CheeChee

[Spiny Norman]

Good morning to all the mods,

I note a rather strong stench of defecating pests on the board this morning. I refer of course to "CheeChee" and the over-the-top defacing of the board with his drivel.

I'd like to offer my assistance in tracking this person down, should assistance be needed. I think a formal, written complaint to their ISP is in order, with a request that their Internet access be revoked ... their actions are a clear breach of "terms and conditions" for any normal ISP.

If you think you know who it is, would you please let me know via PM?

Thanks,

Steve

[Spiny Norman]

I think it also possibly demonstrates a need to consider tightening the rules for those wishing to register and post. Can anyone enlighten me as to the current situation? Is a valid email address required (e.g. the board emails a link which the user must click to validate)? Should this be tightened even further?

[Rincewind]

I think it also possibly demonstrates a need to consider tightening the rules for those wishing to register and post. Can anyone enlighten me as to the current situation? Is a valid email address required (e.g. the board emails a link which the user must click to validate)? Should this be tightened even further?

Yes, this is the current situation. Various domains are not allowed, specifically ones which have been problems with spammers, line inbox.ru and the like. One possibility is to prevent people signing up with generic web based email accounts like hotmail and yahoo. This will force most people to sign up with a work, school, uni or ISP email account which should help but it might also scare off potentially valid and valuable new users. So no action has been taken on this front as yet. Another possibility is for new users to be vetted by the mods manually. As this represents an increased workload AND potentially a decreased membership this to has not been acted on.

[Spiny Norman]

I think you're going to have to do so unfortunately ... I would rather see possible new members slightly inconvenienced rather than ALL the current members majorly inconvenienced.

I do have an alternative suggestion which would solve this problem, but I'll save that for a PM.

[Garvinator]

You can add skiptomyloo to this bracket too. Strong odour of being same tool

[Rincewind]

I think you're going to have to do so unfortunately ... I would rather see possible new members slightly inconvenienced rather than ALL the current members majorly inconvenienced.

At this stage the inconvenience to the general membership is pretty small. They attacks haven't even been that much work to clean up so really the threat posed by this tool is benign. The posts are obviously spam and experienced posters know to simply ignore them. So far the mod/admin have been pretty quick at removing the material once it is discovered.

An manual check of all new users is likely to be more work at this stage and still not guarantee a trouble free board. Therefore, for the time being I recommend just ignoring the spam. In the mean time we'll keep deleting the crap, banning the users and IP addresses being used to post it from until he gets sick of it or realises the futility of his actions or hopefully both.

[Basil]

I appreciate & respect the the decision of 'Da Management'.

I take this opportunity to support Frosty's suggestion, based on my belief that the IP address in question is attached the Uni of Qld.

If my belief is incorrect, then even more case to ban the IP address.

[Rincewind]

I take this opportunity to support Frosty's suggestion, based on my belief that the IP address in question is attached the Uni of Qld.

No spam has originated from a UQ IP address. If it had, I would be contacting the administrators of that domain to take action.

I have had some small success contacting administrators ni the past when I discovered spam originating from an unnamed university's domain. However, that was not related to this case.

[firegoat7]

I appreciate & respect the the decision of 'Da Management'.

I take this opportunity to support Frosty's suggestion, based on my belief that the IP address in question is attached the Uni of Qld.

If my belief is incorrect, then even more case to ban the IP address.

Honestly Duggan you are a complete reactive tool.

First, Frosty suggested that a formal complaint would make sense.That is let the ISP provider know that somebody is misusing its facility. A sensible and responsible suggestion by him.

Second, Banning an IP address should be the very last resort, not the first.

Third, IP addresses should not be banned simply because one individual cannot exercise self control, escpecially if they are multi user IP addresses. Its like saying, we should close a road because one particular car driver is dangerous.

cheers Fg7

[Kevin Bonham]

First, Frosty suggested that a formal complaint would make sense.That is let the ISP provider know that somebody is misusing its facility. A sensible and responsible suggestion by him.

Indeed. In this case the messages (95 copies of the same idiotic post) came from a proxy server and some owners of proxy servers are not particularly fussy about what is posted through them. However we may well put in a complaint anyway.

Second, Banning an IP address should be the very last resort, not the first.

We are being a lot more careful about this now having sometimes locked out potential legitimate users in the past while trying to control spam. Now an address or range is only likely to be banned if there are multiple abuses and no legitimate uses from that address. Or if there are legitimate users affected in any small way, we make sure the legitimate users are aware of the situation so they know how they can avoid the problem.

Third, IP addresses should not be banned simply because one individual cannot exercise self control, escpecially if they are multi user IP addresses.

Again, we are careful about this. But if trolls post from proxy servers we can always ban the proxy without needing to be careful because there is no reason for any legitimate user to use a proxy to post here, and we are not aware of any who do.

[Rincewind]

Second, Banning an IP address should be the very last resort, not the first.

Third, IP addresses should not be banned simply because one individual cannot exercise self control, escpecially if they are multi user IP addresses. Its like saying, we should close a road because one particular car driver is dangerous.

Banning an IP address is not analogous to banning a road. It is more akin to blocking a particular phone number. If we get a lot of troublesome users callnig from the one street and no ligitimate ones, then we also ban the street.

[firegoat7]

If we get a lot of troublesome users callnig from the one street and no ligitimate ones, then we also ban the street.

You do that sunshine, I am sure that 'we' all agree that 'we' all don't want troublesome 'callnigs' even if they are 'ligitimate'- kapish.

cheers Fg7

[Spiny Norman]

fg7, you may not want to hear this ... but the mods here are far more tolerant than I am in my role as site admin on another board ... I block first, and open up access upon request when a legitimate user finds themselves blocked.

I simply don't waste any time at all on people who are spammers, abusers, etc ... I often just ban them right away ... and for egregious offenses, I ban permanently for a first offense.

So ... never consider making me a mod here ... you might not like the outcome.

[firegoat7]

fg7, you may not want to hear this ... but the mods here are far more tolerant than I am in my role as site admin on another board ... I block first, and open up access upon request when a legitimate user finds themselves blocked.

Frosty, I like you so don't take this the wrong way. Let me explain why your comments do not surprise me.

You are a Christian (further explanation is available upon request).

cheers Fg7

[Basil]

Honestly Duggan you are a complete reactive tool.

You're saying I'm reactive to what?

Reactive to Frosty's suggestion or reactive to a general proposition of hydras? It's OK to only answer if you know what you yourself actually meant. If you start thinking about what you meant now and make up a back-story to fit, you'll be down the plug-hole before I've had my fun, which would be a shame. It's also OK if you don't understand what's at play here. In that case probably best to resort to a general statement of intelligence.

First, Frosty suggested that a formal complaint would make sense. That is let the ISP provider know that somebody is misusing its facility. A sensible and responsible suggestion by him.

It appears you are building a case that I was reacting Frosty's suggestion. Wrongo Drongo. I supported Frosty's suggestion. I didn't react to to it. I had formed the opinion many months ago for a number of reasons. I'd share if you asked. Instead of asking though, you decided to be a 'reactive tool'.

Second, Banning an IP address should be the very last resort, not the first.

Who says? Have you supported that proposition? No. Do you wish to discuss it? Are you capable? Do you have experience in these matters or even a rationale for consideration? Plonker.

Third, IP addresses should not be banned simply because one individual cannot exercise self control, escpecially if they are multi user IP addresses.

Refer above.

Its like saying, we should close a road because one particular car driver is dangerous.

No it's not - for many reasons.
- Proportion of disadvantaged. Like most of your single brain farts, that one was disproportionate.
- It might be like saying we should close a road, because trouble-free alternatives exist for legitimate users, but closing this road stops one dangerous driver.
- Even if it is like closing a road as you suggest, you have earlier said that as a last resort, it's acceptable

Go away and come back when you're boned up, or was that the problem when you posted originally