Change to News, Politics & Economics posting rights

[deckster]

edgyedgy said:

500 posts over 12 months is far more reasonable imo than 1000. Lot of posters happy to pull up the drawbridge so long as it doesn’t impact themselves I see along with lots of the expected “not a departure lounge” “don’t let the door hit you” comments too.

I happen to agree with you, but "pulling up the drawbridge"? Get over yourself. Nobody's banning or pulling up anything. If it matters that much to you then go post some drivel in random threads like the rest of us do.

[Seventy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I find it very easy to spot returning banned members.

They’re usually straight into arguing and multi quoting on NP&E/football etc.

I must say there is nothing quite so sad (forums wise) as a multi returning bannee.

[Johnnytheboy]

Catweazle said:

edgyedgy said:

500 posts over 12 months is far more reasonable imo than 1000. Lot of posters happy to pull up the drawbridge so long as it doesn’t impact themselves I see along with lots of the expected “not a departure lounge” “don’t let the door hit you” comments too.

I think this is a better compromise.

So do I.

[anonymous-user]

edgyedgy said:

500 posts over 12 months is far more reasonable imo than 1000. Lot of posters happy to pull up the drawbridge so long as it doesn’t impact themselves I see along with lots of the expected “not a departure lounge” “don’t let the door hit you” comments too.

OK, if we’re pulling up the drawbridge on you, you’re pulling up the drawbridge on the posters under 250 posts. You’re happy with 500 as you’re almost there.

[anonymous-user]

Johnnytheboy said:

Catweazle said:

edgyedgy said:

500 posts over 12 months is far more reasonable imo than 1000. Lot of posters happy to pull up the drawbridge so long as it doesn’t impact themselves I see along with lots of the expected “not a departure lounge” “don’t let the door hit you” comments too.

I think this is a better compromise.

So do I.

Is the rule up for consultation and negotiation though? I wasn’t aware that it is.

If it were, and 500 won the day, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would then be a raft of sub-500 post posters arguing that a better compromise would be 250 posts. And so on.

Better IMO to implement this, hopefully drive some PH traffic into the other forums, and see how it all plays out.

[fatbutt]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Jim H]

Hmmmm? ^^

What about 500 posts over 165 months? (13.5 years).

I guess I’ve been a bit tardy..

I can see both sides of the argument, it must be a pain for the Mods, and additionally a great deal of the long-established members obviously feel it should have come sooner.

Still, it’s not exactly the end of the world is it?
The lighter evenings are here now - time to get out of the house and enjoy them!

[HM-2]

F20CN16 said:

edgyedgy said:

500 posts over 12 months is far more reasonable imo than 1000. Lot of posters happy to pull up the drawbridge so long as it doesn’t impact themselves I see along with lots of the expected “not a departure lounge” “don’t let the door hit you” comments too.

OK, if we’re pulling up the drawbridge on you, you’re pulling up the drawbridge on the posters under 250 posts. You’re happy with 500 as you’re almost there.

I don't actually think the post limit is necessary at all. If we're transparent about the actual issue- multiple returning banned members whose sole intent is to troll particular threads- then time limits alone offer enough deterrence. You could quite feasible purge non active accounts every 30/60/90 days so they'd have to actively contribute elsewhere in the forum anyway if they wanted to return.

[anonymous-user]

HM-2 said:

I don't actually think the post limit is necessary at all. If we're transparent about the actual issue- multiple returning banned members whose sole intent is to troll particular threads- then time limits alone offer enough deterrence. You could quite feasible purge non active accounts every 30/60/90 days so they'd have to actively contribute elsewhere in the forum anyway if they wanted to return.

I suppose it is a bit of a 'belt and braces' approach.

It's basically saying, if you join only to argue in NP&E threads, then PH doesn't want you. First, you have to prove you can be civil discussing cars and motoring topics. Their gaff, their rules.

[MDMA .]

While you’re at it, can you also ban posters who quote themselves in NP&E? I think you know who I mean.

[Catweazle]

HM-2 said:

I don't actually think the post limit is necessary at all. If we're transparent about the actual issue- multiple returning banned members whose sole intent is to troll particular threads- then time limits alone offer enough deterrence. You could quite feasible purge non active accounts every 30/60/90 days so they'd have to actively contribute elsewhere in the forum anyway if they wanted to return.

I'm sure that the post limit is to stop the sleeper accounts.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

HM-2 said:

I don't actually think the post limit is necessary at all. If we're transparent about the actual issue- multiple returning banned members whose sole intent is to troll particular threads- then time limits alone offer enough deterrence. You could quite feasible purge non active accounts every 30/60/90 days so they'd have to actively contribute elsewhere in the forum anyway if they wanted to return.

Whatever rule you come up with, you can be sure that a Puppeteer will find a way to circumvent it.

I've had issues with a sock puppeteer on another platform who keeps contacting me with accounts that are 8-9 years old. Currently there are at least 6 puppets that I know of. I block them as they occur but sometimes it feels like whack-a-mole.

So I don't think that simply the age of the account is enough, as a serial banee will probably have a whole pool of previously-created dormant accounts and can just select another. On a different IP address courtesy of a VPN, obviously.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 21st April 19:05

[anonymous-user]

MDMA . said:

While you’re at it, can you also ban posters who quote themselves in NP&E? I think you know who I mean.

While we are at it, I would also add, permanently ban those who:

a) Bump their own NP&E threads every so often, to stop them dying, and to keep pushing the same point.
b) Those who repeatedly spout misleading and potentially dangerous information.

See the 'Vaxinjured' thread for examples.

I'm genuinely amazed that PH allows much of it remain. Some of it is beyond discussion and way into crackpot and seriously misleading from a public health point of view.

To be honest, I'm not even sure why I'm bothered. I promised myself I would stay away from NP&E after the way it's gone these last few years, and mostly I've managed it. Would be nice to have a bit of discussion in there again I suppose.

[limpsfield]

Lord Marylebone said:

See the 'Vaxinjured' thread for examples.

I'm genuinely amazed that PH allows much of it remain. Some of it is beyond discussion and way into crackpot and seriously misleading from a public health point of view.

YoU’rE jUsT a toOL of ThE Msm MAn!!11!!

I agree with this change. It’s not perfect, but the NPE fruitloop quota has been too high for years.

As a massive Libtard, I would say that of course.

Wwg1wga

[HM-2]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Whatever rule you come up with, you can be sure that a Puppeteer will find a way to circumvent it.

I've had issues with a sock puppeteer on another platform who keeps contacting me with accounts that are 8-9 years old. Currently there are at least 6 puppets that I know of. I block them as they occur but sometimes it feels like whack-a-mole.

So I don't think that simply the age of the account is enough, as a serial banee will probably have a whole pool of previously-created dormant accounts and can just select another. On a different IP address courtesy of a VPN, obviously.

All very valid points, but it massively increases the levels of effort required and opportunity for detection. Detecting reuse across a pool of dormant accounts based on readily available data points- IP address crossover, hashed password value, etc- isn't exactly hard and I cannot for one moment believe many of these persistent trolls have anything close to enough awareness of their own behaviour to actively evade detection.

[Captain Raymond Holt]

Lord Marylebone said:

MDMA . said:

While you’re at it, can you also ban posters who quote themselves in NP&E? I think you know who I mean.

While we are at it, I would also add, permanently ban those who:

a) Bump their own NP&E threads every so often, to stop them dying, and to keep pushing the same point.
b) Those who repeatedly spout misleading and potentially dangerous information.

See the 'Vaxinjured' thread for examples.

I'm genuinely amazed that PH allows much of it remain. Some of it is beyond discussion and way into crackpot and seriously misleading from a public health point of view.

To be honest, I'm not even sure why I'm bothered. I promised myself I would stay away from NP&E after the way it's gone these last few years, and mostly I've managed it. Would be nice to have a bit of discussion in there again I suppose.

Some of it is funny and tragic in equal measure - quite why people feel the need to argue via thousands of posts from a position where others (easily) show theyre talking garbage, I suppose it speaks volumes about the mentalists! Odd particularly when some use an established account with a pretty standard post history to go off the rails - makes you view their other posts is a certain light!

They should take a leaf out of my book when it comes to getting a high(ish) post count…

[edgyedgy]

F20CN16 said:

OK, if we’re pulling up the drawbridge on you, you’re pulling up the drawbridge on the posters under 250 posts. You’re happy with 500 as you’re almost there.

A fair point made and acknowledged.

[williamp]

limpsfield said:

Lord Marylebone said:

See the 'Vaxinjured' thread for examples.

I'm genuinely amazed that PH allows much of it remain. Some of it is beyond discussion and way into crackpot and seriously misleading from a public health point of view.

YoU’rE jUsT a toOL of ThE Msm MAn!!11!!

I agree with this change. It’s not perfect, but the NPE fruitloop quota has been too high for years.

As a massive Libtard, I would say that of course.

Wwg1wga

Yeah I agree. Not perfect, but this is first and foremost a motoring forum. There are some unusual views on the np&e threads. Although having said that, I was banned from one of the np&e threads once. Oh the shame. I still feel dirty...

[rigga]

MDMA . said:

While you’re at it, can you also ban posters who quote themselves in NP&E? I think you know who I mean.

And those who put the forum name after their post as a signature.


Or just a letter.

[RanchoGrande]

B235r said:

Well that another reason not to bother with this place

Blocking what people can & can't comment on, the internet is getting smaller by the day

Yup, it's happening all over. Don't buy into the majority argument? Not welcome. Question the narrative pushed by the high post lords? Banned. Same goes on Reddit...you can get banned from subs just by following another sub with an alternative view point. Sad really as there are probably 100s of members on PH that have accounts for years who just post here and there and don't cause any issues. Its NPE now, which section next?