The glam Meet the MSE Forum Team picture…

mostlycheerful

cit_k wrote: »

Perhaps you can look into why people can call another poster a

"benefits scrounging malingerer who does everything they can to ensure that they can suckle from the teat of the tax payer without having to do a single thing in return for the rest of your entire life. "

and still be allowed to remain on the forum.

Especially, when after its pointed out that that would be reported (by another user) they turn round and say they dont care - they will sign up again under a fake acccount, I quote

And the posts get removed when reported, but no answer given to the reports, and the poster remains.

Yes, this is rather bad.

But they have recently stepped it up a bit and bad posts are being deleted and bad posters banned quicker. I don't know if you've noticed this, cit, but in particular one of the persistent trollers of DT is no longer polluting the board with anything like as much nastiness and idiocy as he was. Indeed, I haven't noticed him much or at all for several weeks so far. And another twit is also noticeably getting deleted quite promptly every time he posts his nonsense.

So, I suggest again, can't you just ignore this kind of nastiness? It's like if you go down a pub, you always have to dodge the nasty drunks, there will always be some wherever you go and even with efficient management always dealing with it there'll always be more coming along and persistent ones coming back again.

So really your only option is to ignore it and report it, as per the current system. And if it's not being deleted enough or fast enough for you well, perhaps consider how much you still want to come on a public chat board that always has some nasty members of the public on it. Yes, sorry mate, but the fact of life is that there are some nasty people about and there will always be some of them behaving badly in public places such as this forum. That's just how it is and there isn't really anything more that can be done about it than already is if it's to remain free and easily available for everyone.

Of course, as Martin points out in one of the stickies, if he charged us each three grand a year to use the forum then you'd definitely get a much higher quality of clientele and he wouldn't have to devote so much resources to deleting nastiness and spam all the time. But I haven't got three grand a year to spend on chatting and posting stuff on a chat board and I doubt whether anyone else has either. I wouldn't spend any money to go on a chat board seeing as there are thousands of free ones to choose from.

Etc.

MSE_Martin

cit_k wrote: »

Perhaps you can look into why people can call another poster a

"benefits scrounging malingerer who does everything they can to ensure that they can suckle from the teat of the tax payer without having to do a single thing in return for the rest of your entire life. "

and still be allowed to remain on the forum.

Especially, when after its pointed out that that would be reported (by another user) they turn round and say they dont care - they will sign up again under a fake acccount, I quote



And the posts get removed when reported, but no answer given to the reports, and the poster remains.

I will never know why people do things like that - it saddens me - we dont want it - and we try to prevent it. Sadly technology doesn't make it easy for us to prevent persistent people - but we do our best.

Yet you ask me to look at this. My hope is you will now see its not me you need to ask but the relevant forum team members. They are the ones making the decisions over how we handle problems.

I set overarching policy and we dont tolerate this behaviour - but if you've spotted a problem a polite email to them is the best route. The forum is a full time job, I simply can't involve myself in every issue, nothing would ever get done - or i'd have to retire from being money saving expert to do it. That's why I employ professional people to look after it who's job it is. My hope is the image will help people see who the right peopel to talk to are when there are issues.

Martin

Fridge3

cit_k wrote: »

Perhaps you can look into why people can call another poster a

"benefits scrounging malingerer who does everything they can to ensure that they can suckle from the teat of the tax payer without having to do a single thing in return for the rest of your entire life. "

and still be allowed to remain on the forum.

Especially, when after its pointed out that that would be reported (by another user) they turn round and say they dont care - they will sign up again under a fake acccount, I quote



And the posts get removed when reported, but no answer given to the reports, and the poster remains.

I understood the OP is effectively saying he's the boss and doesn't have time to deal with the detail, hence the forum team and a clear clicky to contact them.

ETA - just noticed, OP appears to have confirmed what I thought.^^^^:)

[Deleted User]

MSE_Martin wrote: »

I will never know why people do things like that - it saddens me - we dont want it - and we try to prevent it. Sadly technology doesn't make it easy for us to prevent persistent people - but we do our best.

Yet you ask me to look at this. My hope is you will now see its not me you need to ask but the relevant forum team members. They are the ones making the decisions over how we handle problems.

I set overarching policy and we dont tolerate this behaviour - but if you've spotted a problem a polite email to them is the best route. The forum is a full time job, I simply can't involve myself in every issue, nothing would ever get done - or i'd have to retire from being money saving expert to do it. That's why I employ professional people to look after it who's job it is. My hope is the image will help people see who the right peopel to talk to are when there are issues.

Martin

perhaps martin you could invest in some decent software that allows your staff to block offending ip addresses,far smaller sites than this manage to do this easily and effectively,why not yours?

poppy10_2

woodbine wrote: »

perhaps martin you could invest in some decent software that allows your staff to block offending ip addresses,far smaller sites than this manage to do this easily and effectively,why not yours?

I'm sure they already have this capability.

mostlycheerful

woodbine wrote: »

perhaps martin you could invest in some decent software that allows your staff to block offending ip addresses,far smaller sites than this manage to do this easily and effectively,why not yours?

Well, no, as quite a few people have already pointed out on quite a few threads, quite a few times that I've read here, most times that someone asks this same question, dynamic IPs, which most people are using, change regularly, so, no, you can't block them. This is a feature of how computers and the net work in general.

The other type of IP address, a static one which remains the same all the time, can be blocked. But most people are not using static, most people are dynamic, therein lies the problem.

[Deleted User]

poppy10 wrote: »

I'm sure they already have this capability.

if they have then why so many AE`s?

[Deleted User]

mostlycheerful wrote: »

Well, no, as quite a few people have already pointed out on quite a few threads, quite a few times that I've read here, most times that someone asks this same question, dynamic IPs, which most people are using, change regularly, so, no, you can't block them. This is a feature of how computers and the net work in general.

The other type of IP address, a static one which remains the same all the time, can be blocked. But most people are not using static, most people are dynamic, therein lies the problem.

most broadband users now have static ip addresses,in the days of dial up a new ip add.would be issued each time you connected
i still say that its releatively easy for a site the size of mse to block persistant offenders via their ip address
and yes i do realise that masking software is freely avaliable but not widely known about

mostlycheerful

woodbine wrote: »

most broadband users now have static ip addresses,in the days of dial up a new ip add.would be issued each time you connected
i still say that its releatively easy for a site the size of mse to block persistant offenders via their ip address
and yes i do realise that masking software is freely avaliable but not widely known about

No, that’s not the case, you’re repeating the common misconception.

As I said, most people use dynamic.

Here’s a bit of research for you and others to better understand this issue :

“Residential Internet connections, whether broadband or dialup usually use dynamic IP addresses, while commercial leased lines and servers have static IPs, so they can always be reached at the same address.”

http://www.speedguide.net/faq_in_q.php?qid=137

“On an Internet forum or Web site an IP ban is often used to prevent a disruptive member from access, though a warning and/or account ban may be used first. Dynamic allocation of IP addresses can complicate incoming IP blocking, rendering it difficult to block a specific user without blocking a larger number of IP addresses, thereby risking collateral damage caused by ISPs sharing IP addresses of multiple internet users.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_blocking

vuvuzela

Not sure you're right, semantically you are but in reality possibly not. I am with virgin and on a dynamic ip, but it has been the same (ie static) for the last year or so at least, even through many modem cycles of disconnection and reconnection to virgin's service. I suspect this is similar for a lot of users.