|
Submitted by Alaa on Thu, 03/03/2005 - 20:02.
Don't publish anonmymous comments until a moderator approves it 48% (14 votes) use spam filtering or captcha to prevent spam and publish the rest 24% (7 votes) just publish all comments and moderators remove spam and AUP violations later 28% (8 votes) Total votes: 29 |
User loginNavigationActive forum topicsUpcoming eventsPollHow to refresh EGLUG? more events 24% more active members 10% find more places for events 7% more members meetings 6% All above 49% none of that 4% Total votes: 161
NewsForgeLinux Counter Egypt StatisticsWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 5 guests online.
|
Wall Papers
News Feed
Blogs
Event Photos
Screen Shots
Polls
Popular Content
Get GNU / Linux
Members
Search
explanation
this issue was raised by a couple of anonymous comments, and was discussed on the about anonymous comments topic in the forums.
anonymous comments are comments posted by visitors who did not login (or don't have eglug accounts at all).
anyone can have an EGLUG account, you are not required to reveal any information to get one (only requirement is a valid email address or a previous account on any drupal website), nothing is stopping people from having multiple accounts (but it is not encouraged).
the reason why anonymous comments had to go through moderation was to enforce the AUP more strongly.
since then comment spam became a real problem on the web, most comment spam is done by automated scripts that do not login.
requiring moderation approval effectivly stops comment spam, but there are other methods.
cheers,
Alaa
http://www.manalaa.net "i`m feeling for the 2nd time like alice in wonderland reading el wafd"
The "and AUP violations" phra
The "and AUP violations" phrase in the third option is kind of confusing, removing AUP violations should be common in the three options.
Does requiring a moderator's approval (first option) mean that moderators would only remove spam and won't remove AUP violations?
Does passing anonymous posts through spam filtering or captcha (second option) means that non-spam AUP violations that passes the filters won't be removed later?
Under any of the situations,
Under any of the situations, Any AUP violation will be removed.
AFAIK the drupal captcha module is using some functions which require the recompile of php. Maybe they fixed it but I'm not sure
This simply mean that the captcha is kicked out.
-- I was known as Uniball!
WWW: http://www.foolab.org/
Quote "c u next life time then when i come back as a mug of tea :P"
Decision poll timeframe
We have another potential situation here.
The poll is pretty close, so the closing is very sensitive. How long does the poll last?
-- Panem et *burp* circenses
two weeks automatic
as we agreed we'll rely on drupal cron module and people should not complain about couple of hours plus or minus (you don't like it show me code or propose a better procedure).
drupal poll module has time rpesets by weeks, so I chose 2 weeks.
it can't be close though, according to our charter we need a 2 thirds majority to reach a decision.
otherwise we'll ammend the poll and vote again (two more weeks).
cheers,
Alaa
http://www.manalaa.net "i`m feeling for the 2nd time like alice in wonderland reading el wafd"
I'd go for spam filtering
I'd go for spam filtering
captcha might discourage people from commenting afaik it generates an image, you have to type what is in the image
I used to be indecisive .. but now I'm not so sure
I abstain
Just because I remain associated, does not mean I approve, an abstain vote should always be present, to seperate the apathetic from ... people like myself, and to allow polls revocation.
I don't think so
all decision polls are preceded with a discussion, IMO disaproval of the vote itself can be voiced in the discussion, and anyways, feel free to comment with I abstain (giving reasons or not) on the poll itself, thats as good a mechanism as any IMO.
cheers,
Alaa
http://www.manalaa.net "i`m feeling for the 2nd time like alice in wonderland reading el wafd"
ouch, we need to repeat vote
the community failed to reach consensus on this issue, according to our charter we need a two thirds majority (ie 66%) to settle on a decision.
what we should do now is repeat this vote after removing the least popular option.
this is a bit of a problem since the difference is only one vote.
cheers,
Alaa
http://www.manalaa.net "i`m feeling for the 2nd time like alice in wonderland reading el wafd"
Yes, It should be repeated.
Yes, It should be repeated.
However, I suggest that the next voting period be only 1 week just to finish this issue.
-- I was known as Uniball!
WWW: http://www.foolab.org/
Quote "c u next life time then when i come back as a mug of tea :P"
I second this suggestion
this makes it 18 ballots, 9 more to go.
cheers,
Alaa
http://www.manalaa.net "i`m feeling for the 2nd time like alice in wonderland reading el wafd"
Seconded
I too second this suggestion.
http://www.manalaa.net
Did I win?
I kinda feel I did >:)
Just because two third of the -active- people in here agree on something, doesn't mean I should submit to their will, mahee mesh fatwana, or at least I don't want it to be so, this doesn't seem fair. And fairness is a true objective, voting is just a mechanism that lead to more fairness than other mechanisms, but it definitely doesn't seem to guaranty fairness.
I must investigate other options, and reflect that in the charter (currently I want to find arguments to eliminate the need for a charter)
So I can rephrase this and say, I must investigate other options, that should lead to the elimination of needing a charter.