This place is like Baghdad and I feel like a US soldier

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:26 pm

Any chance we can get a freeze on new accounts? Or at least account needs to be activated by an admin?

Most of us browse at work and you can guess the trouble that causes. I would post this in the meta forum but I don't believe in it.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:27 pm

Its horrid. I feel like I'm watching Beruit on TV in the 80s, only some crazy editor keeps flashing pictures of Farah's nipple.

Grievous Angel · Post by **Grievous Angel** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:31 pm

First we learn to be wary of PMs, and now we learn to not use the "page down" key when browsing. It's really too bad everyone has to alter their Web habits on account of one whackjob.

Orgull · Post by **Orgull** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:35 pm

Seriously, I usually try to be moderate and calm but WTF?!? I just saw some "stuff" in another thread that I didn't need to see and I'm sure none of you needed to see it either.

I would support a 24 hour delay for new accounts like there is on some other forums I've been to.

Also, banning isn't good enough for this.. individual. Stronger action is needed.

I'm going to go cry now.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:37 pm

Head over to the meta forum and read some of the old threads about this stuff. Stronger action is being worked on.

- Ash

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:38 pm

Use the

function in each of the threads and be done with it.

Try not to make a big deal out of it.

You can almost hear the bag-whacking when you draw attention to what's happening

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:41 pm

Oh, and this might also be a good time to suggest (for the dozenth time) that if this stuff bothers people, browsers allow the disabling of images.

- Ash

magic · Post by **magic** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:42 pm

Asharak wrote:Head over to the meta forum and read some of the old threads about this stuff. Stronger action is being worked on.

- Ash

but that doesn't help right now? there's lots of stuff being worked on...

Grievous Angel · Post by **Grievous Angel** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:43 pm

Soldiers don't get images of puppies and kittens to help them recover though. So we've got that going for us.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:44 pm

Well, there's nothing stronger than banning that CAN be done "right now". Banning is about as strong as it comes with internet forum software.

Stronger requires more time.

- Ash

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:46 pm

Asharak wrote:Well, there's nothing stronger than banning that CAN be done "right now". Banning is about as strong as it comes with internet forum software.

Stronger requires more time.

- Ash

No, most web software can be configured to go from a passive-approvals process to an active one - where a mod has to approve all new members. It's time that was done here.

U2K Tha Greate$t · Post by **U2K Tha Greate$t** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:47 pm

" SOMEONE GIVE GRANNY A CALL "

Orgull · Post by **Orgull** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:48 pm

I just got a PM that Gator Fan has been banned and the evil picture removed!

Good Job The Meal!

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:49 pm

Blackadar wrote:No, most web software can be configured to go from a passive-approvals process to an active one - where a mod has to approve all new members. It's time that was done here.

Not to make this a meta-forum topic, but that's been discussed in the meta-forum. And it has the basic flaw of 'how do you know who to approve?' Not to mention inconveniencing the (over time) dozens or hundreds of people who may want to register for the site.

- Ash

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:55 pm

Asharak wrote:
Blackadar wrote:No, most web software can be configured to go from a passive-approvals process to an active one - where a mod has to approve all new members. It's time that was done here.
Not to make this a meta-forum topic, but that's been discussed in the meta-forum. And it has the basic flaw of 'how do you know who to approve?' Not to mention inconveniencing the (over time) dozens or hundreds of people who may want to register for the site.

- Ash

As someone who ran a website with a message board that's more active than this one, it's not that hard. Trust me, I had a similar problem and solved it like this.

1. Only valid, non-free email addresses were permitted. Most people only have 1 or 2 email addresses like this. This gets rid of 90% of the jerks and you can usually be sure that it's traceable.

2. Active permissions for posting. You can approve virtually everyone within 24 hours, but it takes manual intervention to do so.

3. With almost all sites like this one, 98% of your activity is done by posters already here. The requests for new users aren't nearly as frequent as you'd think and the "burden" of waiting isn't that bad for someone who legitimately wants to post.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:58 pm

Seems logical.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:58 pm

Blackadar wrote:
Asharak wrote:
Blackadar wrote:No, most web software can be configured to go from a passive-approvals process to an active one - where a mod has to approve all new members. It's time that was done here.
Not to make this a meta-forum topic, but that's been discussed in the meta-forum. And it has the basic flaw of 'how do you know who to approve?' Not to mention inconveniencing the (over time) dozens or hundreds of people who may want to register for the site.

- Ash
As someone who ran a website with a message board that's more active than this one, it's not that hard. Trust me, I had a similar problem and solved it like this.

1. Only valid, non-free email addresses were permitted. Most people only have 1 or 2 email addresses like this. This gets rid of 90% of the jerks and you can usually be sure that it's traceable.
.

It would have gotten rid of me as well, since I don't trust any site with my home email address. It's given out to personal and business contacts only.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:02 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: It would have gotten rid of me as well, since I don't trust any site with my home email address. It's given out to personal and business contacts only.

Well, then I vote to enact this policy immediately!

Fretmute · Post by **Fretmute** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:06 pm

It's interesting to note that 5 out of the last 16 people to join have been banned. A couple of others have yet to post and may still be "sleepers."

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:07 pm

Fretmute wrote:It's interesting to note that 5 out of the last 16 people to join have been banned. A couple of others have yet to post and may still be "sleepers."

Good point, that's what 11 people in 2 weeks or so? Not exactly the overload if everyone shares the load. As for getting rid the TMH... you got my vote.

UsulofDoom · Post by **UsulofDoom** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:09 pm

- Ash[/quote]

3. With almost all sites like this one, 98% of your activity is done by posters already here. The requests for new users aren't nearly as frequent as you'd think and the "burden" of waiting isn't that bad for someone who legitimately wants to post.[/quote]

I think that once you stated that, all the lurkers will be asking for a request before the lock down.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:11 pm

This is a meta forum topic and has been moved to its appropriate location.

~Neal

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:13 pm

This sub-forum does not exist.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:16 pm

Fretmute wrote:It's interesting to note that 5 out of the last 16 people to join have been banned. A couple of others have yet to post and may still be "sleepers."

Sleeper cells.

<shudders>

Grievous Angel · Post by **Grievous Angel** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 4:18 pm

How exactly would manually approving users stop this from happening? If the guy changes IP addresses and uses a different alias and e-mail address every time, how could a mod or an admin tell a Crowley alias from a legit new member?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:10 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
You can almost hear the bag-whacking when you draw attention to what's happening

bag-whacking????

sweet mother of god, there goes my coke.