Banned!

[Neil]

16 hours ago, marathonsteve said:

I have asked too be banned but haven’t. Wots  going on ere

you obviously don't share ip addresses with the trolls.

[Neil]

18 hours ago, gizmoman said:

 anyone can sign up and create a new topic straight away,

 

because when someone has gone to the trouble of signing up they might want to use the forums and ask a question, so the settings are set to allow them to use the forums.

 

18 hours ago, gizmoman said:

 

the content could be offensive or even illegal and it may not be removed for hours,

 

stuff is normally removed shortly after being reported.

 

18 hours ago, gizmoman said:

not an ideal situation. Most forums have measures in place to prevent new accounts being used in this way.

settings like that would prevent the forums being used by new users.

[incident]

Not sure if it's possible with the forum software, but would it be an option that posts from newly registered users can't contain any external links for the first say 10 posts / 48 hours or so?

[HyperTechnoHorse]

As of yesterday I can no longer access this forum using my mobile data.  I'm assuming (I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread...) that a set of IPs associated with my phone provider have been banned, resulting in this.  I've not posted since July, but I've been lurking almost daily.  Any chance that this can be fixed for me?  

 

[mike46]

53 minutes ago, HyperTechnoHorse said:

As of yesterday I can no longer access this forum using my mobile data.  I'm assuming (I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread...) that a set of IPs associated with my phone provider have been banned, resulting in this.  I've not posted since July, but I've been lurking almost daily.  Any chance that this can be fixed for me?  

 

Same thing happened to me - switched my phone on/off and it was fixed 🙂

[Neil]

2 hours ago, incident said:

Not sure if it's possible with the forum software, but would it be an option that posts from newly registered users can't contain any external links for the first say 10 posts / 48 hours or so?

there's a setting like that already activated from what i remember , its a case of balancing functionality against restrictions.

[EamerRed]

12 hours ago, tarw said:

Totally agree with all of your post by the way, apart from this.  
If you are talking about gold membership then you are not contributing financially to the site; you are paying to use the site without adds.  The fee merely covers the advertising income lost.

If you are talking about some people who have moaned about having helped out with a donation to buy a mobility scooter  then I think they should take a long hard look at their motivation.  If I decide to help someone out then I don’t expect them to be beholden to me! 

To be fair, a single user buying £18 gold membership will contribute far, far more money to the site than a single user seeing ads for a year. 

[Neil]

8 hours ago, gizmoman said:

As others have pointed out it is possible to have new users reply to existing posts and not be able to create new topics, it is possible to prevent new posters from posting links, it is possible to restrict new users in other ways without seriously impacting genuine users in accessing the forums.

i can't remember what settings there are, and i can't find them to check.

 

 

[Neil]

28 minutes ago, Neil said:

i can't remember what settings there are, and i can't find them to check.

 

 

i've just opened a support ticket  to help me find these settings.

[Alvoram]

On 11/16/2022 at 3:23 AM, EamerRed said:

Totally agree with all of your post by the way, except for this. Really don't think blocking wide swathes of IP bands, and capturing innocent users in the process, is 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Yeh ok, that's a fair cop. In Neil's defence those bans were 'reactive' rather than 'proactive,' he was addressing a problem with trolls. The problem is that other people get caught in the firing range when IP ranges are banned. But yes, your point is a valid one. 👍

[Alvoram]

3 hours ago, Neil said:

i've just opened a support ticket  to help me find these settings.

From memory there definitely used to be a setting that requires new users posts to be approved by admins before they appear live. You could set this to happen until a user has x amount of posts (I suggest 5 or 10.)

That is the most effective way to deal with both spam, and banned people who sign up under a new IP just to troll. 👍

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

From memory there definitely used to be a setting that requires new users posts to be approved by admins before they appear live. You could set this to happen until a user has x amount of posts (I suggest 5 or 10.)

That is the most effective way to deal with both spam, and banned people who sign up under a new IP just to troll. 👍

Should be implemented if possible.

Don't understand why it hasn't already.

[Alvoram]

@Neil

ACP -> Members -> Groups -> edit group -> Content tab -> Require approval before content shows?

ensure you have "Bypass content moderation" disabled

(According to google)

[Alvoram]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Should be implemented if possible.

Don't understand why it hasn't already.

It can be a huge workload, depending on the rate at which new members sign up. 

[Crazyfool01]

5 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Should be implemented if possible.

Don't understand why it hasn't already.

247 k members on efests ... id imagine its quicker to delete spam than to approve posts ... and people like to converse in real time ... 

[Alvoram]

1 minute ago, Crazyfool01 said:

247 k members on efests ... id imagine its quicker to delete spam than to approve posts ... and people like to converse in real time ... 

Setting it up right would only require approval for, say, the first 5 posts, from new members only... So total membership as it stands isn't a factor. 

It's the rate at which new members sign up and post that will determine how much additional workload there is. 

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, Alvoram said:

Setting it up right would only require approval for, say, the first 5 posts, from new members only... So total membership as it stands isn't a factor. 

It's the rate at which new members sign up and post that will determine how much additional workload there is. 

yeah absolutely i was just demonstrating the size of the site 

[HyperTechnoHorse]

So today I've had a period where I cannot access the site on my phone, and a period where I can.  Yesterday I couldn't access the site for about 6 hours.  

I understand wanting to ban spammers IP addresses.  But banning IP addresses that are for users on mobile networks is ridiculous.  It doesn't even resolve the issue, as demonstrated by the fact that my mobile data IP address changes through the day - which will be the same case for spammers as well.  

This is like banning anyone, forever, from living in a house which was once used as a cannabis farm. 

This just makes me less likely to use the site in the future, and certainly makes me completely unwilling to pay for membership. 

[Neil]

21 hours ago, Alvoram said:

@Neil

ACP -> Members -> Groups -> edit group -> Content tab -> Require approval before content shows?

ensure you have "Bypass content moderation" disabled

(According to google)

thanks have tweaked a few settings, mostly to allow fewer posts from a new account).

[HyperTechnoHorse]

Resurrecting this as once again I could not access efestivals all day today via mobile data.  I used efestivals heavily last festival to keep track of what was going on, and also to seek advice if I was facing issues.  If I'm not going to be able to do that this coming festival it would be a terrible shame and rather frustrating, especially when the issue is caused, in this instance, by luddism. 

 

 

[Freddyflintstonree]

3 minutes ago, HyperTechnoHorse said:

...especially when the issue is caused, in this instance, by luddism. 

 

 

Possibbbbbblyyy not the best step towards being unbanned 😂

[Neil]

6 hours ago, HyperTechnoHorse said:

n the issue is caused, in this instance, by luddism. 

the issue is caused by w*nkers who are convinced they're lovely people.

[Hugh Jass II]

Imagine the scene next year if the IP ban range covers Pilton and the surrounding area…

Edited November 27, 2022 by Hugh Jass II

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass II said:

Imagine the scene next year if the IP ban range covers Pilton and the surrounding area…

They won’t and don’t 

[Hugh Jass II]

4 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

They won’t and don’t 

But how can we be sure?