Non-US residents could bolster safety?

[K. A. Pital]

I thoroughly read all the threads connected to the recent events, by that meaning the Warsie e-crime (I think we can safely label it such).

People were asking about the possible contributions of increased moderatorial staff in Testing.

I'm now thinking about the implications of the Warsie action. It could get any person in the US or Canada in trouble, fairly certain. Even as a mod, merely clicking on such links could be grounds for job problems up to firing and further down the bad deal line.

But what about me? What if I were to click? Non-US residents are arguably far safer than the rest; our internet is not that policed; and our work (at least mine) does not police websites we visit, if they are english (insufficient staff to police english links and even to understand what they mean at all, mostly, and no legal reasons to do so).

I was thinking if some Testing police duties could be relayed to reliable and trusted non-US residents from E.Europe, Latin America or Asia where such links would not cause any harm. With good access; this could help hinder a further case like that and/or eliminate it faster than any harm is caused.

Maybe though, considering the unique nature of the act, it's not worth the trouble.

[Broomstick]

So... you're suggesting that for links that pose a potential legal danger a mod would request that someone who is at less or no legal risk click on it to determine just what the hell it is?

Yes, I think that has some merit

On the other hand, The Warsie E-Crime is not only unprecedented and unique, I hope it stays that way. Still, your idea would be a good idea as a future option, should that need ever arise. Mods should be aware of it as an option/resource.

[Broomstick]

DEATH has brought up the following point:

Wouldn't such a situation even existing be cause for the link to be removed at all?

My understanding was that tinyurl's would be removed (If not necessarily wrapped links), and a mod worrying about whether to check a link might be enough of a "red line" for it to be removed and locked anyway. (Granted, this is quite a grey/fine line).

And he does have a point - should anyone really be posting such questionable links? No, they shouldn't. Of course, there are stupid posters, and they must be dealt with. There is also the problem of what-is-legal-here-is-not-legal-there which could potentially trip people up at times, particularly less experienced internet users. I'd think most questionable links would lead to removal or lock-down, but not necessarily all, and there still might be need to know where the link actually goes for legal or reporting-to-authorities needs.

DEATH has also volunteered to assist with any needed link research, as he is not in North America and he can do this searching from home (Needless to say, probably not a good idea to ever click on questionable links from work, no matter how lenient your employer).

[The Yosemite Bear]

yes, however with the speed of information travel, it was quite a bit too late for some.

[Broomstick]

More from the plebes (edited slightly for brevity):

Assigning people the task of researching links in Testing strikes me as an act of futility. Unless you have staff watching over Testing 24/7, you're at best limiting the magnitude of any future fallout, rather than taking preventative measures. It would probably be more effective to make actions such as tinyurls or mislabeling of NSFW content as SFW an immediately bannable offense, and if there is the possibility of criminal misconduct, forwarding the relevant information to the appropriate authorities.

I would support an insta-ban for mislabeling NSFW as SFW - we just don't need dishonesty of that sort around here, and given that that sort of "prank" can have real-world consequences (and not just for porn) such as people losing their jobs, no it should not be tolerated.

Tinyurls... I haven't thought about them before. I suppose a noobie could use such out of ignorance (and yes, they SHOULD read the rules first but we know many people don't) and, IF there is no dishonesty or risk, maybe allow a warning with first offense, but I, personally, will defer to the will of the majority on that one.

Implementation of harsher penalties would serve to improve quality-control of our membership more effectively than the current policy. If such users were forced to go through an appeals process (which we already possess, if I'm not mistaken) to regain membership to the board, then they would be = far more likely to make a serious attemt to reform.

I think implementation of tighter controls might stifle some of this board - if we didn't like some of the free-for-all aspects many of us wouldn't be here, or at least not as often. I don't see a need to change our systems, as they do work. Warsie was a much greater aberration than most.

And now for a suggestion:

Would it be possible to institute some kind of BBCode modification, wherein tinyurls, .cjbs, and other various URL redirects are subject to the ultimate destination URL shown in some kind of small popup box? That way, users can see where they're ending up as they click, as opposed to having to glance down to the lower-left corner of their browser, something that I'm sure a lot of people gloss over.

Well, techies, what do you think of that? Is it possible? Does it have merit?

[Ghost Rider]

The biggest problems are two fold.

1. Increased involvement upon personal responsiblity. Warsie's entire bit is about people clicking an unknown link in an enviroment that is a privilige of said place. Really, upping moderators or assigning others to a task one should do oneself is a bit asinine.

2. More modifications means more work for Mike because people will stick their fingers in places they shouldn't. We aren't children, and he shouldn't be doing extra just so we can feel safe because of lapses of judgement.