You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
6

[–] KingoftheMolePeople 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Notice how you've said "if the restrictions are refuted" -- well who refutes them?

What I meant was that if I get tagged as spam, I refute that I am spamming. The team then needs to verify what is true. But other than that yeah.

My idea just shifted the work from being done pre restrictions (as now) to post restrictions. Now, the Reportspammers look and verify and ban the spammer, mine is verified after auto restrictions.

0
8

[–] 10246781 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'm just trying to propose a method that never restricts anyone unless they are actually a spammer. Restricting them after spam reports have been confirmed seems the most reasonable to me.

0
5

[–] KingoftheMolePeople 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah I agree. Maybe if the button just sent the report to Reportthespammers and we didnt have to make a post in that sub. Maybe it would mail the mods of that sub.

edit. I think the button should auto generate a post in v/reportthespammers. Using the permalink url and username of the reported spammer. That way it remains a publicly viewable repository of all reports. Mail isnt public.

0
4

[–] sakuramboo 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

And if the reports come from throwaway/alt accounts, what's the real punishment for the brigaders?

0
4

[–] KingoftheMolePeople 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think Peaceseeker solved this by tweaking my/his idea and having Reportthespammers verify that something is spam before any actions are taken. And if alts are used and it becomes a real problem Putt can (and has used) the tools to look for alt abuse. I think if someone is abusing the antispam system to brigade they should be site banned.

In the end any system we create will be gameable. There will always be a way and people who take advantage of the cracks w/in that system.