×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Punish Bad Users With Drupal Misery

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the what's-good-for-the-goose-is-good-for-the-griefer dept.

Programming 418

If you're sick of banning or deleting troublemakers on your Drupal website, you might want to check out Misery, the module designed to give trolls a taste of their own medicine. Creating a random length delay for a user, redirecting them to a random page, presenting them with a 404 error, and crashing their browser if they're using IE6 are just a few of the things you can make users endure with Misery. I'm still waiting patiently for a Punch In the Nose module, but this is a good start.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

418 comments

their (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954232)

their

their

their

their

Seriously, it's they're. That just looks sloppy.

Re:their (0, Troll)

Robmonster (158873) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954314)

their

their

their

their

Seriously, it's they're. That just looks sloppy.

Give trolls a taste of they are misery...?

'their' is correct in this case, as in a taste of the medicine owned by the trolls.

Re:their (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954380)

He was talking about this: "if their using IE6".

Re:their (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954394)

gp was referring to

"if their using IE6"

Re:their (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954396)

I think AC was refering to this bit:

if their using IE6

Re:their (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954704)

I think AC was refering to this bit:

if their using IE6

Heh. One of the features could be to randomly search and replace 'their' for "they're" and cause a 404 to come up when they try to reply to those posts.

Re:their (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954424)

"and crashing their browser if their using IE6"

Derp.

Re:their (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954458)

Seriously, it isn't.

Remember that these three pronouns use the apostrophe thus:

it's (=it is)
its (belonging to it)

they're (=they are)
their (belonging to them)

you're (=you are)
your (belonging to you)

In each case, the apostrophe's signifying a contraction trumps its signifying possession.

Also remember "there" denotes a location apart from "here."

And here I thought... (4, Funny)

cruff (171569) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954238)

When I read the title I thought it was about being forced to use Drupal at all.

Re:And here I thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954288)

After reading the features of the new module I thought it came pre-installed already...

their/they're (0, Redundant)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954242)

"Their" denotes ownership, "They're" is short for they are.

Re:their/they're (5, Funny)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954468)

Really? Thank you so fucking much. Nobody knew that at all. It certainly couldn't have just been a slip, it had to come from ignorance. I'm so excited that I can come to this free internet to learn about grammar from such excellent minds as yours.

Re:their/they're (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954602)

Jesus Smelch, calm down.

I guess this may be news to you but there actually *are* a lot of people posting on the Internet who have terrible grammar and spelling.

Re:their/they're (1, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954632)

Really? Thank you so fucking much. Nobody knew that at all. It certainly couldn't have just been a slip, it had to come from ignorance.

Except, in theory we have these people called editors whose job it is to actually, you know, edit the submissions for some semblance of grammatical and spelling goodness.

In theory, these people even get paid for this task, which is intended to actually cause them to do it instead of blindly clicking.

But, hey, snark all you want ... why should Slashdot be any different from the mainstream media, where spelling and identifying which homonym to use is also going by the way side.

Re:their/they're (1, Insightful)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954738)

I'm not saying they shouldn't correct it, but explaining it to an editor is the kind of thing a butthole would do. Do you honestly think they didn't already know the difference? You said it yourself, they get paid for this. They know the most basic grammar. It's irritating watching all these posts about one typo, acting as if they're telling something the editor didn't know. But if your little lesson in 3rd grade grammar makes you feel like you're contributing go ahead. Be honest, if you were typing and somebody was reading over your shoulder and told you "Oh, by the way, knew with a 'k' is the past tense of know with a 'k' (as opposed to N-O, the opposite of yes) but you typed 'new' as in not old" wouldn't you think that guy was a total ass? I certainly would. The difference between "its" and "it's" is more reasonable to explain since people are legitimately confused by it.

Re:their/they're (-1, Troll)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954814)

It's a common error, and I think there probably are a lot of people who don't know the difference. I don't really mind misspellings (though these days there isn't much of an excuse for it) but getting "their" wrong can actually lead to confusing sentences. It's not like I was being an ass about it, I just specified the difference between the two words in case anyone didn't know. The editors aren't the only ones reading the comments, after all.

Re:their/they're (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954572)

Not to mention redundant. The first their tells us who the subject is. There is no reason to reference them again with another they.

"crashing their browser if using IE6" is sufficient.

Re:their/they're (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954606)

HHHHHHGGGRRGHGRRRRR! think work make brane not happy feel! must put keyboard words on screen fastlyer! stop brane not happy feel! FASTLYER KEYBOARD WORDS ELSE NO WIN! word sound same so word be same ok. must not waist time on think work else not get done befour next guy!

Tried to First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954244)

But it wouldn't accept it for some reason...

Alternatively (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954254)

If Misery isn't enough for you, you can try the module "Crime Against Humanity". It forces the trolls to admin a site that runs Drupal.

For the sake of satisfying my curiosity... (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954258)

What code are they using to crash IE6?

Re:For the sake of satisfying my curiosity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954336)

may be this http://www.crashie.com/

Re:For the sake of satisfying my curiosity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954366)

In some versions of IE. I think <8 writing <crash> triggers an exception code that made it out to production.

Re:For the sake of satisfying my curiosity... (1)

Richard Dick Head (803293) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954410)

case 'crash_ie6':
drupal_add_js('for (x in document.write) {
document.write(x); }', 'inline');
break;

Re:For the sake of satisfying my curiosity... (2)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954676)

Well... I successfully crashed IE7 with this:

function f(){document.body.innerHTML+="<div style='height:1px;width:1px;position:absolute;'></div>";window.setInterval("f();",1);}window.setInterval("f();",1);

(Well - it hasn't crashed, yet, but it's not responding, pegging the CPU and slowly ballooning in memory. I'm pretty sure it'll crash eventually.)

Re:For the sake of satisfying my curiosity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954762)

I'm intrigued about pegging a CPU, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:For the sake of satisfying my curiosity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954460)

for (x in document.write) { document.write(x);}

Of course, you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954266)

This won't just be used on "bad" users, but anybody who upsets a given mod with power but no responsibility.

It's really not too bad an issue, so you get banned one site, it's not important, move on with your live, letting other people define you is as unhealthy as succumbing to total narcissism. But still, it's wrong.

Knowing when to move on, not because you are bad, but because you can't change others, because you don't deserve mistreatment is important though.

If you believe any of this is a good idea... (1)

JerryLindenburg (2048934) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954282)

then you have no business running a website. Period. Just leave it to the professionals. Why on earth would anyone even think to do these things? Your users, good or bad, are an asset. Fucking with them intentionally makes you, the site owner as bad as your worst, most annoying contributors.

Re:If you believe any of this is a good idea... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954392)

Users are an asset(unless your site is purely a hobby for your amusement); but, in sites that feature any sort of user interaction, some assets have a net negative value.

If a user is bad enough to drive others away, getting rid of them is the strategy that maximizes the size of your userbase. Once you factor in the fact that users vary in level of quality, terminating the undesirables starts to look even more attractive.

For websites that are of the simple 1 user interacting with some interface/body of data/whatever, sure, it doesn't make sense to drive off anybody who isn't actively destructive. If community dynamics come into it, though, you will quickly run into the fact that some people will bleed a community dry and then tubgirl its shriveled husk. If you want a userbase, you don't want them.

Re:If you believe any of this is a good idea... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954706)

Personally, I believe that heckling the hecklers is the better way to go. It actually adds to the show and can draw a good crowd. Verbal abuse should be taught as a martial art in the schools.

Re:If you believe any of this is a good idea... (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954756)

If a user is bad enough to drive others away, getting rid of them is the strategy that maximizes the size of your userbase.

Then just ban them. There is no reason to get vindictive.

Re:If you believe any of this is a good idea... (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954804)

Sure there's a reason; it's called being an insufferable manchild. Plenty of Slashdot users should have firsthand experience with that one...

Re:If you believe any of this is a good idea... (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954822)

But if you ban them they just clear cookies, change their IP, and register a new account.

Re:If you believe any of this is a good idea... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954820)

That and I doubt that it will curve their behavior, they will just figure your site is just crappy. It reminds me a of the old SysOp fuction on the old BBS Software ( WWIV) that allowed you to disconnect a user and make it look like line noise. It was good in the aspect that you could kick them off without them being personally offended, but it made it look like your line wasn't high quality and often will not go back to your site.

Trolls (5, Interesting)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954292)

I always thought the most effective way to combat trolls would be to silently flag their account, allowing them to post and continue viewing the forums as normal, but everything they do is completely invisible. The system could also generate fake replies to their replies and threads, also completely invisible.

Re:Trolls (5, Informative)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954354)

So that would be...

If you want to give your trolls the silent treatment try the Cave [drupal.org] module.

Re:Trolls (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954408)

Trolls usually equip themselves with multiple accounts, I think they'd figure that little goodie out rather quickly

Re:Trolls (2)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954502)

They might, but not as fast as they would if the accounts were simply banned. There's probably also a good number of trolls who only bother to create a new account when their current account is banned.

Re:Trolls (3, Interesting)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954532)

And actually now that I think about it, you might as well just put all the troll flagged accounts into the same bubble, so they could see each other's posts, but they would all be invisible to everyone else. That would be much more difficult to detect.

Re:Trolls (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954818)

you might as well just put all the troll flagged accounts into the same bubble, so they could see each other's posts, but they would all be invisible to everyone else.

That was seriously considered for an early MMORPG. Annoying players would be dumped into a dungeon level full of NPCs and other annoying players, where they could flame war and player kill as long as they wanted, without bothering anybody else. It wasn't done due to resource constraints, but it remains a good idea.

Re:Trolls (5, Funny)

FriendlyPrimate (461389) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954508)

Interesting. Why do you feel that the most effective way to combat trolls would be to silently flag their account, allowing them to post and continue viewing the forums as normal, but everything they do is completely invisible. The system could also generate fake replies to their replies and threads, also completely invisible?

Re:Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954512)

Slashdot editors: Please fix your Drupal icon. A white square background? Really?

Re:Trolls (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954578)

Slashdot users: Please don't reply to an unrelated post to get your reply positioned higher on the page.

Re:Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954838)

Faggot: Eat faggot dicks.

Re:Trolls (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954850)

I feel like there should be a post above this, but I can just barely detect a faint vapor.

Shame, too, as I was hoping to read some good trollese.

About that delay (1)

Tinctorius (1529849) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954322)

By serving 40% of your malicious users with a delay, you actually spend more resources (mostly memory) on trolls. Sure, in 60% of the cases, you spend nearly nothing, but it sure opens possibilities for DDoS attacks: open accounts, troll a lot, get miserable and simply troll harder.

Bad idea. (3, Insightful)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954328)

Bad idea.
All it will do is generate hundreds of bug reports.
And. It doesn't really address the problem. If 'Misery' can auto-magically detect trolling why not just auto-ban or auto-suspend and give an explanation?
That assumes of course that 'Misery' can detect trolling reliably -which I doubt- so realistically it's going to annoy 'normal' users, ie the ones your web site presumably wants to keep, who will just think your web site is badly written and buggy.
In short: it's a stupid idea and a stupid plugin.

Re:Bad idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954420)

The reason this plugin exists is simple.

If the troll knows that their content isn't being made public (banning, probation, etc...), then they'll just create a new account.

By only showing their posts to themselves, they're oblivious and therefore contained in their own little world.

This is about containing a contamination.

Re:Bad idea. (1)

rograndom (112079) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954442)

If 'Misery' can auto-magically detect trolling why not just auto-ban or auto-suspend and give an explanation?

The user will know that the account is dead and just create another one. If you can string them along for a while and they think that the site is broken maybe they'll just leave instead.

Re:Bad idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954506)

Bad idea. All it will do is generate hundreds of bug reports

Do trolls take the time to submit bug reports?

Re:Bad idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954526)

All it will do is generate hundreds of bug reports.

I wonder why you are still not marked +5 funny. Trolls filling (hundred of) bug reports...

Re:Bad idea. (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954652)

Yeah because forum trolls often file bugs. And in fact most forums even have a place to file a bug report.

And why would it be doing detection. Instead of clicking "ban" you click "misery". Now said troll will be slowed down in their trolling for a little while instead of instantly creating a new user and continuing at full speed.

It's not an approach I think will be too useful, but it's not a completely stupid idea.

Waiting for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954352)

I'm still waiting patiently for a Punch In the Nose module, but this is a good start.

Personally, I'm waiting for the module that shuts your computer off, drops a dictionary on your desk, and refuses to let you power the computer back on until you've learned the difference between their and its heterographs.

I have a better name for this bullshit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954388)

escalate

Dammit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954404)

I can't just post the word "nigger," it keeps 404-ing me.

Crashing IE6, eh? (5, Funny)

lluBdeR (466879) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954456)

Is there a way I can enable this, like, sitewide by default, punished user or not?

Drupal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954486)

Aren't there modules like this for pretty much any big software package out there? I know I've installed stuff like this in vBulletin, phpBB and I made one for SMF.

Obviously a module that's .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954490)

designed for Admins who are as childish as the trolls.

A bit uncomfortable... (3, Insightful)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954494)

...with the IE6 crashing thing. Granted, it's turned off by default which is a good thing. Looking through the other options, they all affect the way the troublemaker interacts with the site, so essentially are all within the realms of the site owners responsibility.

Crashing a browser is actively and knowingly interfering with the users local software and could have unknown consequences, moreso if it manages to take their entire machine out.

Other than that, it's a nice and interesting way of messing with your online nemeses.

Re:A bit uncomfortable... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954612)

It won't take out the machine. It just makes IE6 close. Personally this should be run on every webserver by default.

DailyKos (3, Informative)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954496)

DailyKos has a better way to deal with Trolls. Enough downvotes and the system makes all their posts invisible to the rest of the users. The troll still sees them so he/she wouldn't know they're essentially locked out (at least not right away).

Re:DailyKos (1, Insightful)

geek (5680) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954642)

Which is exactly why DKoS is a bastion of group think and goose-stepping morons. For people so into "Free Speech" and "The First Amendment" you would think those morons would welcome, you know, free speech. Instead the collective socialist mentality at that cesspool beats down and oppresses opposing opinions every chance it gets. God forbid someone actually disagree with the mob mentality. At least on Slashdot.......... wait nevermind.

Re:DailyKos (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954710)

It has to be better than what HuffingtonPost.com does. Basically, a rigidly very left group of admins screen posts that don't meet their accepted political opinions. I'm liberal, but I'm not liberal *enough* to even post there anymore. They do leave conservative posts up strangely. It's like they want to present their own view of what "liberal" is.

Re:DailyKos (0)

geek (5680) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954840)

I had a very very conservative friend (I'm more libertarian) and he ran an oddly popular gaming blog but insisted on tossing his conservatism onto it (his blog, he can do what he likes) but he would go ape shit over liberals posting. He would censor stuff he didn't like but other things he would oddly leave very prominent on the page. I asked why and he said "Because I want everyone to know how dumb they are."

You see this from time to time at sites like michellemalkin.com when she posts the crazy emails she gets from people, stuff like death threats, racial slurs etc. It does your side some good to allow others to see how crazy the other side is. It fails however when you're just picking and choosing what info to leave up Pravda style.

Re:DailyKos (1)

ashidosan (1790808) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954852)

Instead the collective socialist mentality at that cesspool beats down and oppresses opposing opinions every chance it gets.

Welcome to the Internet.

Re:DailyKos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954784)

DailyKos gets trolled because it is filled with idiots..

Harming your users (5, Interesting)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954500)

Harming your users doesn't seem to me a good idea at all. Adding more bad behavior to the Internet is unlikely to improve anyone's situation. And crashing their browsers? That crosses an ethical line, in my opinion. What's next, infecting them with malware out of spite?

Re:Harming your users (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954670)

Well, obviously something like this can be abused...

But if you look at the actual module you'll see that it is intended to combat trolls.

Not automated spambots... Not the well-behaved members of your community... But trolls. The folks who intentionally post garbage just to get a reaction.

Sure, banning trolls is the typical response. But it's also rather obvious when you've been banned, and somebody who is determined to troll your boards can simply create a new account. This module will hopefully dissuade the troll from spending much time on your board, while not making it obvious that you're trying to get rid of them.

Also, if you take a look at the module itself, you'll see that by default it will not crash IE6. That's simply an option that can be enabled if you're feeling particularly malicious.

Re:Harming your users (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954794)

Harming your users doesn't seem to me a good idea at all. Adding more bad behavior to the Internet is unlikely to improve anyone's situation.

Can't say I agree. The more energy one has to use to be a turd, the less inclined they'll be to do it after a certain amount of time.

And crashing their browsers? That crosses an ethical line, in my opinion. What's next, infecting them with malware out of spite?

Normally I'd agree, but it shouldn't be possible to do that with any browser.

Funny, but not useful (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954564)

This is pretty funny in theory, but in practice, as others have noted, it's not really very professional or a good idea..

Better off just banning them, using CAPTCHA, etc.

Awesome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954566)

Deliberately degrade your own services. Sounds like a great plan.

Re:Awesome. (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954856)

Deliberately degrade your own services. Sounds like a great plan.

See the recent Slashdot re-design for an example.

Punish the Troll-Feeders? (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#35954630)

The primary problem with trolls is that they get fed. Other users MUST feed trolls - They're powerless to resist. You can scream DON'T FEED THE TROLLS at the top of your lungs yet time after time after time yet they'll still be fed, everywhere, all the time. If you could somehow figure out how to address the other users who feed the trolls, the trolls would eventually starve and die off. Of course, getting rid of spam would be easier than this, as it goes against human nature, but if it could be solved the troll problem would go away...

Suddenly it makes sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35954692)

I've been trolling reddit a lot recently. They've clearly added a similar feature.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...