Bannhammer Time

Lucretius · Post by **Lucretius** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:32 pm

Due to previous and recent events, a new and more clear rule/punishment scheme is being instilled. This will assure better rule enforcement and help prevent issues with user/punishment variations.

The scheme follows as such:
Step 1: Warning
Step 2: Warning
Step 3: 2-day temporary ban.
Step 4: 1-week temporary ban
Step 5: Permanent ban.

Variation in accordance to unique circumstances can only increase severity and no exceptions will be made according to seniority.

This is non-negotiable.

dman762000 · Post by **dman762000** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:56 pm

Hey Luc what recent events are being spoke of? Some people might not have a clue as to what has happened.

daguuy · Post by **daguuy** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:58 pm

yeah what's up with that? and isn't that how it's always been?

Post by **gannon** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:00 pm

Before we never had a fixed (general) punishment/notification layout.

Lucretius · Post by **Lucretius** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:01 pm

And I would be reffering to any recently locked spam and Jeff. (one in the same, really...

)

Nicholai · Post by **Nicholai** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:06 pm

Sounds good to me. This measure will definitely reduce the whole idiocy of F42.

dman762000 · Post by **dman762000** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:15 pm

Wow! Ok. Well I always thought that 42 was for junk that didn't belong in the forums on portables.

Post by **bicostp** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:19 pm

Remember people, replying to spam is as bad as posting spam threads in the first place.

If you see a thread with tons of links in it and they all have to do with prescription drugs, adult entertainment or gambling, it is the doings of a spambot. A script some silly person runs to get more traffic to their website. If you suspect a thread was written by a spambot, leave it alone. Don't post things like "Why did you post all these links?" in there, that too is spamming.

It doesn't matter if the thread was written by a longtime member. If it's spam, leave it be.

If you have to add things like "i know this is spam but..." or "to make this less spammy...", it's spam. Click the back button on your browser before it's too late for you.

There are better things we can do with the bandwidth Ben pays for than blather on about nothing.

Post by **Skyone** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:32 pm

Thanks for establishing this Lucretius, this will help prevent spam and hopefully save bandwidth.

Post by **CronoTriggerfan** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:20 pm

Good stuff, Luc!

Although I'm still wondering; what are the qualifications to recieve the "Warning" level of punishment? Would a single locked thread get one this form of punishment, or would multiple threads/posts be needed to institute punishment of this level?

Thanks,
CTFan

Post by **Skyone** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:26 pm

I'm guessing that if it's a good topic, but due to flaming or spamming IN the thread, you won't get a warn. If the topic is rhubarb... WARN.

Sword_Gun · Post by **Sword_Gun** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:48 pm

Nice luc, nice.
Im clean as a whistle.

sam fisher · Post by **sam fisher** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:40 am

bicostp wrote:Remember people, replying to spam is as bad as posting spam threads in the first place.

If you see a thread with tons of links in it and they all have to do with prescription drugs, adult entertainment or gambling, it is the doings of a spambot. A script some silly person runs to get more traffic to their website. If you suspect a thread was written by a spambot, leave it alone. Don't post things like "Why did you post all these links?" in there, that too is spamming.

It doesn't matter if the thread was written by a longtime member. If it's spam, leave it be.

If you have to add things like "i know this is spam but..." or "to make this less spammy...", it's spam. Click the back button on your browser before it's too late for you.

There are better things we can do with the bandwidth Ben pays for than blather on about nothing.

Just to make this clear, and also to skyone who actually has a website. A forum like this and a lovely bit of text barely use any bandwidth. Infact the person reading the thread will already have the forum images cached so bandwidth use is actually probably pretty minimal even if large numbers of people visit the spammy thread...

Post by **gannon** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:49 am

The forum portion of this site uses a few hundred GB of bandwidth on a normal month.

sam fisher · Post by **sam fisher** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:55 am

Yes, I am referring to the individual spam threads and the smaller amound of band width the text uses. assuming that one has less than 2k of text then even with 1000 viewings of the text would equal 1000*2048bytes = 2048000bytes or 2MB. hardly a huge amount.