Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Humans Only, Please! - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Humans Only, Please!

2456722

Comments

  • zhizhi Member
    edited January 21

    Good call! Perhaps limit the frequency of meaningless ranting.

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran
    edited January 21

    @jbiloh please play nice, the Mod's or Admin's didn't warn him or told him to stop.
    If he had been warned multiple times, surely but like this?

  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @xvps said:
    2) He asked FAT32 if he should stop two weeks ago. In other words, they have been spamming the thread with FAT32 permission.
    https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3861912/#Comment_3861912

    I did not actually endorse on whether one should spam, just saying that my comment is not a hint to stop spamming, just stating my observation. My comment is about some new policy is coming soon so they might want to be aware about it.

    @DP will share more about the new policy.

    Thanked by 1totally_not_banned
  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @Neoon said:
    jbiloh please play nice, the Mod's or Admin's didn't warn him or told him to stop.
    If he had been warned multiple times, surely but like this?

    I do agree on warning would have been better, especially targeting a Veteran. Anyway we hope new policy will end this type of spam to win giveaway thread very soon.

  • bdlbdl Member

    Does Vanilla have an API or do people write bots that just scrape the forum output then spam the 'new post'/reply box?

  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    All of the bans thus far are temporary 7 day bans.

    Anyone caught posting in a machine like fashion moving forward will be banned for a longer, and possibly permanent, period.

  • emghemgh Member

    @jbiloh said:
    All of the bans thus far are temporary 7 day bans.

    Anyone caught posting in a machine like fashion moving forward will be banned for a longer, and possibly permanent, period.

    But encouraging people to post as much as possible, still just fine?

  • emghemgh Member

    @bdl said:
    Does Vanilla have an API or do people write bots that just scrape the forum output then spam the 'new post'/reply box?

    I think Vanilla does have an API but that it's restricted (never looked though) and that they simply use Selenium or whatever

  • emghemgh Member

    @Neoon said:
    @jbiloh please play nice, the Mod's or Admin's didn't warn him or told him to stop.
    If he had been warned multiple times, surely but like this?

    What happened to common sense

  • @Neoon said:
    @jbiloh please play nice, the Mod's or Admin's didn't warn him or told him to stop.
    If he had been warned multiple times, surely but like this?

    I agree, steps where skipped. Especially because the rule had not yet been explained and providers can still motivate people to do things this way.

    Thanked by 1Xrmaddness
  • codelockcodelock Member
    edited January 21

    @FAT32 said:

    @Neoon said:
    jbiloh please play nice, the Mod's or Admin's didn't warn him or told him to stop.
    If he had been warned multiple times, surely but like this?

    I do agree on warning would have been better, especially targeting a Veteran. Anyway we hope new policy will end this type of spam to win giveaway thread very soon.

    so a veteran should be allowed to spam ? why should rules be different for anyone ,

  • emghemgh Member

    I'll quote myself from the Hazi/Calin thread:

    @emgh said: @jbiloh I’ve slept on it, and if OP basically says the more you post, the more likely you are to get good prizes, OBVIOUSLY people will post a lot.

    The line between spam and just participating is IMPOSSIBLE to draw. There’s always a user posting just a little less then the ones banned. It just dosen’t make sense.

    Either you go after OP, or, you redo the rules to say that spamming is okay.

    Because this is like putting the drug addicts in jail, while letting the gang selling it roam free..

    Thanked by 1chitree
  • @emgh said:
    I'll quote myself from the Hazi/Calin thread:

    @emgh said: @jbiloh I’ve slept on it, and if OP basically says the more you post, the more likely you are to get good prizes, OBVIOUSLY people will post a lot.

    The line between spam and just participating is IMPOSSIBLE to draw. There’s always a user posting just a little less then the ones banned. It just dosen’t make sense.

    Either you go after OP, or, you redo the rules to say that spamming is okay.

    Because this is like putting the drug addicts in jail, while letting the gang selling it roam free..

    We can just ban such engagement giveaways , maybe like how other providers do it only 1 entry for leaving a comment then rest is luck , while we are at it also stop double bandwidth non sense

  • emghemgh Member

    @codelock said: We can just ban such engagement giveaways , maybe like how other providers do it only 1 entry for leaving a comment then rest is luck , while we are at it also stop double bandwidth non sense

    Yes, giveaways requiring one post = totally fine by me. It's when it's "spam to get an edge" that I just can't see how OP isn't at all responsible..

  • ArkasArkas Moderator

    I think there should be a time based limit for posts. After exceeding a certain agreed upon number of posts, the member should have to wait for example a half hour for the next post. Just a suggestion.

    Thanked by 1xvps
  • FAT32FAT32 Administrator, Deal Compiler Extraordinaire

    @codelock said:
    so a veteran should be allowed to spam ? why should rules be different for anyone ,

    No, but it is common to be sensible and give warning first. Veteran also are active in the community so they contributed a lot.

  • @Arkas said:
    I think there should be a time based limit for posts. After exceeding a certain agreed upon number of posts, the member should have to wait for example a half hour for the next post. Just a suggestion.

    already have 5 posts / minute that is wrong way of going around things

  • I need clarification. If I am a human who identifies as a robot, can I fall back on my human privilege to temporarily bypass the human check?

    I feel like this could disproportionately cause victimisation and molestation to folks who are species-fluid.

  • Robots after reading this post:

  • bootboot Member

    Subject: Compliance Acknowledgement - No Automated Posting Rule

    Dear Big Daddy Biloh,

    I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to acknowledge and confirm receipt of the recent notice regarding the strict enforcement of the "No Automated Posting" rule on LowEndTalk.

    I fully understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of our community and ensuring that all activities are conducted in a human-like manner. I want to assure you that I am committed to complying with this rule and will make every effort to contribute positively to the LowEndTalk platform.

    If there are any specific guidelines or additional information related to this rule that I should be aware of, please do not hesitate to let me know. I appreciate the proactive measures taken by the moderation team to keep LowEndTalk a special place for all members.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to continued positive engagement within the community.

    Best regards,

    boot

    Thanked by 1totally_not_banned
  • emghemgh Member

    @Arkas said:
    I think there should be a time based limit for posts. After exceeding a certain agreed upon number of posts, the member should have to wait for example a half hour for the next post. Just a suggestion.

    Will just make bots wait a little longer with some more creative source of text IMO

    Thanked by 1totally_not_banned
  • edited January 21

    @xvps said:
    @jbiloh, it's funny that you banned @FrankZ, because

    1) He didn't use a bot.

    Well, at 9000 or 12000 posts looking like they are taken from some database i take the liberty to simply not believe claims of no automation being used. Even if just because i don't want to entertain the mental image of someone sitting around copy-paste-posting some random single-line garbage for the 10000th time just to have a couple % more of a chance at winning a backpack or whatever.

    The no-bot claim being brought forward also somewhat smells of technicality. Like "Sure there was some automation but greasemonkey isn't a bot after all.". I'll buy @SillyGoose claiming to have felt incentivized by mass-posters to copy-paste maybe some 600 comments but at ~10000 i don't and to be honest don't really care either. While i agree with the bans coming a bit out of nowhere the mass-posters should have been well aware that what they are doing at least kind of constitutes "being a dick" towards people trying to increase their chances with actual participation and not by dumping dictionaries or whatnot.

    Besides at a certain point the determination shown with maybe winning some kind of goody (from what i read non-US posters never had a chance of winning anything but account credit anyways) seems straight up suspicious. Winning your own lottery would actually be double effective here and the organizer of the spamfest doesn't really seem to be the most by-the-book individual either.

    Having said that, i also think that the bans are bit of a short-circuit reaction. For a start some warnings would likely have been sufficient. The biggest pro i see with handing out bans is that it'll make it somewhat easier to disqualify the spammers and thereby level out the playing field for the less unscrupulous participants.

    Thanked by 1chitree
  • bootboot Member

    I heard stories from my elders about someone who got banned from LET because they liked every post.

  • FranzkafkaFranzkafka Member
    edited January 21

    when the new rules haven't been applied, warning first is reasonable. Banned immediately will cause chaos especially for these veterans.But I think FrankZ is also deliberately spamming here, It's a shame.

  • edited January 21

    Edit: Should have finished my coffee first.

  • JabJabJabJab Member
    edited January 21

    @Franzkafka said:
    is also deliberately spamming here, It's a shame.

    I think everyone is deliberately spamming in those threads as it comes with a prize from a provider.

    ...

    Thanked by 1ZA_capetown
  • edited January 21

    @JabJab said:

    @Franzkafka said:
    is also deliberately spamming here, It's a shame.

    I think everyone is deliberately spamming in those threads as it comes with a prize from a provider.

    ...

    Yeah but there's quite a spectrum. Sure, people are currently still splitting their 5 word replies to other users across multiple posts when a single one would be fully sufficient and i wouldn't call their banter deeply technical discussion either but right now they are actually using the thread for a bit of friendly smalltalk with some back and forth in regards to current events sprinkled in. I wouldn't have thought i'd ever say this about a Racknerd thread but at this very point in time i really just see a bunch of guys having fun playing a (silly) forum game while having a lighthearted competition in regards to some prizes and i simply don't manage to be all that cynical about it for once.

  • defaultdefault Veteran
    edited January 21

    So the admin allows a provider to create spam threads which are used to keep the provider on front page while the admin benefits from all those provider fees; but now the admin is upset people spam trying to get an edge in winning something on that thread.

    Until now the cow gave birth, now the calf has died for some reason. I am more curious about this reason. What changed?


    Thanked by 2remy ZA_capetown
  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran
    edited January 21

    What makes LowEndTalk interesting and special is the human to human interaction.

    Using bots/scripts to spam the platform is not welcome. Anyone with a bit of common sense should know this.

    Thanked by 1risharde
  • @jbiloh said:
    What makes LowEndTalk interesting and special is the human to human interaction.

    Using bots/scripts to spam the platform is not welcome. Anyone with a bit of common sense should know this.

    In time there were always people who stood against emerging technologies, and lost. Doing something like this (as in opposing an evolving AI technology) is like having a piss against the wind.

    You created the rules and enjoyed the money of providers while letting them stay on front page through spam (starting with the favorite "purple color icon"). Maybe you should embrace this and create an automated system which limits posting to every few minutes; without breaking something which you started and endorsed for money.

    Please note I am not a manager of community, nor will I ever be. This is your doing, and you should embrace your consequences instead of looking at the community as if it did something unexpectedly wrong.

Sign In or Register to comment.