suggestion about unwanted SI messages

sermonindex Nov 11, 2009

I have been having this thought come across my mind over the past couple of weeks concerning unwanted spam and others who try to bombard SI.

Why not have a filtering system, where anyone who wants to sign up, must first write a testimony in the Welcome and Introduction section? This obviously will create some extra work for the moderators, but a quick testimony may deter and/or hinder many from dropping in and dropping out randomly and recklessly.

Obviously, this is just a thought with little research, although, I am certain that if there is a real problem, then there is a much more real solution.

This would not be to set up walls against those wanting to take part in what God, through Greg, has started, rather to keep floods from penetrating babes in the faith and those who are searching for Truth.

Just a thought.

:-(

sermonindex Nov 11, 2009

Brother,

this is a great idea. I do need to put something similar like this in place. I am going to work for the sermon comments to have to be approved by moderators first but as you said for the forums there should be some "saftey" to ensure people who are registering are seeking truth. etc.

Do pray for me to have wisdom to do the Lords will. I am open to any other suggestions.

T

TaylorOtwell Nov 11, 2009

I'm a member of another forum that uses this system for new members. It seems to work pretty well...

With care in Christ...

sermonindex Nov 11, 2009

but a quick testimony may deter and/or hinder many from dropping in and dropping out randomly and recklessly.

You wouldn't want it to be a quick one, a quick one can be easily manufactured. What it could be is a 500 word testimony of sorts and one of the Moderators OR better yet select a new ADMIN that will prayerfully carry out the selection of newbies coming in. Instant access should go the way of the Dodo and a space of a day or two should pass before applications are approved.

P

PassingThru Nov 11, 2009

I am quite privacy conscience when it comes to writing personal details on the web and wouldn't like to "introduce" myself to the millions of anonymous internet users that I know nothing about.

An alternative mechanism would be to allow established, frequent users (say those with 500+ posts) to flag 'troll' posts. If a user is flagged as a 'troll' by 2-3 users they would be automatically suspended.

Once suspended their posts could be automatically replaced with a text explaining that the user has breached the site's code of conduct. This eliminates the attention & public exposure they are looking for.

Optionally the text could publicly expose the source IP address of the unwanted messages, although these can easily be masked by a savvy user, or worse someone could be piggy backing off a neighbour's unprotected wireless network passing the 'blame' onto an innocent neighbour.

A mechanism of this type also delegates the workload off Greg's shoulders which he might appreciate, while allowing genuine users to remain as anonymous as they like.

PassingThru

M

MaryJane Nov 11, 2009

Greetings Greg

My son in on a forum that has tight rules in place. In order to insure that all post are child friendly when a person first signs up all of their posts go through a moderator for the first three weeks of joining the forum. IF anything is deemed unacceptable it gets bounced and warnings are sent to the account holder. They have a three strikes and your out policy that they stick to. After the three week grace period is over the person can post with out the mod viewing it first, but they still monitor all post to insure the rules are followed. Not sure how practical this method would be for SI though, it would seem to require a great deal more time from the moderators and I realize you are busy as things are now.

God Bless
maryjane

sermonindex Nov 11, 2009

worse someone could be piggy backing off a neighbour's unprotected wireless network

Yikes, I've been found out! :-P

L

Leo_Grace Nov 11, 2009

PassingThru wrote:
I am quite privacy conscience when it comes to writing personal details on the web and wouldn't like to "introduce" myself to the millions of anonymous internet users that I know nothing about.
An alternative mechanism would be to allow established, frequent users (say those with 500+ posts) to flag 'troll' posts. If a user is flagged as a 'troll' by 2-3 users they would be automatically suspended.
Once suspended their posts could be automatically replaced with a text explaining that the user has breached the site's code of conduct. This eliminates the attention & public exposure they are looking for.
Optionally the text could publicly expose the source IP address of the unwanted messages, although these can easily be masked by a savvy user, or worse someone could be piggy backing off a neighbour's unprotected wireless network passing the 'blame' onto an innocent neighbour.
A mechanism of this type also delegates the workload off Greg's shoulders which he might appreciate, while allowing genuine users to remain as anonymous as they like.
PassingThru

This sounds like a good idea, but instead of the 500+ posts required (one can get 500+ by "amen"-ing all threads all the time), the moderators should appoint several forum "elders" chosen prayerfully based on previous participation - men of sound and mature faith. These "elders", guided by a set of rules provided by the moderators, can do the tagging to enforce forum ethics. This will provide an additional layer of protection to what moderators are already doing.

H

HeartSong Nov 12, 2009

For what it is worth, if there had been all of these "requirements" (or any for that matter) when I "stumbled upon" SermonIndex, it is unlikely that I would have ever joined - for Satan had me so bound in fear that I would never have taken the risk of "exposing myself" by doing these things that you are speaking of. I was extremely reluctant to even provide my name and email address. Additionally, for the moment, the Lord has required that I stay "hidden" to some degree. While I do not know the purpose in this, it is my intention to obey His requirements.

It is the Lord that keeps us safe. A good "wolf" will be able to get by all of the roadblocks but an injured lamb will not even try.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

HeartSong wrote:
For what it is worth, if there had been all of these "requirements" (or any for that matter) when I "stumbled upon" SermonIndex, it is unlikely that I would have ever joined...

Likewise. Heartsong you are singing my heart's exact feelings tonight on a number of issues it seems.

M

Miccah Nov 12, 2009

Leo_Grace wrote:

This sounds like a good idea, but instead of the 500+ posts required (one can get 500+ by "amen"-ing all threads all the time), the moderators should appoint several forum "elders" chosen prayerfully based on previous participation - men of sound and mature faith. These "elders", guided by a set of rules provided by the moderators, can do the tagging to enforce forum ethics. This will provide an additional layer of protection to what moderators are already doing.

Respectfully, this is not a church. Brother Paul pointed this out in a different thread I believe.

With all due respect and with nothing personal towards your idea Leo, but if we start "playing church" on SI, my time posting here will come to an end.

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

Well what 'church' are we talking about here?? I don't come on here to sit in a pew or eagerly await denominational doctrine to be randomly and arbitrarily regurgitated to me. The church is the body of Christ, the renmant church, living stones. Some belong, some don't. Some here have fellowship with others and have formed meaningful relationships, others seek prayer and edification. The one's who don't, they like to stir up trouble, THEY like to attack the forum. Greg knows this.. otherwise he wouldn't entertain the idea of a filter.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

What about truth seeking unbelievers? What would position would the lost be in? Just unwelcome on a board where your circumcision and character must be proved for fellowhsip?

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

What about truth seeking unbelievers?

If you notice on the left side of the margin of this website, "Who's online" you'll currently see at this moment 53 Guests and a meager 8 members on line. The 53 guests are three classes, "the believers, the make believers and the unbelievers". So to answer your question, the unbelievers who are curious have all the information at their fingertips. They have sermons, they have our writings and debates. It's all here. Do they need to become a member to learn any of this? The 53 Guests proves that they don't. Being a member is having the privilege of participating in this forum.

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

"What about truth seeking unbelievers? What would position would the lost be in? Just unwelcome on a board where your circumcision and character must be proved for fellowhsip?" lav

I'm obviously speaking for myself here and others who have been here. The post was directed on what the biblical definition of 'church' is. There are those deceivers here who claim to be brethren but are wolves in sheep's clothing. Paul defined them biblically "2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." These use multiple accounts to knowingly deceive the brethren here AND the unbelievers I might add. This is the issue.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

I meant more in regards to being able to ask a question. Between this thread and the other on roughly the same topic, it seems like it would be all but impossible for a seeker to ask questions. Of course they would have all the resources available for viewing. Perhaps that is sufficient.

It may be that because I have not born the brunt of one of these "troublemaker posters" I am not as anxious to have more and more hoops to jump through. Sounds very big government all around.

L

Laviver Nov 12, 2009

I understand what you're saying ccrider. It seems that regular moderation is all that is necessary to handle these cases as they arise without having to reinvent the forum wheel.

Sorry for double post.

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

Laviver...Okay I see what you're saying now. An unbeliever might not have a testimony. That's a great and legitimate point. I have no answer or suggestion for that... it definitely complicates things. I'm with ginnyrose on the multiple accounts though.. if there is a way to filter those in a proactive way I think it would be beneficial.

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

Sounds very big government all around.

In the early Church, government was a big thing. Did you know that no one had an independent individuality? They were all in one accord, one mind, broke bread from house to house, sold houses and lands to feed and house the poor IN THE CHURCH. They were interdependent upon one another. No one did their own thing, they did it together. It's was not an "us 4 and no more" attitude. One of the callings of the Spirit is "governments". The 7 men that were called to take care of the widows were gifted with the workings of government.

Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

This goes against the "American way". The Camel Sedan they drove they did not consider it to be their own. I mean that is difficult to fathom.

Even when I talk about my privacy, I know that I am speaking foolishly. There is no such a thing as privacy in the Church. Each knew of one another's business, save our wives. Sin wouldn't be so rampant if we knew one another more. Accountability was huge in those days. In those days when the persecution was heightened, you had to be known or you were not let in. Everything about you had to be revealed.

When we get into this thing Brothers and Sisters, we are going to lose our individuality, and we are going to love it, though right now it looks scary.

sermonindex Nov 12, 2009

I think the big gov't thing is a bit overdramatic. There are rules everywhere folks, many are necessary and not oppressively sinful.

This is real simple: are multiple accounts allowed? If not, and many are getting away with breaking the rules and being deceptive in propagating their theology, then what is to be done? And can this be prevented in a way that's fair to everyone? You guys act like the very idea is voodoo administration.

If I didn't know any better I would think that those here asking for, at the very least, minimal safeguards, were asking Musolini (Greg) and Stalin (Paul) to oppress the masses with an iron fist. Come now. What started out as a simple suggestion by Leo Grace, a dear brethren, to make it more difficult for some to deceive and attack the forum, has turned into a psuedo conspiracy theory. Give me a break guys..... this forum isn't going to start the next communist regime. The Big Brother/Big Sister stuff pertaining to the forum is just plain goofiness.