[Discussion] What do we do about testing?

[phongn]

What's wrong with a "vacation thread sticky" in testing then? We the moderators have one and it gets used quite often and to good effect.

Yeah, I remember that one (used to be a mod, remember?) but that's relatively low-traffic, IIRC. I think Testing as it stands is fine, spammy as it is.

[Broomstick]

Proposals to eliminate or drastically change Testing are like saying we can get rid of garbage by eliminating garbage bins. It won't work. You'll still have garbage, but instead of being confined in a known location it will be randomly distributed everywhere.

[RedImperator]

As I've said it once I'll say it again, the simple cure for testing is decreasing the auto-delete timer from one day to one hour. Problem solved.

If the problem you mean to solve is "There aren't enough spam threads cropping up in OT and the HOS", then yes, that would be an excellent solution.

Spamming in OT and HOS would result in bans, problem solved

Yeah, sure. Just like we're cracking down on me-tooing in N&P. I can see how this will go already: borderline spam that today goes in Testing will crop up in OT, and nobody will do anything about it because it's not worth the hassle to start a Senate thread every time someone posts a birthday announcement. Meanwhile, after a few high-profile mod stompings, goofy 4chan-style threads disappear, at the cost of a lot of resentment, but little 4chan snippets wind up in posts all over the board because there's nowhere else for it to go. All this to solve a complete non-problem.

Seriously, just how big is that bug up your ass, anyway? Name me one good, solid, logical reason to change policy in Testing. Because frankly, if you come up with any reason that doesn't boil down to "It bothers me personally", I'll eat my fucking socks.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'd like to submit that in light of the new information about the extent and magnitude of the harm Warsie caused people, the disposition of testing be reconsidered from the consensus that was initially established.

[fgalkin]

I'd like to submit that in light of the new information about the extent and magnitude of the harm Warsie caused people, the disposition of testing be reconsidered from the consensus that was initially established.

The only thing that disposing of testing would accomplish is the scale of such crimes- dozens to hundreds affected instead of just a few.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[phongn]

I concur with Fima; had it not been there, Warsie likely would've posted it in OT or AMP and nailed a lot more people before a moderator could intervene.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Frankly, considering the magnitude of what Warsie did (people could be sent to federal prison over this, if unlucky), I was thinking of a purge of testing tards, not eliminating testing.

[fgalkin]

Frankly, considering the magnitude of what Warsie did (people could be sent to federal prison over this, if unlucky), I was thinking of a purge of testing tards, not eliminating testing.

What will be the criteria on who goes and who stays?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Frankly, considering the magnitude of what Warsie did (people could be sent to federal prison over this, if unlucky), I was thinking of a purge of testing tards, not eliminating testing.

What will be the criteria on who goes and who stays?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Senate draws up a list of people they believe could conceivably commit such crimes in the future, and gives it to Mike, and he bans whomever on that list he pleases to.

[Surlethe]

With all due respect, to my knowledge no other incident in Testing has been anywhere near the magnitude of Warsie's offense. Therefore, purging people who use Testing is unwarranted; the singular nature of Warsie's crime is evidence that it is not endemic to Testing, but rather a product of a single scumbag who happened to put in in Testing.

[phongn]

Testing's very nature (auto-deletion) makes it impossible to find out who is an "offender" anyways.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

With all due respect, to my knowledge no other incident in Testing has been anywhere near the magnitude of Warsie's offense. Therefore, purging people who use Testing is unwarranted; the singular nature of Warsie's crime is evidence that it is not endemic to Testing, but rather a product of a single scumbag who happened to put in in Testing.

Surlethe, we are talking about someone facing child pornography indictment. I don't care if there are unwarranted bannings--frankly, being indiscriminate about a purge will just serve to terrorize the borderline cases, which can only be good. I mean, think about this for a moment ethically, please? Let's say we ban 100 people who don't deserve it--oh no, now they can't post at a message board.

Let's say we banned 101 in all, and that 101st person WOULD have posted such a link in the future, which would send one person into a federal prison for ten years. Can 100 people being unable to post on a single message board remotely compare in magnitude to one person ending up in federal prison for a decade because we didn't act? I would submit it cannot remotely be compared, and even if we think there's only a 1% chance of one out of 100 of those people doing something like that in the future, we should ban all of them.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Testing's very nature (auto-deletion) makes it impossible to find out who is an "offender" anyways.

I'm sure we can still put together enough information about their behaviour if we really wanted to.

[phongn]

I'm sure we can still put together enough information about their behaviour if we really wanted to.

With what? Most of the Testing guys hang out in the rest of the board - just like Warsie did. You'd have to start banning chunks of the entire board in the nebulous hope you'd hit someone who would do it.

Ban if we must, but you've not demonstrated this proposal would pre-preemptively ban anyone who might do this in the future (or discourage people).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A fair concern.

How old was Warsie, if anyone knows?

[Hotfoot]

Oh please. Duchess, you've posted to Testing, so have I, and so have several other people in good standing on the board, including other senators. You might as well just disable your account now for posting useless garbage to testing going by this line of reasoning.

As far as pre-emptive bannings, please, that's just ridiculous. What is this, Minority Report? No, people should be banned only once they have crossed a line, not before.

Want to stop something like this from happening again? Let people know not to use or click on TinyURL links or anything even remotely similar. Make the spellcheck filter destroy any TinyURL links so they cannot be clicked on, and let the moderators edit posts that use them. There is NO NEED for using TinyURL links on this forum anyway, since you can hide links in words for easier reading.

[Broomstick]

With all due respect, to my knowledge no other incident in Testing has been anywhere near the magnitude of Warsie's offense. Therefore, purging people who use Testing is unwarranted; the singular nature of Warsie's crime is evidence that it is not endemic to Testing, but rather a product of a single scumbag who happened to put in in Testing.

Surlethe, we are talking about someone facing child pornography indictment. I don't care if there are unwarranted bannings--frankly, being indiscriminate about a purge will just serve to terrorize the borderline cases, which can only be good. I mean, think about this for a moment ethically, please? Let's say we ban 100 people who don't deserve it--oh no, now they can't post at a message board.

Let's say we banned 101 in all, and that 101st person WOULD have posted such a link in the future, which would send one person into a federal prison for ten years. Can 100 people being unable to post on a single message board remotely compare in magnitude to one person ending up in federal prison for a decade because we didn't act? I would submit it cannot remotely be compared, and even if we think there's only a 1% chance of one out of 100 of those people doing something like that in the future, we should ban all of them.

What the fuck are you nattering on about?

Have you forgotten about presumption of innocence? Since when do we "terrorize" people? Mock and insult them, yes, but terrorize? Will you listen to yourself?

Just fucking chill and stop being such a drama queen - YES, this is serious but get a grip. You can't prevent crime by punishing everyone regardless of guilt. Stop over-reacting.

I say no change in Testing. Testing is NOT the problem, a person capable of committing e-crime in our midst was the problem. Unfortunately, there is no reliable way to predict in advance who will do something like that.

Again, I saw Mike should consult a lawyer. Anyone who thinks they may be adversely affected by this should, likewise, consult a lawyer for advice. I realize lawyers cost money, and some of us (including myself) have little money, but sometimes you have to do it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh please. Duchess, you've posted to Testing, so have I, and so have several other people in good standing on the board, including other senators. You might as well just disable your account now for posting useless garbage to testing going by this line of reasoning.

As far as pre-emptive bannings, please, that's just ridiculous. What is this, Minority Report? No, people should be banned only once they have crossed a line, not before.

Want to stop something like this from happening again? Let people know not to use or click on TinyURL links or anything even remotely similar. Make the spellcheck filter destroy any TinyURL links so they cannot be clicked on, and let the moderators edit posts that use them. There is NO NEED for using TinyURL links on this forum anyway, since you can hide links in words for easier reading.

Hotfoot, this isn't real life, where people should in fact have a presumption of innocence. This is a fucking message board.

And there's plenty of legitimate reasons to post to Testing--I said banning "Testing tards", i.e., people who participate in btard culture and bring it to Testing--not anyone who's ever posted there. Nobody is suggesting banning Mr. Coffee, Shep, Lonestar, etc.

The point about this being a message board is more valid. If any one of us got banned from here, we could move on with our lives, no sweat, no problems. If any one of got sentenced to ten years in a federal penitentiary? Considering my own background, on the way back home from the indictment I'd just jump into the middle of Puget Sound with weights tied to my legs.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Again, if you get banned from a message board, you're over it the next day (if you're mature). I HAVE been banned from a board I was a long-time, respected community member at, and by the next day I was fine. I spent that night in an infernal rage, but after I slept on it? I shrugged and moved on.

Do any of us need SD.net? Obviously not. This is not a democracy, this is not a place run by any sort of law other than Mike's whim. To keep people safe from this kind of shit which could lead to them spending years in prison, we should be prepared to do things that would, at worst, cause a few hours of depression in the victims. I mean, come on?

[Surlethe]

With all due respect, to my knowledge no other incident in Testing has been anywhere near the magnitude of Warsie's offense. Therefore, purging people who use Testing is unwarranted; the singular nature of Warsie's crime is evidence that it is not endemic to Testing, but rather a product of a single scumbag who happened to put in in Testing.

Surlethe, we are talking about someone facing child pornography indictment. I don't care if there are unwarranted bannings--frankly, being indiscriminate about a purge will just serve to terrorize the borderline cases, which can only be good. I mean, think about this for a moment ethically, please? Let's say we ban 100 people who don't deserve it--oh no, now they can't post at a message board.

Let's say we banned 101 in all, and that 101st person WOULD have posted such a link in the future, which would send one person into a federal prison for ten years. Can 100 people being unable to post on a single message board remotely compare in magnitude to one person ending up in federal prison for a decade because we didn't act? I would submit it cannot remotely be compared, and even if we think there's only a 1% chance of one out of 100 of those people doing something like that in the future, we should ban all of them.

But on the other hand, Warsie's act was, quite literally, unprecedented. We have no way of knowing that any other Testing members are even inclined to pull a stunt like this. If the chance of another person from Testing (or from another subforum here) were non-negligible, I'd agree with your reasoning; as it stands, by all indications this was a one-time event.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I agree, it would be damned tough to find out who would be suitable to terminate, but at the least this needed to be brought up, because, God, do you realize that someone's life could be totally destroyed to the point where they might as well be better off dead over this? If there's the slightest way that any preemptive bannings could help, they should immediately be done. But I recognize that it's probably impossible to find the sick fucks in our midst, and more's the pity.

[Broomstick]

This is not a democracy, this is not a place run by any sort of law other than Mike's whim.

Yes. MIKE's whim, not yours.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is not a democracy, this is not a place run by any sort of law other than Mike's whim.

Yes. MIKE's whim, not yours.

I just brought the issue up for discussion. This is getting ridiculous.

[Broomstick]

I agree, it would be damned tough to find out who would be suitable to terminate, but at the least this needed to be brought up, because, God, do you realize that someone's life could be totally destroyed to the point where they might as well be better off dead over this? If there's the slightest way that any preemptive bannings could help, they should immediately be done. But I recognize that it's probably impossible to find the sick fucks in our midst, and more's the pity.

The problem is there is no way to predict this sort of wrong-doing. Even people who have committed crimes in the past (and I remind you that at least one long-term, respected (usually) member of the board would fall into that category, having served jail time) can not be determined to be a significant risk - I know several people in real life, and a few more on the internet, who have committed serious felonies once but did not break the law again even after, in some case, decades had passed. Even most people called criminal and felon would be appalled at child pornography and repulsed by such a "prank".

This is an unusual and unprecedented situation on SDN. It is an exception. Rules should not be based on exceptions.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I agree, it would be damned tough to find out who would be suitable to terminate, but at the least this needed to be brought up, because, God, do you realize that someone's life could be totally destroyed to the point where they might as well be better off dead over this? If there's the slightest way that any preemptive bannings could help, they should immediately be done. But I recognize that it's probably impossible to find the sick fucks in our midst, and more's the pity.

The problem is there is no way to predict this sort of wrong-doing. Even people who have committed crimes in the past (and I remind you that at least one long-term, respected (usually) member of the board would fall into that category, having served jail time) can not be determined to be a significant risk - I know several people in real life, and a few more on the internet, who have committed serious felonies once but did not break the law again even after, in some case, decades had passed. Even most people called criminal and felon would be appalled at child pornography and repulsed by such a "prank".

This is an unusual and unprecedented situation on SDN. It is an exception. Rules should not be based on exceptions.

A sufficiently powerful argument, to which I'll concede that my original idea had marginal value--I see no purpose under that consideration with making it a serious proposal. I do not, however, regret bringing it up for discussion.