[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6367

File: 1579400643508.jpg (121.52 KB, 800x700, 8:7, 80a796e95bdabea6b78bb4ef0a….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

New thread for discussing the issues in the transparency report.

 No.6368

File: 1579400881641.jpg (95.98 KB, 917x960, 917:960, reloading.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6367
what happened with the previous one?

 No.6369

File: 1579401183851.jpg (19.62 KB, 480x480, 1:1, s_3.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6368

Alguien lo borro con un ataque de flood

 No.6371

File: 1579401939025.png (177.23 KB, 811x986, 811:986, 9b6803d13382a3d3a0760663e0….png) ImgOps Google

Well, i wonder if todays escapade will change anyone's answers.

 No.6372

File: 1579402551413.jpg (149.52 KB, 1024x577, 1024:577, m_7.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6371

This only made me realize how vulnerable the boards can be. Only an anonimous could mess with an entire one.

 No.6373

File: 1579402625126.png (541.52 KB, 674x976, 337:488, EOab1rDX4AID57R.png) ImgOps Google

>>6369
>alguien lo borro con un ataque de flood.

my reaction: https://youtu.be/rzxPdwQX7bI

I see

2 hours ago I decided to play Dragon Quest XI and when I returned there was a 404 not found.

but Ok

 No.6374

>>6372
Anyone can poison the town's well, yes.

>>6373
<

 No.6375

File: 1579408612039.png (894.53 KB, 1268x2307, 1268:2307, 98b822fc286035a4fc4748eeee….png) ImgOps Google

Yeah, guys, even if you might not like any potential changes to the site meant to combat ban-evasions and raids like this, we can't let the ban-evaders take control of the staff and power trip all over them and us.

 No.6376

File: 1579409660643.jpg (132.83 KB, 849x768, 283:256, White_lipped_tree_frog_cai….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What happened to /canterlot/?  Can you restore from backup?

Well, I guess the question about needing to implement more extreme technological enforcement mechanisms for bans is now answered.  (I guess you could also go the legal route and pursue CFAA charges, but the wheels of justice move very slowly, so that's probably not a viable option, at least for the short term.)

 No.6377

>>6376
Yeah, it is recoverable, but it would be a bit of a hassle and I don't even care that must about it other than historical reasons. So much drama, I'm personally happy to see a lot of those threads go. I'm making an argument to the others that we finish the job ourselves and start it over from scratch. But we'll see, if it is recoverable, moony might just ask that it be done.

 No.6378

File: 1579413250099.png (142.98 KB, 860x1104, 215:276, 163-1636405_transparent-to….png) ImgOps Google

>>6377
My proposal to make ponyville real was a very important thread to have lost.  Maybe we can save that one.

 No.6379

File: 1579439095732.jpg (46.74 KB, 424x810, 212:405, tumblr_q48cuvwZPM1yr2rayo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

i guess i wasn't around for whatever the heck happened

don't really see why we need to make any of the drastic changes to how the site works

i voted 1 on every single one of those

making this site harder to use will most definitely make me less likely to use it

im only using it not because all it takes is me typing out a post and applying an image. anything else ruins the site for me.

anyways, whatever.

 No.6380

File: 1579448658171.jpg (549.61 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, 1452140829927.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6379
>i guess i wasn't around for whatever the heck happened
Someone apparently raided /catnerlot/ with spam.

>making this site harder to use
Some of the options wouldn't make the site any harder to use for users, even if none of {IP address, tripcode, password for file deletion} are recognized.  It would just delay their posts until a mod approves.

 No.6381

File: 1579449410021.jpg (149.52 KB, 1024x577, 1024:577, m_7.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6380
> It would just delay their posts until a mod approves.

It might discourage new-comers.

Edit: And might push the mods.

 No.6383

File: 1579449974172.jpg (19.62 KB, 480x480, 1:1, s_3.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Yes, we should not forget that this community targets people who are/ have been on IB's, people that probably are not accustomed to get their post delayed by mod-approval.

>>6382

Don't you like new friends?

 No.6385

File: 1579450479975.jpg (7.26 KB, 272x185, 272:185, s_5.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6384

Neat.

 No.6387

File: 1579450755953.jpg (36.85 KB, 330x371, 330:371, s_27.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6386

 No.6388

File: 1579459902701.png (277.56 KB, 900x900, 1:1, ab1c72772bb6c4c2a69059bcbb….png) ImgOps Google

>>6379

Basically LeAnon and Fleur effectively deleted canterlot and spammed the place with neo-nazi stuff and ban-evasion was a key part of that.

 No.6390

File: 1579460816567.jpg (65.63 KB, 628x800, 157:200, 2a328d7e50cb6f863ccf0d2884….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6389

Whatever, just bring back Sweetie Belle, she's far more tolerable than you.

 No.6391

Don't forget to report ban evasion guys ^_^

 No.6393

File: 1579472491570.png (167.9 KB, 887x607, 887:607, 1459627604784.png) ImgOps Google

>>6388
I propose an idea:  Maybe there should be a per-board limit of many new threads can be created (and how many ancient threads can be bumped) in any 24-hour window.  Mods would be able to approve threads so that they don't count towards the limit.  And this limit would be for all users combined, not per user.  /canterlot/ and /townhall/ never get more than a full page of threads in a single day unless they're being raided/spammed.

 No.6394

File: 1579477501499.jpg (4.93 MB, 4160x3120, 4:3, 20200118_164858.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6393
These werent new threads but necro bumps.

Doing nothing is best.  Letting the children have their fun is better than complicating everything we do.  Making mods do approval work is a dead-end solution that only lets the tail wag the dog.

 No.6395

>>6380
More annoying to use is the same thing as more difficult to use in this case. The result is still the same.

 No.6396

File: 1579492525727.jpg (1.12 MB, 1536x2048, 3:4, chibi_shy_by_ptcrow-d89ooo….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6394
>These werent new threads but necro bumps.
OK, but how does that relate to my post?  I specifically said:
>(and how many ancient threads can be bumped)

>Making mods do approval work
The limits would be high enough that it would entail no additional work for the mods in 99%+ of the time.  The ability to manually approve threads would only needed to be used in rare situations where users make an exceedingly large number of legitimate threads.

 No.6397

>>6396
I dont want to be rude but, telling you that your proposed method would not have affected the current situation is how it relates to your post.  (Edit: plus it wouldnt work anyway cuz they can just switch ip and keep creating threads)

There simply is no securing the site against raiders because there will always be a hole for them to exploit.

Eroding our own usability will accomplish the raiders' goals without them even having to use effort attacking us.

It's a lose/lose.

 No.6398

File: 1579564181392.png (75.85 KB, 200x200, 1:1, o_fl_070827.png) ImgOps Google

>>6397
>telling you that your proposed method would not have affected the current situation is how it relates to your post.  (Edit: plus it wouldnt work anyway cuz they can just switch ip and keep creating threads)
OK, you're misunderstanding my post.  Please read >>6393 again, very carefully:
>per-board limit of many new threads can be created (and how many ancient threads can be bumped) in any 24-hour window.
>And this limit would be for all users combined, not per user.
In my proposal, no more than N threads could be created or necrobumped on a given board in any 24-hour period.  It's not N threads per IP address; it's N threads total.  So one IP makes 5 threads, then another IP can make at most N-5 threads.

>>6394
>These werent new threads but necro bumps.
Are you sure about that?  Why would the threads have been completely deleted if they were just necrobumped?  If I had to guess, I would guess that there were BOTH necrobumps AND new threads spammed.

 No.6399

File: 1579599097794.png (38 KB, 220x220, 1:1, Applejack_looking_stern_S0….png) ImgOps Google

>>6398

No, i understood your algorythm.  It would provide a new means of attacking the site by the attacker producing N new threads causing every legitimate new thread to wait for a mod to approve it.

Supporting my point:  its futile to try and out-think the criminal mind.  

If they want to attack us, then at least lets not do their work for them by adding barriers to our own use of our site.

I don't intend to say that you are wrong, only express my opinion.  I hope i am not being rude.

 No.6400

File: 1579614083954.jpg (46.64 KB, 370x490, 37:49, medli-add912b8d63b36bf0bfc….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6399
> It would provide a new means of attacking the site by the attacker producing N new threads causing every legitimate new thread to wait for a mod to approve it.
It's true that an attacker would be able to prevent the creation of new legitimate threads until the mods delete their spam threads.  But this is a weaker attack than being able to spam the whole board to the point where all legit threads are pushed off the end of Page 10.
(I didn't mention explicitly, but deleting a thread would also remove it from the limit.  Conceptually, the database query would be something like "select count(*) from Threads where BoardID=$BoardID and LastBumpTime > ${CurrentTime - 7*24*60*60} and not IsModApproved and not IsDeleted".)

 No.6401

File: 1579615091260.png (10.58 KB, 325x298, 325:298, moa-zelda.png) ImgOps Google

>>6400
Actually, that query doesn't perfectly capture my proposal, but I think it's close enough.  But on second thought, the "ModApproval" field should be a time-stamp rather than a bool, and only threads approved in the last week or so should be excluded from count, to prevent a previously-approved thread from being later necrobumped.

 No.6404

It seems to me that most of the people who have made posting here impossible have left of their own accord, and have (hopefully) used up all of their good will in the process. The problem solved itself.

 No.6405

>>6404
I think the staff are still removing a rather large number of posts every day, we just don't see it because well they're being removed

 No.6408

>>6405
If this is true then how many posts per day are deleted really is a "transparency" issue.  

In which case i think we should have that information.

>>6404
Not all.  Im still here.

 No.6409

>>6408
I dont think the moderators are going to post logs of all of the hundreds of spam posts they've deleted. That seems unreasonable.

 No.6410

File: 1581136676239.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>6405
at present, the site is whisper quiet on the spam front, and has been since that one burst of activity

we haven't even had a report in the past week!

that said, history can and will repeat itself if we are not careful, and the staff is still intent on implementing a solution that the userbase approves of

 No.6411

File: 1581182197097.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 1569320966696.png) ImgOps Google

>>6410
I'm enjoying the lack of complaints from the few.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]