Jump to content

Accounts, Moderated Sign-Ups, and You


ArielMT
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sylver said:

You're projecting and skewing what I said. It's not meant in that way. It's usually a good idea to read something in different tones and contexts; that's usually what I do to reduce the chance I'll misread something.

...................
Did you just tell me that I should read your post in full and at the exact same time miss that my comment was a hyperbolic simile? Is that what just happened here?
I know that's not what you said, my guy. I'm saying "put at risk" makes this sound way more serious in any context. It's so extra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then.

Calm voice, no passive aggression and no active aggression. Let me ask again.

Three separate users who are not me have raised the issue that since your moderation of new members is not automatically instigated and does not prevent private messaging, it fails to prevent the primary cause you put forward for implementing it.

Several times, one mod or another has stated why the need for this policy was felt. None of you however have yet acknowledged the above issue, which reads as a blatant oversight. I don't particularly care who came up with the idea or why none of you picked up on this, however it would be nice to see at least one of you admit that this was indeed an oversight and that you are at least considering either removing the policy altogether or implementing changes that would make it effective at its purpose. Three separate people asked. None of the staff have responded to the issue.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Okay then.

Calm voice, no passive aggression and no active aggression. Let me ask again.

Three separate users who are not me have raised the issue that since your moderation of new members is not automatically instigated and does not prevent private messaging, it fails to prevent the primary cause you put forward for implementing it.

Several times, one mod or another has stated why the need for this policy was felt. None of you however have yet acknowledged the above issue, which reads as a blatant oversight. I don't particularly care who came up with the idea or why none of you picked up on this, however it would be nice to see at least one of you admit that this was indeed an oversight and that you are at least considering either removing the policy altogether or implementing changes that would make it effective at its purpose. Three separate people asked. None of the staff have responded to the issue.

↓↓↓

10 hours ago, Lemon said:

Things have chilled out with our most repeat offenders, so I'm personally going to be goin in the direction of maybe 5 posts or less. Admins have been workin on making it automated for a long time now. Both of our admins work a lot so patience would be neato there. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my mistake. I could only glance across posts while I was on my breaks at work during the day, and obviously I missed the specifics of that one. In hindsight I should have read through more closely once I was home.

Any word on restricting PM's to moderated users then? If you want this to work as advertised, that is just as important. I agree with the lower post count as well, five seems reasonable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, george99g said:

If it's any evidence to counter your point, I don't remember you doing anything other than that.

Tbh that likely says as much about you as it does about him. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

14 hours ago, Toshabi said:

Does somebody need their diaper changed? Cause you've been acting like an ultra mega babby all thread. 

D'awwww, you're so cute.

14 hours ago, Tsuujou said:

Personally, don't find the moderation necessary at all. The mods aren't just putting in a fairly redundant counter measure, but actually selling themselves quite short. I'm not on the front lines stopping spam and ban evasions, but this site can't be that big where it's too much for them to handle. 

Also, if I recall, mods can check IP addresses and compare them to previous banned accounts if they're suspicious, correct? Spam is obvious and will get axed with no need of a second glance, but I remember having an issue where one of the mods either (and don't quote me) said or alluded to IP checks being more than possible. Though, then there's an issue of how useful that actually is for them. I don't know...

Christ i would be willing to do that as a goodwill gesture at this point. If someone collected a list of the banned user's ips and the ips or their known alts i could compare them and see if i could find any commonalities. Iirc someone here posted pms with Eversleep where he confirmed he pays for ips so he may well run within a certain identifiable range. Idk, i have no way of checking. Now if there are identifiable commonalities within the ips of certain alts i'll at the very least show them to the mods and they could use that as a baseline for content moderation. Would be a means to narrow their suspicion and potentially clear people that have nothing to do with past drama immediately. I could also do some research into block banning ip ranges again so identified "alt ranges" could potentially be taken care of in an instant, thus removing the need for content moderation altogether...Potentially. I'm just a guy with an interest in this shit and i'm not sure what the practical applications would be but it's an excuse to learn and it may well provide a simpler solution than a blanket automated program that's easy to bypass. 

14 hours ago, Lemon said:

Things have chilled out with our most repeat offenders, so I'm personally going to be goin in the direction of maybe 5 posts or less. Admins have been workin on making it automated for a long time now. Both of our admins work a lot so patience would be neato there. 

Honestly, i think the admins have been wasting their time with this. It's evidently complicated and potentially completely needless but assuming the automated system is going to be put in place regardless, a 5 post limit seems too low. That's what, some songs posted in the various entertainment threads and maybe a random comment saying "i like Gouda" before they could post what they want. Would require next to no effort for a malicious user to meet the requirements and post what they want after that. If you're going to implement this i'd rec a 10-15 post minimum before moderation was removed. It doesn't remove the issue of shitposting to freedom (a problem this system will always have) but it will make it more of an inconvenience for users with malicious intent. Considering the issue of abuse via pms this system will have to prevent people from sending them while they're moderated as well, so more work for the admins. I have to ask, how frequent are these intrusions by banned members? I'm just trying to work out firstly how big the problem is and secondly if there are simpler, more effective means to prevent them from accessing the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Falaffel said:

if you make it automatic, that's good. everything would be fine.
good talk 

Now that's good sarcasm.

In seriousness though this seems to be a balancing act. If the mods are determined to put a flawed system that potentially damages community growth into place then we may as well find a compromise that takes all aspects into consideration. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest locked this topic

Also, locked it so that we can read through and address stuff without this thread stagnating and also doing shitposts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ArielMT unfeatured this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...