3 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I'm a mod on Ask Ubuntu. I've been talking to somebody who wants to run a chat bot on all the SE chat networks. To do this they're aiming for 200 rep with us to unlock the 100-rep association bonus.

Chatbots are fairly well accepted things these days (as long as they behave) but there are a couple of obvious issues with how they're created:

  1. They have to create a new account and grind for rep.
  2. They end up with an account that can do far more than it needs for chatting.

The term "sockpuppet" is really a reflection of an accounts actions and the user here has promised not to vote for themselves, it just seems silly to force wouldbe chatbot operators to go through exactly the same steps. I've got a few mutually exclusive ideas that might make things better:

  • Allow people to have a chatbot subprofile which can only do the things the main account can. Most importantly, it require the somebody to put themselves in the position to sockpuppet.

  • Create a dummy chatbot.stackexchange.com site where profiles (linked to the main profile) have their own chat profile with automatic and appropriate chat-only privileges. I'm not sure if that would actually work though.

  • Allow real accounts to be limited to chat-only privs, whatever their reputation. This would annul moderator fears of bots going wild.

  • Or finally —something I've suggested beforesomething I've suggested before— cross-user limits to stop "accidental" sockpuppeting happening.


There are auxiliary conversations happening about whether bots should be allowed to vote on main sites at all. That isn't my main focus but it's certainly relevant in the long run.

One thing I will say on the matter: isn't the point of crowd sourcing to get humans doing things? Inviting AIs (or facsimiles thereof) to do the job seems to counter the system's design.

I'm a mod on Ask Ubuntu. I've been talking to somebody who wants to run a chat bot on all the SE chat networks. To do this they're aiming for 200 rep with us to unlock the 100-rep association bonus.

Chatbots are fairly well accepted things these days (as long as they behave) but there are a couple of obvious issues with how they're created:

  1. They have to create a new account and grind for rep.
  2. They end up with an account that can do far more than it needs for chatting.

The term "sockpuppet" is really a reflection of an accounts actions and the user here has promised not to vote for themselves, it just seems silly to force wouldbe chatbot operators to go through exactly the same steps. I've got a few mutually exclusive ideas that might make things better:

  • Allow people to have a chatbot subprofile which can only do the things the main account can. Most importantly, it require the somebody to put themselves in the position to sockpuppet.

  • Create a dummy chatbot.stackexchange.com site where profiles (linked to the main profile) have their own chat profile with automatic and appropriate chat-only privileges. I'm not sure if that would actually work though.

  • Allow real accounts to be limited to chat-only privs, whatever their reputation. This would annul moderator fears of bots going wild.

  • Or finally —something I've suggested before— cross-user limits to stop "accidental" sockpuppeting happening.


There are auxiliary conversations happening about whether bots should be allowed to vote on main sites at all. That isn't my main focus but it's certainly relevant in the long run.

One thing I will say on the matter: isn't the point of crowd sourcing to get humans doing things? Inviting AIs (or facsimiles thereof) to do the job seems to counter the system's design.

I'm a mod on Ask Ubuntu. I've been talking to somebody who wants to run a chat bot on all the SE chat networks. To do this they're aiming for 200 rep with us to unlock the 100-rep association bonus.

Chatbots are fairly well accepted things these days (as long as they behave) but there are a couple of obvious issues with how they're created:

  1. They have to create a new account and grind for rep.
  2. They end up with an account that can do far more than it needs for chatting.

The term "sockpuppet" is really a reflection of an accounts actions and the user here has promised not to vote for themselves, it just seems silly to force wouldbe chatbot operators to go through exactly the same steps. I've got a few mutually exclusive ideas that might make things better:

  • Allow people to have a chatbot subprofile which can only do the things the main account can. Most importantly, it require the somebody to put themselves in the position to sockpuppet.

  • Create a dummy chatbot.stackexchange.com site where profiles (linked to the main profile) have their own chat profile with automatic and appropriate chat-only privileges. I'm not sure if that would actually work though.

  • Allow real accounts to be limited to chat-only privs, whatever their reputation. This would annul moderator fears of bots going wild.

  • Or finally —something I've suggested before— cross-user limits to stop "accidental" sockpuppeting happening.


There are auxiliary conversations happening about whether bots should be allowed to vote on main sites at all. That isn't my main focus but it's certainly relevant in the long run.

One thing I will say on the matter: isn't the point of crowd sourcing to get humans doing things? Inviting AIs (or facsimiles thereof) to do the job seems to counter the system's design.

2 deleted 286 characters in body
source | link

I'm a mod on Ask Ubuntu. I've just been talking to somebody who wants to run a chat bot. They want to run this on all the SE chat networks. Normally that would just need 20 rep on each site but they feel they need the "create room" privilege (100). Their approach toTo do this is earningthey're aiming for 200 reputation as the bot on our siterep with us to earnunlock the cross-site 100-rep starter (so their SO and MSE accounts get 101 without any external work).

My main problem is that this gives them power. Power to comment. Power to vote. They've already earnt the upvote priv with us and they've "accidentally" voted 28 times. They can do things. They could very easily create another bot now, rotating around SE sites (with their starterassociation bonus) to avoid each sites mods noticing suspicious vote patterns.

They've explicitly said they won't abuse it but I'd rather not need to have to trust their word.

Chatbots are fairly well accepted things but becausethese days (as long as they need reputation to work, their existence causes peripheralbehave) but there are a couple of obvious issues. I hate that they have to operate on the main site with (likehow they're created:

  1. They have to create a new account and grind for rep.
  2. They end up with an account that can do far more than it needs for chatting.

The term "sockpuppet" is really a realreflection of an accounts actions and the user) here has promised not to earn reputation. I hate that they can vote for themselves, it just seems silly to force wouldbe chatbot operators to go through exactly the same steps.

  I've got a few mutually exclusive ideas that might make things better:

  • Allow people to have a chatbot subprofile which can only do the things the main account can. Most importantly, it require the somebody to put themselves in the position to sockpuppet.

  • Create a dummy chatbot.stackexchange.com site where profiles (linked to the main profile) have their own chat profile with automatic and appropriate chat-only privileges. I'm not sure if that would actually work though.

  • Allow real accounts to be limited to chat-only privs, whatever their reputation. This would annul moderator fears of bots going wild.

  • Or finally —something I've suggested before— cross-user limits to stop "accidental" sockpuppeting happening.

 

I'm still not sure whatThere are auxiliary conversations happening about whether bots should be allowed to do nowvote on main sites at all. I'm uncomfortable with the present situation, especially given the number of existing votesThat isn't my main focus but it's certainly relevant in the bot account has already issuedlong run.

Should we allow bot wranglersOne thing I will say on the matter: isn't the point of crowd sourcing to build up significant reputation under their botsget humans doing things? Inviting AIs (or facsimiles thereof) to do the job seems to counter the system's design.

I'm a mod on Ask Ubuntu. I've just been talking to somebody who wants to run a chat bot. They want to run this on all SE chat networks. Normally that would just need 20 rep on each site but they feel they need the "create room" privilege (100). Their approach to this is earning 200 reputation as the bot on our site to earn the cross-site 100-rep starter (so their SO and MSE accounts get 101 without any external work).

My main problem is that this gives them power. Power to comment. Power to vote. They've already earnt the upvote priv with us and they've "accidentally" voted 28 times. They can do things. They could very easily create another bot now, rotating around SE sites (with their starter bonus) to avoid each sites mods noticing suspicious vote patterns.

They've explicitly said they won't abuse it but I'd rather not need to have to trust their word.

Chatbots are fairly accepted things but because they need reputation to work, their existence causes peripheral issues. I hate that they have to operate on the main site (like a real user) to earn reputation. I hate that they can vote.

  I've got a few mutually exclusive ideas that might make things better:

  • Allow people to have a chatbot subprofile which can only do the things the main account can. Most importantly, it require the somebody to put themselves in the position to sockpuppet.

  • Create a dummy chatbot.stackexchange.com site where profiles (linked to the main profile) have their own chat profile with automatic and appropriate chat-only privileges. I'm not sure if that would actually work though.

  • Allow real accounts to be limited to chat-only privs, whatever their reputation. This would annul moderator fears of bots going wild.

  • Or finally —something I've suggested before— cross-user limits to stop "accidental" sockpuppeting happening.

I'm still not sure what to do now. I'm uncomfortable with the present situation, especially given the number of existing votes the bot account has already issued.

Should we allow bot wranglers to build up significant reputation under their bots?

I'm a mod on Ask Ubuntu. I've been talking to somebody who wants to run a chat bot on all the SE chat networks. To do this they're aiming for 200 rep with us to unlock the 100-rep association bonus.

Chatbots are fairly well accepted things these days (as long as they behave) but there are a couple of obvious issues with how they're created:

  1. They have to create a new account and grind for rep.
  2. They end up with an account that can do far more than it needs for chatting.

The term "sockpuppet" is really a reflection of an accounts actions and the user here has promised not to vote for themselves, it just seems silly to force wouldbe chatbot operators to go through exactly the same steps. I've got a few mutually exclusive ideas that might make things better:

  • Allow people to have a chatbot subprofile which can only do the things the main account can. Most importantly, it require the somebody to put themselves in the position to sockpuppet.

  • Create a dummy chatbot.stackexchange.com site where profiles (linked to the main profile) have their own chat profile with automatic and appropriate chat-only privileges. I'm not sure if that would actually work though.

  • Allow real accounts to be limited to chat-only privs, whatever their reputation. This would annul moderator fears of bots going wild.

  • Or finally —something I've suggested before— cross-user limits to stop "accidental" sockpuppeting happening.

 

There are auxiliary conversations happening about whether bots should be allowed to vote on main sites at all. That isn't my main focus but it's certainly relevant in the long run.

One thing I will say on the matter: isn't the point of crowd sourcing to get humans doing things? Inviting AIs (or facsimiles thereof) to do the job seems to counter the system's design.

1
source | link

Can we limit chatbot accounts' privileges to chat?

I'm a mod on Ask Ubuntu. I've just been talking to somebody who wants to run a chat bot. They want to run this on all SE chat networks. Normally that would just need 20 rep on each site but they feel they need the "create room" privilege (100). Their approach to this is earning 200 reputation as the bot on our site to earn the cross-site 100-rep starter (so their SO and MSE accounts get 101 without any external work).

My main problem is that this gives them power. Power to comment. Power to vote. They've already earnt the upvote priv with us and they've "accidentally" voted 28 times. They can do things. They could very easily create another bot now, rotating around SE sites (with their starter bonus) to avoid each sites mods noticing suspicious vote patterns.

They've explicitly said they won't abuse it but I'd rather not need to have to trust their word.

Chatbots are fairly accepted things but because they need reputation to work, their existence causes peripheral issues. I hate that they have to operate on the main site (like a real user) to earn reputation. I hate that they can vote.

I've got a few mutually exclusive ideas that might make things better:

  • Allow people to have a chatbot subprofile which can only do the things the main account can. Most importantly, it require the somebody to put themselves in the position to sockpuppet.

  • Create a dummy chatbot.stackexchange.com site where profiles (linked to the main profile) have their own chat profile with automatic and appropriate chat-only privileges. I'm not sure if that would actually work though.

  • Allow real accounts to be limited to chat-only privs, whatever their reputation. This would annul moderator fears of bots going wild.

  • Or finally —something I've suggested before— cross-user limits to stop "accidental" sockpuppeting happening.

I'm still not sure what to do now. I'm uncomfortable with the present situation, especially given the number of existing votes the bot account has already issued.

Should we allow bot wranglers to build up significant reputation under their bots?