PerlMonks has been running for quite a few years without needing such a system. I don't think the fact that we got recently visited by a new troll deserves to waste any developer time.

Perl 5 is pretty great too. Why waste time on 6? ;) Thank you for responding with an actual point instead of just downvoting, mirod.

"One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for the myriad instances and applications?"
- Henry David Thoreau, Walden

What does "approved pre-emptively" mean? Presently all nodes are unapproved until they are given approval by an appropriately privileged monk. Anonymous postings are no different in that regard.

I thought anonymous posts recieved more scrutiny than they do, and that regular posts recieved less than they do. As it stand, I suppose the current Approval system more or less serves in this manner... I just had something more distributed in mind.

Relevant nodes for further reading

• What is moderation?
• What is consideration?
• User Settings - Ignore unmoderated content option (for monks under Friar)

Just to say, that I dont think that will happen here. Its against our culture and tradition. I know i would vote against in the gods straw poll. We have effective mechanisms for dealing with this type of thing, we dont need any new ones in my opinion. And frankly let the fools open their mouths to prove what they are. Ridicule is more effective than censorship IMO.

We have effective mechanisms for dealing with this type of thing...

Ridicule is more effective than censorship

I guess that depends on how you define effectiveness. And I'd wager that many monks don't particularly agree with you on the definition.

A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

I still think it will not solve this problem as a deliberate troll will simply create another log-in once his XP becomes too negative.

By implementing such a mechanism, we would be removing a learning opportunity for the community of non-trolls who've not yet had the experience of dealing effectively with trolls. Compared with other on-line communities, Perlmonks is actually rather good about dealing with trolls, and we're also good about coaching people on how to deal with trolls. Sadly, we also occassionaly model ineffective troll-countering behavior, but that too can be educational.

Anyone can but the bar would be raised for the casual troll. I am not so sure about the method of requiring pre-approval but once someone gets $n level of down votes we have a fair indication they are up to no good.

Perhaps life can be made harder for trolls and spammers with little chance of hurting true seakers of knowledge. The community certainly seams to get their number pretty quickly and flag them with heavy downvoting. At least a goal worthy of discussion

Cheers,
R.

Pereant, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt!

Perhaps life can be made harder for trolls and spammers with little chance of hurting true seekers of knowledge.

This place is more wiki style than slashdot style. Such is the culture and gosh darn it, I like it.

As for $n level of down votes, some people, in earnest, don't get it from time to time or for a large spanning period. Good contributions are good contributions.

This is the basis of most "security" measures- not ensuring absolute security, but decreasing the likelihood of an undesirable event occuring by, as Random_Walk pointed out, "raising the bar" in such a manner as to create the least possible interference with the affairs of regular users.

"One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for the myriad instances and applications?"
- Henry David Thoreau, Walden

My thoughts, for whatever they are worth. And I must say, I, at least, learned a lot from some of the more serious responses to our latest Troll. Kudos to the patient monks who tried to enlighten him. It was not wasted effort.

Pax,
NovMonk

I think that's the best point I've heard yet, or rather, the clearest summary of it: not providing any incentive to create further bogus accounts. Thanks! ☺

Now, if "dormant for x days" accounts with "negative XP below n" were simply dableeted as zombies... oh nevermind.

not providing any incentive to create further bogus accounts.

I disagree. I've never heard of this phenomenon happening beyond a few very unusual cases. Trolls, in general, aren't after XP. In fact, many are happy to see their XP sink to plutonic lows. Some appear to have taken pride in the rate of their XP decline.

Thus, if anything, forcing them to abandon their accounts after reaching some negative XP threshold might be more of a disincentive.

A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

In other words, good lawmaking should be based on the longer run rather than being tempted by a single instance.

I agree with the anti-reactionist sentiment you and others have expressed. I would like to know how you believe an existing institution can evolve if not in response to recognizing an opportunity for growth, or need to address a shortcoming?

As shown by the different opinions expressed here, no one on the pmdev team is rushing off to make any hasty changes. Discussion helps because the issue is considered and potential responses (and reasons for inaction) vetted.

I would say that development and evolution are almost opposites. Designing, building, testing and correcting and only releasing when you are sure is the way of the developer whereas accident is the mechanism of evolution. I always cringe when people say they want an organisation to evolve rather than develop :)

-M

Free your mind

The system in place works just fine. In order to have a good site you have to have to put up with questionable material.

There are cases of fanatism here. Somebody could make a valid point and be sent to the negatives.

A noob could make a mistake and be turned off by having to be approved.

There are times I think anon monk is abused to take potshots but hey. Whatever floats your boat.