I question saging (31)

1 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-07-01 17:33 ID:7W179RUJ [Del]

I used to think that X many sage posts actually deleted a thread, besides not bumping it. Then I found out that a sage merely doesn't bump a thread.

This works on these discussion boards as a method of saying something trivial without loudly moving a thread up to the top of the list. But on an active imageboard (eg 4chan) does it really make a difference?

Let's say a guy posts torturecat. Any sane person dislikes torturecat. I'm rather amused by sick stuff on imageboards, but torturecat doesn't ring my bells.

Okay, 4 out of 5, maybe more like 9 out of 10 people are going to be sickened, some of those people will sage the thread. Other people who dislike and reply to the thread will either forget to sage or not know how to sage or mess up their sage. But my point is that there will always be someone who likes the thread and bumps it, even if it's to many other users' dismay. Even the original poster can age the thread if he or she wants to. This never stops a user from saging. I'd almost think that some people believe it's more effective at slowing down threads than it really is.

So I'm been contemplating some sort of super-sage where X many super-sages either deletes the thread or prevents it from ever again being aged. I'm thinking, to prevent abuse, one per IP per hour, to prevent abuse. I'm leaning more torward preventing further bumps more so than I am deletion. Again, I don't really like censorship unless it needs to be done to stay within the law (eg deleting kiddy porn).

I'm wondering what everyone things of this idea.

2 Name: Anonymous : 2006-07-01 19:03 ID:Heaven [Del]

#use constant MAX_RES => 20; # Maximum topic bumps

3 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-07-01 20:15 ID:7W179RUJ [Del]

>>2
Won't really have the same effect.

4 Name: Anonymous : 2006-07-01 20:33 ID:mL/98o0X [Del]

Or you could simply have active moderators to delete/permasage the bad stuff. If you limit how many super sages people can make then they won't have enough in the case of someone making multiple offensive posts.

5 Name: !WAHa.06x36 : 2006-07-02 05:31 ID:tZS6oxhT [Del]

I'm fond of the idea of a completely user-run board, but I have yet to find a way to do this that is not easily abused (yours is - I can trivially easily write a script that uses a proxy list to kill any thread I want) or encourages conformity and groupthink (like Slashdot).

6 Name: Anonymous : 2006-07-02 12:32 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>5 anonymous, invisible ranking of threads?

say, 1,2,3,4,5 next to the thread title. anyone can click a number. then, when replies are made, the board takes that aggragate number (invisible to the users) and uses it to figure out how many posts to allow before supersaging?

7 Name: !WAHa.06x36 : 2006-07-02 15:27 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>6

Trivially abused, encourages groupthink.

8 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-07-02 16:12 ID:7W179RUJ [Del]

>>5
What if captcha is a prerequisite for super-saging, but not for other posts? Okay, insert argument about how captcha isn't 100% foolproof here, but we're talking about the common /b/tard knowing how to program.

9 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-07-02 23:08 ID:Heaven [Del]

Of course that still fails with someone who has too much time on his hands and a bunch of proxies.

I guess the question is not if anyone will ever go to that extreme but how often? Will it be a rampant problem or will most people not even care to even go to those lengths?

No system is perfect; there's a limit to how much I can prevent lameness in an anonymous environment.

I feel that the only way to properly judge the effectiveness of the concept is to actually try it out.

10 Name: Anonymous : 2006-07-16 10:48 ID:W2LUNg2C [Del]

I do fancy the 4chan report function, so, "hire" some janitors that clean the board.

11 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-07-16 17:56 ID:66TMOGhZ [Del]

Yeah but in my case it's not really so much trying to moderate illegal content as it is having the users moderate highly unpopular content. People post unpopular content to encourage a reaction, even if it's negative. "Sage", IMO, suggests to the original poster, "you got me", while super-sage might suggest, "nobody likes your posts, go away."

Again, this is all speculative sociology. I still intend to try out the concept.

Plus I think 4chan's report function is just plain retarded. It basically asks for a child porn flood, which is precisely what happened. Like my system, all you need is a bunch of proxies (takes like 10 minutes to get a decent list of 100+ proxies) and the Firefox plugin that actively switches them, and post away.

12 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-07-16 21:20 ID:Heaven [Del]

Preventing abuse is nigh impossible. It might be more productive to think of it as making abuse difficult. That's all a captcha really is, for example.

I'm partial to the idea of supersage votes per IP per hour combined with a capcha. How about the following:

Each IP gets one vote per hour, whether that be supersage or superage. Combine this with a captcha. When deciding whether to sink a thread, compare the superage/supersage ratio once you have enough votes, and make this ratio publically visible. Maybe highlight a thread that's close to the sinking threshold, so people who disagree have the opportunity vote contrary.

Any single person attempting to abuse such a system probably will only be able to hurt a thread or two, even with proxies. Yet it still provides a means of removing things like zippocat.

13 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-07-17 00:13 ID:Heaven [Del]

zippocat?

14 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-07-17 00:15 ID:Heaven [Del]

oh is that when the guy sets his cat on fire? or what.

why do people like killing cats so much.

15 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E : 2006-07-17 06:22 ID:Heaven [Del]

That's the one.

Some of the psychology behind it is a fascinating study in human depravity. It'll give you the creeps.

16 Name: EleoChan!EhVtXXdTd6 : 2006-07-18 08:11 ID:Heaven [Del]

Yeah but why cats? Why not rabbits or dogs or something.

17 Name: Anonymous : 2006-07-21 06:23 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>16
That should be obvious by now. Kittens = pop tarts.

18 Name: Anonymous : 2006-12-29 20:53 ID:0iRmtZ+n [Del]

It's natural selection.

Basically cats ate/stole our food and those who found it fun to murder cats got a higher chance for survival (more food) so all humans now carry the "Killing kittens is fun" gene. Yes even you.

19 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-04 07:35 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>9

>>I guess the question is not if anyone will ever go to that extreme but how often? Will it be a rampant problem or will most people not even care to even go to those lengths?

People are going to those lengths, at least on 4chan /a/ as of late. You have a bunch of kiddies who sage every thread they don't like repeatedly without inputing any text until it reaches the bump limit\and they don't even use scripts.

20 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-08 19:57 ID:Heaven [Del]

This is made of AIDS and fail. Saging this thread.

21 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-11 10:48 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>20
you don't "get" sage

22 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-14 07:48 ID:Heaven [Del]

for some reason i read the title like "sagging"

23 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-25 08:30 ID:Fira0Vlq [Del]

There is a new image board linked from http://www.bbspink.com
It is cool and useful. You can upload from your phone
just by emailing the image
http://txtfoto.com/

24 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-25 09:20 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>23

Learn how to post.

25 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-27 15:58 ID:UagyGYfG [Del]

Long ago, in 4chan, saging was used entirely differently from how it is now. Back then there was a maximum number of times a thread could be aged (bumped). Using a sage meant that you wanted the thread to be around longer (it didn't bump the thread, but it kept it from reaching the age limit too soon). Eventually 4chan became too active and saging lost its meaning.

26 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-27 16:28 ID:Heaven [Del]

>>25

No, that never happened. Bump limits have always been dependent only on the number of replies. Whether they are saged or not does not matter in the slightest, and never has.

27 Name: Anonymous : 2007-01-29 12:02 ID:Heaven [Del]

.

28 Post deleted by moderator.

29 Post deleted by moderator.

30 Post deleted by moderator.

31 Name: Jordan Retro 11 : 2012-07-31 03:28 ID:bhRrqkno [Del]

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: