Re: Gentoo's response on them blocking access to their forums via Tor

[Joel Franusic <jfranusic@xxxxxxxxx>]

One other way to deal with "antagonizers" is to make users pay money
to activate an account.

Something Awful
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_Awful_Forums#Punishment) is
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.
> 
> 
> - --
> http://www.eff.org/about/staff/#chris_palmer
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFC96sjsobNj2jkCc0RAtQcAJ4voVpmU4yNDga9TyIcZTqMbpZYVACeLtPa
> ORJMn6rLq8c73gqJYZx5hD8=
> =Lrfm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>