Spamming and Banning

So I'm sitting here thinking about this concept, I'm one of Sythes most active people in the Xbox Live forum (not that mods really care) but I haven't gotten any infractions since a while ago. Until yesterday and it was a point, so I'm at 4 points. Now I just have a suggestion because banning somone for 2 weeks makes no sense to me. I feel spamming is not a serious offense to be banned and have a different approach for this.

Say somone's getting "banned for spamming" I think it should be changed to instead of a ban, take the posting privliges away for the time, it makes more sense because it actually does something effective rather than a ban where people will go make a new account. There are some people like me on Sythe who actually do alot for the community e.g. donations, reporting scammers and such with a shop in the xbox forum, have a shop with a group of the most trusted and known in the forum. I believe a ban should be limited only to those being under serious offenses, not spamming. One spamming infraction here and there will get somone like me banned eventually.

 

I agree, posting permissions should be taken away, not banned, being banned doesn't really teach anything for Spamming, but the cause of the spamming, being able to post on topics, and these rights being taken away for the time, should be better.

Btw, ILY Matt.

 

I totally agree, spamming isn't something you should get banned for. People spam to get bigger post count, but post count don't show your trusted.

 

As much as we discourage it, post count makes people look trusted. I can't count how many reports I answer with "omg, this person scammed me and he's a forum addict!"

As a trading site, the majority of spammers have the wrong intentions, and bans are meant to be harsh to discourage them. The rules against spamming are pretty consistent; if you read them and know your way around the forum, the infractions are easy enough to avoid. By the time you wrack up enough in a month to earn a ban, it's usually deserved.

 

Sin, I haven't had a infraction for a while and just got one yesterday and got a point. So heres the deal, some people report spamming for no reason, like commmenting about something on topic like my last one stating to the OP. I'm not spamming for post counts either I post on threads trying to get accounts and such and sometimes people report me for no real intentions.

But as far as being fully banned from a site, hell I'm paying for the site, along with the fact that I think being banned fully for 2 weeks for builtup spam infractions is rediculous, you guys have scammers all over and ban evaders to worry about. So spamming built up like mine has for a long time should actually just lose my ability to post since it's not like I've been spamming everywhere like some people.

Heres a better example you have me posting in threads trying to buy and such I get a infract here and there....then you got the kid who goes in every thread and actually spams. There is a difference, I just don't think somone like me who's been keeping the Xbox forum afloat along with a few others can't have a reason to complain about spammin infracts.

And according to your logic that most spammers have bad inetions....so it's deserved.

So that means you guys believe since I've gotten a builtup infracts you want to cause me to leave because after 2 weeks whats the point to come back when I'm one of most well known people in the sales area. Heres another thing if infractions are expired they shouldn't continue to come back...they're expired and should wear away.

 

The rules can't be selectively applied. We can't order some people to follow the rules, and let others ignore them based on what we think their intentions are, or how much they've donated.

The infraction system is also fairly simple. It was decided that 5 infractions was enough for a temp ban, but users can build up infractions for anything - begging, posting sales without pictures, flaming, etc.

We can't say, "if so-and-so has 5 infractions for spamming, they get a 1 week ban, but if they have 2 for spamming and 3 for flaming, it should be 2 weeks, and if they have 1 for spamming and..."

You get the picture.

 

You guys can also make a rule in there at if you get spamming infractions built up can take away posting ability, instead of banning somone for 2 weeks. It makes 0 sense to me how rediculous it sounds actually banning somone for posting. When there are bigger issues on this site like certain mods and the fact the Xbox forum would be cleaner if mods would actually put in work there.

 

Changing the way that spam is dealt with would not change how much time we have to devote to modding it.

If you don't want users to be banned for spam, we'd have to set up a separate system to keep track of it; I assume you wouldn't want permissions to be removed after only one spam post. So, the change poses no improvement to the attention other sections receive - for that, you should just post a feedback thread of, "hey, get your asses in the xbox forum".

Although I have considered that two weeks may be overkill, 5 infractions is still a lot any way you split it, especially since mods don't catch every post that deserves an infraction.

 

I'm not stating this post is about mods getting in XBOX forum. But I'm just saying that's where everyone knows me. But what I suggest is not a 2 week ban, a seperate system that when you say ok ban this person for spam, it's just taking the ability to post away for a week or so. That's what I think should happen, and as you can see some others agree with me that banning somone for 2 weeks is overkill and pointless, because if you just mute the person. IT's more effective because you can read but can't post.

As far as 5 infractions......I believe they should disappear after a while because like I said I've gone what 3 months without an infraction after I started getting them I was fine and just got one yesterday first time in a while and it wasn't a warning it was a point. Isn't it if you have no other infractions at the time it's a warning and then your next with outstanding infractions is infraction not a warning. Plus when you guys temp ban somone for spamming it should say on the top spamming, because it can ruin peoples reps. or something of the matter under your name (Cannot Post) Spamming

 

A mute from all forums is no different than a ban, really. Users can still view the forum as a guest while they're temp-banned; they just can't post.

Infractions already 'go away'; they automatically expire after one month. Warnings have been removed entirely; when we changed the rules and moved from a system of 3 infractions to 5, it was decided that they were no longer necessary.

 

or maybe ban them from the forum, there most active in?

 

I think the way it is right now is great.

 

Not really, because they still count toward points that you get banned from having 5 total.

 

Why last infraction was on 01-03-2007. Why is it so hard to avoid infractions?

 

Cool story bro, i think you meant "My last infraction".
Anyways, some infractions are kind of hard to avoid, some things need to be said and for those things - you receieve an infraction.

Either way i don't care mine have all expired.

 

I personally think ban hammers on spam is way too harsh...

 

I don't, you reported me for spamming when in no way was I spamming. I warned someone that they were selling a $600 computer for $400 and you reported it a spamming. I think spamming should be more defined than it is because I didn't feel what I did was spam. Could it get a little more refined?

 

umm my suggestion may not help but it might help idk... maybe take jagex's approach of fagex which ever you choose but you quick chat in all fourms? like...

Wanting to buy:
How much:
Notes: (up to 200 characters)
MSN/AOL/ ANY OTHER IM'S:
_______________________________

Yes i know its basically entirely different from the quick chat from RS but maybe someone could fix my idea of **ck it.

 

Considering the fact that you get FIVE chances before your temp banned, AND you start back at five chances if you can make it a month without getting another point, I disagree, anyone dumb enough to keep making the same mistake deserves to be banned.

 

What I'm saying is that even though yes I have 4 points, expired except one and they were all back in April and before. So the way you people make it sound is that I won't get banned when I get 1 more point.

Mods need to clear it up....because I'm just confused at how some people say it.