Spambots

torbrex

we don't have any mods here and the BG's do't have access to the one touch ban & clean.

That is why I keep suggesting that they are give access.

Silk

torbrex wrote: »

we don't have any mods here and the BG's do't have access to the one touch ban & clean.

That is why I keep suggesting that they are give access.

You wouldn't need to have Mods here if the first post of a newbie has to be approved before it reaches the board.
BG's wouldn't need to ban or clean because it wouldn't be there in the first place.

torbrex

Silk wrote: »

You wouldn't need to have Mods here if the first post of a newbie has to be approved before it reaches the board.
BG's wouldn't need to ban or clean because it wouldn't be there in the first place.

The first post would need to be looked at by someone and that is called 'moderating' a route that MSE does not want to go down for 'legal reasons'

Plenty of spammers already get round that anyway by posting rubbish on existing threads, not the current bots mind you but plenty of others.

Silk

torbrex wrote: »

The first post would need to be looked at by someone and that is called 'moderating' a route that MSE does not want to go down for 'legal reasons'

Plenty of spammers already get round that anyway by posting rubbish on existing threads, not the current bots mind you but plenty of others.

What legal reasons ? .. heard that one before and I can't think of any law that covers it, I can't see a spam robot taking court action either if there was :rotfl:
Since when would a BG being given a power to approve a post before it goes live be against the law ?
It's not the other ones were concerned with is it ? even if it's as many you claim !

custardy

Silk wrote: »

What legal reasons ? .. heard that one before and I can't think of any law that covers it, I can't see a spam robot taking court action either if there was :rotfl:
Since when would a BG being given a power to approve a post before it goes live be against the law ?
It's not the other ones were concerned with is it ? even if it's as many you claim !

They mean moderate as to editing posts.
Covered in a thread with Martin. Their decision.
So they delete posts/threads rather than edit them.

Quasar

Silk wrote: »

What legal reasons ? .. heard that one before and I can't think of any law that covers it, I can't see a spam robot taking court action either if there was :rotfl:
Since when would a BG being given a power to approve a post before it goes live be against the law ?
It's not the other ones were concerned with is it ? even if it's as many you claim !

If you have moderators, these moderators must patrol the boards reading posts and moderate them, as well as respond to reports. On a board like this, with all the money advice floating around, if a post gives the wrong advice the site is legally liable for publishing information causing monetary loss (or for any other breach such as offensive posts), if moderators haven't spotted the posts. It is not surprising that this system is not implemented.

So, the site clearly says to all registering users that they have to be careful (in a nutshell), and any wrong/offensive posts need to be reported.

That's the way I understand it anyway, but I agree that Board Guides should be given extended powers to deal with obvious spammers such as we have been seeing here lately.

Silk

Quasar wrote: »

If you have moderators, these moderators must patrol the boards reading posts and moderate them, as well as respond to reports. On a board like this, with all the money advice floating around, if a post gives the wrong advice the site is legally liable for publishing information causing monetary loss (or for any other breach such as offensive posts), if moderators haven't spotted the posts. It is not surprising that this system is not implemented.

Which is why you have the disclaimers in place !
I'm quite sure all those who lost money in the past due to posts realise it was the posters personal opinion. Unless of course people who lost money (such as those threatening to sue about Martin's recommendations for investing in Iceland a while back ) have been successful?
Trying to hide behind the excuse that first posts can't be approved because of legal reasons doesn't cut it I'm afraid.


It makes no difference to "liability" whether a post is allowed to go live at the posting stage or is allowed to stand after posting by claiming the board isn't moderated.
Clearly the board is moderated otherwise postings wouldn't be able to be edited or removed by the forum team.


Moderators wouldn't have to "spot first posts" if they had to be approved before going live, they would automatically be brought to their attention.

custardy wrote: »

They mean moderate as to editing posts.
Covered in a thread with Martin. Their decision.
So they delete posts/threads rather than edit them.

Of course they edit them I've seen it happen loads of times .

prowla

Setting an automated rules for new posts (eg. no first posts outside of UK office hours, all posts must be in English, etc.) is not moderating.

moneyistooshorttomention

Another day and we had another spam attack earlier.

Going into "Mse probably doesn't give a damn" mode...

Angry_Bear

fierystormcloud wrote: »

This is not rocket science.

What MSE need to do is this... When a new person/newbie joins, they cannot post for 4-6 hours, and then limit them to 2 or 3 posts an hour for say 24 hours.

The problem with this suggestion is that it has an impact on genuine new users - especially the ones who are in desperate need of help.
Particularly on the "families" and "DFW" boards, people often join up when they have reached a crisis and desperately need advice/help. In this case, they really need to be able to post (and sometimes quite a few posts) a short time after signing up.