Feature Request: Ghost Posting

[MrMike]

I've seen this "Ghost Posting" implemented on another board and it might be a good feature to have in SMF. It's meant to discourage trolls and inflamatory posters. It would make a nice mod if someone would like to code it up.

How it works: Annoying users can be tagged by the admin as a "Ghost", and once they're tagged that way their posts only show up to them. Other users don't see their posts at all.

The troll/ghost makes a post and, yes, it appears, but only to them...no one else sees it. After a week or so of furious posting and getting ZERO response, they usually bag it and go elsewhere. Most of the time they have no idea what's happening, all they know is that absolutely no one is responding to them or their trolling. And that's because no one can see anything they post (except Admins).

It's actually a lot of fun to watch them get crankier and crankier, posting away in a frenzy, getting more and more provocative...and getting no response at all. None, zero, zip, nada. Almost like they're a "ghost" or something. 

[swtdivalove]

ROFLMAO  I like it!

[Marcus Forsberg]

Sounds fun

[guppy]

That's evil hahahahaha

[RustyBarnacle]

Blabberizer is pretty cool.  Not as effective I suppose, but cool.

[manixless]

wow ... what a really nice idea. Pretty cool to roll forums

[Antechinus]

This is a totally awesome idea. Someone has got to do this for a mod. 

[Marcus Forsberg]

Consider this mod done. I'm on the job

[KahneFan]

The way you say it's "fun to watch them get crankier and crankier", I'm guessing the admin/mods can see the posts still?

[Antechinus]

Yup.

[MrMike]

The way you say it's "fun to watch them get crankier and crankier", I'm guessing the admin/mods can see the posts still?

Yes, the admin (and optionally any moderators with permissions) can see the Ghost's posts in order to keep track of what's happening.

[swtdivalove]

I LOVE IT!  Can't wait to download this mod!

[Marcus Forsberg]

Looks like this will be pretty popular if I succeed.
I've had a few problems latly whit being sick and accidently removing a file I worked one for 1 week.. (No backup)
Therefor I haven't started, but I'll do it this weekend, or next.

[Antechinus]

No rush mate. Sort your own stuff out first.

[Papa]

This is gonna be awesome. I wish I could use it on my main forums..but it is a drama based site. lol

However it would be perfect for some other sites I have in mind and can not wait to use it. haha.

[Hoodwink]

What a good idea. Quality if someone could implement this.

[Marcus Forsberg]

What a good idea. Quality if someone could implement this.

Working on it

[Hoodwink]

Any further progression with this?

[labradors]

We used to have this feature, back in the old dial-in-BBS days, on Citadel BBS.  It was called "Coventry."

A user who was placed into Coventry could see his own messages, and the admins/moderators could, as well, but nobody else would see them.  This was done by marking the user AND the messages with a "Coventry bit."  That way, if the user posted something worthwhile, the "Coventry bit" that had been set for the message could be reset without affecting the rest of his messages.  Thus, the worthwhile message WOULD become visible.

Most of the time, such users would get increasingly worse for a short period of time, then never come back again.  In some cases, though, they realised that nobody would respond to their rants - only their helpful messages, and they would quiet down to become good, productive members of the board.

Needless to say, as a former sysop of a Citadel board, I would wholeheartedly encourage the development of such a "ghost posting" mod for SMF, and would be more than happy to help test it out.

[Marcus Forsberg]

If you wouldn't like the admins to see the ghosts posts, I could do it in 5 minutes
Anyway, I'm working on it.

[nadunwow]

ah....it is grate idea and I have little suggestion if we can implement that only can limited user group then it will be better

[Rasyr]

Oh, yes! This is would be a very helpful mod!!

Not only in regards to dealing with trolls, but I can also see other uses for it, especially if the Ghost Mode could be made so that you could limit the forums in which it occurs (i.e. User #10 is in Ghost Mode ONLY in Forum Tango, he is normally visible in all other forums).

[Hoodwink]

I hesitate whether to accept certain new members (as there are a good few banned users) so I would use this to put on them, read their first post or 2 as a ghost writer (they wouldn't know) then decide whether or not they're legitimate.

So you could turn it off and their posts that they made when they had ghost writer on, would show up.

[Hoodwink]

I could really do with this feature right now as a lot of new members have joined, half of which could be the same person using different public computers.

Any update?

[L'AltroWeb]

This is a great feature but if troll enter to see forum from guest? 

[chrishicks]

This would be the best mod ever. lol. I anxiously await it.

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

Had a laugh with this idea already, would really like to test it in action

[Deal]

Did this feature ever get implemented in a mod?

I'm interested. Would be a great way to passively ban someone.

[Marcus Forsberg]

Actually.. I now know a better wzay t odo this and I'm worknig on it as a mod. Sorry for the long wait.

[manixless]

take your time, i'm waiting since few months ago.. . however, I will be waiting for the release  wiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[MrMike]

When you're ready, I'd be more than willing to test it. Right now on one of my forums we have a member that we would dearly love to use this on. And I do mean dearly.

Actually.. I now know a better wzay t odo this and I'm worknig on it as a mod. Sorry for the long wait.

[ModelBoatMayhem]

Actually.. I now know a better wzay t odo this and I'm worknig on it as a mod. Sorry for the long wait.

Top Man!

[CarpeDiem]

I really, REALLY like this idea.

To sum up primarily what others have said with a few new twists, the Ghost Posting Mod should be able to:

• Be settable by adm's and/or moderators (both global and non-global, depending on preference of the adm)
• Be displayed in some manner to adm's and moderator's eyes-only so they know the general membership is not seeing the ghosted post (like displayed in red strikeout-type, or some eye-catching fashion for them only), while to the ghosted poster, their posts look normal with no indication of them having a special "hidden" status
• Be, as a selectable adm panel option, applicable potentially to initial posts and replies by all new members (again, this should be a selectable option in the adm panel, since it will apply to ALL new members, which could become a really tedious and overwhelming job in a big forum)
• Be applicable to any particular username based on negative adm experience with their behavior or abuse, no matter how long they have been a member (IF moderators are included by the adm as being able to Ghost members, they should be able to do this in the adm panel too)
• Be applicable to specified email addresses or repetitive registrations from single IP's, since users can close their membership and just reopen it again with a different username but with the same email address, and/or, using the same IP (like in one setting), they can easily sign-up for multiple memberships in our forums using different usernames with the plentiful and free email addresses that anyone can have almost unlimited at Google et al -- and though this certainly won't close all the gaps, it slims it down just a little with a modicum of oversight and/or some control
• Be permissive for certain individual postings that are valid and approved by adm's (and/or moderators), without changing the Ghosting status of that user generally (this is the idea previously stated that well-behaved posts can be shown selectively with adm or moderator approval while leaving the person still ghosted)
• Be resettable as a Ghost setting if the person appears finally rehabilitated, BUT their old flaming and ill-behaved posts which were previously ghosted should still remain hidden from the general membership's eyes (if those previous posts were bad in the past, they're still bad now even if the member seems rehabilitated in the present, so leaving those old bad posts out of view seems necessary for an EX-Ghosted member who appears rehab'd); thus, in this context, only new posts of the EX-Ghosted member will appear to all the other members (but not the old posts which were and still are bad).  This may be a feature requiring revising the message table with a single character Ghosted status indicator that will exclude these old posts only while new posts will be displayed (at least, I can't think of an easier way to hide the old but display the new)

Overall, this seems a really useful forum tool to help us deal with certain problem members!

By the way, this has been on the drawing board as an idea for over six months and it has one of the highest viewing records currently, but we have no one at the programmatic finish line!  This is a problem!  The coding belongs to no one, even if volunteers have spoken up (are they the best ones to do this? -- I don't know!)  Perhaps we should have a contest to see who can actually finish the code in a stable fashion with the features needed -- but I don't know what the prize will be!

Get'er done! (as a comedian is famous for saying) -- this is what we need here!

[Norv]

Actually 2.0 has the post moderation feature which does essentially the same - keeping posts of a member hidden from regular members. The only difference seems to be that the member whose posts are hidden doesn't know about it, in this ghost posting idea, which is the reason for the fun here

[CarpeDiem]

Norv,

Does the post moderation feature you mention that is already in SMF include some of the items summed up in my last post?  Again, most of these items are not my ideas; they are just what I picked up in this thread that members suggested and I tried to put most of them in one location -- though I added a few twists too.

Does the post moderation feature in SMF already address some of these: #2, #5, #6 and #7?

I agree the fun is in the Ghosted member thinking everyone's seeing their posts as they are, but there's more than fun in the functions as numbered above.  I think this is more a tool than a giggle and snicker, at least in my forum, where troublemakers come in many disguises and forms (like in #5).  Thank goodness troublesome people are not high in numbers, but they produce a lot of work individually, and this Ghosting idea may help prevent their circumventing this system IF it is well and fully implemented.

This has been in development for a considerable period of time and I hope the kind person who says they are working on it has all the skills needed to make this happen in a solid fashion.   I note they've been working on it since last November according to this thread, which is coming up to 8 months with nothing on the table still (focus on this:  8 months).  Promises, promises...I don't mean to seem harsh, but perhaps a co-authorship or a new programmer is needed to make this actually happen (sorry, 8 months makes me impatient!).  This is one of the MOST read threads started by a member that I've seen for some time (5,636 as of today).  Eight months of waiting is not progress yet.

Get'er done or pass it along!  This is really needed in a finished form that can be used by our forums.

[MrMike]

This is one of the MOST read threads started by a member that I've seen for some time (5,636 as of today).  Eight months of waiting is not progress yet.

Get'er done or pass it along!  This is really needed in a finished form that can be used by our forums.

I started this thread some time ago, requesting this feature. I'm gratified that there's been such a positive response to the idea.

With that said, let me state that I had (have) no expectation that anyone at SMF whether directly or indirectly has any obligation to code or implement it.

If you're in such a froth to make it happen you'd be more than welcome to code it yourself, but heckling the coder(s) and demanding action is not only poor form, it's unreasonable. No one, including you, is paying to have this done, yet you seem to think it's your right to have this mod done for you.

Again, heckling the coder(s) and demanding action is not the way to encourage anyone to do this.

[CarpeDiem]

MrMike,

I think if you read my posts that you know that I admire and think we need this implemented.

A couple of points:

• This is not your idea.  It does not "belong" to you; it's something you saw somewhere else.  You don't own it.  This is a matter of your own statement.
• You don't have the right to decide who the coder is.  You don't have the magic wand of authority to knight someone with this job.

That said, we've had one kind person (and I've always called them that) who has said that they can do it.  This is all well and good until too much time passes and it seems they are the sole source of this being done, so that other capable people may not feel at all welcome to put their skills to this (and I kind of get that attitude from you, though maybe I'm wrong here).

The expectations are set by the more than 5,000 members who have read this thread, and MrMike, you are to be complemented for bringing this to all of our attention.  I like to think I speak for the many people who want this Mod who may be growing increasing impatient with the lack of outcomes, and you seem to speak above in your last post for the one person who has said that they can ("or may") do it.  It's always hard to contrast the needs of many to the needs of a few (in this case, one).  I hope I think and speak for the needs and desires of the many readers here (I may not do it nice-nice, but I do try to speak on their behalf since they may not be bold enough to do it themselves).  You, MrMike, speak well for your favored coder and you are an honorable defender.

In the real world, whoever crosses the finish line with the product is more likely to be the title holder than someone who talks about, or who is always preparing for, the race (but who doesn't actually get to the finish line).  In the competitive work world from which I've come, talkers and doers are valued very differently, and I've been an evaluator of performance outcomes (not promises, but outcomes).  I hope that kind person who first volunteered way back in November can complete the job, but I also hope others who have the skills won't feel they can NOT compete with their work based on what you seem to imply.  I fear you don't feel anyone else has the right to compete for this Mod (it almost sounds like the one volunteer has an exclusive right to this Mod) -- and I strongly disagree with your being the person who has that exclusive say about who can do this Mod.  It belongs to the one (or many) who cross the finish line (and to no others -- the finish line is the measure).

You are free to dislike my attitude, but I am calling for this to be open to anyone who can do the job and not be the exclusive property of the first person who raised their hand.  Quite frankly, it would be nice if we had many finishers who had different features in their Mod so we could pick and choose.  I'm not at all against the kind person who volunteered, but I, again, think this should be openly declared an open challenge for all who can do this Mod.  You are certainly free to disagree with this opinion.

You said "heckling the coder(s) and demanding action is not only poor form, it's unreasonable", but I'm used to straight talk about promises-promises, and that's not heckling (get a grip), though I'm certainly challenging you to do a reality check though (pointing out six months of non-performance is not heckling).  Expecting action is what makes the world go round if, and only IF, it's actually delivered (again, a second reality check here).  "Poor form and unreasonable" on my part, maybe so; I speak for the interest of many to get something, and you seem to defend the need of one coder who you've knighted with the sole right to do the job, and you deserve credit for standing up for their non-performance thus far (hopefully, time will show your defense was wonderfully merited).  I come from a different work world and it's tough and competitive (a slam-dunking kind of world) and only performers win, not the talkers (so, yeah, I do have a difference of opinion, and I didn't like that world, but it's the real world).  Now hopefully, our volunteer will be able to come through, but six months doesn't sound like a lot of industry (just what are they really doing? -- haven't you wondered -- working day and night?...hmm), so my hopes and expectations are low (I don't know this person and they may be wonderful and delightful and working VERY hard on this -- I'm not commenting on who they are; I'm only commenting on the finish line, and I see nothing there after six months -- I'm sorry about the finish line, not about the volunteer).  I hope our volunteer is the first to cross the finish line with feature-rich stable coding (Cheers!).  This is not meant to beat anybody down; it is meant to spur productive activity.  This is not meant to limit options, but to open them up.

This Mod should not be owned by anyone.  It should be open for any and all coders to complete -- and that's my point that I've made repeatedly, like it or not.  The finish line is the final reality check here.

This is a GREAT idea!  All coders should feel welcome to this challenge.  Can we agree on this last sentence?

[MrMike]

This is not your idea.  It does not "belong" to you; it's something you saw somewhere else.  You don't own it.

That's right, and I never claimed otherwise. In fact, the very first line of my post mentioned that I'd seen this implemented on another board, so I fail to see why you're making an issue of it. What's the problem?

You don't have the right to decide who the coder is.  You don't have the magic wand of authority to knight someone with this job.

I never said I had any right to do anything; what I said was that heckling the coder(s) was not the way to encourage them to satisfy your need for this to be done. Nothing more, nothing less. As for "magic wands" and the rest of your comment, I really have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't think anyone else here does either.

If you think you can get whoever has graciously offered to implement this by getting aggressive or saying things like "Eight months of waiting is not progress yet" or "Get'er done or pass it along", you may want to reconsider how your comments are perceived.

Really, if this is such a huge deal for you, feel free to code it yourself- no one is stopping you. To tell the truth, I could probably write this mod, but I think it's better to leave it to someone more familiar with SMF than I am. (I also have a wife, a life, a family, personal projects, etc etc etc that come first.)

Yes, eight months is a long time. No argument there. But let's have a little perspective- this isn't the end of the world and none of us are going to die or go into bankruptcy if it isn't finished tomorrow, this month, or next year. Or ever. It's just a mod for a bulletin board. Relax.

I fear you don't feel anyone else has the right to compete for this Mod -- and I strongly disagree with your being the only person who has that say about who can do this Mod.

Your "fears" are, well, silly.  No offense, Carpe, but you've lost the plot here. I don't care who "competes" for the mod and I never claimed that I have any say in who can do it. Why in the world would it matter to me? I honestly don't know where you come up with this stuff. I'm thinking maybe you need to switch to decaf.

This Mod should not be owned by anyone.

Again, I don't disagree. I never claimed any ownership of it; I put the idea out there in case someone wanted to make it happen.

It should be open for any and all coders to complete -- and that's my point that I've made repeatedly, like it or not.  This is a GREAT idea!  All coders should feel welcome to this challenge.  Can we agree on this last sentence?

Yes, I think it is a great idea. That's why I mentioned it. And yes, anyone who wants to code it is more than welcome to. Including you.

[CarpeDiem]

I'm very happy with your response.

All coders are welcome to compete in the implementation of this Ghost Posting Mod.

Awesome!  Mission accomplished.

[SlammedDime]

This should be very very easy to do by simplying adding a 'global ignore' option in the admin panel, where admins can add users to the global ignore list, and then when a person's profile is loaded in load.php, the global ignores are added to that person's ignore list.

[CarpeDiem]

SlammedDime,

Does the "very very easy to do" solution include #1 and the last half of #2 in Reply #32, or just #1?

I am not sure, but I assume the "easy to do" may not have the other features in Reply #32 either, is that correct?

Some of the features listed among the seven (which were suggested by various members throughout this thread) in Reply #32 will help us maintain the member as Ghosted in kind of a stealth mode (they won't know their status) with some security too (as in #5).  If they pick up that they're ghosted, they'll just close their account and sign-up again and the problem will continue unabated (alas), and we will have solved very little if they are one of those on-going problem sort-of-people.

I like the concept of easy to do, but what will we end up with as features?  Hopefully, something more than just a blank out for the non-ghosted member's eyes and the ghosted's eyes too, since that will be too obvious for the ghosted member to figure out and subvert.

[manixless]

awaiting for implementation end.... clap clap clap for the developer xD

[Deal]

Another thought of where this 'post modification' feature would be very useful is for low post based groups. ie) new users. That way if a user happens to be well cloaked spammer their post will not be seen by anyone until it's approved. The idea that they believe that their post is on the forum is great because it stops them from trying other means.

Of course this is also very useful for the 'troubled' members that feel belittling others makes themselves bigger which is the issue I have.

[Arantor]

Most of this however is already covered by 2.0's Post Moderation.

[Marcus Forsberg]

My vacation lasted longer than it was first supposed to (5 days longer), so I haven't got time to work anymore on this.
I've finished the feature hiding member posts, now I'm just gonig to hide them in certain other locations such as Recent posts and the unread list.

Feel free to signup to my new, simple bugtracker and file a feature request for the features you would like included:
http://www.forentadatorerna.se/ (The url is form my old swedish forum which is now removed)

[chrishicks]

I can't wait for this. lol

[kat]

Oh, the phun that could be had...