (although one of the few concerns is that it might just encourage image spamming, so the idea could do with some working over).

Yeah, basically anything from *.scratch.mit.edu or *.scratchr.org. Maybe we could also use stuff from Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia, after a little while?

christian2000 wrote:

awesome idea. people can now be more creative and use ASCII.
║           ╔═══╗   ║
║           ║       ║   ║
║           ║       ║   ║
║           ║       ║   ║
╚════  ╚═══╝   ╚════

LOL!!!

║           ╔═══╗   ║          ||     ||     ||
║           ║       ║   ║          ||     ||     ||
║           ║       ║   ║          ||     ||     ||
║           ║       ║   ║          ||     ||     ||
╚════  ╚═══╝   ╚════ @       @     @

lol

EXCUSE ME GOOD SIR

BUT WHAT IS THE USE OF DISABLING IMAGE TAGS

IF WE WERE TO SIMPLY ENHANCE THE AMOUNT OF MODERATORS

(breathe)

AND PROPERLY BAN USERS WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM

The_Magic_Puppeteer wrote:

EXCUSE ME GOOD SIR

BUT WHAT IS THE USE OF DISABLING IMAGE TAGS

IF WE WERE TO SIMPLY ENHANCE THE AMOUNT OF MODERATORS

(breathe)

AND PROPERLY BAN USERS WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM

If it was just that easy it probably would have been done already. 

No amount of moderator or banning doesn't really solve problems like this since it doesn't really hit the issue of security and safety on the site (it's happened twice already, which kind of shows how vulnerable the site can be at times). It's better to put a temporary measure in place to treat that vulnerability instead of going towards a solution that doesn't truly solve the problem at hand.

cheddargirl wrote:

The_Magic_Puppeteer wrote:

EXCUSE ME GOOD SIR

BUT WHAT IS THE USE OF DISABLING IMAGE TAGS

IF WE WERE TO SIMPLY ENHANCE THE AMOUNT OF MODERATORS

(breathe)

AND PROPERLY BAN USERS WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM

If it was just that easy it probably would have been done already. 

No amount of moderator or banning doesn't really solve problems like this since it doesn't really hit the issue of security and safety on the site (it's happened twice already, which kind of shows how vulnerable the site can be at times). It's better to put a temporary measure in place to treat that vulnerability instead of going towards a solution that doesn't truly solve the problem at hand.

WELL WHAT IF WE WERE TO HAVE ANYTHING THAT IS REPORTED BE IMMEDIATELY HIDDEN AND PU UNDER REVIEW BY MODS?

Daroach1 wrote:

I've really been thinking of a solution that is an alternative for banning until a moderator gets on...
I was thinking we could have a rank titled "Mod helper" or "Trusted Scratcher" or something like that. Anyone with that rank can edit and delete others' posts to remove the offensive content until a moderator gets on. Though they have to be trusted not to abuse the power.
I have compiled some users I think would be good if this is implemented:
Me (I have experience in moderating and handling this well, not saying I have to be chosen, I just have experience in handling it)
PlutoIsHades
scimonster
ElectricSparx
The_Dancing_Donut
Agentpieface
Haiming

That's all I have for now...
I hope this is easy enough to implement and will work well.

TDD? Really?
Sounds like an interesting idea. However, it's almost like modding. Probably too much like modding for the ST.
But if they do, here are some more good users: Sparks, jji7skyline, gettysburg11 (notice they were in the last mod election  ), Kileymiester.

MaxFlyboy wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

But even if there was a measuring stick of who can get posting privileges and who cannot - for this last case, the guilty account had no prior notifications, and from past posts there was no indication it will turn out sour (in fact, a lot of the pasts posts looked rather innocent or helpful). It kind of shows how someone can look to be a trusting account, and then pull off a Jekyll/Hyde moment.

(me viewing the situation with all possibilities)

How do you know that some hacker hacked into his account and messed with it? It did say above that the guy was helpful and looked trusting. How do you know it wasn't someone who was bored and hacked into the first account he saw?

They could check his IP and evercookies.

Although it wasn't a hacker.