Image size reduced, original size: 787 x 983. http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj542/nomake_wan/sodasoda1obvious.jpg~original to view the image in its original dimension.
Something that restricts posts-per-day to a reasonable number like 10?
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums > Feedback and Support > Post Limit for Schmucks |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Jun 7 2013, 07:55 AM |
| Can we implement a feature that prevents new members (let's say, people within 30 days of joining) from pulling this shit all the time? Image size reduced, original size: 787 x 983. http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj542/nomake_wan/sodasoda1obvious.jpg~original to view the image in its original dimension. Something that restricts posts-per-day to a reasonable number like 10? |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Jun 7 2013, 04:42 PM |
| I dunno how to implement this in a way that wouldn't restrict legitimate discussion...without going to something insane like moderator approval. I mean, the difference between an active new member and a spamming new member is only the content they post, not necessarily how many posts they make in a 24-hour period. Restricting it to 10-posts-per-24-hours is way too restrictive in my opinion. |
| Posted by: Tessou Jun 7 2013, 04:59 PM |
| Since this is a rare occurrence with new members, we handle it on a case by case basis. The forum itself cannot determine the merit of somebody's post, so we leave it to the moderating team to handle things when they discover them. |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Jun 7 2013, 05:43 PM |
| I'm not talking about merit, but rather obvious cases of post-count-bumping. We currently don't have a line in the guideline about this phenomena. I think it needs to be a warnable offense. It doesn't even have to be a post limit like I suggested, but it definitely needs to be a warnable offense. I just had that idea pop into my head and wanted to start a conversation about this. |
| Posted by: Perry Jun 7 2013, 06:02 PM |
| Are you suggesting posting too much in a day regardless of the content a warnable offense? If that's not what you mean, I am confused. Spamming is a warnable offense and that covers this situation. |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Jun 7 2013, 06:09 PM | ||
Are you suggesting that joining and posting in 20 threads in a row just to bump up your post count just so you can access higher privileges quicker is not a problem? It doesn't matter if the posts are technically relevant to the topics - if the motive is just to inflate your post count, that's a problem. |
| Posted by: Perry Jun 7 2013, 06:39 PM |
| Uh.. how can you tell someone's motive? Like, how do you really know? If the content of the posts are relevant to the topics, then it's a go. This is a discussion forum, not a VIP guestbook. Discussion is encouraged so long as they are on-topic and contributive. Posting a lot in a short time with spammy content? That's consider spamming regardless of your join date. |
| Posted by: Tessou Jun 7 2013, 06:50 PM |
| Exactly. The content is all on-topic. While some people may see a deluge of posts as obnoxious and "post count buffing", there is nothing against it in the guidelines, so long as it's on-topic. Besides, post count is meaningless. Don't treat it as some sort of currency or standard of seniority (more posts = more important member?), because such a concept does not exist here. So somebody's posting a lot. Isn't that a good thing? Is that not what the forum is meant for? Just because they're new doesn't explicitly mean they're up to no good. Sometimes they're just really excited to be part of things.  |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Jun 7 2013, 07:02 PM | ||
I could use this argument against you with the whole "post count minimum" for posting links, making requests in the music section and other such privileges (changing your member title, PM inbox size, etc.). Yes, some of it is designed to protect against spambots, but there's plenty of privilege given to members with 100+ post counts that isn't given to newbies, so I find it strange that you would mention "VIP club"s when we already have something like that to some extent. |
| Posted by: Tessou Jun 7 2013, 07:20 PM |
| That's not so much VIP as much as deterring lurkers. It only applies to the visibility of links, typically in the music section where filesharing is rampant, and recently in the Fifth Stage episode threads. We use the post count there as an enticement to be active in the community, and I mean actually being active and not just spamming. The privileges granted by post count are not there to give members status. They are seen as trustworthy enough to enjoy what everybody brings to the site. They must put in their work before they can reap the rewards. It's not outlandish to have a standard that must be achieved before one can enjoy the benefits of "full membership" here. Any community has a similar structure. Besides, the VIP Club would not translate to meaning that the members allowed in such an area are more important than others, just that they've fulfilled some condition(s) in order to have access. If we set the only condition as "a $5 donation", the notion of importance wavers considerably, because anybody could join. IDW is not about having exclusive, important privileges handed to people of a certain "class", because there is no class structure. From post 0 to post 50 billion+, you're a member and will be treated the same as everyone else. The privileges granted are essentially aesthetic bonuses to display that you are indeed an active member of IDW, and nothing more. They do not translate to being a VIP, some sort of untouchable member, or subject to preferential treatment in cases of rule violations. |
| Posted by: Möbius Jun 15 2013, 07:37 AM |
| Complaining about new members posting too much? Stay classy, IDWF. |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Jun 15 2013, 08:32 AM | ||
Either you completely misunderstood what I was complaining about or you are purposely antagonizing for no good reason. |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Jun 15 2013, 10:53 AM | ||
Yeah, because what we want are people who join and make three-word posts in 25 threads adding absolutely nothing to the community nor the individual topics just to pump their post count--assumably to download content from the Music forum or elsewhere. That sounds like a strong, healthy community.  We have nothing against new members 'posting too much'. What we're trying to curb are people who post just to post, not because they actually have anything to say. |
| Posted by: Pikachu_Fragger Jun 15 2013, 11:50 AM | ||
To be fair, that's what mods are supposed to be here for. We suspect something about a fellow member, we report it to the mods. The mods are then supposed to investigate and determine whether or not a member is posting relevant discussion or just spamming random crap that contributes nothing to the threads he or she is posting in, and then take appropriate action. I can see where Kyon's coming from and I am all for curbing the ones who want to just fatten up their post count just for the sake of hitting the minimum required to download content, but at the same time the line can be too grey to determine whether or not that IS a member's intent. I wish I knew how you could apply it in an automatic fashion, but that's just a scenario for possibly making legitimate members less interested to post because their voices are stifled for having a low post count. |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Jun 15 2013, 02:08 PM | ||||
Apparently we're not trying anything because even asking to troubleshoot and solve this problem gets you met with opposition and remarks about how you'd be "killing the community".
The problem with that is, most of the time, it's impossible to act fast enough until suddenly you have a forum filled with 25 new posts and all of them by the same member that joined 10 minutes prior. Another problem is, as you said, it's hard to tell what a new member's intention is when posting. That is, until it's too late and they've racked up tons of "inflation" posts. |
| Posted by: Tessou Jun 15 2013, 02:41 PM |
| Fun fact : admins can easily change a member's post count if they're found to be spamming threads. We've never done it, but it is possible. [ Post made via Mobile Device ] |
| Posted by: Perry Jun 15 2013, 03:05 PM |
| Another fun fact, none of these offenders have actually gotten the download links. None. The requirement is a secret. It's not 25, and it's not 50. And if somehow you manage to spam to the required post count, you STILL can't see the download links because there's an additional time constraint which is also not talked about. So if you intent to join the forums just to spam your way to get the hidden content, you'll most likely fail. So it boils down to this, there's an incentive for people to post more. It's up to the moderating team and the rest of the forums to report these spammers should they encounter them. [ Post made via Mobile Device ] |
| Posted by: Tessou Jun 15 2013, 03:13 PM |
| Mhm. Everything works as it is. Mods keep doing what you're doing, and don't be taken aback by opposing views. It's not the end of the world. Suggestions are suggestions, and you're never going to get unanimous support for something. By the way, in case none of you noticed, the guy that caused this thread to come into existence has not continued their supposed rampage of thread bombing, either. |
| Posted by: Perry Jun 15 2013, 05:09 PM | ||
Most of them give up eventually once they realize post count is not the only requirement. Meanwhile, even though some of his posts were pretty pointless, they did sparked several ongoing discussions. I think the good outweigh the bad in this case.  |
| Posted by: Takahashi Rensuki Jun 16 2013, 07:53 AM | ||
Isn't there a condition where you have to be a member for 6 months or more as well and then the links over time appear for those users as well. Unless I have it wrong.  |
| Posted by: Smikey Jun 16 2013, 01:24 PM | ||
So, what are we talking about then?  |
| Posted by: Kurara Jun 17 2013, 07:27 AM | ||
| I think the issue here is not post-count but 'relevancy' Regardless of the post-count if a new member is posting a bunch of irrelevant replies then he/she should get a warning. Post-count is simply a by-product of posting~~~~ A new member wants more post count so he posts more! When a new member is more concerned about posting more... The quality of his content gets less notice.. And if a person is much too concerned about his or her post count to the point where his or her content gets almost 0 attention... Then... we have an irrelevancy spammer!! Ahhhhh... Logic. ♥
Ah! that would be a member like me ^^. (OYO... since when did I reach 100 posts??!) |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Jun 17 2013, 08:26 AM | ||
You post just to post?  You don't have any thoughts of your own? I think the rest of your post would disagree. |
| Posted by: TheLittleHachiThatCould Oct 6 2013, 01:13 PM |
| Why not unblock conent HIDDEN CONTENT ( You have not contributed enough to see the content ) Like these, cause because many joined and post alot to get rid of these |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Oct 6 2013, 01:45 PM | ||
The reason certain content is blocked to begin with is because we've had problems with people joining just to get at download links around the forums without planning to contribute to discussions or do anything a normal message board member would do. |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Oct 6 2013, 05:17 PM | ||
Such as yourself? Heh. The point here is that we unblock content for contributive members of the community, not lurkers nor spammers. |
| Posted by: Rudy Oct 6 2013, 11:39 PM |
| And the powers that be certainly know that we need more active members... So, Little 85 that could, are you in, or out? |
| Posted by: TranceKitsune Oct 7 2013, 11:38 AM |
| I can understand where Kyon is coming from..I think Kyon might have been leaning more toward looking at leechers who make it obvious they are trying to get "unlocks". Since I'm new myself, I'm not sure if I'm in a position to post here. Haha. Tessou also made a good point by saying post counts can be rolledback by admins if necessary so I think we should be okay. Sorry Kyon, Nomake or anyone else if I annoyed you with my posts when I first joined. I didn't even know we had "unlocks". |
| Posted by: kyonpalm Oct 7 2013, 12:10 PM | ||
Your posting behavior has never at all suggested to me that you were a leecher (plus you introduced yourself as a friend of another member when you joined) so don't worry. It's a lot easier to spot leechers than you might expect. |
| Posted by: PWNatorPWNED Oct 7 2013, 07:23 PM |
| Sorry to butt in, but what are "unlocks"? And are "leechers" similar to the "leecher" in torrenting? |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Oct 7 2013, 07:34 PM | ||
'Unlocks' are because URLs are masked for members who are not contributive. If you've never tried to download eurobeat tracks from IDW or episodes of Initial D from IDW, you probably just never noticed. 'Leechers' in the context of this board are people who register and never post expecting to be able to access the download links (they can't) or join and spam useless posts thinking there's a post minimum to access download links (there isn't). |
| Posted by: PWNatorPWNED Oct 7 2013, 07:39 PM | ||
That explains a lot. Thanks! |
| Posted by: Nomake Wan Oct 7 2013, 07:43 PM |
Not a problem.  |
| Posted by: PWNatorPWNED Oct 7 2013, 07:54 PM | ||
 |
| Posted by: Rudy Oct 7 2013, 07:59 PM |
| Image-only posts are highly frowned upon in these parts, Pwninator. Just trying to look out for you. We need activity, but at least have images with captions relevant to the subject matter. |
| Posted by: PWNatorPWNED Oct 7 2013, 08:01 PM | ||
I put that image cause I was suspicious of that troll sign. Btw, you're not the only person that spelled or called my username "Pwninator" |