Suggestion Spammers/Trolls

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scaramouche

Lover of Life, Singer of Songs
Est. Contributor
Messages
4,746
Role
  1. Incontinent
Twice this week we were hit by a spammer/troll, possibly the same individual. Staff banned him on both occasions in a reasonable amount of time. There was a time or two when it wasn't so fast. I propose that there be guardians of ADISC. A few trusted individuals that have e-mail addresses of a few staff members so that they can send an e-mail out to alert staff before the situation gets out of control. The e-mails would of course be alternate e-mails to the staff members on duty. These individuals would NOT be staff and have no editing capabilities. I further suggests that these individuals be from around the globe as this site never sleeps.
 

Trevor

Est. Contributor
Messages
9,561
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
This is something that used to be pretty easily managed by the community, as negative reputation would throw a spammer into moderation before much damage occurred. Now that all negative rep must be reviewed, there's no mechanism for the community to police itself.

I wonder if it would be possible to allow negative reps to land without review on recently started accounts (maybe less than 24 hours)? It's a pretty rare problem these days, so I'm not sure it really requires a fix but that would be my suggestion if it could be done easily.
 

Scaramouche

Lover of Life, Singer of Songs
Est. Contributor
Messages
4,746
Role
  1. Incontinent
I wonder if it would be possible to allow negative reps to land without review on recently started accounts (maybe less than 24 hours)?

That's a good idea, too! That way no one has to monitor their e-mails.
 
Last edited:

AlexTurnerIII

Est. Contributor
Messages
508
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Little
I wonder if it would be possible to allow negative reps to land without review on recently started accounts (maybe less than 24 hours)? It's a pretty rare problem these days, so I'm not sure it really requires a fix but that would be my suggestion if it could be done easily.

That is a good idea!
 
M

Marka

Guest
This is something that used to be pretty easily managed by the community, as negative reputation would throw a spammer into moderation before much damage occurred. Now that all negative rep must be reviewed, there's no mechanism for the community to police itself.

I wonder if it would be possible to allow negative reps to land without review on recently started accounts (maybe less than 24 hours)? It's a pretty rare problem these days, so I'm not sure it really requires a fix but that would be my suggestion if it could be done easily.

And... Another good point to make for any considerations on modifying the current or future Reputation system... -Marka
 

HoganBunny

Legendary Bun
Est. Contributor
Messages
5,215
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
  3. Little
Modifying moderation of neg rep for newer accounts is a more feasible solution. Staff (many of whom are working during the day) really won't have time for checking emails regularly.

That said, both trolls banned this week are the same person - a former user who periodically comes back and trolls us.
 

Cottontail

Sailing, sailing, ...
Est. Contributor
Messages
5,348
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Sissy
... both trolls banned this week are the same person - a former user who periodically comes back and trolls us.
What a baby!

The non-moderation idea is interesting. It makes me wonder how often neg-reps are moderated away, though. If it's at all often, then we'd effectively be holding new users to a (slightly) higher standard. That seems more unfair than slower daytime moderation seems annoying--to me, anyway. I'm here fairly often, and I can't think of too many times when blatant trolling has gone unpunished for many hours. It's happened, but not often.
 

Scaramouche

Lover of Life, Singer of Songs
Est. Contributor
Messages
4,746
Role
  1. Incontinent
It's happened, but not often.

The worst one was the guy that posted images of an ax in a guy's head. It seemed like forever before he got shut down. For myself and others, it was a gross situation. Now I know to just ignore these guys but this latest brat was posting on a new member's introduction thread and had him terribly confused. No, it doesn't happen often but when it does, it would be great to have a safety net of some kind. I don't think new members will be held to a higher standard. We should certainly refrain from a neg rep on a personal ad and leave that to staff. But the neg rep would be for the spammers/trolls. Maybe only DC and above can give the neg reps?
 

AlexTurnerIII

Est. Contributor
Messages
508
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Little
The worst one was the guy that posted images of an ax in a guy's head. It seemed like forever before he got shut down. For myself and others, it was a gross situation.

That is beyond creepy. At least with this current/former spammer I could outsmart him and make him look real stupid.
 

flyinbaby

Est. Contributor
Messages
37
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
We could also make a tally on negative rep to we're it will hit a certain point the website will temp ban untill a mod can come and check out the person and the post and figure if he's banned or not.
 

Trevor

Est. Contributor
Messages
9,561
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
We could also make a tally on negative rep to we're it will hit a certain point the website will temp ban untill a mod can come and check out the person and the post and figure if he's banned or not.

Moderation, which is triggered by a total rep score of -3, requires posts to be approved by a mod before they become visible on the forum. It solves the problem pretty well.
 

HoganBunny

Legendary Bun
Est. Contributor
Messages
5,215
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
  3. Little
The non-moderation idea is interesting. It makes me wonder how often neg-reps are moderated away, though.

A lot of neg rep given by non-staff is deleted. Largely, this occurs because some users will neg rep for any rule infraction, regardless of how serious. Staff usually only neg rep for repeated rule violations.

The worst one was the guy that posted images of an ax in a guy's head. It seemed like forever before he got shut down. For myself and others, it was a gross situation.

It took about half an hour, if I recall correctly.

Any sort of anti-troll/spam measure must take into account whether it will drive off more newbies than the number of trolls or spammers it blocks.

After that particular troll, any post by a contributor is moderated if it contains a link. That catches the majority of trolls and spammers already. However, it's been a hassle because many new users are confused by their posts vanishing.

Now I know to just ignore these guys but this latest brat was posting on a new member's introduction thread and had him terribly confused. No, it doesn't happen often but when it does, it would be great to have a safety net of some kind. I don't think new members will be held to a higher standard. We should certainly refrain from a neg rep on a personal ad and leave that to staff. But the neg rep would be for the spammers/trolls. Maybe only DC and above can give the neg reps?

I'm really not keen on special moderator-like permissions for DC/TC status. I'm not sure that we should encourage the notion that DC/TC is anything other than recognizing people who regularly post high quality posts. Moreover, reputation and the leveling system does not measure trustworthiness. If we're not comfortable giving it to ECs, then I'm not really comfortable giving it to DCs/TCs either.

I neglected to point this out in my first post, but it's really not a problem that occurs very often.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top