Posted: 11/10/2013 6:33:45 AM EDT
|
As you're aware, we have a recurring problem with the repeated spamming of the boards with porn. Undoubtedly, they're a retread who is doing it for kicks. They also know to do it at a time when it is least likely that a mod or staff member can intervene which means that they can hit dozens of threads for an hour or so until they're shut down. Someone else proposed this idea, but I think it has merit. Could a feature be created where the members of a site could temp-lock another member? Say if one of the spammers pops up, a number (20?) of other members can temp lock his account until a staff person can show up to take care of it. The temp lock would last for a predetermined time period - say, an hour. Members would have to be warned against using it for shutting down someone just because of some other issue or for amusement. If anyone used the button for anything but the most blatant of violations, they would receive a warning. Keeping the number of members needed to lock another member high enough would prevent someone from just running around locking other members. The temp lock button could also automatically generate a "report." With this, a porn spammer would be shut down literally within minutes and his account locked as soon as a staff member showed up. |
|
Maybe if the member (and, by that, I mean a PAYING member) was also auto-locked for 24 hours, AND it took 20 or so lock reports to pile on before the lockee was locked. Otherwise, it would get abused, and be a constant thorn in the side of mods and staff instead of an occasional thorn in the side that porn constitutes.
|
|
How about an auto lock on the poster if he posts so many times per minute/hour and has at least one reported post? Locked out till a mod logs on to check it.
There should be a speedy pattern to the posting. I do like the OP's idea though, but probably limit it to old members and/or life members. |
|
Quoted:
Maybe if the member (and, by that, I mean a PAYING member) was also auto-locked for 24 hours, AND it took 20 or so lock reports to pile on before the lockee was locked. Otherwise, it would get abused, and be a constant thorn in the side of mods and staff instead of an occasional thorn in the side that porn constitutes. Yes, that's what I was trying to get across. It would take multiple account lock hits from a set number of members to temp lock another member's account. It would not be a case of one person just deciding to lock another's because they got in an argument. It would take a set amount of members (20 perhaps) so as to guarantee that the person being locked is definitely over the line and not just an argument between a handful of people. |
|
Worst idea ever!
Most members of this site can't agree on anything and can't be trusted to behave themselves according to the CoC on a daily basis. Now you are suggesting that we give y'all the power to gang up on each other? 
That would be anarchy, pure, unbridled anarchy. I vote no. |
|
Quoted:
give the job to lfe members. Why? Because someone 1) had the money for a life membership and b) got in when they were available, somehow makes them qualified to be an arbiter of fate? 
The job falls back to the mods and staff. In every society, group, club, site, workplace etc..., there needs to be chiefs, sub chiefs and indians. Y'all are the Indians and you don't get to decide who gets to sleep in the wigwam and who doesn't . 
|
|
Quoted:
Worst idea ever! Most members of this site can't agree on anything and can't be trusted to behave themselves according to the CoC on a daily basis. Now you are suggesting that we give y'all the power to gang up on each other?
That would be anarchy, pure, unbridled anarchy. I vote no. That's the point between having a requirement for a set number of "temp-lock votes" before it would be acted upon. As far as "most members of the site" not being able to behave themselves according to the CoC, I'd have to disagree with you on that. Either way, how many times now has the site woken up to rampant cock pics plastered all over the site? Five now or something like that? I would think some option needs to be entertained to prevent reoccurance otherwise this is just going to become the new way for a disgruntled member or previously locked member to make a colorful exit. Edit: Perhaps one option would be to give mods of some of the other sub-forums the ability to impose a temp-lock. If someone from the whatever,....the Nevada hometown forum was viewing this, they could have shut down the individual until a staff member arrived to lock the offender. |
|
Quoted:
That's the point between having a requirement for a set number of "temp-lock votes" before it would be acted upon. As far as "most members of the site" not being able to behave themselves according to the CoC, I'd have to disagree with you on that. Either way, how many times now has the site woken up to rampant cock pics plastered all over the site? Five now or something like that? I would think some option needs to be entertained to prevent reoccurance otherwise this is just going to become the new way for a disgruntled member or previously locked member to make a colorful exit. Edit: Perhaps one option would be to give mods of some of the other sub-forums the ability to impose a temp-lock. If someone from the whatever,....the Nevada hometown forum was viewing this, they could have shut down the individual until a staff member arrived to lock the offender. Quoted:
Quoted:
Worst idea ever! Most members of this site can't agree on anything and can't be trusted to behave themselves according to the CoC on a daily basis. Now you are suggesting that we give y'all the power to gang up on each other?
That would be anarchy, pure, unbridled anarchy. I vote no. That's the point between having a requirement for a set number of "temp-lock votes" before it would be acted upon. As far as "most members of the site" not being able to behave themselves according to the CoC, I'd have to disagree with you on that. Either way, how many times now has the site woken up to rampant cock pics plastered all over the site? Five now or something like that? I would think some option needs to be entertained to prevent reoccurance otherwise this is just going to become the new way for a disgruntled member or previously locked member to make a colorful exit. Edit: Perhaps one option would be to give mods of some of the other sub-forums the ability to impose a temp-lock. If someone from the whatever,....the Nevada hometown forum was viewing this, they could have shut down the individual until a staff member arrived to lock the offender. I still disagree. It is far too easy for a mob to develop against someone who says something off or out there. ARFCOM members for the most part are good people, but their ability to jump on a bandwagon and slay someone is legendary. Case in point: Several years ago, someone jumped on Deej's case and before you knew it, there was a 30 page attack Deej thread. His uncle then came in and let us know how awesome Deej is and a LOT of people (myself included) felt like crap. Giving the lock power to the rank and file is a bad, bad, bad idea. Nothing good will come from it. |
|
Quoted:
I still disagree. It is far too easy for a mob to develop against someone who says something off or out there. ARFCOM members for the most part are good people, but their ability to jump on a bandwagon and slay someone is legendary. Case in point: Several years ago, someone jumped on Deej's case and before you knew it, there was a 30 page attack Deej thread. His uncle then came in and let us know how awesome Deej is and a LOT of people (myself included) felt like crap. Giving the lock power to the rank and file is a bad, bad, bad idea. Nothing good will come from it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Worst idea ever! Most members of this site can't agree on anything and can't be trusted to behave themselves according to the CoC on a daily basis. Now you are suggesting that we give y'all the power to gang up on each other?
That would be anarchy, pure, unbridled anarchy. I vote no. That's the point between having a requirement for a set number of "temp-lock votes" before it would be acted upon. As far as "most members of the site" not being able to behave themselves according to the CoC, I'd have to disagree with you on that. Either way, how many times now has the site woken up to rampant cock pics plastered all over the site? Five now or something like that? I would think some option needs to be entertained to prevent reoccurance otherwise this is just going to become the new way for a disgruntled member or previously locked member to make a colorful exit. Edit: Perhaps one option would be to give mods of some of the other sub-forums the ability to impose a temp-lock. If someone from the whatever,....the Nevada hometown forum was viewing this, they could have shut down the individual until a staff member arrived to lock the offender. I still disagree. It is far too easy for a mob to develop against someone who says something off or out there. ARFCOM members for the most part are good people, but their ability to jump on a bandwagon and slay someone is legendary. Case in point: Several years ago, someone jumped on Deej's case and before you knew it, there was a 30 page attack Deej thread. His uncle then came in and let us know how awesome Deej is and a LOT of people (myself included) felt like crap. Giving the lock power to the rank and file is a bad, bad, bad idea. Nothing good will come from it. I see your point, but a simple rule could be made - misuse of this button results in the lock of the person misusing it. Either way, it's just a suggestion. Take it for what it's worth. |
|
Quoted:
I see your point, but a simple rule could be made - misuse of this button results in the lock of the person misusing it. Either way, it's just a suggestion. Take it for what it's worth. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Worst idea ever! Most members of this site can't agree on anything and can't be trusted to behave themselves according to the CoC on a daily basis. Now you are suggesting that we give y'all the power to gang up on each other?
That would be anarchy, pure, unbridled anarchy. I vote no. That's the point between having a requirement for a set number of "temp-lock votes" before it would be acted upon. As far as "most members of the site" not being able to behave themselves according to the CoC, I'd have to disagree with you on that. Either way, how many times now has the site woken up to rampant cock pics plastered all over the site? Five now or something like that? I would think some option needs to be entertained to prevent reoccurance otherwise this is just going to become the new way for a disgruntled member or previously locked member to make a colorful exit. Edit: Perhaps one option would be to give mods of some of the other sub-forums the ability to impose a temp-lock. If someone from the whatever,....the Nevada hometown forum was viewing this, they could have shut down the individual until a staff member arrived to lock the offender. I still disagree. It is far too easy for a mob to develop against someone who says something off or out there. ARFCOM members for the most part are good people, but their ability to jump on a bandwagon and slay someone is legendary. Case in point: Several years ago, someone jumped on Deej's case and before you knew it, there was a 30 page attack Deej thread. His uncle then came in and let us know how awesome Deej is and a LOT of people (myself included) felt like crap. Giving the lock power to the rank and file is a bad, bad, bad idea. Nothing good will come from it. I see your point, but a simple rule could be made - misuse of this button results in the lock of the person misusing it. Either way, it's just a suggestion. Take it for what it's worth. I hear you and there has been a lot of discussion about this problem of late. There really isn't an easy solution, but I can tell you the staff and owners of the site do not want this type of behavior to continue. It makes the entire shooting community look bad. |
|
Quoted: I still disagree. It is far too easy for a mob to develop against someone who says something off or out there. ARFCOM members for the most part are good people, but their ability to jump on a bandwagon and slay someone is legendary. Case in point: Several years ago, someone jumped on Deej's case and before you knew it, there was a 30 page attack Deej thread. His uncle then came in and let us know how awesome Deej is and a LOT of people (myself included) felt like crap. Giving the lock power to the rank and file is a bad, bad, bad idea. Nothing good will come from it. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Worst idea ever! Most members of this site can't agree on anything and can't be trusted to behave themselves according to the CoC on a daily basis. Now you are suggesting that we give y'all the power to gang up on each other? That would be anarchy, pure, unbridled anarchy. I vote no. That's the point between having a requirement for a set number of "temp-lock votes" before it would be acted upon. As far as "most members of the site" not being able to behave themselves according to the CoC, I'd have to disagree with you on that. Either way, how many times now has the site woken up to rampant cock pics plastered all over the site? Five now or something like that? I would think some option needs to be entertained to prevent reoccurance otherwise this is just going to become the new way for a disgruntled member or previously locked member to make a colorful exit. Edit: Perhaps one option would be to give mods of some of the other sub-forums the ability to impose a temp-lock. If someone from the whatever,....the Nevada hometown forum was viewing this, they could have shut down the individual until a staff member arrived to lock the offender. I still disagree. It is far too easy for a mob to develop against someone who says something off or out there. ARFCOM members for the most part are good people, but their ability to jump on a bandwagon and slay someone is legendary. Case in point: Several years ago, someone jumped on Deej's case and before you knew it, there was a 30 page attack Deej thread. His uncle then came in and let us know how awesome Deej is and a LOT of people (myself included) felt like crap. Giving the lock power to the rank and file is a bad, bad, bad idea. Nothing good will come from it. It could be made so the person can't even READ the forums anymore. That would stop most of the bad consequences of being able to vote as it would not be used lightly.
|