[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Gentoo's response on them blocking access to their forums via Tor
One other way to deal with "antagonizers" is to make users pay money
to activate an account.
one example of how this method is used to curb unwanted posting: when
somebody is banned, they have to pay to reactivate their account or
pay to create a new account. In this way users actions are directly
linked to their finances.
On 8/8/05, Chris Palmer <chris@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Sean wrote:
> > But, I see no way for a website operator to ban folks using TOR from
> > posting, but allow browsing...
> First, Apache is incredibly configurable. Second, you could put the
> banning logic in the program that accepts posts, and leave it out of the
> program that assembles pages for reading.
> > As the website operator faced with anonymous antagonizers...Would you
> > force posters to authenticate from a particular IP address(an
> > unworkable solution, if you want increased participation...)? Or are
> > you suggesting that Gentoo implement only user bans instead of IP
> > bans?
> IP addresses are not identifiers for people. Web applications should use
> a real authentication scheme.
> And you don't necessarily need to ban people to effectively keep the
> forum clean. Advogato's color scheme and Slashdot's default score (0 for
> anonymous poster, 1 for authenticated poster) work well for helping
> readers sort through the noise.
> - --
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----