Simple suggestion.

In the rules, it states that you are responsible for your msn account. However, nowhere in the rules does it state that you are responsible for your I.P address. Another thing that bothers me is this.

- A user who receives 5 infractions will receive a temporary 14 day ban.
- A user who receives 7 infractions will receive a temporary 1 month ban.

On a technicality, a user could spam on one account, gain four infractions, make a new account, spam, get four infractions, make a new account, repeat.

Spamming laws were put in to prevent users getting unnecessary trust. However, by the end of a month, a user can get ten accounts with around 200 posts, with 40 infractions between them. A bit radical, I know, but i theory, it works.

My suggestions is to replace that text with:
- An I.P that receives 5 infractions will have all accounts receive a temporary 14 day ban.
- An I.P that receives 7 infractions will have all accounts receive a temporary receive a temporary 1 month ban.

Hope that makes sense

 

Seems reasonable enough...Should stop people like Bobby spamming shit on the Spam Forums. Support.

 

Well, if a user gets banned for 14 days, or 1 month, and makes a new account and starts spamming on that account, he is ban evading, meaning he will be permanently banned anyway.

Also, if you are refering to these people that keep advertising their shit, IP'ing them isn't going to stop them. They simply use a proxy.

 

What if he gets four infractions on one account, makes a new one and gets a further four infractions. He has a total of 8 infractions spread over two accounts, yet neither account has 5 infractions, none will be banned under current rules.

Also, as to why the I.P address rule applies, it negates "my brother did it" within the rules.

 

I see where you are coming from, makes sense now.

 

Support. Great logical idea that should def be implemented.

 

I'll support it; there has been an outbreak of new assholes coming to spam lately.

 

So can this be implemented?

 

Its really complicated.

 

I support but just keep 5 infractions > 1 month, you shouldn't just not spam.
but i agree, else they make new accs etc.

 

How so SuF?

 

Support hate these spammers whit sharecash etc we need less of tehm and more real posters!

 

I was thinking this too, however it may be hard to keep a track, since people could use proxies. But the majority wouldn't know how, so it would keep the limit down. Support.

 

Staff would have to continually check the different accounts, etc...it's a lot of work...

 

WhaT about the people who have dynamic ips? My ip changes everytime i log out, and most of the time my entire ip changes.

So what about those people? This would be useless to them.

 

Good idea, to keep away the spammers ect.

 

It will at least stop some people.

 

I can partially support, either way, people have dynamic Ip's and can easily change there ip, so that won't help us much m8. Unless they get Host banned from the forums.

 

Guys, this is just theoretical. The chances of someone being caught are slim, however if they are caught you have power within the rules to infract them.

You could also just * the word user and at the bottom have something like:

User includes accounts and I.P addresses.

Just sayin.