Staredit Network

What a nice thing to hear

And it could never work on someone like me, who is constantly not only changing IPs but computers. For instance, right now I'm at a University on a Mac.



I concur.

I'm wondering, would it be possible to "retire" names? Like, once a member is banned, no one can register with that name or change their name to it? Perhaps even a name being retired if someone changes from it (which would have to be "unlocked" by special request)? I mean, it won't stop the constant new account making, but it'll at the very least piss them off.

Err.. I think banned accounts aren't totally deleted from the DB, that would mess up a lot of threads; rather, they're locked so they can't log in or do anything - but the name's still taken by a banned user, so no-one can register with that name anyway. And even if they could, I don't think any banned member would try to sneak back into SEN using their old name.. -_-

Up until a few months ago banned accounts would be deleted completely, big mistake on my part there. This no longer happens, they're placed in a special usergroup... of death!

So putting them into the usergroup makes it so they can only view the site, but not post. Correct? Meaning, they can't re-register that name..?

You definitely can't register a name that's already being used. As for what the group can do, you'll have to go in and find out for yourself.

Personally there is no flaming going on the creative art section, yes there is arugement but they only go for a day or two. But its obvious there will be arugement because rating sigs, and stuff is always an opinion and its hard for two people to agree on one persons opinion.

So espeically when it comes to opinions its hard to deal with, becuase we all have our own thoughts...

I just hope more people can come to the art section.

I already know what the group can do. I've been told.

And don't you think that if you're going to give someone to that group, make it the people who constantly spam your forum, instead of people who are mean persons?

And you know who's in there, how?

I talk to one of them?

What exactly does that prove? That you know one person in there.

You asked that question, so I answered it with this:



Is it really that hard to understand?

That tells you absolutely nothing about anyone else who's in there, and what they did to get in there (your original question). Thus I don't understand why you say both flamers and spammers should be in there when you have no idea who is in there besides this one person you talk to.

Read Below:



Meaning, you want me to "screw up" and get sent there, when in all reality: There are worse people than me. It has nothing to do with the people in there, so why are you changing the discussion into that?

Anyways: I never said I knew everyone in there, so why are you putting words in my mouth? I know exactly what the person did to get in there, also.


My original question was: "You created the user group so you can slap the people in there so they cannot re-register their name if they are ever unbanned, correct?". But you completely ignored it, and told me to find out myself.

Anyways: Why are you trying to argue over something so petty? Aren't you supposed to show you're above such things by ignoring them?

But to answer your question: Spammers deserve it more than flamers, because spammers clutter your forum with useless junk, while flamers are just mean persons.

Now you go and tell me which is worse: A few arrogant mean persons, or 50 useless topics that takes up database space?

When I said your "original question", I made a mistake. I was referring to this, where you assume that spammers would not go in there.
The truth is, any user that would previously have their account deleted would go in there. This could be for flaming, for spamming, for posting porn, whatever.



A username in any group is definitely one that's being used - so no, nobody can register a name that's being used, regardless of usergroup. So long as a user exists with that name, it can't be registered. Sorry if I wasn't being clear about this. As for my "find out for yourself" comment, anyone who asked would've gotten that response.

Alright. Just making sure about that.

But what are you going to do about the spammers? Someone has 1,000+ posts in only 30 days.. Isn't that a bit much?

Who has so many posts in such little time, Kellimus ?

I remember being told by someone (With a D in their name ) that 7-7 does.

And I remember Red2Blue had 80 posts in a day (Or was it two?)

He once had 120 in one day.

Is post amount really an indicator of spam? You look at the posts themselves to determine what's spam or not. I think I've expounded enough on the definition of spam to have better indictors than post count. Also, I don't think the statistics eflect if a user is fined post count for spamming.

But if you think about it, a high post count usually means little or no thought put into a post, unless the post is rather big.

Most of 7-7's have little or no thought.
On the post-binge of R2B, he had little or not thought put into them.

How are you going to determine spam if you don't even punish people for that?

Actually, even short posts can contain a good thought in it.

Yes, I agree. But, if you read 7-7s, they contain no thought.

I think containing no thought and spamming are different things.