The Spam destroyer?

[Kerrah]

For most cases in this forum, spamming is considered absurd and annoying. No one likes it, and many people have come with suggestions on how to try and fix this problem.

Well, here's my idea:

The Spam Filter
Rule 1- Patience It will allow an amount of waiting time in between a high amount of posts. For example, lets say I post 5 posts in 5 minutes, I will then have to wait about 2 minutes to post again. This should not apply to the forum games, but everywhere else on the forums. This way we can stop a storm of quick posts that have no discussion value.

Rule 2- Hiding If a post has received an excessive amount of reports, the post would be put into tags to hide the message, similar to that of a spoiler tag. With the words: ''This post has been reported many times and could be a spam, view on your own risk'' This way we can hide the posts that have been getting a lot of negative reputation, the reason we should say ''could be spam'' is because people can abuse the powers, and if a moderator/admin feels that the decision was harsh, they can take away the tags.

Rule 3 (not mandatory)- Moderation If the Moderators/Administrators have a lot of spare time, or if there are a lot of them on. Each thread should be sent to a mod/admin for a check. Where they can follow the rules of NB and check if the thread breaks any. This way we can stop the pointless threads that cause arguments and bans to many users.

Feel free to ask any questions or suggest ways in which this could stand as a problem, or how there are better ways of defeating spam. This is for the well-being of NB anyways, so everyone has a say xd

What do you think?

 

[ChristianHM]

i agree, you have a good point and have found many ways too stop spamming ...

 

[Dr Strangelove]

I agree, you worded that rather well. +rep

 

[The Doctor]

Really wouldn't work all that well, and would be a hassle to implement.

To be honest, it seems like it would hinder normal members, more than stop rulebreakers.

 

[Kerrah]

Really wouldn't work all that well, and would be a hassle to implement.

To be honest, it seems like it would hinder normal members, more than stop rulebreakers.

Please tell me, how? I've seen this in some of the major forums. I can see the problems it could cause, such as an abuse of powers or the excessive effort people need to put. But I believe the benefits could outweigh the risks.

I don't think it wouldn't cause that much of a problem. We already have mods and admins locking the threads as a whole. With this members could be given a say as well. But it does carry risks if someone was biased and could start using it at someone, such as -rep. As long as there is a way of someone overseeing the actions, and following the rules and guidelines. It could become something good.

After all, nothing is perfect xd

 

[~Captain Bravo~]

Does Implementation is that much easy ?i doubt
although its good

 

[Daki Kibe]

I'm a bit on the fence with the first idea.
I quite like the second idea of 'hiding' a frequently reported post.
The third idea; I'm not too sure yet.

But I like the thought process behind these suggestions, and you've put your point across effectively. :'D

 

[~Captain Bravo~]

Does Implementation is that much easy ?i doubt
although its good

 

[The Doctor]

Please tell me, how? I've seen this in some of the major forums. I can see the problems it could cause, such as an abuse of powers or the excessive effort people need to put. But I believe the benefits could outweigh the risks.

I don't think it wouldn't cause that much of a problem. We already have mods and admins locking the threads as a whole. With this members could be given a say as well. But it does carry risks if someone was biased and could start using it at someone, such as -rep. As long as there is a way of someone overseeing the actions, and following the rules and guidelines. It could become something good.

After all, nothing is perfect xd

First of all, it would simply be a hassle to implement as a whole. As you said, abuse is possible, and it isn't perfect. If it can be abused so easily, it really isn't worth taking the time to implement.

To your first rule, how do we know that your post has little or no discussion value if you post a lot? You could have subscribed to 10 threads, waited and replied to them all relatively quickly. You can't have something that, for lack of a better term, random be implemented on a forum as vast as ours.

Your second rule is ludicrous. If you have an unpopular belief in a discussion thread, your post can be hidden by the sheer amount of people disagreeing with you. Even if it's just a simple spoiler, that makes it more likely for people to skip your post.

The third rule would give the moderators MORE work than they already have, meaning it'll be unpopular by the staff.

 

[99minutes]

Or we could ask SKYNET to send us a Spaminator?

...Oh, come on! It's not going to malfunction this time :|

 

[Kerrah]

First of all, it would simply be a hassle to implement as a whole. As you said, abuse is possible, and it isn't perfect. If it can be abused so easily, it really isn't worth taking the time to implement.

To your first rule, how do we know that your post has little or no discussion value if you post a lot? You could have subscribed to 10 threads, waited and replied to them all relatively quickly. You can't have something that, for lack of a better term, random be implemented on a forum as vast as ours.

Your second rule is ludicrous. If you have an unpopular belief in a discussion thread, your post can be hidden by the sheer amount of people disagreeing with you. Even if it's just a simple spoiler, that makes it more likely for people to skip your post.

The third rule would give the moderators MORE work than they already have, meaning it'll be unpopular by the staff.

Alright, I see Like I said for the first rule, how about if we made it to a specific thread. If a person was to post more than 5 times in less than 5 minutes, they'd have to wait, excluding other posts in other threads?

And for the second rule, the reason I suggested so was because most people that disagree with one thread is due to the fact that they spam or troll. But if the person wasn't to have done of those, and people would have reported due to their biased opinion, then they would be the ones punished, just like if you -rep someone or report them to begin with without a perfect reason, you will be the one punished.

And for the third, I did say that was not so important because the mods are extremely busy, so that is up to them

Does that make them any better at all? Please put your input, you know what could cause problems xd