SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After my last SN post the topic of moderation was brought up. Since its been quite awhile since we last openly discussed the state of moderation, I want to give the community a venue to discuss their feelings on it, and if the system needs further refinement. As a reminder, here's a review for how the system is currently setup:
- 5 mod points are handed out to at 00:10 UTC to users with positive karma
- ACs start at +0, users with karma less than 40 post at +1, users above that can post at +2
- You need 10 karma to mark some spam or troll
- Under normal circumstances, the staff do *not* have unlimited mod points, but can (and have) banned abusers of the moderation system
Please also review our SoylentNews Moderation Guidelines.
As always, we are willing to make changes to the system, but please post examples *with* links to any cases of suspected mod abuse. It's a lot easier to justify changing the system when evidence is in black and white. I also recommend that users make serious proposals on changes we can make. I'm not going to color the discussion with my own opinions, but as always, I will respond inline with comments when this goes live, and post a follow up article a few days after this one
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Ten years of rejection slips is nature's way of telling you to stop writing.
-- R. Geis
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @02:33PM
I agree I think there is a certain AC around here that is pissed that hes getting rightfully down modded and has bitched enough that this subject has come up for consideration. I also suspect that this AC is running a regular account as well and is upmodding his own posts.
The mod system is working rather well IMHO. I think the only change I would recommend is to not allow someone from one IP modding up another post from the same IP.
While that would not prevent someone from using multiple connections, vpns, etc to abuse the system, it would make it a hassle for them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by martyb on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:48PM
IP address != person
There are still occasions where a single IP address could rightfully be shared by multiple users. Consider using a shared home or library computer. Then, too, DHCP may re-assign to you an IP previously used by someone else. I suspect that NAT (Network Address Translation) might be problematic, too.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Wednesday May 20 2015, @03:56PM
I suspect that NAT (Network Address Translation) might be problematic, too.
This is why we need IPv6. The rumors I've heard about ISP-level NAT give me the willies, such a scheme would be a huge problem for our fellow lentils suffering in the ISP backwaters.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Insightful) by martyb on Friday May 22 2015, @05:48PM
Yes ISP-level NAT is 'willy-inducing' — no argument there.
I seem to recall that the IPv6 address space is so large that everyone/everything could have a large block of addresses assigned. No need for DHCP, NAT, etc. That sure seems like static IP addresses to me which would offer its own tracking opportunities. If that were indeed the case, I cannot imagine I'm the first to see that possibility as being a problem, so I suspect I've got something confused there.
Is this really a possibility? Can someone please explain what I'm missing? Thanks!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday May 22 2015, @06:44PM
Potential for tracking, yes. There would be no need to change address for any host on the network anytime soon (obligatory XKCD). [xkcd.com] I anticipate that marketing companies will use that for data mining, and there will be little we can do to stop it.
On the other hand, there's still no guarantee of a 1-person to 1-address mapping; a single person would conceivably operate several networked devices, and many people would still be able to use a single device. Hopping to different addresses within your assigned block would still be an option if desired, so the advantages of DHCP are not lost. NAT could even be implemented in IPv6 if desired (oh, $DIETY, why???), although the advantages to doing so are dubious at best. The situation after IPv6 rollout would essentially be the same as now, including the cat-and-mouse game we're playing with Big Data.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday May 22 2015, @09:32PM
Thanks for confirming my suspicions, and explaining things so clearly and succinctly!
There's something that has always befuddled me about IPv6: Why did they not make all IPv4 addresses a proper subset of IPv6? I would think the transition would have been greatly simplified if there were a 'prefix' under IPv6 which one could use to seamlessly access all historical IPv4 addresses. Any ideas or explanations would be greatly appreciated!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Saturday May 23 2015, @04:25PM
Why did they not make all IPv4 addresses a proper subset of IPv6?
They did.
Check out Oracle's page on how the transition affect their clients. [oracle.com] For the most part an IPv6 server can see an IPv4 client just fine. For the client to talk back, though, the server needs to be available in the IPv4 namespace (i.e. in the portion of the IPv6 namespace that maps 1:1 with IPv4). As a result, none of the benefits of the larger namespace are really available until all of the clients are aware of IPv6 and can talk on it (at least through a 4-to-6 bridge).
Fortunately, most modern clients are fine. Windows has been IPv6 native since version 7, most Unix distributions (including MacOS/iOS and Android, excluding some embedded builds) have been fine for a long time. The big obstacle is the network operators who haven't upgraded their hardware yet. There are too many switches at the ISPs that have hardwired IPv4 processing (think ASICs [wikipedia.org]) and have to be replaced before the transition is successful.
Do your part, call your ISP and ask what their transition plan is. Let them know you're interested in enabling IPv6 on your computers as soon as possible. The more interest and demand they see for the service the more motivated they'll be to make it right.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by martyb on Sunday May 24 2015, @05:09PM
Thanks for the feedback! If I understand correctly, that means that all the upstream providers could have rolled out full IPv6 support and the IPv4 stuff would have still worked. Is that correct? The reluctance to do so, of course, is based on the cost of replacing stuff that 'still works' and will be less expensive to replace the longer they wait (Moore's Law) as well as learning a whole new way of doing things with all the attendant mistakes inherent in learning the ropes of doing so.
That makes me wonder if Google's gigabit fiber roll out is IPv4 or IPv6. Especially since they are installing new equipment all over, it would strike me as terribly short-sighted to roll out non-IPv6 capable equipment.
Thanks again for the reply; it's something that had me wondering for quite a while!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Sunday May 24 2015, @08:21PM
Yep, you've pretty much got it. An ISP that supports IPv6 supports IPv4-only clients just fine. A web host that runs dual stack can serve both IPv4 and IPv6 clients with no problem. It's the poor folks on backwards ISP networks (like me, on Verison FIOS) who can't participate on the IPv6 web. And, yes, you've also correctly identified the motivations (or lack thereof) for the ISPs to stay on IPv4 as long as possible.
For what it's worth, google fiber is running IPv6 switches for all of its new gear, [google.com] so their customers have the choice to go IPv6 native it they like.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1) by martyb on Monday May 25 2015, @02:31AM
I really appreciate your replies! You have cleared up a world of confusion for me — thank you!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by paulej72 on Wednesday May 20 2015, @06:16PM
Actually all of the Tor users have the same IP addrss as they come from our one server running the Tor stuff. As for IP address = person, we currently do not check if the moderator and modee are using the same IP, but this could be added if necessary. We would probably whitelist the Tor IP so things would work somewhat normal for those users.
Team Leader for SN Development
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2015, @11:27PM
Should you be modding a post by someone who shares your computer?
I can see a husband and wife both reading SN. Wouldn't they have a bias for each others posts? The same thing with brothers, or roommates. It kinda makes it unfair if you have a personal cheerleader modding your posts up and anything critical of you down.
The only possibility is people posting from a internet cafe, and frankly I just think it would be a rare occurrence that two random people in the same internet cafe would want to mod each others post.
If someone does exist with a need to mod a post from the same IP then it is trivial to bypass the block. Load it up on your phone, find another hot spot, borrow a friends phone, whatever. Seriously its trivial. It would just slow down someone who routinely mods their own posts. If it really is that important that is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @02:25PM
IP != computer.
Behind a single IP, there could be an entire corporate network. OTOH, it would be no problem to have two different IPs for the same computer by simply using a VPN (and actually, just disconnecting/reconnecting your DSL is already likely to give you a different IP).