# The recent bans



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

As you may know, there have been some recent bans from spamming, making too many threads or not using search. I would like to make this thread to see if we could try to make changes to this forum that would prevent people from doing "thread overloads". Maybe a time restriction on making threads? I think we would need something like that.

Thanks 

Roux-er


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Jul 3, 2009)

I totally agree. Maybe something like this:

1. Minimum of 60 seconds between posts. (EDIT: Maybe less. But 10 seconds does not restrict much. Maybe 20-30.)
2. Maximum of 5 posts/thread. (EDIT: Changed my mind. I think there should be no max for each thread.) 
3. Maximum of 1 thread/day. 

That is just my opinion. Feel free to say otherwise.


----------



## byu (Jul 3, 2009)

Test.......

EDIT: There is a 10 second between post limit that I just figured out now.

As for 5 posts per thread, that wouldn't always work. Like, what about the FiveAwesomeCubers thread, where Monkeydude has to answer a lot of questions. Or when you're in a mathematical discussion, you often need more than 5 posts to discuss it.

As for 1 thread per day... possible. But again, sometimes if you have two topics that you feel should be discussed, it's best to just let the ideas get out there.

I'm thinking about this hard, I've been thinking about this for a while. There must be a simple solution somewhere, that we're just overlooking. I'm determined to find an answer.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

byu said:


> Test.......



???lallalal


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 3, 2009)

@ryan
1. I've been on a forum that had this delay. It's incredibly annoying when you open a bunch of threads in different tabs and it doesn't take you 60 seconds to read and reply to one or two posts in a thread.

2. People use threads for many different reasons, and I really see no reason to do this. What if the thread starter (already down to 4 posts because of the one it took to start the thread) is posting a service and gets asked many questions. Shouldn't he have the right to respond to more than 4 people?

3. While I agree with what I assume is your reasoning behind this one, what if I have two completely unrelated things to make a thread on? Keep in mind that not all threads are bad. I've already made a thread today, and while I decided against it, I did consider posting another new thread a couple of hours ago. IMO, this wouldn't have been a bad thread, and there should be no reason that I would be forced not to post it.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

Thanks for sharing your opinion!


----------



## moogra (Jul 3, 2009)

byu said:


> Or when you're in a mathematical discussion, you often need more than 5 posts to discuss it.



Math skill has nothing to do with post count... there are plenty of non-spammers who can't solve cubes or are lurkers that can solve intense math problems.


----------



## byu (Jul 3, 2009)

I think that if we have a standardized message, that we all work on to edit, we may have a solution. When someone posts a repetitious thread (RT), whoever sees it first posts the standardized message. With a lot of revision on the message, I'm sure we can get the word across. But, just taking a thread, here is one of the best responses I found:

"Please do some research before asking questions that have most likely been asked before. Not trying to be rude, but it's been asked before."

Strangely enough, the person who originally posted in that thread never posted again. Obviously they found enough from the search function, or they were tired of everyone telling him/her to use the search function. So, for a standardized message, I suggestion something like the below:

"Your question is a good question, and it has been asked many times. You can find many answers to this question and other common questions by using the search function, available at the top. If you are not getting good enough results from the above search function, then you can use the Advanced Search available at http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/search.php.

Using Google is also helpful, as there are many resources online that can help you answer this question. Please try to remember to research a topic by using the search function or Google before posting a thread, as you may find the answer to your question and therefore not need to post at all.

Thank you."


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

That seems good


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Jul 3, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> @ryan
> 1. I've been on a forum that had this delay. It's incredibly annoying when you open a bunch of threads in different tabs and it doesn't take you 60 seconds to read and reply to one or two posts in a thread.
> 
> 2. People use threads for many different reasons, and I really see no reason to do this. What if the thread starter (already down to 4 posts because of the one it took to start the thread) is posting a service and gets asked many questions. Shouldn't he have the right to respond to more than 4 people?
> ...



I was thinking it was a little bit strict also. I threw out those figures out because I don't post that often. 

Maximizing posts in any way could be unpractical in every way I could think of. If we make people wait, it will be annoying. If we have a daily maximum of posts, some people will be annoyed waiting for the next day. If he have a short amount of time between posts (ex. 15 seconds) it really isn't stopping anyone. 

There isn't really a perfect way to limit activity, so I think we will just have to keep looking at individual cases and ban them one by one.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 3, 2009)

I say make new users hit 50 posts before letting them start threads. They can answer posts, just not make threads. And no limit on posts per thread.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

That sounds pretty good. How about Thread Approval? Would that be too much?


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Jul 3, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> I say make new users hit 50 posts before letting them start threads. They can answer posts, just not make threads. And no limit on posts per thread.



I think that is a good idea, but the only problem is that some people will rush posts to ask an urgent (or not) question.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 3, 2009)

Roux-er said:


> Would that be too much?



Oh no. I absolutely agree.


----------



## byu (Jul 3, 2009)

We really need to get the Welcome Video done, but we need more participators! I'm waiting. If anyone else other than the people who have submitted to me already are willing, PM me


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

Ryanrex116 said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I say make new users hit 50 posts before letting them start threads. They can answer posts, just not make threads. And no limit on posts per thread.
> ...



Mostly the (or not) part


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 3, 2009)

Roux-er said:


> Ryanrex116 said:
> 
> 
> > JTW2007 said:
> ...



Haha, not a new concept.
Its what we call on 4chan Lurking. Which the new people should do.
I myself lurked for quite a while after registering before posting.


----------



## Gparker (Jul 3, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> I say make new users hit 50 posts before letting them start threads. They can answer posts, just not make threads. And no limit on posts per thread.



Some things wrong with that.

a) Some people who have been here since 2007 still don't have 50 posts and they can be important. Ex: Eric Limeback

b)This ruins the whole "member introduction" thing most people like to do, I know I wouldent want to talk, then give the person a handshake


----------



## Feanaro (Jul 3, 2009)

I remember when I first joined, this was my first forum and I assumed it was like a chat center where you just post, post, post. I don't know if that's what other people are thinking, but hopefully we can add a section to the new-member video that says very slowly: This........Is........the ......search......button........use........it.......to......search


----------



## royzabeast (Jul 3, 2009)

How about the same system implemented in Yahoo! Answers. The higher level you have in the community, the more you're allowed to post.

That would also mean that you need some kind of scoring system, unless you want to use the titles we already have, e.g member or super moderator.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 3, 2009)

Gparker said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I say make new users hit 50 posts before letting them start threads. They can answer posts, just not make threads. And no limit on posts per thread.
> ...



Good points. Perhaps you could have a mod be able to approve a user to start threads early if they prove to be useful. And only apply it to new users (those who register after it is put into effect). You could also give them one thread start, which must be used to start their introduction thread on penalty of a short (24-hour?) ban.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

I've never heard of that before  

could work!


----------



## byu (Jul 3, 2009)

Another thing to keep in mind is AndyK. Remember him? His first post was in the Howtos section giving a perfect printout tutorial of 3x3-5x5. I still use that to teach my friends how to solve 4x4 and up.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Jul 3, 2009)

Byu has exceeded 5 posts


----------



## Skewb (Jul 3, 2009)

what about this... new comers to the forum could be limited to one introductory post at the time they sign up, could be auto generated or not... then, that new comer would be limited to 10 posts in any 12 hour period up to 50 posts... after that the new comer is in a "probationary" status labeled something like "Prospect" in which time if they blow up the forums with say 5 or more threads in any 24 hour period, the system automatically locks them out for 72 hours, at the end of which they receive and email confirmation letter, letting them know they can come back, but clearly stating in what i think she be BIG RED LETTERS that if they violate the rules again or have a single complaint against them in the next 90 days, they will be banned... 

i know that's a lot of info to add to the site and it would take a long time to do, but it may be worth it... imo though, we shouldn't HAVE to be doing any thing about this... i'm new still, and have yet to post a single thread... i hope this helps...

EDIT: the probationary period could start at 30 or 60 days.. then move to 90 if a violation occurs


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

And make sure that first thread is introductory, right?


----------



## panyan (Jul 3, 2009)

Ryanrex116 said:


> 2. Maximum of 5 posts/thread.



that is ridiculous, look at the verdes anniversary sale thread and tell me that 5 posts is enough per thread


----------



## Gparker (Jul 3, 2009)

I would probably look at it like this. x posts a thread, no. If there useless posts like rubiks exer did then definetly. Y posts a day, no again. Some people, new members included, know how to actually help a person rather than asking repetitive questions. If the user asks to many commen questions after we remind him/her of search and everything, then the ban would happen. It can sometimes depend on how new the user is too though. If the user happends to get banned on the first or second day, then once they get banned they will probably never have the interest to come back.


EDIT: I think wee could emphasize this in the welcome video. I know that there is the search function part, but some people may miss that.


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 3, 2009)

NO. None of these ideas will work. Just let people post as much as they need and nominate the stupid posts for the stupid post of the year and delete the really obscene/pointless posts.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jul 3, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> NO. None of these ideas will work. Just let people post as much as they need and nominate the stupid posts for the stupid post of the year and delete the really obscene/pointless posts.



Agree. Trying to regulate people from posting is pointless and a waste of time.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Jul 3, 2009)

Gparker said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I say make new users hit 50 posts before letting them start threads. They can answer posts, just not make threads. And no limit on posts per thread.
> ...



c) People would want to post meaningless posts till they got to 50.


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 3, 2009)

People who are new will make stupid threads, and they won't understand 
why. I did it to when I joined. They don't know any better. I really do believe 
that there is nothing we can do to make a significant difference without 
ruining the forum. Restrictions on post count and threads is one of those things. I really think the most that can be done is get the message out to beginners before they post. When I say get the info out, I mean tell them that this is a very active forum full of many experienced and unexperienced users, and that basic questions are annoying. You can sugar coat it of course so they don't get "Intimidated by the forum thus shying away beginners from the community", but get the message across. I suggest adding this into the  Welcome video for new members  which also needs to be completed.


----------



## Samlambert (Jul 3, 2009)

I have an idea.

When someone register, he needs to write a 100ish words text on him and why he want to join this forum. Then we can see if it's like "hai i wun 2 b beter at rubix c00b, wher 2 b DIYs 2 mke me fazter???66" or if it's actually someone who seems to have a brain which he knows how to use. Then PJK or maybe other mods would have to review that and either accept/deny his registration.


----------



## Feanaro (Jul 3, 2009)

I think that's over the top, we should just monitor people and watch out if they make too many stupid threads. If they do, warn them, and if they keep doing it, ban them. This is a secret message


----------



## Samlambert (Jul 3, 2009)

Feanaro said:


> I think that's over the top, we should just monitor people and watch out if they make too many stupid threads. If they do, warn them, and if they keep doing it, ban them. This is a secret message



And what prevents them from just making another account? By using the text method, even if they made 100 account they probably still wouldn't have 1 accepted.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 3, 2009)

Just do this:

Have new members take a quiz on forum/internet ettiquitte.
Depending on how well they do, limit their thread-making and posting upon that.

Ex question: "Which of these would be a good procedure on finding some cubing info. out?"
A-Google it.
B-Make a thread in the hardware section about how much you love KFC.
C-Use the search function.
D-Post in the "one question answer thread"
E-create a thread about it
F-C, then A, then D, then F


----------



## panyan (Jul 3, 2009)

why cant we just have the




on each thread and vote up good ones, vote down pointless ones?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 3, 2009)

panyan said:


> Samlambert said:
> 
> 
> > I have an idea.
> ...


More like 50, but then this place would be much much much much more enjoyable.


----------



## sooland (Jul 3, 2009)

And get rid of people like tfkscores.


----------



## shelley (Jul 3, 2009)

Solutions to this problem have been discussed multiple times. Simply restricting posting privileges won't necessarily make people better forum members - noobs will be noobs and they'll start making stupid threads as soon as they are allowed to. Essays for new members just mean more work for the moderators.


----------



## jacob15728 (Jul 3, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> Roux-er said:
> 
> 
> > Ryanrex116 said:
> ...



AHAHAHAHA

You just admitted to going to 4chan


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jul 3, 2009)

Ok, here is my idea. No, it will not get rid of all the 'noobs' and it will not help some of the idiotic posts. For those exceptions are the reason we have mods to delete/close the threads and/or ban the person. This idea will only help the, 'USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION RAWR' type threads.

When someone would create a new thread, there is a second page that includes the 'Similar Threads' thing that we see on top of pages. This, of course, will be a bigger list than the one on top. The only thing you will have to do is confirm that your thread has not been created already. This would not be a large inconvenience for anyone and will help some threads.


----------



## byu (Jul 3, 2009)

Extending PatrickJameson's idea:

Every time you try to create a new thread, you get a dialog that says:

Have you looked at these?
(list of similar threads)

If they say "Yes", then the thread is posted.
If they say "No", then they can click on those threads as links.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

that would be helpful to tfkscores' I USED SEARCH BEFORE MAKING THIS THREAD. thread


----------



## byu (Jul 3, 2009)

Oh yeah, by the way, for anyone that's interested, I talked with tfkscores, and he solved his problem. He used CubeTimer instead...


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

Oh okay. Via Youtube or what?


----------



## KubeKid73 (Jul 3, 2009)

byu said:


> Extending PatrickJameson's idea:
> 
> Every time you try to create a new thread, you get a dialog that says:
> 
> ...



Yeah. It should show you the similar threads before you post. I don't like that you can't find similar threads without posting it, so if you were searching for the wrong things, you might not have found it in the search function, but you found it in the list of similar threads and then you feel stupid for posting it.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jul 3, 2009)

byu said:


> Extending PatrickJameson's idea:
> 
> Every time you try to create a new thread, you get a dialog that says:
> 
> ...



Uh, that's basically what I said.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

This would make it more accessible to all members, I think


----------



## Dene (Jul 4, 2009)

lolthread.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

im just trying to help


----------



## joey (Jul 4, 2009)

Rules suck.. people should just learn.


----------



## panyan (Jul 4, 2009)

panyan said:


> why cant we just have the
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh, what a fantastic idea panyan, we shall start it right away and delete the rest of these awful suggestions


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 4, 2009)

I'm just shy of saying that people's asses should be kicked my mods discretion, but I'm not in agreement with some of the mods' attitudes here


----------



## shoot1510 (Jul 4, 2009)

panyan said:


> panyan said:
> 
> 
> > why cant we just have the
> ...



Their already a rating thread. It just top-right. Just rate the thread 1 through 5.

@panyan: That might be a good idea if someone post and you can rate if it good or bad.☻☺


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

I was about to say, After -6 on youtube, then the message is not shown. We could, however, delete that post.


----------



## KubeKid73 (Jul 4, 2009)

I like that idea.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

yeah, me too


----------



## KubeKid73 (Jul 4, 2009)

Well it is your idea.  Actually it's YouTube's idea, but it was your suggestion.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

No, the rating system idea was panyans 

EDIT: the -6 was my idea............._I think_


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 4, 2009)

That idea is kind of cool actually.

Edit: does this apply to threads too?


----------



## pentrixter (Jul 4, 2009)

Just flame the fools.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> That idea is kind of cool actually.
> 
> Edit: does this apply to threads too?



It could I guess. We could put it by the message by the thread starter and that could be the whole thread.

-get it?


----------



## joey (Jul 4, 2009)

Why are you all concerned whose idea something is.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

Im not. I thought it was panyans idea, and it is.


----------



## Feanaro (Jul 4, 2009)

pentrixter said:


> Just flame the fools.



I like this idea


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

well....Its simple 

But doesn't it get annoying to the mods?


----------



## pentrixter (Jul 4, 2009)

If there are too many forum dumbasses, the mods join in. It's pretty fun.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

like a party!!!


----------



## joey (Jul 4, 2009)

It's amusing how some of the people who I think contribute to the problem are posting here.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

Well. If your talking about me. Im not contributing to the problem.


----------



## KubeKid73 (Jul 4, 2009)

I'm not.


----------



## joey (Jul 4, 2009)

Roux-er said:


> Well. If your talking about me. Im not contributing to the problem.



Your opinion on that.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

Well, I started this thread. So I might as well recognize it. I'm not trying to be a problem. I'm just sharing my opinions.

I also backed you up when a kid told you to leave. I'm sorry if I'm making you mad.


----------



## joey (Jul 4, 2009)

I don't even know why I'm posting here again.

I never said you were one of the problematic people.. you just assumed I meant you!

I think that having some complex posting system.. would be difficult to implement. Also a ranking system can be abused (just look at TIME's poll, with moot coming out on top).

I don't know what we can do to "save the forum".


----------



## anythingtwisty (Jul 4, 2009)

Don't despair, it hasn't been lost yet!


----------



## royzabeast (Jul 4, 2009)

Do any other forums do things like this?


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

Ok joey, Thanks 

No we should not give up!!!


----------



## Zaxef (Jul 4, 2009)

> 2. Maximum of 5 posts/thread.


Uh no.. 
Putting a limit on threads created is fine, but I think posts are perfect the way they are


----------



## panyan (Jul 4, 2009)

KubeKid73 said:


> Well it is your idea.  Actually it's YouTube's idea, but it was your suggestion.





Roux-er said:


> yeah, me too





KubeKid73 said:


> I like that idea.





Roux-er said:


> I was about to say, After -6 on youtube, then the message is not shown. We could, however, delete that post.





shoot1510 said:


> panyan said:
> 
> 
> > panyan said:
> ...





Roux-er said:


> No, the rating system idea was panyans
> 
> EDIT: the -6 was my idea............._I think_



well, i am glad i suggested it 

@ roux-er: i didnt know after -6 it was hidden


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 4, 2009)

Like I said, We should delete them after -6, and a glitch on youtube allows you to vote multiple times. We wont allow that here.


----------



## KubeKid73 (Jul 5, 2009)

Yeah. But also, because some people might vote +1 to be annoying, it should be a rating of -6 OR 10 (maybe 15) negative votes. So if 10 people voted -1 and 7 people voted +1 to be annoying and keep the stupid posts, then it would still go away even with a rating of -3 and not -6 or lower.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jul 5, 2009)

Roux-er said:


> Well, I started this thread. So I might as well recognize it. I'm not trying to be a problem. I'm just sharing my opinions.



I guess you just don't see the irony in that.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 9, 2009)

uh, hmmm


----------

