Suggestion for the moderators

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SLGDEV. Show SLGDEV's posts

    Suggestion for the moderators

    Is their a way to have an ignore not just by name but by IP address as well?  That would solve the multiple names problem.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Suggestion for the moderators

    As nice as that would be they have trouble keeping a banned poster IP from making a new account and multiple new accounts let alone tieing it to the ignore button

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Suggestion for the moderators

    "They should ban by IP #...that's the only way to rid this board from the scourge of BUSTCHISE and IT's extended family, of which Fletcherbrook is one."

    Banning by IP doesn't work, anyone on the road can log in from all kinds of IPs, and there are ways to mask IPs as well. 

    I actually think banning aggressively by email address would work pretty well. The problem is that the banning is not aggressive enough once an individual with aliases is identified. It's a pain to set up and memorize tons of emails and log ins, so aggressive banning of an individual's emails would force them to set up and manage more and more addresses, which is a pain on mobile devices in particular. 

    (This coming from someone (me) who has had one ID since I started here and only only)

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Suggestion for the moderators

    In response to Fletcherbrook's comment:

    I have always thought it would be cool to be able to reverse ban. The owner of the post could restrict certain members from taking part. If they made a new ID ban that one from being able to post in your thread(s)as well...I think those who started being unable to post on members thread would get pretty board and perhaps clean it up.




    That is the way to go as I have suggested before.

    Better than that, tying accounts to an ISP e-mail for verification would put a stop to banned posters returning endlessly. (Sure, you can get several e-mails from an ISP, but there is a limit.)

    From the looks of things, actual code writers for this site are a meager resource, so I wouldn't expect any significant changes along these lines in our lifetime.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Suggestion for the moderators

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    I actually think banning aggressively by email address would work pretty well. The problem is that the banning is not aggressive enough once an individual with aliases is identified. It's a pain to set up and memorize tons of emails and log ins, so aggressive banning of an individual's emails would force them to set up and manage more and more addresses, which is a pain on mobile devices in particular. 



    That's why you only allow e-mails from ISPs for verification. Other sites do exactly that.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Suggestion for the moderators

    In response to SLGDEV's comment:

    Is their a way to have an ignore not just by name but by IP address as well?  That would solve the multiple names problem.



    Can't really ban by IP address.  OK, it's technically possible, but it won't give you what you are seeking.  Few people pay for and have static IP addresses.  Your IP address today will most certainly be different this time next week.  Also, users on a network using NAT share the same public IP address.

    The Gang Green forum uses a complex algorithm to ban users.  They use the most sophisticated banning techniques I have even seen on a public forum.  It was extremely difficult to bypass when they banned me for razzing them.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Suggestion for the moderators

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

     

    Ironically, I could probably drink you under the table and it won't be with Zimas.



    Proud you're a drunk dumbkoff?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Suggestion for the moderators

    Actually, I wish they would restore the name of the OP to the list of discussions.  Couldn't care less who posts, it is their right, and I can simply ignore and not reply.  Besides, a good laugh a day is good for the soul.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Suggestion for the moderators

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

     

    Ironically, I could probably drink you under the table and it won't be with Zimas.



    Proud you're a drunk dumbkoff?



    Not a drunk at all. Just have those good English genes and a high tolerance.  Your reading comprehension is very poor.

    Then again, if all you read is the Bible brainwashing yourself off a storybook, you might not be a very bright individual anyway.

    bwahah




    ^ Look everybody, the drunk calls the Bible a "storybook". Get help psycho.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share