Shall Mr Vacula Make a Misstep in the Capital of Eire?

#8321

Apropos of nothing:

http://s.pikabu.ru/post_img/2013/06/30/ ... 077505.jpg

"Comrade Captain, it followed us home. Can we keep him?"

#8322

Wonky Donkey wrote:decius[/i]. In full high dudgeon mode sounding like an echo of Nerd of Redhead.

I'm intrigued does your memory not cast back to the closed forum set up for a smaller part of the clique to discuss a meetup that quickly evolved into a back channel for bitching about other posters that you were part of? Just wondering if you have started to flush around the ears now? Or are you going to claim that never existed ... ?

Are you questioning the right of people to freely associate, or what precisely?

The main reason was taking the chit-chat among long-time users out of the front page - an idea that would benefit this forum as well - because it disrupted the science and counterapologetics talk.
As you may remember, the PM system had been removed, leaving users with no alternative on site.

Obviously, some "bitching" and outright ridicule occurred. Irrational atheists, such as purveyors of CAM, had become a ludicrous fixture to a site dedicated to "reason and science", as membership ballooned compared to the early days.

To the best of my recollection, such system never existed.
I'm glad you used words like to the best of my recollection because as you and I both know the front page has been demolished and pruned many times.

Perhaps you are conflating the forum with the front page, which went from unmoderated, to heavily moderated, to self-moderated, back to heavily moderated again. But none of the regulars ever had any influence on the moderation process, which was left entirely to Josh (at the beginning) and to different dedicated staff (later on).

I remember various changes to the design. At one point, it was possible to award stars to the best posts, but nothing involving the buttons you describe.

Dawkins hired a bunch of moderators who went over the top and applied draconian actions which caused a massive panty wad explosion. Yes, other users AND you did author the document, and Dawkins spoke privately to Steve Zara about it who explained the problem which in conjunction with the document. This caused Richard to look at what had gone on and he criticised the front page moderators for their heavy stick vs gentle word moderation.

Exactly.

However you seem to have forgotten or missed the part when you could report (which downvoted) and disappeared posts or thank/praise (which upvoted) posts. I don't remember you being that active

At no point a block or downvote button was implemented, unless it was months or years after the inception of moderation. By then, I and other regulars had already left, precisely because of the capricious standards of moderation.

Under the no-moderation and self-moderation regimens, there was the so-called sin bin. When Josh found a disruptive troll or their sockpuppets, he wouldn't delete the posts, but move them to a parallel, tabbed, discussion thread. It was a clever system against derailment, without the shortcoming of censorship.

Sorry, I was there too, and right in with the clique (a mistake I won't be making again) but not so much I can delude myself about how the tools were misused.

If evidence of the worst part of the era have survived various site revisions and front page demolitions you can find the evidence yourself.

Sorry, on 9-11, I was there too, and right in with the Illuminati (a mistake I won't be making again) but not so much I can delude myself about how the defence system was misused.

If evidence of the worst part of the inside job have survived various killings and controlled demolitions you can find the evidence yourself.

Jokes aside, your version of events is incorrect. I wasn't sure why you would post erroneous information, but I now think that your memory is just a bit fuzzier than mine.

However, I find telling that you would immediately take an adversarial posture, compare me to NoR, but wouldn't even have the balls to identify yourself.

#8323

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:We never rearrange furniture. The tobacco stains on my former flat's walls can prove it.

We're perfectly willing to rearrange furniture; it's just that we arrange it correctly the first time.

#8324

Verklagekasper wrote:Contrary to what http://www.theblockbot.com suggests (and which, sadly, has also been purported on BBC Nightnews), the Block Bot does NOT only block. A view in the Block Bot sources reveals this:

https://github.com/ool0n/twitter_shared ... lockem.php
Code: Select all
...
if ($is_spam){
   $connection->post('users/report_spam', array('user_id' => $x_users_to_block[$x]));
   log_it("INFO","SPAM BLOCKED USER : ".$x_users_to_block[$x]." FOR USER ".$current_user);
} else {
  $connection->post('blocks/create', array('user_id' => $x_users_to_block[$x]));
  log_it("INFO","BLOCKED USER : ".$x_users_to_block[$x]." FOR USER ".$current_user);
}
...
Whereas "blocks/create" is the Twitter API command to block a user, "users/report_spam" does not only block a user but also report the user as a spam account to Twitter.
The difference is vital: When you mass block someone, this usually doesn't mean that his account gets suspended. However, when you mass spam report someone, this will most certainly get his Twitter accound suspended.
ool0n has a tool at his hands that allows him and an anonymous group of "administrators" to suspend any Twitter account. To send an account into Twitter Nirwana, all they have to do is send a message to the Block Bot including the name of the user and the hashtags "#level1" and "#spam" (instead of "#block", which would yield mere blocking).

This feature isn't mentioned on http://www.theblockbot.com. Particulary, the signup page fails to mention this extra functionality, suggesting that the bot would only block. None of the Block Bot users have authorized ool0n to spam report in their name. They are not even aware of this "extra feature".
This renders the feature a backdoor functionality and the Block Bot a Trojan. Just as common Trojans are used to create networks of remote-controlled computers which then are used for DOS-attacks etc., ool0n has used his Twitter Block Bot to create a network of Twitter accounts that he and his allies can remote control to suspend any Twitter account they deem unworthy of being present on Twitter.

Yes. I had noted this earlier. In fact on July 11th on the A+ forums oolon specifically states
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic ... =50#p87832

oolon wrote:#Level1, I upgraded @bugbrennan to this as Patience Newbury â€@patienceinbee suggested she was doxxing and mounting legal attacks on tweeps. Seems quite level1'y ... Also as queen of the TERFs I guess she is the worst. Although I'd recommend not adding too many as we have quite a few L1 users who expect really nasty abusive people and stalkers to be mainly in here. Doesn't mean much except at level1 you can add #spam and they are not just blocked but reported for spam as well.

I am not sure the users of his software are aware that their accounts may be reporting people for spam without their knowledge in contrast to what it says on his website.

#8325

So it seems @paulmasonnews has signed up to the blockbot because
l haven't mentioned the cunt & l'm blocked anyone else?

#8326

decius wrote:When Josh found a disruptive troll or their sockpuppets, he wouldn't delete the posts, but move them to a parallel, tabbed, discussion thread. It was a clever system against derailment, without the shortcoming of censorship.

Wait ... Josh was a moderator on RD.net? Damn!

#8327

Gefan wrote:Apropos of nothing:

http://s.pikabu.ru/post_img/2013/06/30/ ... 077505.jpg

"Comrade Captain, it followed us home. Can we keep him?"

I guess that explains where Subman has been lately.

#8328

Josh Timoneen designed and administered the original rd.net.

Then he fell out of Richard's grace rather spectacularly.

#8329

Hey Steersman, I notice you seem to tightening up your writing lately. Much appreciated :D

Steersman wrote: As Iâ€™ve argued before, I think that quid pro quo is part of the warp and woof of society if not of reality itself. But the problems seem to multiply like dragonâ€™s teeth because intentions are not quite as easy to discern or quantify as are more objective quantities.

In Oolon's case, there is plenty of evidence available to point to his lack of integrity, and his agenda. It's Ok, you know, to at some point simply come to conclusions about people, even if the conclusion isn't hard and fast. It's possible to have a certain amount of compassion for him, the sad little people-pleaser, and still guffaw whole heartedly at the current slew of gifs and photoshops, which are born as a consequence of his own ad nauseum actions. The needling isn't a rush to judgement, where Oolon is concerned.

And he probably deserves some mockery. Donâ€™t see that he deserves what appears to be some maliciousness though.

Might have to Potato/Potahto the argument on the point of maliciousness, for the jokes we've seen so far. I don't see any of them as mean, particularly considering the subject.

zenbabe wrote:I can't imagine you ever calling someone a fat cunt. haha!!
:-) Stephanie Zvan and, with some variations in the adjectives, several other FftB ladies â€“ and I use the term loosely.

*giggle*.. richly deserved, sir.
I have to laugh at the thought of you, so staid, so serious, trying so hard to give benefit of the doubt, muttering those words under your breath. You're human afterall

But generally always in response to insults leveled at me first which they generally justified by insisting that their insults were well within the pale whereas mine crossed the line into â€œslursâ€ [they keep using that word; I do not think it means what they think it means] and â€œsplash damageâ€. Which I think has to qualify as the most egregiously hypocritical â€œdebating techniqueâ€ I have ever seen.

Well, they do hate them those dictionaries, and they do love them some invented language that can mean anything they want it to mean and broadly apply in any way they want it to apply. They get to frolic wherever they want because no rules are going to pin them down, but you? You stay in the cell, with the tiny window to look out into the world, and you better be properly, respectfully grateful for it or they will close you off completely. If you dare to fight further, they will reach into real life and shut you up that way. <Mykeru's clown horn sound>

zenbabe wrote:Placing a bar between what's harassment and what isn't is far too prone to subjectivity, unless we position it high enough to be actually meaningful. Oolon's bot sets it in the Mariana Trench.
:-) Indeed. But lots of room for improvement then.

Oh Steersman, the eternal optimist ;)

#8330

AnonymousCowherd wrote:
Gefan wrote:Apropos of nothing:

http://s.pikabu.ru/post_img/2013/06/30/ ... 077505.jpg

"Comrade Captain, it followed us home. Can we keep him?"
I guess that explains where Subman has been lately.

Yep, and that spiffy guy in the uniform looks nice too...

#8331

decius wrote:Josh Timoneen designed and administered the original rd.net.

Then he fell out of Richard's grace rather spectacularly.

He's not the same guy as the "Spokesman" is he? I had to google and found out about the lawsuit. Too bad RD.net didn't pursue the lawsuit though.

#8332

Trophy wrote:
decius wrote:Josh Timoneen designed and administered the original rd.net.

Then he fell out of Richard's grace rather spectacularly.
He's not the same guy as the "Spokesman" is he? I had to google and found out about the lawsuit. Too bad RD.net didn't pursue the lawsuit though.

Different person.

#8333

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Maria has had a very tough year. Her mom is slowly dying (if not dead yet, and here I knock on wood she isn't). She is out of job. Her life right now sucks a lot. Getting attacked by the FTBullies sure won't help. And that BBC bullshit won't help either.

Wow. Sorry to hear that. I hope things take a turn for better soon.

#8334

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I'm a level 2, which states:

Level 2 blocking: these are the abusive subset of anti-feminists, MRAs, or all-round assholes who think nothing of tweeting their much loved photoshopped pictures, memes and other wonderful media directly into your timeline to get attention (Listen to Meee!!1!). This level also includes the â€œparodyâ€ accounts, if you have better things to do with your life than â€œdisagreeâ€ on Twitter with a parody of yourself that seems to have suffered a frontal lobotomy.
It's a fucking shame for oolon that none of my tweets ever even remotely look like this description. Because now it's pure libel, and I will sue. Talked with my brother-in-law (who's a lawyer, so REALLY in law), and it's very doable.

Oh, and James, I screencapped both your list and your descriptions. Resistance is futile!

Much though I would love to see colon have a new one ripped in a court of law, I don't think a case could be made - at least not under UK law, anyway. Since twitter is international it may be possible to take him to court in another country, but that may achieve little anyway since there is a fair chance he could just ignore it. Assuming he has no interest in visiting that country.

Before taking someone to court for libel, you first need to take reasonable steps to resolve out of court and show a willingness to resolve out of court - the judge would take a dim view of anyone not doing this.

If you fail to get satisfaction from this, court would be the next step, but you need to be absolutely crystal clear which law has been broken and what exceptions apply to that law - and check precedent. And when making the assessment, do not allow your objectivity to be affected by the little piss stain that colon is.

The BBC is pretty much squeaky clean; the BBC is very biased on this sort of stuff but they have a very clever way of getting this kind of bias through the rules. In complaining, you would need to state which rules they broke, and why. Libel or defamation won't wash because it is virtually impossible to defame a group under libel law. And the BBC didn't make the group so they have some deniability. Colon made the group so there is the potential to blame him for it, but even then his definition includes "or" with an insult ("asshole" - strange use for a UKian). That gets him off the hook because insults are not libel.

So I don't think libel / defamation will wash. You could complain to the BBC about impartiality, but the entire chain of complaints management - a painful bureaucratic process designed to wear the complainant down - simply goes through layers of the BBC, and there are no shortage of social justice dicks at each level. The only time the complaint goes outside the BBC is to the BBC trust, who will only find against the BBC in the most extreme cases where they cannot get away with it - and with social justice on "their side" they will view themselves as untouchable. The impartiality accusation would be difficult anyway because they had the bald bloke on later arguing the free speech case.

A final note of caution - if against all of this you did take him to court for libel, realised you couldn't go through with it (for whatever reason - even not enough money, and court cases are expensive), then you can become liable for all of the expenses that colon has run up in defending himself. Oh and in the UK that can include going after anyone that contributed to your defence fund.

With that knowledge, you still want to take him to court? Good luck! In the meantime you can do what I did - I reported the block bot for spam and blocked it.

#8335

Yep, still going to sue him. And the BBC. My fucking real name is out there, as "abuser, misogynist, racist, homophobic". Not going to pass.

#8336

Sorry, I'm in warpath mode right now

#8337

Steersman wrote:
zenbabe wrote: <snip>
Oolon having a King of All the Ladies moment... hey, baby:

Ruminating hard before he farts and his head empties:

Hehehehehe!
Also, Yuck!

Poor Steersman, alas, Oolon is the shiny red button very few of us can resist. That stupid defamatory bot of his, for which he got his glorious interview and his face plastered upon all of us innocent bystanders, is nothing but an exercise in guilt by association. I got on it after maybe 5 innocuous tweets and exactly one "red letter" follower, who was the @SubMan, at which point my account was suspended spamming, or something about being "excessive".

I feel no shame in taking great delight in all this mockery :teasing-neener:
Forestalling, or at least delaying the Rush to Judgement is a tough job; but someone has to do it. ;-)

As mentioned, I think it looks like Oolonâ€™s credibility is tanking for some quite plausible reasons, but I canâ€™t help feeling some sympathy at least for his efforts to address a not insignificant problem â€“ even if his implementation has a few flaws: â€œbetween the dream and the reality lies the shadowâ€.

But he's not addressing it in a useful way, he's using a problem to create his own little spiteful "fuck you" to the people who won't validate him, and it's designed to get people off of twitter.

As the code shows, this isn't just a block-bot. Thanks to the spam function, it literally has, as a designed function, the purpose of trying to get people's accounts banned by reporting them as spam, and, the little fuckstick lies about this in the faq:

No one will be blocked and reported as spam. The users of the block list would need to do this themselves for real spam accounts -> so it will NOT CAUSE accounts to be suspended. It is true that if any account is reported for spam then these blocks being applied will likely figure into Twitters spam algorithm -> but the bot will not be the cause, at worst a contributory factor.

code in question with comments:

Code: Select all

# First check the user is valid, no point blocking if they have gone
					if (is_valid_user_byid($x_users_to_block[$x],$connection)!=""){
						$is_spam=false;
						if (is_item_in_array($L1_blockees,$x_users_to_block[$x])){
							# Could be one to block for spam
							$is_spam=is_user_spam($x_users_to_block[$x]);
						}
						if ($is_spam){
							$connection->post('users/report_spam', array('user_id' => $x_users_to_block[$x]));
							log_it("INFO","SPAM BLOCKED USER : ".$x_users_to_block[$x]." FOR USER ".$current_user);
						} else {
							$connection->post('blocks/create', array('user_id' => $x_users_to_block[$x]));
							log_it("INFO","BLOCKED USER : ".$x_users_to_block[$x]." FOR USER ".$current_user);
						}
					} else {
						$blockee_screen_name=get_screen_name($x_users_to_block[$x],$connection);
						log_it("ERROR","BLOCKEE NOT VALID : ".$x_users_to_block[$x]."Â¬".$blockee_screen_name." TRIED TO BLOCK FOR USER ".$current_user);
					}

well bullshit. As the twitter docs show, the only reason for users/report_spam is:

Report the specified user as a spam account to Twitter. Additionally performs the equivalent of POST blocks/create on behalf of the authenticated user.

Full documentation of that function at: https://dev.twitter.com/docs/api/1.1/po ... eport_spam

This isn't a legitimate attempt to make it easier to block "bad people". It's an attempt to have people oolio doesn't like removed from twitter completely. Those aren't "a few flaws". Those are deliberate design decisions, design decisions that he explicitly lies about in the faq for the fucking thing. In fact, no where on the site does he mention that functionality.

So no, this is not what you want it to be, it is not even close, and this isn't opinion, it's facts in the code. It is a deliberate bit of malicious code designed to "cleanse" twitter of the people oolio and aratina dislike.

Steersman wrote:Something which is addressed in some detail by Lindy West over on Jezebel which Ophelia had mentioned although she neglected to provide the link. But West quite reasonably argued:

The danger is that "report abuse" button could easily be used against the people it's intended to protect. When trolls* created a fake Facebook profile for me during the Great Rape Joke Kerfuffle of 2013 (mostly to express how much I hate rape and love donuts, because comedy), and I attempted to have it shut down, my genuine account wound up getting reported and suspended in retaliation. .... I can see both sidesâ€”though mostly what I see right now is how hard the entire system is rigged to fuck women over.
While I think her bias is showing in her â€œthe entire system is rigged to fuck women overâ€, I also think it a credible argument that women get far more flack than is reasonable, and that it is seriously crossing the line. While Iâ€™m not averse to calling some guy a dickhead, or some woman a cunt â€“ even a fat one â€“ at least provided thereâ€™s some credible justification for it, I would say a lot of what West and others are describing qualifies as serious harrassment. Which justifies some efforts to limit it, even if there happens to be few problematic devils in the details.

"few problematic devils in the details"

No. Those would be bugs or accidental coding. the block-bot is actual maliciousness.

#8338

@Phil. Go for it mate. I hope you kick his arse.

#8339

welch wrote: No. Those would be bugs or accidental coding. the block-bot is actual maliciousness.

To be clear: if I install the block bot, and you, welch, are on the block-bot list with a spamer tag, then not only does your twitter feed get blocked, a spam report gets sent to twitter.

That is, everytime someone installs the bot, an additional spam report gets sent to twitter for every spammer-tagged account on the block-bot list?

#8340

dogen wrote:
welch wrote: No. Those would be bugs or accidental coding. the block-bot is actual maliciousness.
To be clear: if I install the block bot, and you, welch, are on the block-bot list with a spamer tag, then not only does your twitter feed get blocked, a spam report gets sent to twitter.

That is, everytime someone installs the bot, an additional spam report gets sent to twitter for every spammer-tagged account on the block-bot list?

It appears to be an option, not automatic, and according to oolio on the A+ forums, only for level one. However, my PHP-fu is not strong enough to completely verify or disprove that. Someone with better PHP skills, (Renee!) could do a better job of ascertaining the actual function of that particular code.

#8341

Oolon on Twitter is going through every excuse possible.
From "You can't sue me! Only those blocked on level one were mentioned!"

To "You can't libel a group!"

To pulling some wank story out of his arse about a part of the Newsnight program being cut in which he stated that not everybody on the list is bad. Yeah right Oolon:

NoelPlum asks:

To which Oolon incomprehensibly replies with this semi-snipe at the lunacy of Atheism Plus in order to deflect the blame.

And well done Gumby for the shoop.

#8342

Dan wrote:So it seems @paulmasonnews has signed up to the blockbot because
l haven't mentioned the cunt & l'm blocked anyone else?

From July 30, apparently before the interview with Oolon aired (given the wording in 2nd paragraph quoted here):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23510635

Paul Mason wrote:Personally, as I get enough great conversations from the people who are prepared to debate ideas without abuse, I've resorted to the "shared block list" strategy. This focuses the wisdom of the Twitter crowd onto the most notorious idiots and enables those who sign up to engage in a collective block, without necessarily banning the perpetrators from the internet.

I've installed The Block Bot and I'll be talking to the man who coded it tonight about the strange online community that revels in the belittling of women. Though I've been aware of trolls, sexism and the flaming of fellow women journalists for years now, what this has taught me is that violent misogyny is probably the defining fault line of the internet, and is what has a better chance of killing the social media than Ayatollah Khamenei and Kim Jong-un ever could.

Indeed, I see that his "account is protected" (when I am logged into Twitter as @Ellesun)

#8343

(Oh, and I am Level 2, not Level 1, so apparently despite Oolon's claims that the comments (Oolon's anyway) are only about Level 1, Paul Mason doesn't draw that distinction - Level 2 apparently also is "the strange online community that revels in the belittling of women" and guilty of "violent misogyny" - and there's also the description at the blockbot site, which does not draw such a fine distinction, and which Phil has mentioning having screencapped.)

#8344

Tony Parsehole wrote:@Phil. Go for it mate. I hope you kick his arse.

Seconded.

#8345

welch wrote:
dogen wrote:
welch wrote: No. Those would be bugs or accidental coding. the block-bot is actual maliciousness.
To be clear: if I install the block bot, and you, welch, are on the block-bot list with a spamer tag, then not only does your twitter feed get blocked, a spam report gets sent to twitter.

That is, everytime someone installs the bot, an additional spam report gets sent to twitter for every spammer-tagged account on the block-bot list?
It appears to be an option, not automatic, and according to oolio on the A+ forums, only for level one. However, my PHP-fu is not strong enough to completely verify or disprove that. Someone with better PHP skills, (Renee!) could do a better job of ascertaining the actual function of that particular code.

Near as I can tell (my php-fu is not strong, but I am fairly good at deciphering most computer languages) it is an option to tag a level-one account as a spammer or not, there does not seem to be any conditional processing beyond is the account level-one and is it tagged as a spammer.

Now I dont know what he is doing in his required includes, but based on the source file that DeLurch(I think) linked earlier, there does not seem to be any processing of an option to report spam or not.

#8346

Oolon always wanted to be noticed and have all of Twitter talking about him.
I think the moral of this story is "be careful what you wish for, it might come true".

#8347

Skep tickle wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:@Phil. Go for it mate. I hope you kick his arse.
Seconded.

@phil
I would sugggest to write down the exact wording of the interview, and document all descriptions users and especially users who would come fresh to the bot would see. Only then I would consider the next steps. Don't be fooled by all the contexts you learned about over the months. The allegation must be there on your documented material. Also seriously consider the Streisand effect.

#8348

All this talk of block-bot levels, "optional" flagging of accounts as "spam", and speculation about specific PHP functionality is utterly beside the point.

From day one shitty turd's fucking bot was simply a way to automate the mass blockings/spam reportage that the cage rat was already doing. And if you think for one second that that behaviour was motivated by anything other than the desire to have dissenting Twitter accounts banned you're a fucking moron.

Oolon is simply not deserving of a single bit of charity on this. The block bot's intention from day one was to get accounts banned. That is a fact that can't be argued. It's not a noble idea badly implemented, it's a censorship tool, plain and simple.

#8349

I could have sworn that yesterday, the people on the block bot list at http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35 were all lumped together as I distinctly remember seeing NoelPlum near the top but today they have been organised into "levels".
Can anybody confirm or deny that this has been changed overnight?

#8350

Tony Parsehole wrote:I could have sworn that yesterday, the people on the block bot list at http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35 were all lumped together as I distinctly remember seeing NoelPlum near the top but today they have been organised into "levels".
Can anybody confirm or deny that this has been changed overnight?

You're dead right. Oolon must be getting scared...

#8351

dogen wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:I could have sworn that yesterday, the people on the block bot list at http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35 were all lumped together as I distinctly remember seeing NoelPlum near the top but today they have been organised into "levels".
Can anybody confirm or deny that this has been changed overnight?
You're dead right. Oolon must be getting scared...

I fucking knew it.

Please god, that I have always believed in, let some awesome Pittizen have a screen-shot of the original list.

#8352

Tony Parsehole wrote:
dogen wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:I could have sworn that yesterday, the people on the block bot list at http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35 were all lumped together as I distinctly remember seeing NoelPlum near the top but today they have been organised into "levels".
Can anybody confirm or deny that this has been changed overnight?
You're dead right. Oolon must be getting scared...
I fucking knew it.

Please god, that I have always believed in, let some awesome Pittizen have a screen-shot of the original list.

Still in Google's cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk

#8353

Screen shot displaying some evil Slymepitters:

http://i.imgur.com/NW4PJwU.jpg

#8354

Capture also the raw data.

http://www.theblockbot.com/sign_up/foll ... locks.json

#8355

dogen wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:I could have sworn that yesterday, the people on the block bot list at http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35 were all lumped together as I distinctly remember seeing NoelPlum near the top but today they have been organised into "levels".
Can anybody confirm or deny that this has been changed overnight?
You're dead right. Oolon must be getting scared...

From the July 20 Google Cache:
"All the members of the blocklist, sorted by the number of followers that they have within the list. Sort of a â€œKredâ€ rankingâ€¦ If you want access to the raw data you can see that here: http://www.theblockbot.com/sign_up/foll ... locks.json.

Now:
"All the members of the blocklist, sorted by levelâ€¦ If you want access to the raw data you can see that here: http://www.theblockbot.com/sign_up/foll ... locks.json.

#8356

He's clearly shitting in his pants. It's already a result.

#8357

http://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2013/06/ ... omment-772

Yes â€“ if you go by the nym â€œCunning Puntâ€ you are a sexist asshole.

Just like if you had the nym â€œLynchy Mc.LYnchertonâ€ you would be a racist asshole.

That's not fair. I can't help what my parents named me.

#8358

Jan Steen wrote:Screen shot displaying some evil Slymepitters:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/NW4PJwU.jpg[img]

Is it too late for me to join Twitter just to get my name on the block list?

#8359

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yep, still going to sue him. And the BBC. My fucking real name is out there, as "abuser, misogynist, racist, homophobic". Not going to pass.

Well, there goes my couch...

#8360

Someone linked this on twitter (forgot who it was, thank you).

What Does PZ Myers Despise? by Robert Kurzban, Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Robert Kurzban wrote:[â€¦] Myers, then, is a bit like the Dave Chapelle character Clayton Bigsby, the Black White Supremacist. In this (salty, NSFW) sketch (note, some might find this sketch offensive), Bigsby plays a blind black man who, not knowing heâ€™s black, becomes a leader of the White Supremacist movement. Like Myers, heâ€™s filled with a lot of rage, but doesnâ€™t really know who or what he hates. Myers thinks he hates evolutionary psychology, but when he gets specific, he loves people at the center of the field, and hates papers that lie outside of it. [â€¦]

#8361

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Yep, still going to sue him. And the BBC. My fucking real name is out there, as "abuser, misogynist, racist, homophobic". Not going to pass.

If I were in your place I would first send oolon a letter, demanding that your name be taken off the list immediately. If he doesn't comply with that request you are in a better position should you actually sue him.

#8362

Tony Parsehole wrote:I could have sworn that yesterday, the people on the block bot list at http://www.theblockbot.com/?page_id=35 were all lumped together as I distinctly remember seeing NoelPlum near the top but today they have been organised into "levels".
Can anybody confirm or deny that this has been changed overnight?

He denied that there was a list on his site which didn't make any distinction between threateners and harmless people. So I twittered the URL. And he was like "oh yes that has to be fixed". Then he changed the page above.
But the original list is still availabe here: http://www.theblockbot.com/sign_up/foll ... locks.html

#8363

katamari Damassi wrote:I also considered blogging, but as you can tell from my contributions here, I have nothing interesting or intelligent to say.....

Which puts you in good company with 99.4% of the bloggers out there. What, is your computer not equipped with the control-c & control-v keys?

#8364

That was a LOL, btw.

#8365

I'm not a lawyer, but I slept with one, which, per Carrier's Law, makes me a "renowned legal expert".

It shouldn't be too hard for y'all to get your attorneys to write a letter that'd convince oolon's attorney to have him remove your name from the list. If enough people did that, it should defeat the purpose of the blacklist.

I don't imagine the Streisand Effect Aneris mentions would be much of a concern for those of you who've been blacklisted, as the accusations are so flimsy. But it might cause oolon to say, 'hehe now you made me famous. now I can move out of my mum's basement. hehe.'

#8366

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I slept with one, which, per Carrier's Law, makes me a "renowned legal expert".

It shouldn't be too hard for y'all to get your attorneys to write a letter that'd convince oolon's attorney to have him remove your name from the list. If enough people did that, it should defeat the purpose of the blacklist.

I don't imagine the Streisand Effect Aneris mentions would be much of a concern for those of you who've been blacklisted, as the accusations are so flimsy. But it might cause oolon to say, 'hehe now you made me famous. now I can move out of my mum's basement. hehe.'

Phil has a band. Dunno, there are magazines etc for that subculture, too. Its probably a better idea to ask oolon to have the name removed, or made clear unambiguously what that specific list means where his name is on.

#8367

Dick Strawkins wrote:Peezus must be incandescent with jealously!
His new book's about to be released ....

"New" is a very generous description.

#8368

Jeez, dude is a fucking bad programmer. Who needs functions or classes or any of that stupid object shit when you can just barf some spaghetti code from shit you pieced together off of StackOverflow?

Anyway, looking at the block bot, it operates where a "Level 1" offender is automatically added as spam. There is a plaintext block list maintained, and any admin Oolon has designated can edit the list of users at their whim, marking them as a "Spam" account, which will then get a massive amount of users flagging them as soon as the next cronjob/cycle runs.

#8369

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Sorry, I'm in warpath mode right now

Fully understand that, and as I say I can't imagine anything I'd rather see than justice served on Billingham. Just wanted to make sure you were going in with your eyes open. Legal stuff is always messy.

#8370

Phil

Just be aware that libel law is expensive. I would donate towards your costs but the amount I could donate would pay about 45 minutes of an approprately qualified solicitors time.

I suggest you follow the path of combining together with other potential complainants to get a joint solicitors letter out to:

1. Twitter, to complain about the reputational damage this twitter user is causing on its network.
2. BBC, to complain about the reputational damage being inflicted.
3. Oolon.

(1) and (2) would consider not just the merit of the case going through British courts, but the volume of them as they could/should be brought individually and they would have to fight many. The BBC are more likely to make an editorial response and reprimand the journalist/editorial team than settle, more likely to compensate than go to court.

Oolon would be fucked. Fighting two cases of libel is ruinous and by the time he got to the verdict he'd be bankrupt.

Like I said, its mightily expensive.

#8371

Trophy wrote:
decius wrote:Josh Timoneen designed and administered the original rd.net.

Then he fell out of Richard's grace rather spectacularly.
He's not the same guy as the "Spokesman" is he? I had to google and found out about the lawsuit. Too bad RD.net didn't pursue the lawsuit though.

No. RDFRS dropped the case without prejudice meaning that it could be resurrected. From the court documents I read through it looked like their case was weak.

#8372

Oolon is now Steffy Zvan's hero as well. She must hope that this bit of drama will breathe some life in the corpse of her blog. One would think that atheists don't believe in resurrections.

Zvan et al. are ridiculing the idea that there are grounds to sue James Billingham (oolon) or the BBC over the Block Bot and the way it was presented in the programme. In the UK the courts may well take a dimmer view on something that is described literally and without qualifications as a "shared list of abusers."

There is also praise for Quinn Norton, the journalist who made the ludicrous statement that "men are raised to hate women." Of course, her lunacy is not criticised. This is FfTB, after all.

#8373

READ THIS YOU FUCKERS READ THIS NOW!!!!!!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23533566

IT'S KICKING OFF NOW OOLON YOU CUNT!!

#8374

BBC are doing a story about the complaints received over the BlockBot.
I couldn't laugh harder.
Oolon, you are going to be exposed for the dishonest, lying cunt that we have always known you are and the only thing making me feel the slightest bit sorry for you is the fact that you have a wife and kid.

#8375

Freezepage to the Zvan: http://www.freezepage.com/1375381023FTGPSMDUML

#8376

What a stupid cunt.

Yeah. You totally get it.....Coming soon: "So America invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had a moustache?"

#8377

ERV wrote:Now:
"All the members of the blocklist, sorted by levelâ€¦ If you want access to the raw data you can see that here: http://www.theblockbot.com/sign_up/foll ... locks.json.

That isn't ALL of the data. It is just a select data export. If you notice the numbers next to the names appear to be just a one-to-one mapping of the number of "connections" to other twitter users on his list. That data dump also appears to exclude: what_level_someone_is_on, any_tags_applied_e.g._#spam, and reason_for_being_on_list_e.g."boring"

#8378

Tony Parsehole wrote:BBC are doing a story about the complaints received over the BlockBot.
I couldn't laugh harder.
Oolon, you are going to be exposed for the dishonest, lying cunt that we have always known you are and the only thing making me feel the slightest bit sorry for you is the fact that you have a wife and kid.

Well, colour me cynical but I don't think this is going to go anywhere. The backpeddalling has started with it being described as "he said she said" and "confusing" which is journalist speak for "I fucked up, but its the world's fault for being confusing".

He also, foolishly said at 35 - 38 seconds that it works at three levels

1, violent rape threats etc .. abusers ...

hmm.

He then said at 56 seconds that he personally had been through many of the serious ones and they are serious.

Well.

That is getting himself into editorial hot waters there, given how he had characterised the serious ones (1).

Zvan? A ridiculous apologist as always, nothing to see there.

#8379

Tony Parsehole wrote:BBC are doing a story about the complaints received over the BlockBot.
I couldn't laugh harder.
Oolon, you are going to be exposed for the dishonest, lying cunt that we have always known you are and the only thing making me feel the slightest bit sorry for you is the fact that you have a wife and kid.

If oolon isn't a complete idiot and thinks about his family, he will pull the plug on the Block Bot and apologise profusely to everyone who was on it. And then lie awake at night, hoping that nobody will sue him.

#8380

The Cock Manifesto. Here is an article about some guy's 99 page how to book on having a successful date with him.

http://gawker.com/here-is-a-99-page-gui ... -988104056