Block IP: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The '''soft security''' model argues that you should block IP as little as possible, but permit various tactics ([[libel]], [[outing]], [[framing]] and other even less ethical tricks) by the [[sysop power structure]] to intimidate and harass users who do not share the [[community point of view]]. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:left-wing politics]]. | The '''soft security''' model argues that you should block IP as little as possible, but permit various tactics ([[libel]], [[outing]], [[framing]] and other even less ethical tricks) by the [[sysop power structure]] to intimidate and harass users who do not share the [[community point of view]]. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:left-wing politics]]. | ||
The '''hard security''' model argues that you should do little or nothing until the [[power structure]] (or just a [[GodKing]]) is offended. At that point one can [[demand apology]] and submission to that power structure, or just block IP as a first resort, perhaps to prove power. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:right-wing politics]]. | The '''hard security''' model argues that you should do little or nothing until the [[power structure]] (or just a [[GodKing]]) is offended. This conserves energy and avoids revealing sensitivities. At that point one can [[demand apology]] and submission to that power structure, or just block IP as a first resort, perhaps to prove power. This is a bad model and is derived from [[w:right-wing politics]]. | ||
Many [[large public wiki]]s apply the worst of both worlds, pretending to prefer "soft" security but in reality always waiting for the excuse to apply "hard". Some persistent cases (e.g. [[142.X.X.X]]) demonstrate that either set of tactics will fail, and lead to discrediting a power structure as other contributors realize that any model of '''security''' has contradictions, and favours insiders over outsiders, can only reinforce [[community point of view]], which is also called [[groupthink]]. | |||
To avoid this, the [[troll-friendly]] model argues that you should avoid [[w:technological escalation]] as it invites further escalation which can include worse trolls, hacking, and spreading an issue to many wikis, e.g. the dogged pursuit and [[witchhunt]] of [[142.X.X.X]] contributions across almost the entire Internet. Even a [[friendly troll]] can turn hostile and seriously damage a project's credibility and prospects if handled according to '''hard''' or '''soft''' model. The only characteristic that really can be said to identify a [[troll]] is disinterest in, and rejection of, both of these models. Some claim the troll-friendly model derives from [[w:green politics]] which avoids technological escalation, looks for [[harms reduction]] methods, and fosters the [[political virtues]]. | |||
[[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will have to set some policy on this. | [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] will have to set some policy on this. | ||