The plugin send users’ post to Google’s API which will decide to take actions based on a “confidence level”. You can
choose the model and threshold in site settings. The threshold you should use depends on the model.
I will vote against this. I don’t want Google collecting any more information on us than it already has.
The member’s only area provides a small modicum of isolation right now. Feeding all of our posts to Google would undo that.
While google search bot does already collect the majority of our site, Google Analytics already has some of the data your referring to while Akismet has the actual message itself.
Is this a bad thing, not really since keeping parts of talk open to the web actually helps people find us and makes search engines rank us higher in results which in turns means more members for the space…
Now, I’m pretty sure @zmetzing you’ll be clever enough to figure out how to block the discourse-etiquette.js function in your browser.
Yes - get the board to direct it to be removed. Pretty straightforward.
You can take that as another “No.” vote.
considering the board is on a hunt to, well in not so many words, ‘crack down’ on talk.
I’d like to see us be more self managing and actually behave like a community before that happens.
NoScript is your friend
not so much. it doesn’t get everything such as web workers. That’s where umatrix shines. But even better than that is setting up a transparent proxy and blocking based on regex with privoxy this way all processes, machines, and anything that touches the network/internet is allowed or denied before it hits the browser or cpu for that matter.
Looking through the example site, it seems like the bot isn’t really helpful. Yeah, it will flag cussing, but that seems about it. There is a thread where a user goes on a long diatribe about drug use to see if anything is flagged and nothing happens. While I’m not a anti-google world order type, this doesn’t seem like much of an improvement if any. Given it will add a level of complexity to the running of the forum, I would just skip adding it.
How many years does it take until that happens?
We’ll all start posting like Roman Moronie. 
I vote against it as well. Since their are infinite ways to phrase something, how useful can this be?
I would say it isn’t that a plug-in like this couldn’t be useful. Rather, this plug-in just seems not to actually be useful, while introducing complexity to our system. It also has the social effect of plugging our communications further into the google API, which some like @zmetzing have concerns over.
But, @Kriskat30 made it clear at the member meeting that she and others consider DMS TALK to be a cesspool with only a minor portion being of use to the group. A plug-in like the one suggested does aid in political arguments of taking action against the cesspool, even if they have no actual positive effects on curbing the behavior that they are attributing to the majority of the forum.
we have only ourselves to blame for this.
This assumes that ‘action by our overlords’ is considered positive (i.e. “aid in political arguments”). Some of us think this is rather not the purview of the BOD, and TALK should be left well-enough alone.
Because I hate leaving something at a heavy note, some levity:
How many years does it take until that happens?
context? not sure what you mean by that
nevermind…
At our size; that I wonder. But I suspect getting a new member orientation “class” where we set unified expectations and outline member responsibilities would go a long ways. Even requiring old members to attend as well.
As a moderator I’m a bit indifferent on your pic there @jast. I can at lease see where your going with it and do agree with keeping the tone of this thread on the positive. But I had to read over the post and your image a few times before noticing it. So, maybe something that doesn’t read like the other words just by browsing?
I am aligned with you in leaving TALK well enough alone. I didn’t intend my statement to suggest that the making of empty action for political gain to be a positive, nor do I consider it so. But, I did want to highlight it among the driving reasoning in support of this change.
Personally, I am a observant fan of @denzuko. His perspective is interesting and the effort he puts towards DMS is awesome. I like the idea of throwing in lots of new features and then remove the ones that don’t better our system, as long as we actually remove the bad ones.
I can also see how supporting the issues being driven by the leadership, ill guided or not, opens doors for him to have more access to information and control around DMS. And, it can also be a means of just maintaining the access he has already been granted. I don’t agree with this reasoning, but it is rewarded within our group.
In levity, please enjoy the Assumptions Cartoon.
Here are some issues effecting being socially online regardless of forum …
I think what might help is to be able to have separate areas with individual moderators and some overall moderators when needed. Each Group could decide how they want to moderate their area. And anyone can create their own group. If you don’t like what you see in a group, you don’t have to see it or join it. It isn’t generalized into one long list of hot topics, only the question and answers and general info would be. This would allow people to feel more a home with a group. They can decide that they don’t want certain things in their group, so they kick the offenders out after a warning. It is how many sites work once they reach a certain population. Things do change once you reach a certain level. I think our Talk forum has had alot of people walk away from it or be warned away because of a few people getting passionately heated about a topic because there is no other places to go on the site but Main.
It would be nice to say… go take this discussion into your own group … this group is a place for creative minds.
I would think adding new groups for every little thing would fragment us even further but keeping in mind with the theme of your suggestion. I do agree that it would be great if we could say; 'discuss this on your committee’s area on talk, it’s a place for creative minds"
It may fragment some but not everyone is going to get along as we grow. The alternative is to use Facebook which is what some people have already done. There are many CA facebook groups. When people start warning that you have to have a thick skin to get on talk, which is what many people warn when mentioning it to new members, we have a problem. You get the same people posting over and over and other people just avoid it completely. If you want people to use our forum we are going to have to give them the power to administrate their area. Not just committee or approved groups but create their own at will. This is what they are doing anyway just off of talk. If you want to bring people back, there is going to have be a revolution of mindset on how we structure things. Just my opinion.