[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

**MikeH** · October 9, 2009, 04:44

I didn't see these but if someone's a spambot we delete the posts as spam and ban the user, taking the option to delete all their posts and threads with them. This is trivial if someone has less than 50 posts, over 50 posts it's harder. So (sadly?) we can't delete most of you lot as spam.

**ColdWizard** · October 9, 2009, 12:34

Originally Posted by MikeH

I didn't see these but if someone's a spambot we delete the posts as spam and ban the user, taking the option to delete all their posts and threads with them. This is trivial if someone has less than 50 posts, over 50 posts it's harder. So (sadly?) we can't delete most of you lot as spam.

Such a lazy lot of mods

**Ming** · October 9, 2009, 13:01

More like "very efficient" mods. A spam bot can be banned and all posts and threads he started deleted with a minimal fuss... removing the need to check all the other forums to see if there are tons of threads or just the one reported/found. It's a GREAT feature and very useful

**ColdWizard** · October 9, 2009, 13:19

I was referring to deleting the rest of us as spam.

**Legend** · October 9, 2009, 18:30

Originally Posted by Ming

More like "very efficient" mods. A spam bot can be banned and all posts and threads he started deleted with a minimal fuss... removing the need to check all the other forums to see if there are tons of threads or just the one reported/found. It's a GREAT feature and very useful

Problem is when people start replying to the spambot, or quoting them (and their links). For threads that the spambots start, it works great. For threads where the spambot replies with some crap, its a (little) bit more work.

Current spambot fetish is to post soemthing like:

Thanks for your reply. Very informative.

with the actual advertising in the signature. Pain in the arse. Ban all new accounts from having urls in the signature is the best bet.

**Krill** · October 14, 2009, 12:56

Did Wezil and BK just get banned?

**self biased** · October 14, 2009, 12:59

ben just posted something in the abortion thread not half an hour ago.

**Wezil** · October 14, 2009, 13:03

Originally Posted by Krill

Did Wezil and BK just get banned?

Why do you ask?

**Lorizael** · October 14, 2009, 13:38

Originally Posted by Krill

Did Wezil and BK just get banned?

Nope. The two of them stopped going at one another and I stopped caring. We're all one big, happy family.

**Ben Kenobi** · October 14, 2009, 13:59

Uh, I've been posting fairly steadily all morning.

**Zevico** · October 18, 2009, 05:14

Originally Posted by Legend

Problem is when people start replying to the spambot, or quoting them (and their links). For threads that the spambots start, it works great. For threads where the spambot replies with some crap, its a (little) bit more work.

Current spambot fetish is to post soemthing like:

Thanks for your reply. Very informative.

with the actual advertising in the signature. Pain in the arse. Ban all new accounts from having urls in the signature is the best bet.

Thanks for your reply. Very informative.

**SpencerH** · November 3, 2009, 12:28

The 'serious' thread tag is absurd.

**SlowwHand** · November 3, 2009, 12:39

So what? It's in good company.

**Lorizael** · November 3, 2009, 12:39

Originally Posted by SpencerH

The 'serious' thread tag is absurd.

Why's that?

**rah** · November 3, 2009, 13:25

Because no one pays any attention to but you.

**SpencerH** · November 3, 2009, 13:51

I appreciate the intent of the tag but it's doomed to failure.

**Lorizael** · November 3, 2009, 13:55

Who would support creating a subforum either for "serious" threads or for "anything goes" threads?

**Wezil** · November 3, 2009, 13:58

I support creating a subforum for Ben Kenobi.

All Ben and only Ben.

**Lorizael** · November 3, 2009, 14:00

Given this forum's attitude, that would fit perfectly in the "anything goes" box.

**rah** · November 3, 2009, 14:00

Originally Posted by Lorizael

Who would support creating a subforum either for "serious" threads or for "anything goes" threads?

That was considered many times and it was always laughed down because..
1. How could you tell the difference on a lot of threads.
2. Someone would have to judge every thread to make sure it was in the right place.

But times are different.

I'd still say no.

**Lorizael** · November 3, 2009, 14:02

I have no idea if this is possible with the forum technology that exists today, but I'd love to see a way of tagging threads (nsfw, politics, spam, etc.) and letting users sort and filter the threads they see.

**Ming** · November 3, 2009, 14:10

First... it would creat more work for the mods. And from seeing how much the mods "like" work, probably not a good idea.

Second, there are many users here who would purposely mistitle threads just for the "fun" of it.

While there are some that are or act like children here, the bulk of the users are adults, and they can filter what they see just as easily without no stinking tags

**SlowwHand** · November 3, 2009, 17:45

I personally guarantee you that I'll mistitle for the fun of it.

**snoopy369** · November 3, 2009, 18:10

Actual tagging is a feature; it was enabled for a short period of time a while back, shortly after the upgrade. However, it's hard to maintain and lends itself to substantial abuse.

**Jon Miller** · November 3, 2009, 18:57

Originally Posted by SpencerH

The 'serious' thread tag is absurd.

I thought that was the purpose of the tag.

JM

**loinburger** · November 11, 2009, 17:03

Do we have any recourse if we are trolled by a moderator?

**Asher** · November 11, 2009, 17:04

That's never stopped me from going all out. And look at me!

**Jon Miller** · November 11, 2009, 17:18

Loin for president?

JM

**loinburger** · November 11, 2009, 17:19

I prefer not to get into heated debates/arguments if I can help it, but when Lori displays such a complete lack of neutrality and even goes so far as to taunt one of the participants of such a discussion then it seems clear to me that somebody else needs to step in. Will PMing Plomp do any good, or do the current owners treat the OT as a ghetto (with which they'd rather not be bothered) like the previous owners do?