The Banhammer and You: A User's Guide to the Forums

[Lord Krunk]

This seems the most appropriate place to ask: I see a ton of posts mentioning a new captcha thing here at the 'pist. Am I not seeing it because I subscribed?

According to the Captcha thing I had to type into to post this:

"Panic! Chaos! What is this!?
To help cut down on spam, we're doing spot check captchas on the forums. These help prevent bots from being able to post. Please complete the captcha to the left to post. Sorry for the inconvenience!"

EDIT: I'm guessing they assume you're human because you paid to post there. I guess a spambot doing the same would have paid for their advertising space

 

[HK_01]

This seems the most appropriate place to ask: I see a ton of posts mentioning a new captcha thing here at the 'pist. Am I not seeing it because I subscribed?

According to the Captcha thing I had to type into to post this:

"Panic! Chaos! What is this!?
To help cut down on spam, we're doing spot check captchas on the forums. These help prevent bots from being able to post. Please complete the captcha to the left to post. Sorry for the inconvenience!"

EDIT: I'm guessing they assume you're human because you paid to post there. I guess a spambot doing the same would have paid for their advertising space

I don't really see why only people who paid are excluded and not members who have more than, let's say, 100 posts. I highly doubt someone with over 6000 posts and who's been here for almost three years like yourself would be a spambot. I don't think it would be all that hard to exclude everyone past a certain post count and/or time that they've been registered from this measure because checking to see whether such people are spambots seems pointless to me, worse than pointless in fact because it's irritating to those who must put up with it.
Of course they could've also not excluded people like us on purpose to make us join the PubClub....

Edit: Hahaha, got the captcha wrong at the first attempt.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

This seems the most appropriate place to ask: I see a ton of posts mentioning a new captcha thing here at the 'pist. Am I not seeing it because I subscribed?

According to the Captcha thing I had to type into to post this:

"Panic! Chaos! What is this!?
To help cut down on spam, we're doing spot check captchas on the forums. These help prevent bots from being able to post. Please complete the captcha to the left to post. Sorry for the inconvenience!"

EDIT: I'm guessing they assume you're human because you paid to post there. I guess a spambot doing the same would have paid for their advertising space

I don't really see why only people who paid are excluded and not members who have more than, let's say, 100 posts. I highly doubt someone with over 6000 posts and who's been here for almost three years like yourself would be a spambot. I don't think it would be all that hard to exclude everyone past a certain post count and/or time that they've been registered from this measure because checking to see whether such people are spambots seems pointless to me, worse than pointless in fact because it's irritating to those who must put up with it.
Of course they could've also not excluded people like us on purpose to make us join the PubClub....

Edit: Hahaha, got the captcha wrong at the first attempt.

It's only set up like this because the whole reason a Spambot is using this as a method for advertising is because it wants to avoid spending money. Plus, the plan you suggested isn't full-proof.

We have hundreds and hundreds of dormant accounts going as far back as 2007. Its very easy for someone to sign into their old account, attach a bot onto it and spam the forums. Even then, a hundred posts isn't hard to reach and the majority of posters have at least twice that amount.

In short, a smart person can find away to exploit your suggestions, but wouldn't ever plan on paying twenty bucks for a few extra hits on his website.

 

[HK_01]

I don't really see why only people who paid are excluded and not members who have more than, let's say, 100 posts. I highly doubt someone with over 6000 posts and who's been here for almost three years like yourself would be a spambot. I don't think it would be all that hard to exclude everyone past a certain post count and/or time that they've been registered from this measure because checking to see whether such people are spambots seems pointless to me, worse than pointless in fact because it's irritating to those who must put up with it.
Of course they could've also not excluded people like us on purpose to make us join the PubClub....

Edit: Hahaha, got the captcha wrong at the first attempt.

It's only set up like this because the whole reason a Spambot is using this as a method for advertising is because it wants to avoid spending money. Plus, the plan you suggested isn't full-proof.

We have hundreds and hundreds of dormant accounts going as far back as 2007. Its very easy for someone to sign into their old account, attach a bot onto it and spam the forums. Even then, a hundred posts isn't hard to reach and the majority of posters have at least twice that amount.

In short, a smart person can find away to exploit your suggestions, but wouldn't ever plan on paying twenty bucks for a few extra hits on his website.

I don't really think that old dormant accounts would be used for spamming. The only spam I've ever seen was from freshly created accounts. Granted, I've only seen very few instances of such happenings, but that just reinforces my stance that this is an unnecessary measure.
I also don't see why someone who just wants to spam the site would put hours of time into getting over 100 "real" posts only to be banned within a very short period after he starts spamming. That just seems like a waste of time (and therefore money).

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I don't really see why only people who paid are excluded and not members who have more than, let's say, 100 posts. I highly doubt someone with over 6000 posts and who's been here for almost three years like yourself would be a spambot. I don't think it would be all that hard to exclude everyone past a certain post count and/or time that they've been registered from this measure because checking to see whether such people are spambots seems pointless to me, worse than pointless in fact because it's irritating to those who must put up with it.
Of course they could've also not excluded people like us on purpose to make us join the PubClub....

Edit: Hahaha, got the captcha wrong at the first attempt.

It's only set up like this because the whole reason a Spambot is using this as a method for advertising is because it wants to avoid spending money. Plus, the plan you suggested isn't full-proof.

We have hundreds and hundreds of dormant accounts going as far back as 2007. Its very easy for someone to sign into their old account, attach a bot onto it and spam the forums. Even then, a hundred posts isn't hard to reach and the majority of posters have at least twice that amount.

In short, a smart person can find away to exploit your suggestions, but wouldn't ever plan on paying twenty bucks for a few extra hits on his website.

I don't really think that old dormant accounts would be used for spamming. The only spam I've ever seen was from freshly created accounts. Granted, I've only seen very few instances of such happenings, but that just reinforces my stance that this is an unnecessary measure.
I also don't see why someone who just wants to spam the site would put hours of time into getting over 100 "real" posts only to be banned within a very short period after he starts spamming. That just seems like a waste of time (and therefore money).

Its less money then they would be spending to buy ad-space and when I said dormant members, I meant a user could create an account, leave it for a few months while he spams other sites and finds other work and then use the bot.

The hundred posts is easily attained, I did it within my first week here. Its just a matter of coming here on your free-time and most spammers are simply advertising their blogs or their art, stuff that isn't their primary source of income.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Edit: Hahaha, got the captcha wrong at the first attempt.

As did I.

Also, you have a really good point there. In my time here I've never seen a spambot older than a day or two, and not with any more than 2 posts.

I dunno about yourself, but I really hate the way the Pub Club is pitched.

 

[Dorian]

All hail the captchas.

Seeing how they totally stopped the spammers and all that.

 

[RatRace123]

Oops, I guess I made a controversial thread. I titled it "Racists or Homophobes" It was a poll about whether people would side with the KKK or WBC. I didn't intend to spark controversy, only to promote discussion, but I can see how it got locked.

Probably should've worded it better, oh well.

 

[Roxas1359]

Krunk, you should add Greyfox105 to the mod list. Just saw that she's a mod.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

I feel like responding to this thread will invoke a curse since three people on the front page were banned or put on probation, but I'll take my chances. I was warned once for commenting on my brother's forum post by ironically saying "Cool story bro." but I can understand the reason. I feel safe knowing I can live in a troll free environment.

 

[Lord Krunk]

I feel like responding to this thread will invoke a curse since three people on the front page were banned or put on probation, but I'll take my chances.

'tis a very old thread, and it's aged over time. Of course, time has taken its toll on the community - all the banned people on the first page were at the top of the Escapist social hierachy a over a year ago.

I was too. Although that was way back in 2008. It's funny to see how the place has changed in over time, and how much I have as well - I was 15 when I first came here, and 2 months ago I turned 18.

It's certainly not akin to a tight-knit dysfunctional (yet incredibly literate) family anymore.

More like a sparse dysfunctional city.

Krunk, you should add Greyfox105 to the mod list. Just saw that she's a mod.

I added the 3 newest moderators to his post.

Beat me by an hour. Oh well.

 

[Claymorez]

I feel like responding to this thread will invoke a curse since three people on the front page were banned or put on probation, but I'll take my chances.

'tis a very old thread, and it's aged over time. Of course, time has taken its toll on the community - all the banned people on the first page were at the top of the Escapist social hierachy a over a year ago.

I was too. Although that was way back in 2008. It's funny to see how the place has changed in over time, and how much I have as well - I was 15 when I first came here, and 2 months ago I turned 18.

It's certainly not akin to a tight-knit dysfunctional (yet incredibly literate) family anymore.

More like a sparse dysfunctional city.

Krunk, you should add Greyfox105 to the mod list. Just saw that she's a mod.

I added the 3 newest moderators to his post.

Beat me by an hour. Oh well.

I am a bit sad Me, Sevre, Newclassic, Coldstorage and Zombie Fish are still considered "new" moderators

 

[Lord Krunk]

I feel like responding to this thread will invoke a curse since three people on the front page were banned or put on probation, but I'll take my chances.

'tis a very old thread, and it's aged over time. Of course, time has taken its toll on the community - all the banned people on the first page were at the top of the Escapist social hierachy a over a year ago.

I was too. Although that was way back in 2008. It's funny to see how the place has changed in over time, and how much I have as well - I was 15 when I first came here, and 2 months ago I turned 18.

It's certainly not akin to a tight-knit dysfunctional (yet incredibly literate) family anymore.

More like a sparse dysfunctional city.

Krunk, you should add Greyfox105 to the mod list. Just saw that she's a mod.

I added the 3 newest moderators to his post.

Beat me by an hour. Oh well.

I am a bit sad Me, Sevre, Newclassic, Coldstorage and Zombie Fish are still considered "new" moderators

I haven't had that much reason to update it in the past year

 

[somadman]

Thank you for your explaination to how the moderation of this forum works.

What is there stance apon curse words?

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Thank you for your explaination to how the moderation of this forum works.

What is there stance apon curse words?

The occasional swear word is acceptable in the right context, but it is usually easier to play it safe and just not use them. Anything which is too vulgar (such as any sexual or violent depictions, or something like a long line of swear words all in one paragraph) is not tolerated, nor is any if it is meant to insult other users, be it in a direct or indirect response.

We will allow swearing to an extent, but at the end of the day there are people as young as 13 who visit and post on these forums regularly, so we have to try and keep this place as family friendly as possible.

 

[Emergent]

we have to try and keep this place as family friendly as possible.

While I understand the desire to protect oneself against possible legal ramifications, the actual published content of the site (ZP and moveibob's videos are the most glaring examples, but by far not the only one) indicates otherwise. The quoted statement is a spurious argument.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

While I understand the desire to protect oneself against possible legal ramifications, the actual published content of the site (ZP and moveibob's videos are the most glaring examples, but by far not the only one) indicates otherwise. The quoted statement is a spurious argument.

Content published on the site such as video content have its own guidelines to follow, with its own people to enforce it. It may not seem fair to you guys for the two things to have different standards but trust me, it isn't any fairer on their end either, considering the fact that they have their jobs at risk if they end up breaking their conditions or if not enough people see their content, whilst normal users such as yourself only have loss of access to free forums.

 

[Emergent]

I'm not complaining that it is unfair. I'm stating that, as an argument, it is invalid.