'Probie' Status for New Members

[Skydiver]

or, in some sites, you CAN'T post a link. it is totally stripped. as is any and all symbols other than those used for punctuation.

[Darren]

Yep. Another alternative for us would be to disable the IMG tag and file attachments entirely, so that people could link to images (good or bad) but not cause them to display inline.

That's an extreme step that would alter the nature of our forum, I think. Instead of doing that, the mods are happy to take on the extra work of managing Probie posts.

[Skydiver]

the elimination of IMG tags, that would also put an end to any and all personal sigs.

Not that i'd lose sleep over that aspect since it's one of the most abused things on the forum

but i'm sure all those people with their pretty sigs would be a LITTLE upset at losing them, simply in an effort to control spam

[Skydiver]

we can do that...but do you have any idea how many sites are out there that have pics on them?

it'd be stopping a flood with a teacup

[ShadowMaat]

If you build a big enough teacup... Kidding, kidding.

[FN-P90]

we can do that...but do you have any idea how many sites are out there that have pics on them?

it'd be stopping a flood with a teacup

i know that but i mean. it would help i think

[Skydiver]

your idea is a valid one, however the sheer number of sites that host photos - 'good' and 'bad' ones is simply too large to block. We'd have to block all those sites you guys all use, including photobucket and other photo sites.

before we'd do that, it'd be faster and easier to simply curtail the use of all IMG tags

A step darren doesn't want to take because it'd remove all you guys' sigs as well, not to mention basicallly killing all the thunk threads

[Darren]

We have started adding some offending sites to a block list, however, so that any links or IMG attempts from that URL will be thwarted.

Unfortunately we can't include free hosting sites like PhotoBucket in this list. And there are a near infinite number of domains, so ...

[topaz_bean]

We have started adding some offending sites to a block list, however, so that any links or IMG attempts from that URL will be thwarted.

Unfortunately we can't include free hosting sites like PhotoBucket in this list. And there are a near infinite number of domains, so ...

Ah okay, I was gonna say there are certain well known sites that primarily aim to display offensive and/or disturbing images, which obv. I won't name here, that could be blocked, but you already have a block list, so I could have saved my breath!

Although, in fairness, the people who joined the other day seemed pretty practised at what they were doing (how pathetic is that?), so they probably wouldn't link from an easily recognisable domain name anyway.

[Pitry]

your idea is a valid one, however the sheer number of sites that host photos - 'good' and 'bad' ones is simply too large to block. We'd have to block all those sites you guys all use, including photobucket and other photo sites.

before we'd do that, it'd be faster and easier to simply curtail the use of all IMG tags

A step darren doesn't want to take because it'd remove all you guys' sigs as well, not to mention basicallly killing all the thunk threads

My sig! My pretty sig! Ban all new users if you have to, just don't touch my pretty sig! [/devil soul-selling]


Another possible option is something a friend of mine is doing on his website, the only way to register is to post a request (including email and SN) on a specific area of the forum, he sees the request and so can approve the legit new members.

[MCH]

if that's what happens, so be it.

the alternative is to do nothing and leave ourselves open to another attack like last week's.

Unless and until there is legislation in place to punish those that abuse others online, and the ability to turn transgressors over to the authorities, there's not much we can do beyond try to control and prevent it as much as possible

Very happy you have taken the action that you have. I didn't see the posts, and I don't want to. I've had my computer targeted and result it crashed, received emails and pictures that are less than pleasent.

So we all have the right to be on the internet, but if you abuse as you cruise this is what you deserve.

Once again thankyou MCH

[Darren]

Ah okay, I was gonna say there are certain well known sites that primarily aim to display offensive and/or disturbing images, which obv. I won't name here, that could be blocked, but you already have a block list, so I could have saved my breath!

You certainly can PM me with the domain name of such sites, and I'll add them to the block list.

[rlr149]

if that's what happens, so be it.

the alternative is to do nothing and leave ourselves open to another attack like last week's.

Unless and until there is legislation in place to punish those that abuse others online, and the ability to turn transgressors over to the authorities, there's not much we can do beyond try to control and prevent it as much as possible

the day a law that says "you hurt my feelings, go to jail" is passed will be a dark day indeed. it'll be 'thought' crime next

[Tracy Jane]

I guess the only way round would be to only allow images from GW itself (as in pictures you've uploaded to your Gateworld albums). But to block everything would mean stupid amounts of work and no pictures would definitely change the community atmosphere, as others have already said.

You know what? If I were to join GW again today, I don't think I would mind the modding aspect. You see, GW was my first forum, really. I lurked for ages before I joined and, when I did, I was so scared of accidentally breaking the rules... I would have appreciated someone okaying all my posts and making sure I didn't get myself into trouble.

But I suppose a lot of posters are different and wouldn't appreciate it. All I can say is that I think Darren and his team are doing the best they possibly can in a tough situation. At the end of the day, there's no easy way to solve this. There's no solution that everyone will be happy with. So Darren has to make a decision that is good for the site and causes minimum disruption.

I'll finish my arse-licking now

[majorsal]

we've actually been considering this probie step for quite a while. And have been using it quietly in the background for many months. Prior to this, we'd take a look at the new member list and make educated guesses about potential trouble makers. For obvious reasons, I won't reveal our personal criteria for 'mmhm, could be trouble'.

We'd talked about implementing this to stymie the persistent spammers that hit this site once or a few times a week, but haven't felt it necessary until now.

We're just doing what we can to keep trash off the forum, and really, this isnt' even something that will effect you guys. We know you're all real

It's just something for the newbies.

is there also a way of preventing someone from creating multiple identities? why would someone need to be more than one person anyway? that's a real question.



sally