Page 2 of 3

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:12 am
by Synaptic Anarchy
Yautja_cetanu wrote:
Drexion wrote: What nonsense - who is to determine what is inappropriate or not ?


The Board creator?
Synaptic Anarchy wrote: attempting to brand users because of something they do that you don't like.


Meh, I think you've just done the same thing to iEcstacy.

Besides what he's said is right. I know plenty of people who get kicks out of posting rude-images. Plenty of them were 16 (Guys pretending to be 40 year olds pretending to be 14 chatting up girls) posting random images where they could, spamming teachers with porn sites. Setting their friend's home pages to various sites. Usually they weren't be just naked pictures but the most vilest stuff they could find :P


The board creator isn't making the decisions if they're relying on a MOD to tell them who is or isn't appropriate. I ask that you don't make assumptions about what I'm doing just because you agree with this person. I'm not labelling a bunch of people I don't know just because they're in a database of IP addresses - which is exactly what this MOD proposal is.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:42 am
by Highway of Life
Drexion wrote: Whether or not you think the material being posted is inappropriate matters to no one. What matters is: are any laws being broken ?
That’s debatable, it DOES matter to most/some people.
I wouldn’t want my kids to see some stuff that was posted online. Even if it was technically okay for me to see it.
It goes beyond law.
It’s about decency on the internet. :roll:

I don’t think the user was referring to a law, or laws, but a METHOD that could be used to prevent such posting of inappropriate content. (yes, there IS such a thing).
Drexion wrote:
GroovePlugs wrote:Inappropriate material is inappropriate material.
What nonsense - who is to determine what is inappropriate or not ? What is perfectly natural to one person (example video games with gore) may be deemed inappropriate by someone else.
If it’s inappropriate for children, it’s inappropriate. End of debate.

Again, we are NOT talking about LAWS here!!!
We are talking about content!
It’s why schools install filters, it’s why families have parental controls on computers.
Come on! :roll:
Roberdin wrote: I don't think this system could work at all, on either ethical, cultural or technical founding. Most people use dynamic IP addresses anyway.
You are correct, there is no automated way (currently) to control this for anything under $400 USD.
It’s going to have to be the responsibilities of the staff/admin/site owner to control such content, and to warn the public if content could be potentially harmful to persons under the age of 18 (as required by law).

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:20 am
by Synaptic Anarchy
Highway of Life wrote: It’s going to have to be the responsibilities of the staff/admin/site owner to control such content, and to warn the public if content could be potentially harmful to persons under the age of 18 (as required by law).


And it should remain the responsibility of every person who installs and runs a phpBB forum to decide for themselves what they will and will not allow on a forum.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:23 am
by Drexion
Highway of Life wrote: to see ..... install filters .......parental controls
Highway of Life wrote: We are talking about content!

You're looking at it from the angle of restricting the viewing of content, and I am looking at it from the angle of restricting of posting of content. Two totally different things altogether, hence the different train of thought.

If John Doe occasionally drinks alcohol, does that mean he should be restricted from eating at Burger King ?
If John Doe occasionally watches rated R movies, does that mean he should be restricted from watching a Disney movie ?
If John Doe occasionally posts (what you would say is inappropriate material) legally on an adult forum, does that mean he should be restricted from visiting his schools web forum ?

According to the op, yes he should be restricted.
And I am saying he should not, unless the laws of the country state he should (and they do not I'm willing to bet)

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:22 pm
by Roberdin
Highway of Life wrote: I wouldn’t want my kids to see some stuff that was posted online. Even if it was technically okay for me to see it.
It goes beyond law.
It’s about decency on the internet. :roll:
Well then it is up to you to implement filtering or monitoring of some kind on your end, not up to forum or website owners to implement your particular ethical standards across the entire internet.
Highway of Life wrote: If it’s inappropriate for children, it’s inappropriate. End of debate.
Inappropriate for children? That's going to change depending on how old they are, what their cultural background is, their individual sensitivities, and numerous other factors.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:05 pm
by Yautja_cetanu
I ask that you don't make assumptions about what I'm doing just because you agree with this person.


hehe I don't agree with this person :P Hell I'm almost a minor myself (19) and no parent of mine is going to stop me viewing whatever I want! I used to have a net nanny though I soon found a way around that (It was just annoying, took up resources and blocked random sites) (though I do think there is such thing as inappropriate). I'm in the UK, in europe the way things are dealt with are very different to the US! Besides, the legal age of consent is 16 (we also have the highest teenage pregnancy in europe), like I said most of my friends doing the "posting inappropriate content for minors were definitely minors themselves!

However I don't have a problem what he's trying to do. Its not install a standard across the internet. Its just for a bunch of people who have a general agreement of what is "appropriate", to collaborate. Though I wouldn't touch a mod like this with a barge pole (We have plenty of moderators constantly viewing everything anyway)

However it is a church board aimed at 18 and under and many are under 14. Last time we had some porn it was up a couple of hours (someone reported it to me a while ago and it was nothing horrific), however if a 14 year old had seen that and a parent looked over the shoulder, that would have been the end of that kid visiting our site! Our forum is for people who know each other in real life, less for random strangers. So its easily worth disallowing some random people in this list for the sake of kids we genuinely care about.

This is a ridiculously specific example (and like I said, I wouldn't go near this mod) but its still one example. I'm sure there are more examples similar.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:30 pm
by david63
I think that this has been done to death now.

The bottom line is that there is no way that you can stop anyone posting anything that they want. There are a few steps that may inconvenience them for five seconds but that is about it. The only way to handle this is by the use of moderators who apply a set of rules applicable to that particular forum - taking into account the nature of the forum and its audience,

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:03 pm
by Highway of Life
Drexion wrote: You're looking at it from the angle of restricting the viewing of content, and I am looking at it from the angle of restricting of posting of content. Two totally different things altogether, hence the different train of thought.
For the record... okay, perhaps this is the case.
But I’m saying it really does not make sense to ban the John Doe you speak of. (for reasons which you already stated) ;)
It all comes down to the staff, there is no "save-all" method, which is what the OP is looking for.
Drexion wrote: If John Doe occasionally drinks alcohol, does that mean he should be restricted from eating at Burger King ?
If John Doe occasionally watches rated R movies, does that mean he should be restricted from watching a Disney movie ?
If John Doe occasionally posts (what you would say is inappropriate material) legally on an adult forum, does that mean he should be restricted from visiting his schools web forum ?
What does this have to do with what I said? :?
It’s not even what I said, nor what I implied.
I’m saying that schools have filters for THE kids that go to THEIR school!
It’s supposed to protect the kids from viewing OTHER sites that have potentially inappropriate content.
Not for other people to be restricted from viewing that school’s web-board or site.
Drexion wrote: According to the op, yes he should be restricted.
And I am saying he should not
And I agree with that. :D
It makes no sense to implement that type of system.

Now, there IS one alternative...
If you have good word filtering, that is going to be important, but to keep the content from being posted, you could implement some kind of system that is triggered by words that might be contained in a link (or image url).
This would cause the post that contains the image, link or other content to be withheld from public viewing (the Moderator Queue).
But for it to work like that, the OP would have to wait for some kind of MOD to be built for phpBB3 that would do that, but at least that would help a lot.

Just as an example, on STG, we have word filters on common spam terms, such as medications, and since those terms are usually contained in links, the spammers post ends up as http://[*SPAMMER*].com/[*SPAMMER*]/[*SPAMMER*].html (it’s really quite comical).
But you can use the word filtering to actually cause links to that kind of content to break, and therefore an image would not be displayed. -- Right now, I think that is the best option for the OP to go with.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:07 pm
by James78
Simple put. The board creators and the staff reserve the right to deem any material inappropriate as they see fit. It is their site, and if users don't respect it, there is chaos. Everything must stay in order. And family friendly here and mostly everywhere else is defined as safe to children or kids under the age of 18. Many many hosters prohibit the use of a site for inappropriate, nude, and questionable content, I think the staff reserves the right to enforce what they want and don't want on their site. No one has a argument against this, if you don't like it, then leave. It is their site and they have the right to do whatever they wish with it. Enough said.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:48 am
by Denyer
Highway of Life wrote: we have word filters on common spam terms, such as medications, and since those terms are usually contained in links, the spammers post ends up as

It's very unlikely these spammers are actual people. Reliably blocking automated sign-ups is far more effective.
Highway of Life wrote: If it’s inappropriate for children, it’s inappropriate. End of debate.

Excellent. Debate settled. The rest of the web will now get back to trading porn...
Highway of Life wrote: a METHOD that could be used to prevent such posting of inappropriate content. (yes, there IS such a thing)

IP/URI blacklisting doesn't work. Whitelisting or manually approving all content, sure.

Ultimately we're communicating via a medium that was designed to route around damage, and one relative constant is that the next generation has more technical smarts than us.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:13 am
by 3Di
Denyer wrote:
Highway of Life wrote: If it’s inappropriate for children, it’s inappropriate. End of debate.

Excellent. Debate settled. The rest of the web will now get back to trading porn...
Highway of Life wrote: a METHOD that could be used to prevent such posting of inappropriate content. (yes, there IS such a thing)

IP/URI blacklisting doesn't work. Whitelisting or manually approving all content, sure.

Ultimately we're communicating via a medium that was designed to route around damage, and one relative constant is that the next generation has more technical smarts than us.


zomg, thanks for the laugh.. :razz:

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:20 am
by Highway of Life
Denyer wrote: It's very unlikely these spammers are actual people. Reliably blocking automated sign-ups is far more effective.
We know this already, however, there are still MANY spambots that get through the "blocking" methods.
And that’s why you also need to have good backup measures in place.
Denyer wrote: IP/URI blacklisting doesn't work. Whitelisting or manually approving all content, sure.

Ultimately we're communicating via a medium that was designed to route around damage, and one relative constant is that the next generation has more technical smarts than us.
?!? pardon?
Yes, of course it doesn’t work... I think it was mentioned in about every post in this topic. ;)

3Di wrote: zomg, thanks for the laugh.. :razz:
???

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:38 am
by Drexion
Denyer wrote:
Highway of Life wrote: If it’s inappropriate for children, it’s inappropriate. End of debate.

Excellent. Debate settled. The rest of the web will now get back to trading porn...
LOL.

Anyhow basically, if you are not representing the law, nor an administrator of the site, you cannot tell the site's visitor's what they can and cannot do whilst on that site.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:18 pm
by Denyer
Highway of Life wrote: there are still MANY spambots that get through the "blocking" methods.

If we each build our own verification procedures, that diverse "ecosystem" makes it exponentially harder for automated processes to slip by. Defaults (and any situation where weak OCR can prove effective) get targeted most heavily; the old phpBB2 CAPTCHA images being the case people here are probably most familiar with. It's a decent return for the bots, for relatively little effort.

Bots also tend to stuff form fields, with limited ability to parse what's required -- data arriving in a concealed field that should always be blank, for example (eg, a username on a site that doesn't have registrations, accompanied by "Only if you've registered with this site previously, please enter..." or similar to warn blind users) being a dead give-away.

There are a few manual spammers doing the rounds, but they seem limited to big ticket items such as electronics so far. Getting people to do it is significantly more expensive and time-consuming than leaving a single machine or botnet to attack verification procedures.

Re: Inappropriate Material System

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:47 pm
by Roberdin
One of the most interesting systems is to use actual humans to do the work - by redisplaying the image at the entrance to a porn site, for example, capturing the user input and re-forwarding it to the original website.