Forum Reshuffle

[tripsis]

It should be shorter, if someone makes five posts in 45 seconds than a 2 minute time limit will be imposed on posts.

 

But a load of posts are spam on this forum that we seem to accept.

THe main point of flood control is to slow down users who are spamming the forums. I don't even think your suggestion is possible anyway.. but it would probably make things worse with spammers.

 

Flood control wouldn't bother me, except that you can't hit reply and start your post until 45 seconds are up.

It does suck but there's no way around it. You can always start writing your next post in a text document if you really don't want to wait.

[Iconic]

If theres spammers they can banned in about ten seconds, you could make a system in which after ten fast posts they are reported to an admin who has the choice to ban or ignore them.

[jasignhagj]

95% if the time I just use the fast reply, I only have a problem when I try to reply to multiple people.

[Iconic]

95% if the time I just use the fast reply, I only have a problem when I try to reply to multiple people.

I find that when post and want to make an edit quoting another person I can't, I can't even press reply; surely I should be able to click reply just simply not post the reply.

[Earth]

Didn't even realize there was anything besides fast reply. Meh, stick with what you know, eh?

[jasignhagj]

That's the problem I have too. Im pretty sure that there's no way for the mods to fix this though, it's probably an issue with IPB.

[Iconic]

That's the problem I have too. Im pretty sure that there's no way for the mods to fix this though, it's probably an issue with IPB.

No, the moderators can fix it; they can fix every single aspect of a forum but I don't think they have any technical capabilitys, I started a forum and made a member admin after they offered to use coding to change some things about it they could do a wide range of things, this was on PhBB which is a lot more customisable. I don't see why we need it, if there is a spammer an admin should give them a short ban.

 

Spork, want to play D'neering now?

 

Does anyone feel that this would be useful; if so please show your support, these things work like petitions.

All posts in a thread.

[jasignhagj]

I don't play d'neering, Im never on at the right times and I always fall behind. It's just not my cup of tea.

[tripsis]

If theres spammers they can banned in about ten seconds, you could make a system in which after ten fast posts they are reported to an admin who has the choice to ban or ignore them.

The point is minimizing the damage they do when there are no administrators online (or even no administrators AND no moderators). I remember many occasions when I was a global moderator and a spammer would come along and I would spend 10 or even 20 minutes removing post after post, waiting for an administrator to come online to ban him.

 

With IPB we do have a little bit of a better system that allows moderators to stop a spammer from posting, but we still appreciate all features that slow them down until we can handle them.

 

Anyway if you would like to make a complaint in regards to flood control, you may do so in the Forum Updates & Suggestions board.

[The_Mather1]

How about some system that put spammers (people posting more than X posts in X time) on hold until an admin could view the case?

[tripsis]

How about some system that put spammers (people posting more than X posts in X time) on hold until an admin could view the case?

I feel like that would be even more annoying than flood control for the innocent people who aren't really spamming but post a lot and thus get their posting put completely on hold. Also the features that some of you are suggesting take more work than you realize. Our tech administrators constantly have a lot of work to do (only some of which is publicly noticed). We usually don't bother with modifications like this when our current system is adequate as it creates a lot of unnecessary work for our already very busy techies ;)

[Iconic]

How about some system that put spammers (people posting more than X posts in X time) on hold until an admin could view the case?

I agree a time limit is punishing the good users.

 

How about five consecutive posts in 45 seconds results in five minute posting ban? That way the genuine users won't get punished due to the unlikely (never seen a spammer on this forum and the only time I've ever seen a spammer be sucessful is on a forum in which the moderators had no power to ban and all admins weren't active.

 

What are the techies doing?

[archimage_a]

Hmmm, it could be a tavern specific thing, I know some people don't like to see the Tavern as a special case, but if there is an actual desire and people are generally responsible enough.

Though could create a weakpoint in the system...

 

Other alternative is to take the flood controls off of the Library, since it is admin protected, so spammers would have a harder time abusing it.

 

 

Or take the flood controls down to 5 or 10 seconds....It would certainly help people running Dungeoneering games, where there are lots of short posts, on alot of different subjects, in a very short space of time.

[jasignhagj]

Thread for alternative flood control options.

 

http://forum.tip.it/topic/275689-flood-control/

[Iconic]

Have we agreed that no-one wants a merge and we should delete Falador Tavern to be brought back on request?

[Jehosaphat]

Have we agreed that no-one wants a merge and we should delete Falador Tavern to be brought back on request?

I hope you meant Falador Library.

 

Otherwise..... THIS MEANS WAR

[Nexaduro]

Either way, no, no we haven't. While I support that idea, not everyone does. Unfortunately in this case no individual can speak for their fellow Tavernians.

[Iconic]

Sorry, Pie - I meant the library lol.

 

I think most of us agree on it though.

[Nexaduro]

It's split about halfway Edel, evidently you haven't been paying much attention to the actual arguments.

[Iconic]

Poll request?

 

Delete the tavern and rusco to be brought back on request.

Merge the tavern and the library.

Leave it how it is.

[Earth]

Already did a poll on that, icon.

[Iconic]

There was a bit of a problem due to everyone wanting to making tavern a main forum, but most people agreed with deleting rusco to be brought back on request.

[Earth]

If i remember correctly, then most people jusst wanted the tavern as the main forum, and then leave it as that. The idea you suggested was a less wanted plan aof action that was a fall back in case the tavern being the main forum grew sour.