This guy showed up and posted 20 lol's in 20 threads. I then noticed he was creating a thread in free thoughts. I immediately figured he was our handbag salesman. So, I started giving him infractions for meaningless post content to stop him.

Well, he got one thread in before I could ban him. I saw that the thread wasn't about handbags but about ufo's and conspiracy stuff. I had thought to quit the infraction spree because it wasn't advertising like I thought, but I checked his profile and he was creating another thread in World Events.
I figure he was about to post a thread with links to the same web sites about Ufo's and whatever.

So, I finished up my infraction spree and banned him.

http://www.sciforums.com/member.php?u=25961

I've informed Spurious of the cleanup needed in his forum.
I've not informed Absane or Vslayer about the thread in their forum, it has some limited content so is up to their discretion. If they allow it to stay, I'll delete my posts in the thread.

I must say that it was a pain in the ass going through all this to beat a spammer to the punch. But, it was a tad exciting. A race to the finish line.

Does anyone think I overstepped my authority in making this call?


Edit:
Apparently Absane decided that the thread was spam. It's been deleted.
Now only his 20 lol's remain.

I deleted the thread because I figured he joined just to advertise his website. If he wanted to start a serious dicussion, he would not have spammed SF.

That's what I thought.
I mean, how hard is it to come up with 20 posts that are better than 'lol'?

I've just come online. I'll take a look at his posts, clean up as necessary, and consider a ban if it is warranted. Stay tuned.

Sexy Joe is permanently banned. Clearly a troll.

I wonder if invert "stepped over the line" with all the infractions. I thought it was justified.

That was my original thought when I started this thread.
It's fairly obvious that the guy was a troll. Or, rather, a spammer.
The 20 lol's followed by thread creation was enough to determine that.

But, are the actions I took acceptable to the users of this forum?

I don't like this infraction business, but I used it as my only recourse to deal with a spammer.

And it felt good....

I wonder if invert "stepped over the line" with all the infractions.
no.

But, are the actions I took acceptable to the users of this forum?

yes, as far as i'm concerned.

Normally I only report spam - but do not give infractions - and then let the mods/adms decide what to do - if everybody gives infractions , you might end up with 1000 infractions for one post ......

if everybody gives infractions , you might end up with 1000 infractions for one post ......

No, only one infraction can be given per post. However, this does not stop users from giving infractions to other posts.

No, only one infraction can be given per post.

Oh - I didn´t know that ....
A Happy New Year to you Absane .... I am leaving now , but will be back next year ... :m:

So, I started giving him infractions for meaningless post content to stop him.

I don't understand: if a mod wants to ban someone, applying infractions is the new modus operandi?

Not all mods can ban. But perhaps this get around that...........??????

I don't understand: if a mod wants to ban someone, applying infractions is the new modus operandi?
Of course it is. It's the new Shop-A-Neighbour policy, a la Germany, 1933. The only difference is that this is a misguided democratic initiative, not deliberate oppression. The atmosphere of fear, suspicion and panic generated is much the same though (minus the shop-burning).

But.. I wish you'd stop going on about it. You mention it in every post. It won't last. We beat them then, and we'll beat them again. Vive la Résistance. Stop being such a pathetic whiner.

I don't understand: if a mod wants to ban someone, applying infractions is the new modus operandi?

It can be.
So far, only two people have been banned by infractions...
err. Excuse me... "suspended" by infractions.

Metakron.
And now Sexy Joe.

I have already spoken against Metakron's banning and succeeded in getting one of his infractions reversed thus ending his banning after only one day.
I still think that the other infractions were unwarranted. That, at most, one infraction should have resulted from a mini-rant that he went on. (Although, personally, I have no issues with rants and reasonable insults and don't feel that he should have even had a single infraction for his tirade.)

Now, Sexy Joe is a completely different matter.
He was clearly a spammer.
He signed up and proceeded to post "lol" in 20 threads so as to achieve the ability to post a link. As soon as he gained this ability, he proceeded to create threads.

Now. After reading his first thread, I was inclined to let him go as it wasn't really the "buy this handbag" kind of spam that I had thought it might be. It was, instead, just a couple of links to a ufo site and invitation to talk about ufo stuff.

Of course, this is basically spam as it invites the user to some other place to discuss rather than discussing it here. But, whatever.

Anyway. As I said, I then checked his profile and saw he was creating another thread. I had little doubt that he was preparing to spam the forums with threads with links to his ufo site and that was his sole purpose here.

So, I decided to finish up my infraction spree and ban him.

So. I took the power of supermoderator and/or admin upon myself using infractions.

This is a rather open/shut case regarding Sexy Joe, but the difficulties lie in more ambiguous cases.
Hence, this thread.


Edit:
Heh.
Sexy Joe is on right now.
Sending "forum feedback".
Maybe he thinks I acted inappropriately?
The idiot didn't need to spam the forum to post his thread. The only thing he gained from the spam is the ability to post a link. He could have posted the link without the http and asked people to copy-paste it into the browser.
Of course, his threads still would have been deleted as spam.

I have no difficulty about Sexy Joe. He was just completely meaningless. I'm always in favor of giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone who tries to make some kind of statement. Some people aren't.

And, note that the infractions were "meaningless post content" (except for one mistaken "improper language"), only worth 3 points. I could have chosen "spammed advertisements" as it was apparent that this is what he was getting ready for. But, he wasn't advertising yet.
I could have banned him with 5 spam infractions. Instead of 7 trolls.

Why is he that he was banned almost immediately but sderenzi wasn't and Baron Max hasn't? After all, whose picture do you see when you look up "troll"?

If we want to talk about useless posts (in your parlance, "meaningless post content", I could easily find many 'prominent' people who SHOULD be banned for being trolls.

Sderenzi actually wrote stuff.

He posted in 20 threads.
One word.
"Lol"

Then he started making spam threads.
You can't equate this with Baron Max and/or Sderenzi. They are hated for whatever reasons, but they are not spammers.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61644

Just like this guy isn't, eh?

I don't think I called Baron Max and/or sderenzi spammers though:

If we want to talk about useless posts (in your parlance, "meaningless post content", ...

Maybe you can just state what you mean by that phrase. (So we can have a nice, rigid dichotomy. ;))

agh! after all you are still only huemon.

Has a touch more content than:

lol

Also, if you search the guy's post history you don't see an endless list of:

lol

You can judge his content stupid or inane all you like. But Sexy Joe is open and shut.

I don't think I called Baron Max and/or sderenzi spammers though:]

No. But I called Sexy Joe a spammer, but drew attention to the fact that he was a spammer in waiting.
That is, the infraction for spam is 'spammed advertisements' which is another sort of spam than 'meaningless post content'.
I couldn't charge him with advertising as that isn't what he was doing.
Yet.

And no matter what you call Baron Max and Sderenzi, their post history shows something more significant than:

lol


And, hell, you're more than free to go around handing out infractions all you like.
Lots of people are.
I've been reversing quite a few of them as I come across them because they're ridiculous.

So far, nothing has been done to abusers of the infraction system.
There's not even a way to find out who is handing out infractions and who is receiving them other than to bump into them in vivo.

agh! after all you are still only huemon.
Has a touch more content than:
lol


I fail to see more than a superficial distinction.

I just found out about the infraction system but I can't care much for it because if I find something wonderfully inspiring like what Sexy Joe wrote, I scan through a few posts and then get out before my brain turns to sludge. But the fact that trolls can be ignored doesn't mean they should be encouraged by way of silence (history speaks to this).

I'd still like to hear what you meant by "meaningless post content", however. And/or what you mean by a "significant" post history, because I've seen much to the contrary. After all, you are trying to be kindly by asking our opinions so it is but all the more gentlemanly of you to clarify your meaning.
.

Stop being such a pathetic whiner (sic)

That was before your pathetic new system was fully rationalized to include its somewhat predatory nature before completely shoving people in the oven.

That was before your pathetic new system was fully rationalized to include its somewhat predatory nature before completely shoving people in the oven.
I've read that sentence 10 times now and I still haven't the foggiest what you're blithering on about. You win my vote for the most unnecessarily periphrastic person on Sciforums (actually, you've held this award for some considerable time..).
your pathetic new system [sic]
My pathetic new system?

Infractions are good, it's a way of self policing the forums and only idiots would abuse them, I've handed out a couple myself and they deserved it.

Infractions are good, it's a way of self policing the forums and only idiots would abuse them, I've handed out a couple myself and they deserved it.

yup. this place sure smells of america.

I've read that sentence 10 times now and I still haven't the foggiest what you're blithering on about. You win my vote for the most unnecessarily periphrastic person on Sciforums (actually, you've held this award for some considerable time..).

My pathetic new system?

a consensus for lil' ol' me? how touching. nice to know i can stand out from the mob without really trying.

now, who, i wonder, was the rabble-rouser so that i can slap 'em with an infraction!

lol

And it felt good....

oh?
yeah?

as good as butt sex?
like the time you and i.......