\living with the fucktarded system for reporting server abuse

[DevHC]

i have always criticized the fucked-up design of the system-and-procedures for reporting abuse on the GrangerPub/GrangerClub game servers. however, for an empirical study on how exactly the system is inefficient, i made 30 instances of reports. (at the time of this writing, only around 2/3 of the reports were processed after being submitted.)

• statistically, creating a report takes around 25 minutes of annoying composition, plus task-swiching overhead — versus the ideal of around 20 seconds of hardly being distracted.
• to minimize task-switching overhead, reports were saved and composed in bursts, and were thus delayed for days.
• the responses on what action has been taken for each report, were unclear.
• during the study, the non-fitness-for-duty (fucktardedness) of a some (forum-)admins were discovered.

the overall experience is terrible. even discounting the wastage of my time (and direct consequences thereof), i have only suffered of conflicts. statistically, there is no incentive to make reports, especially on behalf of others (including a group, eg. the player’s team), and there is a load of incentive (specific to GrangerHub) to avoid making reports, even for cases where u have been abused — in contrast to the ideal, where any work is to come with some reward (at least in expectation).

i hereby request reports on the admin side of the work (eg.: what r the time requirements ? were there any notable benefits of the claimed „transparency” ? what is the percentage of cases in which the evidence was verified ?).

[Helper_Bot]

@DevHC

only around 2/3 of the reports were processed after being submitted.)

I’ll try my best to make it 3/3.

@DevHC

the responses on what action has been taken for each report, were unclear.

Forum staff are doing their best to let admins know that they should go to this specific report, and file their full action on the report. *<{dGr8LookinSparky

[Hendrich]

Moved the thread according to:

Posts related to specific Tremulous servers (other than GrangerHub development servers) would not go in this category

Moving on:

@DevHC

for an empirical study on how exactly the system is inefficient

Yes, you have successfully shown that “bombing” the report section (with intentional delays) shows the cracks in the current system. It is clear that the current report system isn’t competent for situations like these (bulk submission) and will only get worse over time, as responsive admins such as @Helper_Bot won’t always be around.

I genuinely hope that this will lead to changes to the current system in the upcoming year and I commend your work in this regard.

@DevHC

i hereby request reports on the admin side of the work

@DevHC

what r the time requirements ?

What do you mean by “time”? Time of what, exactly? Explain further, please.

@DevHC

notable benefits of the claimed „transparency” ?

Please explain the context behind the transparency claim or atleast identify who made it.

[Tony_X]

was wondering why 15 new messages just suddenly popped up, then I read this thread.
spaming reports heh? I have a feeling you might like this thread: GrangerHub Forum - Tremulous Forums
XD

[BillyRazOr2015]

@Tony_X

This is why I got too many spam report threads as I saw it.

@DevHC, You should make a [color=green]SIMPLIFIED[/color] thread (or single thread) for about different types of report things. This is very easy to give admins reading your thread, [color=red]NOT[/color] to every single thread to make every report.

[Helper_Bot]

I got spooked for a second though Granger Hub forum’s got spammed.

[DevHC]

@Hendrich

@DevHC

for an empirical study on how exactly the system is inefficient

Yes, you have successfully shown that “bombing” the report section (with intentional delays) shows the cracks in the current system. It is clear that the current report system isn’t competent for situations like these (bulk submission)

WRONG and irrelevant. had u effectively read what i wrote, u’d understand that:

• the report-delays weren’t „intentional”, but were the mere consequence of trying

@DevHC

to minimize task-switching overhead

because

creating a report takes […] plus task-swiching overhead

• the situation would have been worse with „one report at a time”, ie. 30 instead of 25 minutes of my time wasted per report; and even more worse if „each player reports for him-/herself”, ie. another added 30 minutes per user to learn the procedures.
• nevertheless, the study even discounted any added processing delays resulting in from receiving multiple reports at once.

in other words, i studied the pitfalls inherent in the current system, as i wrote.

however, u might be onto something. i didn’t see any cracks in and incompetence for handling bulk submissions. explain the cracks and incompetences that u see !

@Hendrich

and will only get worse over time, as responsive admins such as @HelpingRobot won’t always be around.

u may be pointing at him giving the false impression that any real processing has happened. his scheme apparently is to glance at each report and respond with „will process this.”; u r gullible.

I commend your work in this regard.

u mean the conceptualization of a proper system, my wasting of time, or some supposed upcoming work ?

@DevHC

what r the time requirements ?

What do you mean by “time”? Time of what, exactly? Explain further, please.

how much time does it take for an admin to process an abuse report, ie. to

• log in to the forum
• navigate to an abuse report
• read the case presented
• verify that the evidence is true to the server logs
• make a judgement
• log out
• with a group of admins, make a consensus on the sanctions
• connect to the game server
• administer the ban
• disconnect
• other tasks

?

Please explain the context behind the transparency claim or atleast identify who made it.

LONG™ ago, i said that reporting overhead (of the whole community) would be minimal if reports were made through whatever means at hand (eg. XMPP message to a known admin; but ofc let’s not forget interactive reporting interfaces), but @dGr8LookinSparky didn’t budge on that, and noted that „forum-based abuse-reporting procedures will come with the benefit of added transparency”.

[Hendrich]

@DevHC

WRONG and irrelevant.

No.

@DevHC

the report-delays weren’t „intentional”, but were the mere consequence

I’m going to have to seriously doubt that on the virtue that even by your own admission, such overhead would of added 5 additional minutes per report. A person of your intelligence would understand the inefficient outcome of bulk-submission inbetween the period of Christmas and New Years. Its almost as if during your study, you were seeking a particular result modified by the way and the time-frame that you’ve submitted reports.

Besides, we can even delve into semantics arguments as its plainly obvious you made a conscious decision to do this, ergo “intentional”. “Consequence” didn’t sway your hand.

@DevHC

i didn’t see any cracks in and incompetence for handling bulk submissions

Excellent.

@DevHC

(you are) giving the false impression that any real processing has happened

WRONG. Just because I complimented his responsiveness, it doesn’t conclude processing has happened. I’m afraid that is an impression created in your head.

@DevHC

his scheme apparently is to glance at each report and respond with „will process this

You are free to criticize @Helper_Bot’s adequacy of the “final information”, but to say I am gullible despite history showing that he (and @Ckit) did process such reports is an invalid claim.

[DevHC]

@Hendrich

@DevHC

WRONG and irrelevant.

No.

WRONG.

@DevHC

the report-delays weren’t „intentional”, but were the mere consequence

I’m going to have to seriously doubt that on the virtue that even by your own admission, such overhead would of added 5 additional minutes per report.

d00d, srsrly, do u ever think ? hello, logic ? why the fuck do u think that i would give the „batch processing saved me 5 minutes of time per report” argument against the „/dev/humancontroller sought to contrive an unfair study” claim, if, as u say, the argument „admits” the claim ?

i’ll simplify the logic:

submitting reports takes a lot of time (the abuse-report system is a big fucking pile of steaming goatshit).
⇒ users r urged to find ways to minimize wasting their time.
⇒ users do this by minimizing task-switching overhead (assuming they choose not to degrade the contents of the reports instead).

as the latter behavior is a broad consequence of the properties of the system, the system can be tested along eg. the above path. if there r discovered issues, they’re issues of the system. some were expected, but a point of the study was to quantify them.

A person of your intelligence would understand the inefficient outcome of bulk-submission inbetween the period of Christmas and New Years. Its almost as if during your study, you were seeking a particular result modified by the way and the time-frame that you’ve submitted reports.

a person of ur lack of intelligence would not understand, that the points noted by the study’s text (except for the „25 minutes” part) so far, were based on batches of

• 2 reports on 2016-11-26,
• 1 report on 2016-12-05,
• 4 reports on 2016-12-07, and
• 9 reports on 2016-12-15,

which r a month to 1.5 weeks before Christmas.

even more, the noted suffering began with the first reports, which were bulk-free.

@DevHC

i didn’t see any cracks in and incompetence for handling bulk submissions

Excellent.

congratulations, u have successfully ignored the question. u gave a non-accepting stance towards some „cracks in and incompetence for handling bulk submissions” (and confirmed „inefficient outcome”), which means that u got some of those issues out of what i wrote (or how i wrote it, whatever), or u saw issues on ur own. my question was: what were they ? further on in the thread, i will regularly prompt u to answer this until u do.

@DevHC

(you are) giving the false impression that any real processing has happened

WRONG. […] I’m afraid that is […] created in your head.

WRONG.

@DevHC

u may be pointing
at
him giving […]

(otherwise, there would have been a comma after „him”.)

@Hendrich

we can even delve into semantics arguments as its plainly obvious you made a conscious decision to do this, ergo “intentional”. “Consequence” didn’t sway your hand.

not understood. rephrase / get to the point (if still noteworthy after the above responses) !

[Hendrich]

@DevHC

d00d, srsrly, do u ever think ?

@DevHC

the system can be tested

Oh yes, thats whats going on. Not under-handed at all, excellent display of simple logic.

@DevHC

congratulations, u have successfully ignored the question

Thank you. I’ve simply accepted your perspective on the subject.

@DevHC

i will regularly prompt u to answer this until u do.

Don’t bother.

[MaeJong]

@DevHC

log in to the forum
navigate to an abuse report
read the case presented
verify that the evidence is true to the server logs
make a judgement
log out
with a group of admins, make a consensus on the sanctions
connect to the game server
administer the ban
disconnect
other tasks

It’d take me 2 mins to read the report and be almost certain on whether a ban should be issued or not, however, I’m too boosy making retarded shit™ over being closer to teh_community™ at the moment.

FUCK consensus. Making a judgement is ez based on name/posted log/acquired IG playerbase knowledge.

No need to ever log off forums (atleast now that the autoconnect doesn’t work worth shit anymore, I keep my browser opened 24/7 with ghub forum running in a tab)

PS: I can’t offline-ban no matter how fast I am. Since am often on comp it’d be beneficial if you had a way to ping me so I can react instantly and get online. Switching tasks wouldn’t bother me that much.

Lately, I’ve been PLOTTING®™ with Enneract so you can find me on New-Edge’s freenode IRC channel. Just ping me there and if I’m on the comp I’ll get on trem in less than a min.

[DevHC]

@Ckit

@DevHC

there will be less of such sporadic abuse, because subsequent violations will result in more than a !warn.

CORRECT… assuming they connect under the same username. No IP[A] was recorded because you did not attempt to contact an in-game admin to report/investigate these issues for you.

WRONG. all IPAs were recorded because the server logs all IPAs, period.

but even if the server were to not log IPAs, then still, in most of the cases, either

• no game-admin was available; or
• a game-admin was available, definitely saw the incident — there is no non-contact that would give justification to the verb „to contact” —, but decided to *not& act for whatever reason.

[DevHC]

@MaeJong

FUCK consensus. Making a judgement is ez based on name/posted log/acquired IG playerbase knowledge.

PS: I can’t offline-ban no matter how fast I am. Since am often on comp it’d be beneficial if you had a way to ping me so I can react instantly and get online. Switching tasks wouldn’t bother me that much.

that’s what i have been advocating since ever.

sux that only a few ppl realize that DICKBUTTs r working against the community.

Lately, I’ve been PLOTTING®™ with Enneract so you can find me on New-Edge’s freenode IRC channel. Just ping me there and if I’m on the comp I’ll get on trem in less than a min.

how about using XMPP+OTR with the rest of the team ?

[oblivion]

I have built a player report system. This will fix all your spam. As soon as I get time to put it on Wordpress, no more forum spam!!!

[Tony_X]

@oblivion

no more forum spam!!!

HOW DARE YOU SAY THIS?!

[dGr8LookinSparky]

@oblivion

no more forum spam!!!

Spam is like Jello, there is always room for more. But we could always benefit from better quality spam .

[DevHC]

@DevHC

congratulations, u have successfully ignored the question. u gave a non-accepting stance towards some „cracks in and incompetence for handling bulk submissions” (and confirmed „inefficient outcome”), which means that u got some of those issues out of what i wrote (or how i wrote it, whatever), or u saw issues on ur own. my question was: what were they ? further on in the thread, i will regularly [size=50][color=yellow]prompt[/color][/size] u to answer this until u do.

[Hendrich]

Excellent prompt, however it goes both ways. See:

@DevHC

do not prompt me again.

[DevHC]

@DevHC

congratulations, u have successfully ignored the question. u gave a non-accepting stance towards some „cracks in and incompetence for handling bulk submissions” (and confirmed „inefficient outcome”), which means that u got some of those issues out of what i wrote (or how i wrote it, whatever), or u saw issues on ur own. my question was: what were they ? further on in the thread, i will regularly [size=50][color=orange]prompt[/color][/size] u to answer this until u do.

also:

@DevHC

i hereby request reports on the admin side of the work (eg.: what r the time requirements ? were there any notable benefits of the claimed „transparency” ? what is the percentage of cases in which the evidence was verified ?).