CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

[spoiler=I don't want this ruining a serious post]I was gonna name this "A modest proposal" but I didn't want the connections with Swifts satirical book to ruin a serious (non satiracal) post. On that point, I didn't realize until a few years ago that any english speaking person before the 20th century ever wrote those sort of satires... I'd be affraid to write something like that because of people who just won't get it...[/spoiler]

I propose a few things.

1. A third tier of mods: Emergency mods... Color them Green, perhaps, and they could be here for one purpose: To take out serious trolls... Not to deal with arguments of normal members... Just to take out porn trolls and harassment trolls... Instead of banning, they could freeze members who they find to be trolls.

2. When 2 or 3 "report this post" comes in on a new member (new meaning the last 3 days) they're account will be suspended...

3. An IP watch... When multiple names start coming in under one IP, especially 5+ people registering on the same day under the same IP, freeze their accound until a mod can review it...

4. a 200 post AND 3 month restriction on picture posting and IMG tag usage, if at all possible. I'm sorry, but this is just not acceptable the way it is now... There were KIDS on when this attack happened.

5. A user report... Instead of reporting messages, we can report users from their profiles...

6. Report thread on the OUTSIDE of threads! That way we don't have to go into threads that are obvious troll threads to report them, and potentially see nasty images...

7. This is gonna be harsh, but we may be at the point we need to have a review process before we let in new members... Da Rabid Ducky told me he does that on his board and hasn't had a troll attack for over a year and a half...

Well, that's my proposal... This could also be considered a hate crime, and I think it shold be prosecuted... I think stuff like this can warrant a tracking of the people involved and arrests... If I had that sort of knowledge, I'd do that, but honestly... There are kids that come here... It's just not right... Number 7 is really harsh on any forum like this, but to keep that crap from happening anymore, it may be necissary...

Locked temporarily under the circumstances but will be unlocked soon.

As a member of CAA I think this might be a good idea.

(ALTHOUGH I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE ADMINS AREN'T DOING A GRRREAT JOB! THEY TOTALLY ARE!! )

however, you admins can't be on ALL the time..it's impossible, however, at every moment, of the day SOME PPL are on! .. Perhaps if we did have a third strand of Mods it would the first two strands out. And they could be used in case you guys are not online...

So, I hope I don't offend, this is not my intent, but I do believe that something needs to happen to keep CAA from being attacked once more. (CAA is getting more and more well known, and with the google search feature it is very easy for something like this to happen again.) And i do agree that we need to protect the younger members... from ever having to go through this again...

No matter what happens, though, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK GUYS and GALS! You are the BESTEST!

i would heavily agree with putting a 3 month or 100/200 post requirement before someone oculd upload images. other sites do that, and i believe it would help.

I like these ideas, though I wonder about how feasible some of them would be. I don't know anything about computer programming, so I guess they're possible, but I don't know, some of them seem like they'd be really hard to do (such as is it really possible to prevent a person from posting image tags?).

I do like 5 and 6 especially, though.

I would say that the IMG posting limit is a good idea. Inconvenient, perhaps, but something needs to be done to make sure that this doesn't happen again. We want the site to be safe for younger teens.

I also heavily agree with the idea of emergency mods. The key to not having this happen again is to have 24 hour mod surveillance. We see here and have seen before that if the trolls strike when there are no mods on, sometimes they can go on with their trolling for an hour or more.

Well, that's my proposal... This could also be considered a hate crime, and I think it shold be prosecuted... I think stuff like this can warrant a tracking of the people involved and arrests... If I had that sort of knowledge, I'd do that, but honestly... There are kids that come here... It's just not right... Number 7 is really harsh on any forum like this, but to keep that crap from happening anymore, it may be necissary...

We could do this?

ChristianRonin wrote:We could do this?

Logistically, this would require far too much effort for people like those that run this site... IT is one thing, but legal is another entirely... If there were only Lawyers on CAA... Lawyers on the Moderation staff, even... At least one... Pro bono, of course... (legal fees are too much, especially for a free site with no advertising)

I am in full agreement with what you say on your proposal.

Bobtheduck wrote:7. This is gonna be harsh, but we may be at the point we need to have a review process before we let in new members... Da Rabid Ducky told me he does that on his board and hasn't had a troll attack for over a year and a half...

Which is true, at G2G we haven't had a troll attack in quite some time. It may be less than the year and a half than I previously stated, but the fact that I can't even REMEMBER when the last time we had a troll is something in itself.

Bobtheduck wrote:Well, that's my proposal... This could also be considered a hate crime, and I think it shold be prosecuted... I think stuff like this can warrant a tracking of the people involved and arrests... If I had that sort of knowledge, I'd do that, but honestly... There are kids that come here... It's just not right...

This is actually possible, and CAA would definitely have a case against the trolls that attacked. However CAA's non-adherance to COPPA laws (which state that it is illegal to get information from children under 13, including e-mail addresses, without parental consent) would definitely come into question and the site could potentially be shut down. Any defense attorney worth his salt would push this fact and state that the site should be closed because it potentially exposes those under 13 to hate crimes of a sexual nature.

Soooo... to avoid this happening, and especially any sort of legal action from parents or repercussions from counterarguments, I'd like to add the following clarification and then a few point of my own.

7. In clarification, at G2G we have disabled the automatic approval of new members, and an admin then does background checks on each new member that joins, afterwards approving/denying them based on their name and the results that come up. The process is very simple, all that it requires is a simple Google lookup of the e-mail address, and then the screen name used, and then you look through a few of the results to see what comes up. As an example, someone signing up with a name that is offensive wouldn't even make onto the site, but someone with a name like "Christlover316" may be a good name but the e-mail address listed could be linked to several accounts that are notorious for flaming or trolling other forums.

And hey, I won't lie that we sometimes take a day or two to get to the new members queue... but this has proven to be an unexpected blessing because when a person intending to troll DOES come along, he usually wants to say his piece RIGHT THEN, and having to wait a few hours is a serious deterrent.

It really doesn't take that long, I've never had to do more than five minutes of reading per member. If anything, most members check out with nothing and come through fine.

And now two points of my own:

8. Should the background check idea be shot down, it needs to be procedure for an admin to close the automatic member approval option IMMEDIATELY until the troll attack subsides to keep new ones from replacing their "fallen comrades" until the number of visiting guests settles down, marking the end of the attack.

9. Enforce COPPA.

From the G2G TOS:

Because of COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, it is illegal to collect information (like e-mail addresses, which are needed for membership) from ANYONE under the age of 13 without parental consent. There is paperwork that has to be filled out, as well as tracking required to show that the child is indeed that child and that the parents are indeed the parents. Having to handle all of this would increase costs so much as to force the forums to either shut down or charge to join. It's actually rare to find a Video Game forum that does not have these rules.

People under 13, I'm sorry. I love you guys like I love everyone else, but it's the law. Should the CAA ever come under any kind of investigation, or prosecute anyone for a hate crime against the site, this will come into play and force the site to shut down because of this. It's harsh, I know, and don't think that I or any one of the other awesome people here don't want to be your friend, but it's because of the sick freaks that started what happened today that laws like that exist, and unfortunately this is how the government decided to keep you guys from being exposed to this.

Anyway, I apologize for the rant, but I'm dead serious about these points. Of course, I believe that if one should complain about something they should realize that they just volunteered themselves to fix it, so I'll be happy to advise in any way that I can.

Once upon a time, we did have this prominently mentioned in the FAQ as well, although that seems to have gotten nuked in one of the updates. Regardless, all users must enter their birthdate when they register. We don't let anyone under 13 create a new account. Try it and see.

By the way, for those interested, this is the FTC COPPA guideline.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/coppa.htm

If people are deliberately lying and failing to disclose their age, that's their problem (and will result in removal if they are discovered, because that constitutes getting around site security).

The remainder of the issues brought up will be taken up by the mod staff. I'll leave the thread open.

I'm not sure about the legal stuff, but I think we could use more mods...

shooraijin wrote:If people are deliberately lying and failing to disclose their age, that's their problem (and will result in removal if they are discovered, because that constitutes getting around site security).

Of course it goes without saying that there are issues to be had with someone lying about their age to gain entry to a Christian forum, but having had problems with this myself I just politely asked those that lied to leave and then culled the remainders as they came up.

But having said my fill, it's time to leave it in the hands of the mods. Here's hoping that a resolution is swift, fair, and wise.

though I have no doubts that will be the case DRD

While we are making suggestions,

1. Is it economically feasible to use some sort of content filter to weed out objectionable content? I know that this takes time and $$.

2. I like the idea of background checks and requiring a decent postcount before posting pics. Maybe this could also be applied to sigs, avatars, and links.

3. Perhaps the admins could give certain trusted users rights to temporarily block users, block threads, and objectionable content until a mod arrives to delete/ban permanently. This would allow trolls to be dealt with when mods aren't here, but cover the scenario of someone accidentally deleting something and not being able to recover it.

Mods: if there is anything I can do to help, I would be more than happy to do so.

One thing:

1. A third tier of mods: Emergency mods... Color them Green, perhaps, and they could be here for one purpose: To take out serious trolls... Not to deal with arguments of normal members... Just to take out porn trolls and harassment trolls... Instead of banning, they could freeze members who they find to be trolls.

It's probably better to keep any "emergency mods" if any unknown to trolls. So having a greenname wouldn't be a good idea

I remember on Theology.web they require a certain post count before you can even have an avatar... I think it was 25... or soemthing...

I think there should be a minimum time between registration and acceptance. If a troll has to wait 24 hrs before posting, they won't have the massive attacks they did like we experienced today and a few weeks ago. If they do register many and have the patience to wait 24 hrs, it gives the mods a chance to discover the multiple registrations.

At any rate, these latest attacks seem to know exactly when to hit, and hit hard. I have no idea how to practically bring about 24 hr monitoring. You mods have lives too, and need to be able to trust whoever you bring on to join in, but if the attacks keep happening, we may see some people leaving either by choice or by parental decree.

AnimeHeretic wrote:I think there should be a minimum time between registration and acceptance. If a troll has to wait 24 hrs before posting, they won't have the massive attacks they did like we experienced today and a few weeks ago. If they do register many and have the patience to wait 24 hrs, it gives the mods a chance to discover the multiple registrations.

At any rate, these latest attacks seem to know exactly when to hit, and hit hard. I have no idea how to practically bring about 24 hr monitoring. You mods have lives too, and need to be able to trust whoever you bring on to join in, but if the attacks keep happening, we may see some people leaving either by choice or by parental decree.

I think that the "emergency mod" idea would make 24 hour monitoring possible. If they deputize enough people then it will be unlikely that at least one will not be on at any given time.

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:One thing:



It's probably better to keep any "emergency mods" if any unknown to trolls. So having a greenname wouldn't be a good idea

I didn't even think about that... undercover mods! That's a great idea... Well, I've got my suggestions, but I may keep them private... That's really good, though... Undercover mods...

Steeltemplar wrote:I think that the "emergency mod" idea would make 24 hour monitoring possible. If they deputize enough people then it will be unlikely that at least one will not be on at any given time.

I like this idea, as well as the undercover mods..NICE Fellas! ^_^

Um... but aren't most of the mods/admins invisible anyway? I mean, I can't tell when they're on unless one of them has recently posted. So, it doesn't matter if they're hidden or not... if someone isn't on, they're simply not on. Having more mods may not solve the problem in the least.

AnimeHeretic wrote:I think there should be a minimum time between registration and acceptance. If a troll has to wait 24 hrs before posting, they won't have the massive attacks they did like we experienced today and a few weeks ago. If they do register many and have the patience to wait 24 hrs, it gives the mods a chance to discover the multiple registrations.

At any rate, these latest attacks seem to know exactly when to hit, and hit hard. I have no idea how to practically bring about 24 hr monitoring. You mods have lives too, and need to be able to trust whoever you bring on to join in, but if the attacks keep happening, we may see some people leaving either by choice or by parental decree.

I quoted this just so it'd get attention again. I mentioned something very similar earlier, and I still think this is the best route to pursue.

I personally see the idea of an undercover mod as slightly flawed. It's a good idea, but it's really hard to implement. I mean, which would be more effective against looters... a few more police officers that'd still be outnumbered anyway (or that run the risk of not even being nearby during the attack), or a wall to just keep the looters out in the first place?

I also agree with the 24 hour thing. It would deter impatient trolls, and it would give mods warning if 10 people register within one day that there might be trouble the next day.

meboeck wrote:I also agree with the 24 hour thing. It would deter impatient trolls, and it would give mods warning if 10 people register within one day that there might be trouble the next day.

Or better yet, it gives me mod the ability delete the account and/or set up an ip ban before it passes the 24-hour period.

Yes, but they can't do something pre-emptive unless there is a repeated IP address. If there are separate IP addresses, there is no way to tell for a fact that the people are trolls.

meboeck wrote:Yes, but they can't do something pre-emptive unless there is a repeated IP address. If there are separate IP addresses, there is no way to tell for a fact that the people are trolls.

Which is where doing a check on the e-mail address, combined with the 24-hour waiting period, would serve as deterrents to prevent that from happening. Also if it came time for an IP ban usually wildcards suffice nicely (ie: banning 208.123.1.*).

Some good ideas have been presented here. A few comments...

- I definitely like the idea of 3rd-tier mods. My personal preference would be for them not to be undercover, simply because I'd want to know who could take action the most quickly. (But that's just my opinion. ) Which brings me to another suggestion...

- How about putting a "Report" button underneath posts, next to the Reply button. Over at CMCentral.com (where I mod) we have this kind of feature; it sends a message to all the mods regarding the post in question, so that the one who can get to it the most quickly can take the appropriate action.

- Thumbs-up to the idea of avatar restrictions. CMC has a restriction of 100 before a user can upload his or her own avatar. (At least I think that's the number; thankfully it's not come up for a while.) Until then, users can choose from a pre-loaded library of images.

- There definitely should be a restriction on image posting as well, since that seems to be where the trolls hit more than avatars. My suggestion would be either 100 posts or 3 months as a member (since some of the totally-legitimate lurkers take a little while to build their post counts).

Anyway, that's my $.02. I do want to say I think the staff is doing a good job with things, and I appreciate that they're willing to take our input into consideration.

freerock1 wrote:Some good ideas have been presented here. A few comments...

- I definitely like the idea of 3rd-tier mods. My personal preference would be for them not to be undercover, simply because I'd want to know who could take action the most quickly. (But that's just my opinion. ]CMCentral.com[/URL] (where I mod) we have this kind of feature; it sends a message to all the mods regarding the post in question, so that the one who can get to it the most quickly can take the appropriate action.

- Thumbs-up to the idea of avatar restrictions. CMC has a restriction of 100 before a user can upload his or her own avatar. (At least I think that's the number; thankfully it's not come up for a while.) Until then, users can choose from a pre-loaded library of images.

- There definitely should be a restriction on image posting as well, since that seems to be where the trolls hit more than avatars. My suggestion would be either 100 posts or 3 months as a member (since some of the totally-legitimate lurkers take a little while to build their post counts).

Anyway, that's my $.02. I do want to say I think the staff is doing a good job with things, and I appreciate that they're willing to take our input into consideration.

there is a report button...it the [!!] looking thing beside the edit buttons.

and I kinda agree with you there on the non undercover mods...now that I think about it, I would like to know who they are as well.. LOL.

ChristianRonin wrote:there is a report button...it the [!!] looking thing beside the edit buttons.

And here I go talking about how great it is at this other forum... how embarrassing. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out to me.

(LOL no problem! I didn't notice that till a few months ago..(it is small..^_^)