How Many of These Accounts Did I Approve?

[Troy]

Based upon account name alone, how many of these accounts did I approve?

 

1. Wide awake
2. kiarakelynack5
3. wabix
4. earle384946155
5. Naomi Rivers
6. norberto59g957
7. kwc
8. kelleyb123987
9. Dashia
10. The Black Diaspora

 

I used to take the time to look at IP address.  There are some places that get banned based upon where the account was created.

 

Today I don't even look at IP addresses I look at the account name and the domain that the email address was created. I used to worry about banned a legitimate poster today I'm more concerned about letting a troll in, so I appreciate my heavy-handed approach may be banning legitimate posters.

 

I may ultimately restrict all users to google and Microsoft accounts.  Sorting users the way I do is tedious and not a good use of my time... I can only imagine what a social media sites has to deal with.  Social media sites basically let anyone in to bolster subscriber counts, and deal with the nonsense they post after the fact.  

 

Also, most of the accounts I approve are not used. 

 

You already know "wabix" was dinged but how many others did a not approve?

 

1. Wide awake
2. kiarakelynack5
3. wabix
4. earle384946155
5. Naomi Rivers
6. norberto59g957
7. kwc
8. kelleyb123987
9. Dashia
10. The Black Diaspora

 

 

[Pioneer1]

Troy

Hold up!
I'm interested in that "Naomi Rivers".......lol.....wanna see what she's all about.

[ProfD]

On 8/8/2023 at 5:58 PM, Troy said:

Based upon account name alone, how many of these accounts did I approve?

Well, the jury is still out on #1 from your list.

[Pioneer1]

You come around me calling yourself "KellyB".....you just might get your account approved, LOL.

And if your name is "Naomi".....sheeeeeit.....I'm giving your ass a key to the front door, lol.

[richardmurray]

@Troy i have another solution, this is your website, you should have the programmability to place users in racial camps and have powers based on that.

meaning what.

users who have paid for an aalbc author page +

users who are on the forum but have achieved certain badges +

users who have achieved a certain level of interaction are allowed to have two types of posts. 

Public + Quality. 

In a quality forum posts only those who have earned the quality ranking can create or comment. While all users can see or share. 

In a public posts it is open to all for total functionality. 

But only quality users have utilize either form of post, thus all the fake accounts by default start with public only and based on a set of factors will never reach quality as they barely post.

Thus it allows all quality users the ability to post to a quality space or public space,  where quality users can communicate to each other while non quality users can only watch.

Instead of filtering bad users, allow users based on performance on the website to have an alternative posting abillity that is accessible only to the qualified.

[nels]

On 8/11/2023 at 7:43 AM, richardmurray said:

alternative posting abillity

Self-defeating?

[Troy]

Actually I’m trying to do just that @richardmurray. Ideally the same login for customers, forums, and a login to the site. The login would already be vetted before they could use it here.  
 

i could grant access to exclusive content. It is one of the things I was thinking about in an effort to move away from a ad based model. I’m at least a year away from that.

[richardmurray]

We have patience you will succeed @Troy It will all work out. 

Right, the goal is to block user capability. With the overall design of the internet plus the tools available to those who want to invade various services online, it will be hard , nearest impossible to block access to the website, sequentially to fake accounts. But, you can block access to certain functions to all accounts fake or otherwise based on their activity which the badges even represent.  If FuckNiggers is a new member with the face of Naomi Campbell why should that person be able to comment on  posts that Richardmurray marked for only quality members. All members can view but why should all members be able to comment and like? Let members place their content in spaces. If Richard Murray makes a forum posts and finances of black children in the united states under ten years old and marks it for all members and FuckNiggers post a gif of a woman juggling her breast, that is richard murray's fault. You shouldn't have to spend time deleting accounts, make accounts earn spaces and let users be wise enough who have earned spaces to mark their content into spaces if they earned the ability. 

 

We will get there. 

 

As I said a while back, black people in the usa or elsewhere talk about what we don't do offline. And that is a complex thing. It isn't a straiight line or necessarily simple. But the one place Black people actually in my life time have been totally free to act is online and we don't act together here as potently as we could 

 

 

@nels self defeating in what way? Please explain your query in more detail

[nels]

3 hours ago, richardmurray said:

explain your query in more detail

IMO, when you compartmentalize, tier and block (so to speak) social engagement in an environment where you're trying to promote a level playing field and encourage meaningful participation, it can eventually lead to bifurcation. As a result, there is a reduced likelihood that the participants will converge at some point further down the line. Also, earning capabilities, privileges, etc. can sometimes have a tendency to discourage quality interactions. Just a perspective based on past observations.

[richardmurray]

@nels your missing the point. 

On the internet, all websites, all websites, all websites, have to deal with fake accounts. Yes, many websites in earlier days of the internet embraced these fake accounts, made some themselves,  to manipulate their image.  but, AALBC is a small website, and it  isn't trying to give fake accounts a level playing field with accounts of interactive users. The compartmentalization is to tier and block fake accounts in an effective way for a small website to promote an inequal playing field between fake accounts and functional accounts. 

It seems to me, your suggesting finding a way to make  fake accounts impotent  will hinder the growth of allbc which is an odd position in my mind, cause I don't want fake accounts comments or interaction.  Maybe you do. 

[nels]

On 8/15/2023 at 6:31 PM, richardmurray said:

Maybe you do

Didn't say that or imply. Just noting a perspective.

On 8/15/2023 at 6:31 PM, richardmurray said:

your missing the point

Sounds judgmental.

[Troy]

On 8/15/2023 at 9:31 PM, richardmurray said:

AALBC is a small website,

hey wait a minute  waddaya mean “small website.”

 

AALBC, comparatively speaking, is a rather large website.  If you are comparing the site to the massive social media or the likes of Amazon by then yeah we are tiny. But if your are comparing it then the rest of the web then we are rather large.

[richardmurray]

I see @nels so when you commented

Quote

Self-defeating?

you weren't asking a question based on your position, you were asking a question based on a perspective you don't share?

ok.  

 

@Troy I apologize I should had been clear, I am relating aalbc to the behemoths, allbc compared to the average is large:) 

[Troy]

@richardmurray no problem

 

[nels]

10 hours ago, richardmurray said:

you weren't asking a question based on your position, you were asking a question based on a perspective you don't share?

ok.  

Not being judgmental, exactly how would you know what I was basing anything on? I'm not seeing much clarity in your response.

[richardmurray]

@nels how would I be sure to know what you are thinking?  I am not. I don't know you. You are a stranger. I can only assume.

But, you said

Quote

Didn't say that or imply. Just noting a perspective.

https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/10460-how-many-of-these-accounts-did-i-approve/?do=findComment&comment=62691

 

Now, were you telling me the truth , i don't know, I am not trying to find out, but you said just noting a perspective. 

[nels]

16 hours ago, richardmurray said:

Now, were you telling me the truth , i don't know, I am not trying to find out, but you said just noting a perspective. 

IMO, none of what you've said makes any discernable sense. "Now, were you telling me the truth" makes even less sense. BTW, a perspective is simply the way a person sees, views, interprets or understands something, and nothing more. Perhaps it's just time to move on.