Vulptex has decided not to enforce bans on the spam accounts, but he will still ban me for rule violations. This is unacceptable selective enforcement of the rules

submitted by DrRaccoon from (self.SaidIt)

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Vulptex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I do enforce the rules. I remove every spam post when I see it.

Banning them does nothing. These are bots that have thousands of accounts, they don't care if they get one banned. It's like trying to ban Ed.

If it makes you feel any better, I often do ban spam accounts if I haven't seen that spammer before, or if the username is their product's name or company (so they lose that name). In fact that alt account of yours partly falls into the "spammer I haven't seen before" category.

If saidit had more tools, including some of the ones I implemented, I could use more effective strategies against the spam bots. Until that happens this is the best I can do.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I don't care, if you ban me, but not them, we are going to continue to have a problem

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

why not fuck off to your own website then

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

are they coming from an IP address that can be banned, or even a similar IP range?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ugh. Oh well. Thanks for doing what you can to keep the place tidy.

[–]thoughtcriminal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I don't ban the spam accounts either, it's pointless and it takes a lot longer than just clicking the spam button to remove them. There are hundreds of these accounts and they just make new ones. Vulptex and I and the other content admins are volunteers, we do it for free. We aren't always on to remove the spam immediately (the bulk of it comes in around 1-3am my time). User reports do help though, so thank you for those who report them.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Its a bit demoralizing to see a wall of 100 spam posts and realize that the accounts arent even being banned, yet a quick test of the rule violation response on an alt results in an immediate ban. Does not leave me with a good feeling about this place

[–]thoughtcriminal 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I understand where you're coming from, but ultimately they're different beasts. 20 posts about bone conducting headphones is annoying but it isn't going to get saidit taken down. Posting something graphic or inciteful might. I don't know the details of the current hosting arrangement but I know saidit has had issues with that in the past.

If you posted your rule violation test at 2am like the spam bots do it would probably stay up longer.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I fully expected it to get removed. The part that irked me was getting my account banned for a first violation while bone conductor is apparently free to continue spamming without even the slightest inconvenience.

[–]Vulptex 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

That account had nothing but porn and spam/troll posts on it. m7 has always banned accounts like that in the past so I'm going by that.

Now if someone posts porn, but they've also had genuine participation, that's different. If you posted it on this account I wouldn't have banned it right away.

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

What if I create 100 accounts and post just 1 porn each, like the bone conduction guy? Then youll stop banning me?

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I probably would ban the account if it was porn. That's much more serious than plain old spam. But it's not because of you.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure why it is. Neither is illegal, both are against the rules. The fact those bone conduction posts are coming in a wall of 100 is a much bigger problem than the posts themselves from a user experience standpoint

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

It's because porn carries potential legal complications in certain situations. The owner doesn't want to deal with that, while a corporate giant like Reddit Inc. can handle it (even still only in most cases, and they're trying to get rid of it too, like several other sites).

Spam, while annoying, typically can't get saidit in any legal trouble.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But it's not because of you.

I understand this, but still, you have essentially said that a harsher set of rules applies to me (or any real user) than the spammers abusing this site. I understand why you have made this decision for practical purposes, but on principle this will never sit right with me, and yes I take it personally if this will continue to be your stance that I am subject to punishments that spammers are not

[–]Vulptex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

If you ran a spam ring it would get the same treatment. If the spammers posted porn it would get the same treatment. It's a difference of offenses, not persons.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Understood, still not thrilled with this, but I can live with that justification. What really set me off was the perception of being subject to unequal selective enforcement

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

Also, are you implying that if I create 100 bot accounts that post just 1 porn each, ala the bone conduction guy, that you will give me a pass and not ban me because its too much work? How would you feel about me testing this out?

[–]snapperS 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you posted your rule violation test at 2am like the spam bots do it would probably stay up longer.

i know.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[removed]

    [–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    You were banned for repeatedly advocating violence.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [removed]

      [–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      I target you when I see you advocating violence.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [removed]

        [–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I'd be banning a lot more people if that were the case. A LOT more.

        And isn't silencing a form of fighting?

        [–]Gaslov 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Oh my God dude. Let it go and move on. It's not like you were banned for having the wrong opinion.

        [–]sneako 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Down with vulptex!