Vulptex is a tranny faggot

submitted by DrRaccoon from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Refusing to ban the accounts of the bone conduction spammer, yet happily banning other users for different rule violations is not doing a good job

[–]Drewski 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I don't know about refusing to ban the accounts, they're constantly making new ones. Either way it's a false equivalence.

[–]Vulptex 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I also made a ton of extra anti-spam tools: https://github.com/CrystalVulpine/saidit/commits/master

It's not my fault that none of them have been applied yet.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No, it is not a false equivalence. It is not acceptable to selectively enforce the rules and have no consequences for users with 100's of spam posts, but then choose to ban me

[–]Vulptex 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

They have nothing to lose by getting those accounts banned. In fact many of them just make one post on an account and hop to the next one.

It's not so much that there's "no consequences" as "this is the best way to deal with the problem".

[–]Drewski 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Perhaps, but it couldn't hurt to ban them either though right? I see some spammers post something, then log in a month later to keep spamming.

[–]Vulptex 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Saidit's ban system is really messed up right now. When you try to ban an account you have like a 4 in 5 chance of getting a 500 error, which then breaks saidit for a minute, and then the ban doesn't apply until you successfully ban or unban someone else.

Besides, it's not like I don't ban spammers. But if it's a spammer I've banned a hundred times before, and its username is no loss, it's not worth it.

I implemented a bunch of extra spam tools, which could be used to deal with this problem much more effectively. If the owner doesn't apply them it's not my fault.

[–]Drewski 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Do you have any evidence that the rules are being selectively enforced?

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He admits it, read his comments in this post, he doesnt deny it

[–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

that's not how admissions work