It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should ATS/PTS (Not BTS) Have Automated Enforcement of TOS?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I understand how ominous and big brother-ish the subject sounds, but it is not about that at all. I am simply proposing an automated solution to enforcement of One line reponses which are also covered in the Terms of Service.

I have one of two propositions, and are merely my suggestions as a result of observing our forum.

A) - Set a reply lock minimum based on the number of total characters that will fit on one complete line of the table width. I speak of the amount of characters it takes to be written, including spaces, before your type begins to show up on the next line.

B) - Set the system to somehow automatically deduct points from a member by matching the member id number with the corresponding post that does not conatain the sufficient amount of characters. They can then have their appropriate points auto-deducted, and perhaps a U2U to let them know it.


OOOORRRRRR

C) - Set the system to do a combination of the two? I dunno like a visible warning prompt somewhere on the page to alert a poster they will recieve a one-liner point deduction, which would dissapear if one continued typing past the limit. However, the poster could in fact post their one-line response anyways, knowing full well the Forums price for the privelage/(¿misconduct?/¿error?) and choosing to accept it.

I just figured this could save up much desired and necessary time for our forum moderators by having an automated system to handle what many here would consider either an unnecessary, or for the moderators possibly an irritating violation that must be handled with discipline.

Even if it isnt very feasible as far as being easy to write code for, does anyone think it sounds like a decent idea?




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
One-Liners aren't determined by some character count. A one-liner is a post that adds nothing to the thread like...

"me too"

or my all time favorite...



This is a fairly common one-liner...

"you have voted "member name" for WATS, you have 2 more votes this month"


[edit on 4-10-2006 by kinglizard]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
oh man, I remember a smiley abuser from a year or so ago.

But, a Tos-Bot..hmm.
What if I post something too short, by accident?
Do you get some edit time, to adjust?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
One-Line post "warnings" aren't limited to "a single line of text".

They are geared/designed/intended more for "Atta-Boy", "I'm wit'ya", "Me too"-type posts ... or posts which truly offer nothing to further said discussion. Allbeit sarcasm, yeah, yeah, etc.

One-Line post warnings Are Not limited to physical constraints nor a given set of characters, hence the failure of implementing that which you suggest.

Not to dismiss your suggestion, as new ideas are always welcome, but it's not just a matter of character counts or minimalist posts.

One-Line inquisitive queries/posts, seeking clarification, are most welcome.

However, One-Line "quips", "me too's", "I agree"s, etc, are frowned upon as a whole.

The desire is to draw a more complete response from the member/viewer as to their thoughts on a given topic/discussion/post.

i.e.
I agree ... WHY?
You're wrong ... WHY?
I'm wit 'ya ... WHY?



$.02

[edit on 10/4/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well see there brings the flexibility to work with all three options I just listed. Perhapas a physical script prompt to confirm short character response to prevent any accidental one word posts?

I figure, one liners typically have less than the full character limit of a single line on the messageboard, and therefore a character limit would instantly solve the problem, AUTOMATICALLY.

If the purpose of this rule is to discourage impulse opinions of little relevance to the topic at hand, an automated system based on a character minimum would instantly erase at least 70% of those cases, without being overlooked. That is a conservative estimate in my judgement.

I am sure if a poster could muster up ten words that they feel contributes to the relevance of the topic at hand, then it would not hurt to encourage some thinking and type up a few more words to meet the character minimum.

I think a system that actually enforces rules that already exist, giving moderators and staff time to take care of other, more important matters, would actually contribute to umm, you know, enforcing the rules.

I know, it is that word enforce that is scaring everyone isn't it? Nothing to fear. The same as enforcing the collection of late payments by charging a fine and trying to teach you to be on time. Or the city giving you a ticket for going to slow?

Why is this any different?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I can't stand answering the phone and finding that a computer is calling me. I can't stand having to continually push buttons to wade thru computer crap just to communicate.

No way. ATS has enough mods to keep it soul to soul. I pray to god we never resort to bots.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Abort, Retry, Fail?

Dear Member,

Your ( ) post ( ) opinion (x) aroma has been found to be in violation of ( ) the terms & conditions ( ) federal law (x) common decency.

Therefore, you have been ( ) chastised ( ) forced to carry a fifty pound candle through the streets of the city (x) banned.

If you believe this automated script has acted in error, please feel free to ( ) sod off ( ) take a hike (x) pack sand.

Sincerely,

( ) The ATS AutoMod ( ) 1000 Monkeys With Typewriters (x) A Very Lazy Moderator



Sounds goods to me! SkepticOverlord, make it so!





Oh man, I am so going to be ( ) punished ( ) browbeaten (x) paddled silly by the rest of the staff.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
teh suxxor imo


my first name must be
he aint shhhhh
cuz everytime i'm in the car they like
he aint shhhhhh



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I do not understand your response Lysergic. Are you attempting to state an example?

mrwupy, are you stating that you have been able to witness every single one liner and respond to accordingly during a 24 hour period? Because frankly, I have seen some moderators participate in a thread without even enforcing a single instance of a one-liner where there may be many, and sometimes blatantly overlook such a violation. I do not mean to say that this mod may be playing favorites, just that perhaps that individual has not the time to deal with that many instances of a single violation, has better things to worry about, or perhaps they forgot they were a moderator because of too much stress in their regular day of life.

Whatever the reason, I am not trying to call out, slander, or "diss" any moderators, or mdoerators as a whole.

I simply brought up an idea I figured could make your duties here just a wee bit simpler. Sort of like an author/editor and his spell checker. Obviously they have the ability to go thorugh a long document or pages of content and individually pick out and correct all of his/her mistakes. Would it not be so much simpler however to automatically have the issue corrected, so that you only have time to get other things done?

How about an edit by ATS-Bot, TOS-Bot , or whatever acronym yall may come up with in the post to remind others it has been dealt with? Just like a mod may add their edit and their name shows up as [edited by].

I do not really see a drawback to this. Any other qualms besides "unnecessary, rediculous, or pointless" ?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
If I understand you correctly, you want an AUTOMATED COP to police ATS/PTS. Would this be similar to the traffic cameras used in some communities? No reason, no logic, no compassion? Just do what it is pre-programmed to do?
If that is what you are proposing, I do not like your idea at all. I am here almost daily, reading, finding out what is happening both here and elsewhere.
Part of the reason I like coming here, even though I don't post often, is the HUMANITY I find here.
Sorry, DYepes, but you've not got an ally in me-- at least not for this idea. Keep trying, though. I just might sign on to your next one.
As an aside, I see that we both joined ATS on the same day.


[edit on 5-10-2006 by rawiea]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Were all people here right. All capable of making a mistake.

If you come across a One-Liner that you feel the staff has missed, Use the Complain button.

Also, I believe something of what you speak of already does exist.



We're sorry, we like to encourage posts that contribue to the discussion.
Your post has been determined to be too short. Please use your browser's back button and add to your message.


I'm not sure how many charachters you need to enter before you can bypass this but I am sure it is only a small one. So maybe a better suggestion to support your cause would be to increase this amount?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I think you only get that message when you try to post an empty body. This thing is not policing anything that a mod does not already do.

If you are not goign to run the red light, why should you be worried? Well, I suppose there won't be much support for this, because after all this is a free site. Its not going to ban you, restrict your posting, or throwe a brick through your car winshield.

The only thing it will do is alert you when you are posting a one-liner, and then deduct the reasonable amount of points that any violation ever incurs. No court date, no driving down to the DOT to dispute your ticket, just have it deducted from your bank account with your full knowledge and consent. Do the crime pay the time right?

Otherwise we should probably just erase this stipulation from the TOS, because the majority of the enfractions are probably not enforced.



And rawiea, I am your evil twin seperated at birth



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Also, I believe something of what you speak of already does exist.



We're sorry, we like to encourage posts that contribue to the discussion.
Your post has been determined to be too short. Please use your browser's back button and add to your message.


I'm not sure how many charachters you need to enter before you can bypass this but I am sure it is only a small one.


"me=twat" is too short....I know this to be true


/end izzard



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Kekkou Desu, Mr. Roboto


Originally posted by DYepes
I do not really see a drawback to this. Any other qualms besides "unnecessary, rediculous, or pointless" ?

I assure you that I am very much open to almost anything that would make a moderator's job easier, but "automated enforcement" of the Terms And Conditions is fraught with enough pitfalls that it would almost certainly result in far more work for us than it would ever save.

Aside from the fact that the T&C are subject to interpretation and application based on what can be rather complex circumstances (i.e., the context of a discussion), scripts can't be counted upon to handle the many, many member complaints which would inevitably result from things like automated warnings.

That doesn't mean there isn't some automatic T&C enforcement already in place.

There are censors which filter out certain words and phrases which the owners don't wish to display (such as #, # and especially #), for example. Minimum and maximum character counts can also help.

Even in the case of "one-liner" filtering, however, human judgment is required, because not all one-line posts violate the T&C, only those which a moderator deems to not contribute anything useful to a discussion ("me too", rows of smileys, etc.).

A few well-placed words can contribute something meaningful to a discussion and not merit a one-liner warning. How would a script be able to decide whether a one-line post is meaningful or not?

Ultimately, I think my main objection to such forms of automation is that when it comes to something like warnings and disciplinary action, I think members deserve the courtesy of dealing with a real human being.

Both human moderators and scripts can make mistakes, but at least human moderators can apologize and try to make things right when we screw up.

And that's something I don't think a script will ever do better than a real human being.



[edit on 10/6/2006 by Majic]




top topics



 
0

log in

join