Moderation

Site-related information.
Post Reply
downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Moderation

Post by downsizer »

I wonder if the mods could actually do some moderation and ban the spammer http://ukdefenceforum.net/memberlist.ph ... ile&u=2094

Had about 20 PMs for this tool. Maybe if the mods bothered to check IPs of users.... :crazy:

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: Moderation

Post by swoop »

Yup. I've got spammed crap from him regarding "download music".
Haven't clicked on any of the links he supplied... I wonder why.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Moderation

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

What would checking IPs accomplish exactly?

They're spambots. There's little we can do besides increase the spambot countermeasures we already have in place (which I've done). Just report the messages and they'll be dealt with.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Moderation

Post by downsizer »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:What would checking IPs accomplish exactly?
If they are registering in an unusual IP thats a good SP. Also if the registration email address is from known spam accounts. Big clues there.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Moderation

Post by RetroSicotte »

downsizer wrote:
The Armchair Soldier wrote:What would checking IPs accomplish exactly?
If they are registering in an unusual IP thats a good SP. Also if the registration email address is from known spam accounts. Big clues there.
That is not something that can be tracked, unfortunately. "Known spam accounts" and "unusual IP" is not a thing for forums as its not a thing for those accounts. These bots are entirely individualised. As far as the forum as a front of code knows, it's just like any other member. Even if all memberships needed manual approval from us, there'd be no indication to warrant denying access until it happens.

The issue lies above us, and more with phpBB as the software developer of the board to provide better tools, which is being communicated to them.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Moderation

Post by downsizer »

RetroSicotte wrote:
downsizer wrote:
The Armchair Soldier wrote:What would checking IPs accomplish exactly?
If they are registering in an unusual IP thats a good SP. Also if the registration email address is from known spam accounts. Big clues there.
That is not something that can be tracked, unfortunately. "Known spam accounts" and "unusual IP" is not a thing for forums as its not a thing for those accounts. These bots are entirely individualised. As far as the forum as a front of code knows, it's just like any other member. Even if all memberships needed manual approval from us, there'd be no indication to warrant denying access until it happens.

The issue lies above us, and more with phpBB as the software developer of the board to provide better tools, which is being communicated to them.
Strange. I moderate a forum that does just that and rarely if ever has spam problems.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Moderation

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

downsizer wrote:
The Armchair Soldier wrote:What would checking IPs accomplish exactly?
If they are registering in an unusual IP thats a good SP. Also if the registration email address is from known spam accounts. Big clues there.
So you're suggesting we approve individual accounts before they're able to post? Sounds like a lot of effort for something that's not even a big problem tbh. I've increased the built-in bot countermeasures. That should suffice for now.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Moderation

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The header will do fine for what I am going to say:

I am seriously concerned about how the moderation tries to stiffle posts that e.g. try to establish links between defence industrial policy and new capabilities that are (officially, or tentatively) being sought. Sort of steps in logic:
- we want to do it?
- we allocate the funds to do it?
- we modify the force structure to make best use of "it"
- but can we deliver it? Rather than defence becoming an unbearable (yes: from the verb to be able to carry) burden on our external balance

What is the benefit from narrowly stove-piping the discussion to shiny kit or minute spec change speculations?
- all that follows is the "no money" posts, and next "raid the DfID budget" ideas

I am sure that just talking about shiny kit will rejuvenate the participating audience (see average age drop), but thinking out of the box (AKA Think Defence, once upon a time) does not seem to be the flavour of the day.

Can we have an Editorial Policy statement, please?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Moderation

Post by seaspear »

There have been on occassion some angst over posts in "news only " sections as these sections like type 31 rarely have genuine news ,we seem for instance no closert to actually seeing what this ship is perhaps this thread could be dropped certainly the more interesting discussions and comments on this thread were informative of the various options and politics in the decision making
I would also suggest that there is encouragement that members just not cut and paste but provide comment on the article provided ,released publicity shots from defence sources hold little interest and could be considered as dubious as to newsworthiness
Perhaps this comes to what is news , a different picture of a ship because its changed its position wow hold the presses .

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Moderation

Post by dmereifield »

seaspear wrote:There have been on occassion some angst over posts in "news only " sections as these sections like type 31 rarely have genuine news ,we seem for instance no closert to actually seeing what this ship is perhaps this thread could be dropped certainly the more interesting discussions and comments on this thread were informative of the various options and politics in the decision making
I would also suggest that there is encouragement that members just not cut and paste but provide comment on the article provided ,released publicity shots from defence sources hold little interest and could be considered as dubious as to newsworthiness
Perhaps this comes to what is news , a different picture of a ship because its changed its position wow hold the presses .
What's the problem providing links to articles or tweets in a post without making extensice analytical comments on them? This forum should be about enhancing information flow and as well as discussion

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Moderation

Post by dmereifield »

I should also say, in my view, in some of the other threads some posts are overly critical of the moderators who are volunteering to provision this site and have to (preumably) do so around full time jobs

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Moderation

Post by seaspear »

Posting an article on a forum should be given context by the contributor as to why the article is being reprinted from another source and how it lends itself to the topic or how the contribuutor of the article to the forum wishes to raise a topic ,after all this is really someone elses work althoughIm not suggesting plagiarism ,.
I also believe the contributor being required to put in writing their own context for their submission provides a higher standard of discussion on the forum

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Moderation

Post by topman »

seaspear wrote:There have been on occassion some angst over posts in "news only " sections as these sections like type 31 rarely have genuine news ,we seem for instance no closert to actually seeing what this ship is perhaps this thread could be dropped certainly the more interesting discussions and comments on this thread were informative of the various options and politics in the decision making
I would also suggest that there is encouragement that members just not cut and paste but provide comment on the article provided ,released publicity shots from defence sources hold little interest and could be considered as dubious as to newsworthiness
Perhaps this comes to what is news , a different picture of a ship because its changed its position wow hold the presses .
If you don't like what any particular poster/s put up then you can just block them.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Moderation

Post by dmereifield »

seaspear wrote:Posting an article on a forum should be given context by the contributor as to why the article is being reprinted from another source and how it lends itself to the topic or how the contribuutor of the article to the forum wishes to raise a topic ,after all this is really someone elses work althoughIm not suggesting plagiarism ,.
I also believe the contributor being required to put in writing their own context for their submission provides a higher standard of discussion on the forum
A simple "this is interesting" or copy of the headline is fine enough. If people don't like it, don't click the hyperlink. Others might well find it a useful post even if you don't

Post Reply