Shill control - ask not what your moderators can do for you...

[Illiterati-migration]

Maybe to you, but I have thought about it and I love the idea. You don't have to charge them any money.

 

the truth is, requiring CC is the sure-fire way to kill subscribership, even if u don't charge money.

 

people just don't like putting their CC online. ebay, initially, didn't. at one point, they required checking-account verification (that's when i signed up). i know it took me a long_time before i signed up. they've since revoked that part (i think cause they weren't getting nearly as many sign-ups).

 

i know if hit a chat-board requiring my CC, i'd turn tails and run.

 

and like Arch said, it seems like draconian measures for what really amounts to a "small" nuissance.

 

I don't think everyone else thinks of it as a small nuisance. I also think that the "loss" of new members who might be hypersensitive to a CC check by CGC needs to be counterbalanced against the potential loss of long-time members who are no longer interested in participating because the board is full of juvenile shill attacks.

 

What about juvenile everyday conversations by regular members?

[arexcrooke]

Maybe to you, but I have thought about it and I love the idea. You don't have to charge them any money.

 

the truth is, requiring CC is the sure-fire way to kill subscribership, even if u don't charge money.

 

people just don't like putting their CC online. ebay, initially, didn't. at one point, they required checking-account verification (that's when i signed up). i know it took me a long_time before i signed up. they've since revoked that part (i think cause they weren't getting nearly as many sign-ups).

 

i know if hit a chat-board requiring my CC, i'd turn tails and run.

 

and like Arch said, it seems like draconian measures for what really amounts to a "small" nuissance.

 

I don't think everyone else thinks of it as a small nuisance. I also think that the "loss" of new members who might be hypersensitive to a CC check by CGC needs to be counterbalanced against the potential loss of long-time members who are no longer interested in participating because the board is full of juvenile shill attacks.

 

What about juvenile everyday conversations by regular members?

[mica]

Maybe to you, but I have thought about it and I love the idea. You don't have to charge them any money.

 

the truth is, requiring CC is the sure-fire way to kill subscribership, even if u don't charge money.

 

people just don't like putting their CC online. ebay, initially, didn't. at one point, they required checking-account verification (that's when i signed up). i know it took me a long_time before i signed up. they've since revoked that part (i think cause they weren't getting nearly as many sign-ups).

 

i know if hit a chat-board requiring my CC, i'd turn tails and run.

 

and like Arch said, it seems like draconian measures for what really amounts to a "small" nuissance.

 

I don't think everyone else thinks of it as a small nuisance. I also think that the "loss" of new members who might be hypersensitive to a CC check by CGC needs to be counterbalanced against the potential loss of long-time members who are no longer interested in participating because the board is full of juvenile shill attacks.

 

What about juvenile everyday conversations by regular members?

(might as well )

[Architecht]

Maybe to you, but I have thought about it and I love the idea. You don't have to charge them any money. Just run the card to make sure they are legitimate. People who don't want to give their information (or who can't get a parent or adult friend with a card to sign them up) can read the boards anonymously and just not post.

 

So am I to assume that there was never any real plan to do this even though the CGC folks at WonderCon were talking about it being in the works already?

 

Credit card checks were under consideration. We did some work to analyze the feasibility of this both from its impact on the community, and its cost to implement and maintain. The conclusion is that it's not a good option. I hear your personal frustration on the matter, but the trade offs that aren't of much consequence to you are of pretty large significance to others. This includes the impact on board traffic, the cost to implement, etc..

 

That having been said, we are interested in limiting the shill problem at a scale of effort in proportion to the scale of the problem. A better collection of banned free emails is one simple method that can help things right now. We are also evaluating a few other options that could achieve the goal without the negatives of something like a credit card check. We'll see where that leads us.

 

In the meantime, feel free to contribute any known free email providers. It will help.

 

Thanks,

Arch

[FFB]

Maybe to you, but I have thought about it and I love the idea. You don't have to charge them any money.

 

the truth is, requiring CC is the sure-fire way to kill subscribership, even if u don't charge money.

 

people just don't like putting their CC online. ebay, initially, didn't. at one point, they required checking-account verification (that's when i signed up). i know it took me a long_time before i signed up. they've since revoked that part (i think cause they weren't getting nearly as many sign-ups).

 

i know if hit a chat-board requiring my CC, i'd turn tails and run.

 

and like Arch said, it seems like draconian measures for what really amounts to a "small" nuissance.

 

I don't think everyone else thinks of it as a small nuisance. I also think that the "loss" of new members who might be hypersensitive to a CC check by CGC needs to be counterbalanced against the potential loss of long-time members who are no longer interested in participating because the board is full of juvenile shill attacks.

 

What about juvenile everyday conversations by regular members?

 

Come on Logan, think outside the box. The credit card process could work on them too. Anyone engaging in inane conversation is charged ten cents per word and 25 cents per graemlin. Graemlin-only posts are a dollar each.

 

Think of the Utopia we could create.

[FFB]

Maybe to you, but I have thought about it and I love the idea. You don't have to charge them any money. Just run the card to make sure they are legitimate. People who don't want to give their information (or who can't get a parent or adult friend with a card to sign them up) can read the boards anonymously and just not post.

 

So am I to assume that there was never any real plan to do this even though the CGC folks at WonderCon were talking about it being in the works already?

 

Credit card checks were under consideration. We did some work to analyze the feasibility of this both from its impact on the community, and its cost to implement and maintain. The conclusion is that it's not a good option. I hear your personal frustration on the matter, but the trade offs that aren't of much consequence to you are of pretty large significance to others. This includes the impact on board traffic, the cost to implement, etc..

 

That having been said, we are interested in limiting the shill problem at a scale of effort in proportion to the scale of the problem. A better collection of banned free emails is one simple method that can help things right now. We are also evaluating a few other options that could achieve the goal without the negatives of something like a credit card check. We'll see where that leads us.

 

In the meantime, feel free to contribute any known free email providers. It will help.

 

Thanks,

Arch

 

See my post above this one for the solution to the "cost feasibility" aspect of the CC verification process. Come on Arch, where can we go with this.

[Architecht]

Come on Logan, think outside the box. The credit card process could work on them too. Anyone engaging in inane conversation is charged ten cents per word and 25 cents per graemlin. Graemlin-only posts are a dollar each.

 

Think of the Utopia we could create.

 

So we can do this Robin Hood thing where we charge money for inane posts, and use that as a pool for cash prizes to great posters! Muhahahahahahahhahahaa!!!

 

 

MUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!

 

Ok, maybe not.

 

[Red Hook]

Yes!

[esquirecomics]

What about requiring new subscribers to send CGC their complete contact information to include home address and home phone number. Believe me it is easy enough to then check whether they are legit. Only a few people would fall through the cracks b/c of unlisted information, and even that can be overcome.

[Architecht]

What about requiring new subscribers to send CGC their complete contact information to include home address and home phone number. Believe me it is easy enough to then check whether they are legit. Only a few people would fall through the cracks b/c of unlisted information, and even that can be overcome.

 

This is part of what's being kicked around, although it would likely be checked on an exception basis rather than on every account.

[Architecht]

Yes!

 

I didn't realize you were so philanthropic with your money, Red!

 

[drice6900]

Come on Logan, think outside the box. The credit card process could work on them too. Anyone engaging in inane conversation is charged ten cents per word and 25 cents per graemlin. Graemlin-only posts are a dollar each.

 

Think of the Utopia we could create.

 

Umm, that would be Greggy-only posts...

[esquirecomics]

What about requiring new subscribers to send CGC their complete contact information to include home address and home phone number. Believe me it is easy enough to then check whether they are legit. Only a few people would fall through the cracks b/c of unlisted information, and even that can be overcome.

 

This is part of what's being kicked around, although it would likely be checked on an exception basis rather than on every account.

 

It might at least make it easier to decide whether someone is a shill. If they start posting like one and it is brought to your attention, rather than wait to see how they react or for further posts, just check the info. If you can't confirm it, bye bye! Might at least shorten the process and perhaps persuade some not to try.

 

Of course, the best method would be one that would permit easy immediate confirmation of identity.

[B-Smooth]

Maybe to you, but I have thought about it and I love the idea. You don't have to charge them any money.

 

the truth is, requiring CC is the sure-fire way to kill subscribership, even if u don't charge money.

 

people just don't like putting their CC online. ebay, initially, didn't. at one point, they required checking-account verification (that's when i signed up). i know it took me a long_time before i signed up. they've since revoked that part (i think cause they weren't getting nearly as many sign-ups).

 

i know if hit a chat-board requiring my CC, i'd turn tails and run.

 

and like Arch said, it seems like draconian measures for what really amounts to a "small" nuissance.

 

I don't think everyone else thinks of it as a small nuisance. I also think that the "loss" of new members who might be hypersensitive to a CC check by CGC needs to be counterbalanced against the potential loss of long-time members who are no longer interested in participating because the board is full of juvenile shill attacks.

 

What about juvenile everyday conversations by regular members?

 

Wheres the pot calling the kettle black icon?

[divad]

Think of the Utopia we could create.

 

There's no "We" in "Utopia" . . . :inane:

[Architecht]

Think of the Utopia we could create.

 

There's no "We" in "Utopia" . . . :inane:

 

$1.50 please.

 

[divad]

Think of the Utopia we could create.

 

There's no "We" in "Utopia" . . . :inane:

 

$1.50 please.

 

 

Er, put it on my "account" I'm sure to make a couple two three more mistakes . . .

[Red Hook]

Yes!

 

I didn't realize you were so philanthropic with your money, Red!

 

 

 

 

You know.....I think I've just been insulted!

[Architecht]

 

Uhm, no. Teased a little maybe.

[Red Hook]

I know.