Why was this guy banned?

Stinicker

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=453705

He was a new member, who made a lot of posts tonight, he's listed in the banlist that he was banned for spam, yet after reading his posts I could see nothing spammy in them.

I have nothing to do with him, just read what I judged to be a constructive and helpful comment from him and noticed he had been banned in the last few mins, so I searched his posts out of curiosity to see what got him banned, but could find nothing out of the ordinary other than a newbie who made quite alot few first posts.

What am I missing here?

Spear

You're missing that certain features only come with a certain post count, such as sigs.

Stinicker

Spear wrote: »

You're missing that certain features only come with a certain post count, such as sigs.

Sigs clutter it for me on the iPhone so I don't bother with one. Had he something spammy in his sig?

Zaph

He signed up at 20.40 tonight. By 22.45 he had 27 posts and a shiny new sig pimping his website. That's why he was banned.

Stinicker

Zaph wrote: »

He signed up at 2.40 tonight. By 22.45 he had 27 posts and a shiny new sig pimping his website. That's why he was banned.

Aha, a sneaky spammer, the worst kind! Well that's my curiosity answered.

Spear

Stinicker wrote: »

Sigs clutter it for me on the iPhone so I don't bother with one. Had he something spammy in his sig?

Only 7% of users have sig viewing turned on, as it's turned off by default. Which makes it an incredibly pointless method of spamming.

The source for that statistic is, ironically enough, another would be sig spammer:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056257825

similarly we also get fake sig spammers, who also get a siteban for that.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056277726

Orim

Are you not allowed to have links in your sig?

The sig rules say that you can and I'm fairly certain that I've seen it advised in prison for people that want to show off their blog etc.

It does look like he was running around like a lunatic trying to reach 25 posts but it wasn't exactly the worst I've seen. I mean if he had spent the 2 hours posting in this thread would he have still been banned?

Maybe his sig broke the rules? In which case does he not get the sig snipped?

Spear

Orim wrote: »

Are you not allowed to have links in your sig?

The sig rules say that you can and I'm fairly certain that I've seen it advised in prison for people that want to show off their blog etc.

It does look like he was running around like a lunatic trying to reach 25 posts but it wasn't exactly the worst I've seen. I mean if he had spent the 2 hours posting in this thread would he have still been banned?

Maybe his sig broke the rules? In which case does he not get the sig snipped?

His only aim was to spam through the sig. If he's not going to contribute to boards, why should he stay?

Orim

As I say it's not the worst spam I've seen. He was contibuting and offered some valid responses to people and threads. Not like the guy that posted "Hi, I like to play games" in a thread for good game messages.

Maybe I'm just being naive.

minidazzler

This sounds kinda fishy TBH, if there is a problem with his sig then it can be snipped with a word in his ear, but if his posts are genuine and not pushing products or his own interests then what he is doing is contributing, not spamming. I don't know how often this happens but this seems more of genuine poster passively advertising than spam to me. Siteban necessary? I doubt it.

Spear

minidazzler wrote: »

This sounds kinda fishy TBH, if there is a problem with his sig then it can be snipped with a word in his ear, but if his posts are genuine and not pushing products or his own interests then what he is doing is contributing, not spamming. I don't know how often this happens but this seems more of genuine poster passively advertising than spam to me. Siteban necessary? I doubt it.

There's a low but steady flow of these. If any of their posts are actually constructive, it's only a coincidence as ultimately the posts are a means to an end, that end being a sig to advertise through. If he's innocent, where's his prison appeal? Besides that passively advertising is still advertising.


Edit: how surprising, our spammer now has a prison thread two minutes after this was posted. That's not at all suspicious.

Insect Overlord

Spear wrote: »

There's a low but steady flow of these. If any of their posts are actually constructive, it's only a coincidence as ultimately the posts are a means to an end, that end being a sig to advertise through. If he's innocent, where's his prison appeal? Besides that passively advertising is still advertising.

And then, as if by magic...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056279447

What an incredible coincidence of timing.

Hookah

So, is there a rule to say how many constructive posts you must make before you're allowed to have a sig which promotes something or other?

Spear

Hookah wrote: »

So, is there a rule to say how many constructive posts you must make before your allowed to have a sig which promotes something or other?

It's 25 normal posts to get a sig. As a general warning people should note that not every forum counts towards your post count. Cuckoos nest, Thunderdome etc don't for example.

Gordon

minidazzler wrote: »

This sounds kinda fishy TBH, if there is a problem with his sig then it can be snipped with a word in his ear, but if his posts are genuine and not pushing products or his own interests then what he is doing is contributing, not spamming. I don't know how often this happens but this seems more of genuine poster passively advertising than spam to me. Siteban necessary? I doubt it.

That's why boards allows banned users to post in the prison forum so that they can plead their case. When spam is concerned, you're guilty until you prove your innocence as far as I'm concerned.

Overheal

Devore:

3. Ads in sigs?! Paid ads in sigs?! ... nuff said....

4. Advertising competing sites. This is a tough one. We used to have a rule that said "if the site you are advertising has a forum your sig is in breach". Then that seemed stupid so then we tried saying if it took paid advertising itself it wasnt allowed in your sig to avoid spammy/shilly sigs.
Ultimately we have to go with a "ah yer taking the p*ss now" approach.
But one thing I do think is that if you are linking to a "professional" site (for varying values of "professional") that you are involved with or associated with, then it should be from a single text link and NOT an image of any kind.

So, a link to http://www.mysemiprosite.com is ok, but as it is there, but Come buy really cheap electronics here, we're having a huge sale, come on down! is bad.

So the site domain should be the only text linked up. What falls into that category will remain the domain of the mods and admins. For example the No Drama sigs they use when they are putting on a play are very much part of Boards where the group started and still converses and has been a great example of the site working... so too with the football team.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055925395

If this were a big banner ad in his sig or something, like flashy-colored annoying text, he would be in breach.

tbh

Maybe consider raising the limit to a number that can't be achieved in one session - say 225 or a join date of more than six months ago. IMO it's unlikely that someone with less than that number would be that arsed about having a sig unless the sig was their reason for joining.

Spear

Overheal wrote: »

Devore:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055925395

If this were a big banner ad in his sig or something, like flashy-colored annoying text, he would be in breach.

I've complained elsewhere about this, but that's DeV's decision, but it's not the rules.

Sigs may contain a simple text only link to other websites, including a business

Zaph

As I pointed out to him in his Prison thread, what he did was within the letter of the law, but definitely not the spirit. I've given him the benefit of the doubt that he will be a worthwhile contributor and have lifted his ban. I've also linked him to the sig rules should he wish to add a new one.

Hal Emmerich

Stinicker wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=453705

He was a new member, who made a lot of posts tonight, he's listed in the banlist that he was banned for spam, yet after reading his posts I could see nothing spammy in them.

I have nothing to do with him, just read what I judged to be a constructive and helpful comment from him and noticed he had been banned in the last few mins, so I searched his posts out of curiosity to see what got him banned, but could find nothing out of the ordinary other than a newbie who made quite alot few first posts.

What am I missing here?

Where do I find the banlist??

Zaph

Banlist

Shield

DeVore wrote: »

Ultimately we have to go with a "ah yer taking the p*ss now" approach.

This is what I would apply to this case, and I'm very surprised to see that his ban has been lifted. I'd be even more surprised if it was a unanimous admin decision. Even so, I'm happy to debate it in public. At least we won't all look like Soylent Green if we have the odd healthy debate every now and then.

jpmiddleton wrote: »

I can't deny I wanted to get the posts to put my signature in as I want to add exposure to our forum

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we originally allowed boardsies to put a discreet link to their business/hobby in their sig because they were just that - boardsies. Those members of our community who contribute on a regular basis and make the site the success that it is.

Now these rules are being deliberately and knowingly circumvented and exploited in order to obtain free advertising within hours by new users. To me, this speaks volumes about the individuals concerned without them even saying a word.

IMO, there is no way should this user, or any user who follows suit, be allowed to insert a link to forums/businesses after boosting their way past the 25 post-count mark with unhelpful and unsubstantive verbiage. This is a perfect example of "taking the p*ss" especially since one guy confessed to it in Prison.

I would advocate for sig sanctions against anyone who attempts to exploit the goodwill of boards in the manner exposed, and a revision of the sig rules in this area.