Corax and Tisias

[Alan]

Based on recent abuses of the site's anonymous accounts, and requests from the community, we, the moderators and admins, have decided to reconsider them.

However, rather than making a top-down decision, we'd like your input. So please take a moment to vote in the poll and leave us your thoughts.

We'll make a decision with the aid of your input.

[dseltzer]

Keep them, but preview by mods before posting (yeah, I know, we need to host a bake sale to pay for this :) )

[SumShine777]

Keep them, because although I've never used one, I know those that do use them value the anonymity of the accounts. Just because several can't use the accounts responsibly, it hurts those who can moreso.

Not sure what should be done about the abuse of the accounts though, assuming it will assuredly continue...

[Alan]

Well, we wouldn't be terminating all anonymous accounts. Anyone who wants one can register an anonymous account. We'd just be closing down the "official" ones.

[Samopolis]

I think you can get rid of them. People who really want to say something anon will just register another account. Having them so easily available encourages flippant or imflammatory remarks.

[skibum]

Here's my thinking - I really, really like Debbie's suggestion. Unfortunately, the current version of VB software that we are using isn't quite capable of doing that (I've been experimenting with various ways of trying to force it to work, but I just can't quite figure out a way).

My vote is to kill them right now, with a resurrection once the site has a new owner that can (hopefully) plunk down the cash to upgrade the software so that we can have moderated accounts (i.e., a mod has to ok any corax or tisias posts before they become publicly available. The situation right now is that the mods were overwhelmed with corax posts, and couldn't edit a whole lot of posts that violate the boards policies concerning anonymous accounts before a lot of hurt occurred.

So yeah, kill them now, and let a new owner decide whether or not to resurrect them with a software upgrade (they do serve a good purpose, but unfortunately it's a good purpose that can be too easily abused).

J

[Db8dorkzAnon]

So what happens when I use my registered anon account to flame someone? SQ = Using my registered account keeps my post from being deleted, using Corax or Tisias to do the same thing allows those posts to be deleted/edited without discussion among the moderators. Post-banning of Corax...all of the anonymous flaming becomes (procedurally) more difficult to get rid of. Will the 4 minutes it took to 'register' this account work as enough of a deterant to keep the flamers (take that as you will) under control?

[neanoob]

let me ask - cause ive been a mod on more than one forum in my life...

can you read our IP addresses? (surely, you can - it says "IP: LOGGED" in the corner of every post). and, if you can, you should be able to identify people through the IP address used at the time of an "abusive" post. then just do this:

if anyone "abuses" the c&t, ban their IP address. of course, you will have to make sure everyone is aware of the new rule. that will effectively weed out those that are afraid to post under their name.

personally, i am either too stupid to realize when i should use them or too brave to resort to it, but i can understand why some people want the option.

[Rebeccah Sharp]

We can read IP addresses (for now), however, if someone chooses to post from a computer lab at their school, say, they can either circumvent the ban or, if we ban too broadly, we risk banning anyone from posting at their school.

Additionally, the IP logging breaks constantly, and when it does, everyone's IP reads as the same. During those times, this would be completely impossible.

[dseltzer]

Yet another question for you guys -

When someone sets up an account (even if it's anonymous) can you see their IP address? If so, the combination of the few minutes it takes to set up a named account, plus the knowledge that, while the account is anonymous, the user can be tracked down and banned in case of repeated abuse, might be enough of a deterrent.

[stickpiano]

I think we have to keep them, OR if you get rid of them, you might also have to ban Anonymous USER accounts as well the way Debate Cooperative has.

The site's policy is that anonymous attacks can and will be moderated. If we get rid of Corax and Tisias, then moderaters will have to hit the profile button of EVERY flame when the user name isn't explicitly known to them, just to find out if it is anonymous. That is a ridiculous burden to put on the moderators. This Corax/Tisias usage will die down, the mods are just going through a rough patch right now.

I also think the anon posting is already starting to slow.

[Corax]

some teams prefer that students dont all have accounts. so by having corax, we are able to contribute to the conversatio. i dunno, i say keep em.

[skibum]

Originally posted by Corax
some teams prefer that students dont all have accounts. so by having corax, we are able to contribute to the conversatio. i dunno, i say keep em.
Solution: sign up for an account, and don't put your real name on it. How am I to know that "I<3Tulips" is actually "Paul Smith at Nantucket University?"

Seriously, people think that "my coach doesn't want me to sign up" means "I have to use Corax/Tisias." Sign up, don't put your real name on the account (if you're really paranoid, sign up for a quickie hotmail, yahoo or gmail account for email). It's really not that hard.

And to answer the above question about if it would really curb the abuse by requiring signing up - I think, yes it would curb a good bit of it. When it's easy to fly off the handle at someone, or easy to say something really dumb, people are much more likely to go off half-cocked or be really dumb. Even that extra 4 or 5 minutes of signing up an "anonymous" account is often enough to cause people to re-think.

Last, on the IP bans. There are a few problems with that solution. First is that more than a few users access NB from a squad room, library or lab computer - we don't want to ban any user of that computer for life. Secondly, most of the time, all the person has to do is disconnect from their network and reconnect, and viola - they get a new IP. Granted, not every one knows how to do this when they have DSL or cable connections, but when a very large portion of the audience is plugging in or wirelessly connecting on campus, it's really easy to unplug and replug in the internet cable, or turn off and on your wireless card. (That, and the whole, a lot of people are dumb for a little bit, but regain their senses later - an IP ban can't account for that.)

J

[neanoob]

yup - you're right. this too shall pass.

[SoCalian]

I voted for getting rid of them. In the time I've been here, I seen one or two good Corax or Tisias posts. IMHO, they seem to cause far more harm than good, with most of the anon posts being some sort of trolling, flaming, or stupid flippant remark that adds nothing to the conversation at hand. As others have said, if someone has an idea, not attack(ie, some way they think can improve or advance the activity), that they want to present free from reprisal, then they can just register their own anon account. But that's just my opinion.

[boredguy8]

In the squo, you can make all the flame-headed fucktard comments you want to under any user name.

Because all of us can easily click "ignore this user", and we never see your BS again.

Corax and Tisias were to be for anon posting that was important but anonymous. Not "i don't feel like registering" or some crap like that.

But seriously, it's gotten outta hand, and I *like* things outta hand.

[Alan]

Not sure if Jed is reading this, but if so, he should make it a condition of the transfer that the new owners upgrade so that, at the very least, Corax and Tisias can be moderated before posting.

[Rebeccah Sharp]

Due to posts of a sexually harassing nature, access to corax and tisias has been suspended for the time being.

[DrSturgeon]

I had an idea, but it would require some coding...

1. Corax and Tisias go away as actual user accounts.

2. When you post as a registered user, there is a checkbox that says "Post anonymously."

3. It should be feasible to limit the ability to post anonymously to users with a high enough post count. Nothing huge, but something like you need 20 posts to be able to post anonymously.

4. In MySQL, instead of storing the username with each post, when a user posts anonymously, store the md5 checksum of their username with the post. This means the system still knows who posted the anonymous message, but no one looking at the database can tell. (In theory it would be possible to write a script to figure it out, but only the person running the server could do it and it would take effort)

5. With each anonymous post, moderators could then have the option to warn the REAL user, ban their REAL account from the site, or disable their ability o post anonymously, without ever knowing who it is.

6. This is done by another table in MySQL that contains the md5 checksum of each banned user's username. When a user tries to post, first it checks the banned_users table against the md5 of their username to make sure they're not banned. Again, since the banned table is hashes and not real usernames, no one looking at it can tell who's actually banned, but the system can.


I don't really know how vBulletin is put together, but none of this should be that complicated to implement. If I had any free time I'd offer to do it (summer maybe).

--Dan

[DB8 MissingLink]

Without Corax and Tisias, any admin/moderator can itentify the IP address of a poster - meaning that there is no such thing as anonymity unless you know how to mask your IP. That was the reason that Corax and Tisias were created. And trust me, there have been people with admin power on this site that wouldn't think twice about finding out who you are...

[boredguy8]

Of course, with Tisias and Corax, you can STILL find out people's IP address. Not looking at IP addresses is part of the goodwill of the admins.

As for the people voting to keep corax and tisias: have you just not happened to see the posts before they've been moderated?

[Lacker]

On at least 2 occasions (for the most part last year) I was the target of sniping through annon acounts...including comments that were more than inflamatory.

I voted to keep them because I think there are good things that anon accounts can offer that have already been discussed hundreds of times and, to be honest, sticks and stones people.

I'm with Dan, I think there could be some sort of lock out mechanism...but I know nothing about the infernet let alone coding these things.

If the moderators can find the IP addy of snipers...why not just keep a list somewhere of the IPs that had to be modified for sniping. After 3-4 mods you can block that person from either Corax and Tisias or heck, the NB boards for awhile?

Sure there's hole's in it but heck there's holes in everything.

A

[WWU_Zack]

ax em

[ultravires]

i vote for keeping them but i think making all ip addresses publicly visible is probably a good check (though i'm sure this will not be a popular suggestion). i also like dan m's suggestion.

[Dbuescher]

I think the issue of corax/tsias is clearly related to several other issues. Here's my take for what its worth:

1. as a DoF I feel it necessary to read net-benefits to find out recent trends of the community and most importantly as a site for information on tournaments. The site has a wealth of logistical information that I love.

2. Obviously there is not a clear bright line between information I deem to be pointless (for lack of a better term) and the community may deem to be beneficial. I find much of what takes place on the site to be social banter that is probably good for individual relations (or bad) but not good for finding information. In addition, honestly, I find a lot of the posting vulgar and unpleasant.

3. I still think net-benefits will remain the primary location for logistical information despite the efforts of Stannard and Steck to switch to debatecooperative although recent events may alter that track.

So, here's my suggestion:

1. keep Tsias and Corax for anon postings that require anonymity for fear of repraisal from others in positions of authority--clear power relations traps suggest the need for the log-ins. Anything that does not meet that criterion is deleted.

2. Forbid users to develop anon accounts. We ought to be able to click on anyone's profile and find out who they are. This will force some accountability and control over the Tsias and Corax posts.

edited: left out a "not"

[syphos]

See, I think Amy points to a vital use of anonymous accounts that might be a key feature of net-benefits. If I am an untenured faculty member who has some connection with the debate world, I am not convinced that I want to get killed by association as my name is attached to a forum that has undergraduates posting various things that are vulgar, illegal, or generally unprofessional.

So, I can see some anonymous accounts being worthwhile for protection of a user who actively contributes to the community (this can occur with discussion on theory, current events, or commentating on trends in the community). This is an argument I would have not been sensitive to before I was aware of the fragile existence non-tenured faculty can be in.


The alternative is to allow development of anonymous accounts so other users can keep track of what online personality is making what arguments while allowing for a lower standard of scrutiny for moderation of such accounts (as opposed to outright barring of such action).

[skibum]

My formal suggestion (assuming some software upgrades) would be something like this:

Tisias & Corax are moderated anonymous accounts. They are free post, but their postings wouldn't be public until a moderator said yes.

Other anonymous accounts would be moderated for, say, the first 25 posts, and then (assuming they don't start being stupid) those accounts would become "unmoderated." (Of course, if they started doing stupid things later, they could always moved back in to the "moderated" group.)

Registered, non-anonymous accounts would be allowed free reign.

The behind the scenes stuff (especially with the software) to enable this proposal should hopefully come about sometime in the near future...

J

[Alan]

Someone raised a good question with me and I wasn't sure of the answer. Would a post that was in the moderation queue be posted where it was originally intended, or would it just drop on the bottom of the thread?

[Krusher]

Maybe I'm an insensitive asshole (given), but I think that if anonymous heckling on an online forum really bothers you--you might need to toughen up a little bit. It's a rough world out there.

edited for veracity

[syphos]

I care more about creating a welcoming environment that new users want to post in as opposed to presenting a "tough" image where trolls are allowed to reign free. This is not friendly ribbing, but usually anonymous vicious attacks.

[AhhAlegra]

You also have an issue of people repeating rumors about other people, or making insults by name, with an anonymous, untrackable. Then those things show up on internet searches. Not good.

[dseltzer]

Originally posted by syphonhail
I care more about creating a welcoming environment that new users want to post in as opposed to presenting a "tough" image where trolls are allowed to reign free. This is not friendly ribbing, but usually anonymous vicious attacks.

I agree. There are a number of really intense arguments being waged right now over some debating and judging issues, and they include a certain amount of name-calling, but that generally appears to me to be within the realm that is acceptable to people who debate. I wasn't terribly excited about the explicit accusations of bad faith, cheating, etc., in the wake of NPDA, but those were made openly and with detail, so that it was possible for those who had information to challenge them.

The anonymous character assassination, however, is a whole different thing.

[skibum]

Originally posted by Alan
Someone raised a good question with me and I wasn't sure of the answer. Would a post that was in the moderation queue be posted where it was originally intended, or would it just drop on the bottom of the thread?
Ya know, this is a very good question, and I don't know the answer to it. I suspect that we won't know "for sure" until the software changes are implemented. I also think the question was phrased a little confusingly:

"would it be posted where originally intended?" can be interpreted as "in the same thread/forum" - or, as it seems clarified by the added question "in the same order," assuming that of course it stays in the same thread/forum. The answer to the first question "same thread/forum" is, of course, yes (unless it's a new thread that's been placed in the wrong forum). The answer to the second question, concerning the order receives my first answer of "we won't know for sure until implementation." My *guess* is that it will appear in the order on the thread as intended (because of the post id#, which remains consistent from the time post is made, sent into the moderation queue and then made public).

Long answer to short question, and it's not really an answer - um, sorry...

J

[boredguy8]

We're waiting on some site transfer things to go through then we can begin to implement the change which will make pre-approval for corax possible.

[army CPT]

hmmm Maybe I should make it so you don't know how I am. Some people make NB out to be this horrible place where nothing good ever happens. Damn maybe mt IP will be looked at and the terrorists will hunt me down..No Jason and Jed would never do that......LOOK people it is easy to create an anon account but the official ones kinda say hey I am posting with these because I fear that you may otherwise figure out who I am (not that your content might give you away). So I say keep em. Its less Anon Accounts floating around and a reconizable anon account for all to use.

[yourmessiah]

I don't think we should let a bunch of idiots bother us

anonymous accounts exist so that people can bring up controversial issues but letting morons ruin it for people who want or need those accounts is just plain stupid

Also I'm hesitant to support mod approval because there is also potential of abuse of those postings as well

[AhhAlegra]

I trust named, elected mods a lot more than anonymous Corax and Tisias users when it comes to a "potential abuse" runoff.

[army CPT]

either way there will always be anon accounts

[skibum]

Originally posted by yourmessiah
Also I'm hesitant to support mod approval because there is also potential of abuse of those postings as well
Andrea's rejoinder here is spot on:
Originally posted by AhhAlegra
I trust named, elected mods a lot more than anonymous Corax and Tisias users when it comes to a "potential abuse" runoff.
That being said, I'd like to offer some insight into how the mods/admins make these decisions. I was one of the very first mods on this board a few years back. To help out with porn bot spam I was made an admin a couple weeks ago, and things haven't changed much in the intervening years regarding how the mods/admins treat these things.

Here's what happens, a mod or admin moves a potentially offending post into a forum that only mods/admins have access to, then, over the course of the next 12 to 24 hours, pretty much every single mod/admin looks at the post and 99% of the time agrees with the decision to remove the post from the public area, and we're done. But, here's the thing, if *any* mod (or admin) really believes that the post should be public - we discuss it, and 99% of the time, as a result of that single voice saying "it should be public," that post is made public again.

I have no doubt that "pre-moderation before post goes public" will work in the same way: any single mod/admin advocating for the post to be made public will win that advocacy. A single mod/admin advocating won't win every single time ad nauseum, but the VAST majority of the time they do/will.

Basically, the point is that if there is any real doubt as to whether a post should be made public - "making it public" is the default option, and there has to be damn near unanimous consent amongst the mods/admins to override that "default."

edited to fix a formating issue

[Rybold]

You have probably seen this solutions?

The New York Times

April 9, 2007 Monday
Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Column 2; National Desk; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 1402 words

HEADLINE: A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs

BYLINE: By BRAD STONE

BODY:


Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?

The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.

Last week, Tim O'Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.

Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.

A recent outbreak of antagonism among several prominent bloggers ''gives us an opportunity to change the level of expectations that people have about what's acceptable online,'' said Mr. O'Reilly, who posted the preliminary recommendations last week on his company blog (radar.oreilly.com ). Mr. Wales then put the proposed guidelines on his company's site (blogging.wikia.com), and is now soliciting comments in the hope of creating consensus around what constitutes civil behavior online.

Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.

Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.

''If it's a carefully constructed set of principles, it could carry a lot of weight even if not everyone agrees,'' Mr. Wales said.

The code of conduct already has some early supporters, including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger (hyperorg.com/blogger) and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. ''The aim of the code is not to homogenize the Web, but to make clearer the informal rules that are already in place anyway,'' he said.

But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge. Some online writers wonder how anyone could persuade even a fraction of the millions of bloggers to embrace one set of standards. Others say that the code smacks of restrictions on free speech.

Mr. Wales and Mr. O'Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O'Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone's personal Web site.

Distraught over the threats and manipulated photos of her that were posted on other critical sites -- including one that depicted her head next to a noose -- Ms. Sierra canceled a speaking appearance at a trade show and asked the local police for help in finding the source of the threats. She also said that she was considering giving up blogging altogether.

In an interview, she dismissed the argument that cyberbullying is so common that she should overlook it. ''I can't believe how many people are saying to me, 'Get a life, this is the Internet,' '' she said. ''If that's the case, how will we ever recognize a real threat?''

Ms. Sierra said she supported the new efforts to improve civility on the Web. The police investigation into her case is pending.

Menacing behavior is certainly not unique to the Internet. But since the Web offers the option of anonymity with no accountability, online conversations are often more prone to decay into ugliness than those in other media.

Nowadays, those conversations often take place on blogs. At last count, there were 70 million of them, with more than 1.4 million entries being added daily, according to Technorati, a blog-indexing company. For the last decade, these Web journals have offered writers a way to amplify their voices and engage with friends and readers.

But the same factors that make those unfiltered conversations so compelling, and impossible to replicate in the offline world, also allow them to spin out of control.

As many female bloggers can attest, women are often targets. Heather Armstrong, a blogger in Salt Lake City who writes publicly about her family (dooce.com), stopped accepting unmoderated comments on her blog two years ago after she found that conversations among visitors consistently devolved into vitriol.

Since last October, she has also had to deal with an anonymous blogger who maintains a separate site that parodies her writing and has included photos of Ms. Armstrong's daughter, copied from her site.

Ms. Armstrong tries not to give the site public attention, but concedes that, ''At first, it was really difficult to deal with.''

Women are not the only targets of nastiness. For the last four years, Richard Silverstein has advocated for Israeli-Palestinian peace on a blog (richardsilverstein.com) that he maintains from Seattle.

People who disagree with his politics frequently leave harassing comments on his site. But the situation reached a new low last month, when an anonymous opponent started a blog in Mr. Silverstein's name that included photos of Mr. Silverstein in a pornographic context.

''I've been assaulted and harassed online for four years,'' he said. ''Most of it I can take in stride. But you just never get used to that level of hatred.''

One public bid to improve the quality of dialogue on the Web came more than a year ago when Mena Trott, a co-founder of the blogging software company Six Apart, proposed elevating civility on the Internet in a speech she gave at a French blog conference. At the event, organizers had placed a large screen on the stage showing instant electronic responses to the speeches from audience members and those who were listening in online.

As Ms. Trott spoke about improving online conduct, a heckler filled the screen with personal insults. Ms Trott recalled ''losing it'' during the speech.

Ms. Trott has scaled back her public writing and now writes a blog for a limited audience of friends and family. ''You can't force people to be civil, but you can force yourself into a situation where anonymous trolls are not in your life as much,'' she said.

The preliminary recommendations posted by Mr. Wales and Mr. O'Reilly are based in part on a code developed by BlogHer, a network for women designed to give them blogging tools and to guide readers to their pages.

''Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,'' said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.

A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.

That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitor's comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.

Robert Scoble, a popular technology blogger who stopped blogging for a week in solidarity with Kathy Sierra after her ordeal became public, says the proposed rules ''make me feel uncomfortable.'' He adds, ''As a writer, it makes me feel like I live in Iran.''

Mr. O'Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. ''That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make -- believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,'' he said. ''Free speech is enhanced by civility.''

URL: http://www.nytimes.com

[Vassar]

I liked Dan (DrSturgeon)'s suggestion as well, which strikes me as pragmatic and fairly easy to implement. I think that the real problem of Corax/Tisias is that it allows for "crimes" of opportunity. People, on emotional whims, sign on quickly as Corax or Tisias and write really nasty and hurtful comments. Few people, however, are interested in going through the entire process of registering a brand new account (usually having to register a new e-mail address along the way so that the new account won't be matched to an old account) just to write something snippy.

Thus, Dan's solution seems to get the best of both worlds:

1. People can still continue to post anonymously for all the reasons why anonymous posting should be allowed, but

2. They won't be able to post something inflammatory without some real consequences occurring to their real accounts.

And, yes, people can still always register a new (anonymous) account for inflammatory posting and, thus, this idea isn't 100% solvent. Nonetheless, it certainly does solve for the "crimes" of opportunity mentioned above, which are likely responsible for a far greater quantity of inflammatory posts than those that are premeditated.

[Samopolis]

I think Matt is right. And it poses a larger question: why do Corax and Tisias even exist at all?

When he first created them, Jed wrote:
Here at Net Benefits, some students may want to make arguments free from the criticisms of their teachers and some teacher may want to make points free from the eyes of their students. It is with this in mind that two usernames, Tisias (password tisias) and Corax (password corax) have been created. Any time someone feels the need to share ideas which may get them in trouble, the invocation of Tisias and Corax offers the solution of anonymity. Use their names to share your ideas.
I honestly think that Jed created them on a whim when he was teaching a class on ancient rhetoric at CSUN. While interesting, it was also puzzling because anonymous accounts have always been allowed at NB. The only reason for Corax and Tisias is convenience. But over the last few years their ease of use has served sniping and slander more than any legitimate need for anonymity. As Dr. Sturgeon and Matt have pointed out, it is way too easy to hop on Corax or Tisias and say something flippant.

I think deleting them is the best idea.

[SoCalian]

I gotta say, I'm liking the relative civility we've had since they have been turned off. Let's just keep it that way.