- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by latex bishopI like the idea of preventing newcomers from posting for a month. It would deter a lot of the abusers from joining the site in the first place, which can be no bad thing.
It would be harsh but it would be a solution. I suppose from a business point of view it makes sense to look after the interests of paying customers first and also it makes sense to look after one of the preverbial crown jewels of the site in members such as Dave. I suppose you could have pawnstars only forum and a non-pawnstar forum area. Alternatively ...[text shortened]... they had joined. This hopefully would slow people down once they had been deleted.
Andrew🙄
However the real problem is that it's far too easy for people to join. Anyone can set up a nickname using bogus information, which is never checked, use it for all sorts of malicious purposes and suffer almost no punishment once caught. How many people have been banned? Not many, and I would be surprised if most of those didn't just rejoin under different nicknames.
Perhaps it will be necessary to make everyone subscribe. This seems against the spirit of the site, which has always been an easy-going fun sort of place.
Instead I suggest that joiners are allowed a free trial period, say a month or two, after which they must pay a fee or subscribe if they wish to continue using the site.
During the trial period they wouldn't be able to play more than a limited number of games, say 50, or post.
What do others think of this idea?
😕
Dave
Dave, if people were only allowed to join for a month or 2 before subscribing it might get more people to subscribe, but it wouldn't stop the spammers - they'd still just rejoin under different nicks. The determined spammer would, if he couldn't post for a month, simply create a lot of 'sleeper' nicks and leave them waiting for a month.
I really don't like the sound of star & non-star forums. It would set a 2 teer society that is against what this site is about (or at least what I think it is about). Same goes for making it totally subscriber only - I think it would kill the sites spirit.
I don't know if it would work again, but when I first joined the site any posts I made had to be moderated before they would appear on the forums. Once you are an established poster or a pawn star then your posts are automatically OK'd. If you start abusing the forums then you can have your instant post rights revoked. If you start creating lots of nonsense posts just to make the mods work THEN you can have your posting rights revoked altogether.
I didn't mind waiting when I first started because I understood why it was necessary, and it made me feel a valued part of the society the first time my posts were OK'd immediatly (although that may not really be true😉). This would cause a lot more work for moderators, but there are plenty of people who'd agree to be moderators to handle this I'm sure (I'd be one).
I really think this could work without damaging the site.Anyone agree?
Jon
i'm against a forum for only pawn stars as that would exclude those who cannot pay, i.e. those too poor, students, minors etc.
also, couldn't chris and russ just ban thieir i.p. address??? i was on a forum where my i.p. address was banned (it was a mistake, btw) and i couldn't do anything-i couldn't sign under another name, read any posts, post any new messages etc...
I thought IP's might be the answer, and it might be for some. But I've been told that many ISP's give you a new IP every time you log in - most 56K phoneline ISP's do this I believe & it's only with cable, DSL etc that you keep the same IP. So many people could get around it without trying.
Another way arounf d IP blocking to to use a proxy. On my browser its under: tools, internet options, connections, proxy servers. Enter a proxy address there and it looks like your message is comin from that IP instead of your real one. But I ain't tellinghow you get annonymous proxy addresses 😉
The ONLY way to stop spammers is to disallow posting on forums until 2 weeks after joining. I'm sure people wouldn't mind waiting that long if they are new to the site, and it would greatly discourage people who have just been banned to rejoin and post their crap.
Oh, dave, i don't know you, but if you leave bacsue of all that stupid spam your just letting him win, and i'm sure nobody blames you in the slightest for it.
(p.s. Please ignore any spelling errors or typos, I've had abit to drink. This small post took me 20 mintes to corredct.)
Dave while you and me and a few others here on RHP don't get along or talk to each other messenger at any time...I truly don't know how to say this soooo...Please stay here. I read your words and while we may not agree on most things... the one thing I have said to people is you're truly a great chess player and I meant those words and still do!
I along with many others wish you would re-think about your staying here at RHP and would see the true sincerety behind everyone's words to you.😞:'(
We know you do see the true meaning but still...Tuco and anyone else like him isn't worth you leaving here.😞:'(
Originally posted by David TebbDavid,
I like the idea of preventing newcomers from posting for a month. It would deter a lot of the abusers from joining the site in the first place, which can be no bad thing.
What do others think of this idea?
😕
Dave
I like the idea of a probationary period before posting. It will save alot of heartache around here.
I for one also volunteer to be a moderator. No censorship here. I even own a copy of Fahrenheit 451...
Bill
Originally posted by nsdrguyTwo of those posting here were on the Game Mod team that eventually banned him when he came back as nmdavidb. "Liking him" did not prevent them from correctly evaluating the evidence that overwhelmingly proved he was an engine cheat.
interesting thread, everyone seemed to like this guy
Originally posted by no1marauderWhatever his matchups that you projected were not even close to yours.
Two of those posting here were on the Game Mod team that eventually banned him when he came back as nmdavidb. "Liking him" did not prevent them from correctly evaluating the evidence that overwhelmingly proved he was an engine cheat.
Yours were higher. I mean you accused a person of that 3rd move matchup being very high and yet yours was higher than the guy you got rid of.
You are really a politician, because with every one truth you tell you mix in at least six lies.
Originally posted by CartersonI'm sorry that you don't know how to read. nmdavidb's match ups given for Fritz's first three choices were at least 5% higher than the numbers supposedly acheived by me in 16 non specified games as alleged by a cheater in his blog (he gave two different sets of match up percentages for some bizarre reason).
Whatever his matchups that you projected were not even close to yours.
Yours were higher. I mean you accused a person of that 3rd move matchup being very high and yet yours was higher than the guy you got rid of.
You are really a politician, because with every one truth you tell you mix in at least six lies.
Originally posted by SchliemannCool man, glad to see you're back. 😕
well we have all seen the recent attacks on me by screw dave and now Schliemann2...this crap is keeping the moderators running back and forth like madmen. And it is taking away from the site.
So guess what...I am leaving and this time it will be for good. I love this place WAY too much for this junk to distract everyone.
I am tired of this petty stu ...[text shortened]... the net...which is my testimonial on the main page..I hope it will stay there forever.
Dave