In Chatterbox abuse and possible remedies, vroom announced the /ignore and /unignore commands for the Chatterbox. I've used these sparing, but have noticed that these settings are not applied to private messages.

Given certain activities currently going on and some encountered a couple of months back, I propose:

  1. Adding /accept and /decline commands, which give monks tools that prevent certain users from using private msg's as harrassment tools.

    When a monk sent a message to someone who's /declined them, CB would respond with a comment along the lines of Footpad declined your message.

    Yes, you can always clear the message without reply, but I think these commands shift the burden from the person being harrassed to the troll.

  2. In New chatterbox features, The Fearless Leader promised to add a way to view a list of people you're ignoring. Has that been done? If so, it appears that an update needs to be made to the Chatterbox FAQ.

    If it's not been done, I'd like to repeat misty's suggestion.

  3. If, as I hope, my first suggestion is accepted and implemented, I'd also like a way to see who I've declined to accept messages from.

    My theory is based on the hope that some people will eventually choose to grow up. If #1 is implemented, I could then /decline someone while /unignoring them. If they actually are contributing to the Monastery, then I can choose to /accept messages from them again.

As always, I'm hesitant to ask TFL to take time away from his studies, but (as davorg and kudra can attest) this is a problem that sometimes occurs. The Borg spell is a good start and has limited certain rampages. However, I think these would useful additions to our arsenal of troll-prevention devices.

Also, I would be more than happy to update the Chatterbox FAQ, especially if it would help reduce the workload on others.

Thoughts? Feedback?

--f

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Regarding the Chatterbox
by Petruchio (Vicar) on Mar 22, 2001 at 23:45 UTC
    Footpad: "When a monk sent a message to someone who's /declined them, CB would respond with a comment along the lines of Footpad declined your message."

    This should be optional, in my opinion. Such a message communicates to a troll the state of your settings, and there is no sense giving them even small advantages.

    One of the good things about /ignore is that it keeps malicious users guessing; they must listen carefully for clues to see who's ignoring them and who's lurking. If there were a way to verify users' settings, a troll would know who not to bother with, and which people who didn't respond to him were actually listening. This would allow him to concentrate his efforts. He could also know when people changed their settings, and try to deduce why.

    Okay... so this is getting a little paranoid about chatterbox security. :-) Nevertheless, this sort of choice does have tangible consequences.

[reply]
      The problem with keeping trolls guessing by not sending them a clue (in the form of a dws has declined your message response), is that some people get decidedly more annoyed (and annoying) when they feel that other people aren't listening. That could result in behavior that negatively affects other monks.

      This is a tough one. If some troll were to starting pestering the CB with "why isn't Footpad responding to me? what have I done?" messages, it puts me in the position of either having to /ignore them, or get involved as a third party to try to quiet the mess down. Neither of these I want to do.

      What to do? Are you on the road towards banning users?

[reply]
[d/l]
Re: Regarding the Chatterbox
by toadi (Chaplain) on Mar 22, 2001 at 14:40 UTC
    Thats why I don't join CB that much. On one hand it's a good thing to talk to peers. But on the other hand some idiots like to harrass.
    It's like irc but think irc has better features to do the things you ask. So in my IMHO why not use these existing tool instead of reinventing the wheel???

    --
    My opinions may have changed,
    but not the fact that I am right

[reply]
      IRC's rather feature rich, doesn't have a web interface, and the protocal's much confusing (if parly undocumented).

      PM's Chatterbox is all XML, which kinds self-documents itself.

      --
      $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.keenspace.com";

[reply]
Re: Regarding the Chatterbox
by Sprad (Hermit) on Mar 22, 2001 at 23:15 UTC
    Regarding the CB, I'd really like to see a History command. All too often I find myself jumping in at the tail end of what looks like an interesting discussion. It'd be nice if I could hit a button and see the last 50 (or so) comments.

    At least I'd get to find out what's going on next time I load the page and see "...So the bartender says, 'That was no lady, that was an associative array!'"

[reply]
      crazyinsomniac has a page up that caches the last 35 comments in the CB. You can find the code, along with a link to a live version at cblast35.

      -Blake

[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion