Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dragnar]

Having someone who should actually know about this sort of thing (which I assume is a requirement for being a moderator)

Actually, on this forum the requirement for being a moderator is "being Toady One or his brother" and I don't see why they would be any more sure he was a spambot that we are.

That said, two of his three posts being deleted is pretty suspicious. Still, if he is a spambot he's the most pathetic one ever.

[Criptfeind]

If I got that right, you are willing to concede that while the user account itself was legit, two of its posts were automated spam? Makes perfect sense.

No no no, as in if they were wildly off topic than he would be a spam bot.

Having someone who should actually know about this sort of thing (which I assume is a requirement for being a moderator) look at this guy should help end this argument.

Right. There are only two moderators here, not to disparage them but they do not have at lot of time and some bans are based upon "he was reported" rather then "He did bad stuff." Now it is true he may be a spam bot but it does not seem so obvious and I would not wish for someone to get banned from a site for saying hello.

[Karnewarrior]

Whatever happened to Sadbot, from the Happy Thread? Or was it the Sad Thread...

[ToonyMan]

Why were his two other posts deleted?  They didn't look wrong at all, just a little broken English.

[assimilateur]

I thought Footkerchief was also a mod. Regardless of which, I assume they have more experience with this shit than most of us, and certainly more than Criptfeind, to whom I mean no offense, so I'm willing to trust their judgment.

Besides, this isn't technically about him being a spambot per se. He's got a couple of links in his sig, out of which at least one leads to a commercial site; that makes him an advertiser no matter which way you twist it. I fully expect the forum owners, and by extension any moderators who might be acting on their behalf, to have a problem with this.

No no no, as in if they were wildly off topic than he would be a spam bot.

I've seen spammers before who posted something seemingly on topic which was vague and incoherent, which is exactly what I remember the accused poster's deleted contribution to have been. It's a shame I didn't take screen caps, so now you have to either take or dismiss my word for it.

[darkrider2]

Wow, I cannot believe anyone could make such a big deal out of this. If he is a spammer/spambot than he will post some spam, then just deal with that bridge when we get to it. No reason to start lengthy, thread-derailing arguments over it.

[assimilateur]

No reason to start lengthy, thread-derailing arguments over it.

Normally I'd agree, but in this thread there was nothing to derail.

[Criptfeind]

I do take offense, quite hardily I might add. What makes you believe that you are inherently better at finding spammers than me? I have never denied that he may be a spam bot. I have only asserted that he seems to be doing no real harm and it would be a great injustice to lash out at him if he was not.

Have you even thought, ever, that he may have a valid reasons to have those links in his sig? Quick! Toonyman is a advertiser because he has (had) links in his sig to a place that sells things! Run him out of the forums with no proof and without letting him explain himself! Besides he is not a true Scotsman.

I've seen spammers before who posted something seemingly on topic which was vague and incoherent, which is exactly what I remember the accused poster's deleted contribution to have been. It's a shame I didn't take screen caps, so now you have to either take or dismiss my word for it.

and I have seen many first time posters posting small inconsequential things because they are slightly scared of making a bad first impression. Obviously that is not like you but some people feel differently.

[assimilateur]

I do take offense, quite hardily I might add. What makes you believe that you are inherently better at finding spammers than me?

I said nothing about "inherently" doing or knowing anything, or being better or whatnot. It's just your refusal to acknowledge the fact that a poster who's advertising in his sig and otherwise posting gibberish is an advertiser that makes me skeptical about your judgment in this case. I have already conceded that he is in all likelihood not a spambot in the literal sense, but merely a "human" spammer/advertiser.

You are taking this too personally.

[Criptfeind]

The fact is no one seemed to care at all until you came in and started screaming about how we are crazy and a spam bot was spamming us.

Why you are completely unable to even consider that he has a reason for the link I do not know.

I take it personally because there is no proof to your accusations and you refuse to consider the negative.

[ToonyMan]

[Criptfeind]

Fine fine fine.

[assimilateur]

The fact is no one seemed to care at all until you came in

I'm pedantic like that.

and started screaming about how we are crazy and a spam bot was spamming us.

The fact that you ascribe a raising of my voice ("screaming") to my posts when I never even used so much as an exclamation mark suggests that you need to chill the hell out.

Perhaps my phrasing was somewhat unfortunate or over the top (calling this forum crazy), but I stand by my original implied message. That is, that this forum might use a couple more mods, and the regular users a bit more critical thinking, if a spammer gets welcomed without anyone noticing him for who he is.

EDIT: I direct your attention once again to this thread's original post. Do you notice something different?

[ToonyMan]

Don't fall to the dark side Criptfeind!  You have self will, you can control what is right!

[Phantom]

This is devolving heavily.
Someone call ToeThree I mean ThreeToe.