October 7, 2000
kuro5hin.org moderators need dates... or something
by DrCkTaiL <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Looking for a little free publicity for our selfless volunteers on the Cyberabuse.org Abuse-DoS committee (they work their butts off), we decided to post a history article to this news board. I read the FAQ first of course. I didn't want to offend anyone :)
FAQ says "What kind of stories should I submit here? Well, the short answer is, anything you find interesting." Doesn't say "don't post something you've already published, don't post press releases, don't post ads" etc etc. And the story is a good one, about volunteers actually doing something constructive about the DoS attacks we all know and love.
I had written a history article about the committee and got it posted on the webpage. It wasn't bad so I decided to post it just like it was on the K5 page. Boy oh boy...
First we got up to a +12 in the moderators voting column (Gator and I watched it by refreshing the page) fairly quickly. Then this dude named hurstdog posts a comment, "Don't just paste crap from your site!!!! Vote this down! This is an ad. not a discussion starter. This is a just a paste of this page. Why anyone would post something like this is beyond me. Please vote this down. Lets have discussion here, not re-postings of pages that don't get enough hits on their own. Down with press releases on k5."
How kind of him. I wonder if he actually read it to begin with or just noticed that the exact same content on the linked web page. I resisted a posted comment of my own, like "umm, did this content become crap when I pasted it into your form window, or was it crap when it was pasted into the web page format, or was it crap when I was typing it into notepad?" Or, "If this is an ad, what am I selling?" etc. etc.
Well the voting started going downhill from there. This guy obviously torpedoed our story, and the members reviewing it followed like sheep, voting it down because it was published verbatim elsewhere. The final vote before the article was trashed - 30 for - 42 against - 9 didn't care.
All these votes were posted within 90 minutes of the story submission. Of the 42 who voted against because hurstdog noticed the content was published verbatim on our webpage, I think a majority probably just can't get dates and have nothing better to do :)
Published: October 7, 2000