Okay, about trolls

[jno]

Most of today's unusually large and offensive supply have been suspended as soon as they hit the ground, either by moderators or by robots that have detected overposting. However, their posts remain visible, clearly annoying many people, including me. So my suggestion is that when a poster is suspended - by mods or robots - all his posts should automatically vanish. The Ed can of course restore them any time he sees fit. But my guess is that if their posts swiftly disappeared, they'd soon lose interest in posting them and go back to playing Tetris.

Your humble servant
jno

[NazNomad]

How about prevention rather than cure?

http://www.phoneconfirm.com/

[dotty.]

for a matching set of platinum drinks coasters i would upgrade to being able to zap aswell as report and suspend

[welshlibranr]

I agree with Naz, prevention is best!............

[boxtops]

I think it's a brilliant idea, jno!

Naz, I thought that was just for shopping? - I've had that happen, an auto phone confirmation of an on-line transaction.

[jno]

my Plan B involved issuing mods with Kalashnikovs (and changing their name from 'moderators' to 'immoderators', or possibly even 'cold-eyed killers').

Naz, I'm all for prevention but does that actually stop anyone posting, or just identify them?

[bibblebub]

If there are moderators on the site most, if not all, of the time then have the 1st 10 postings by a new user go onto a pending list that only a moderator can view, and if a posting is ok'd then it gets moved to the topic thread for everyone to see. This would also deal with the situation where a troll has created a marker profile that they intend using a few weeks later.

If each of those 10 postings is ok but they have been sent in a relatively short period of time or provide another reason for suspicion then there is the opportunity to at least delay them appearing to the public, a delay which might put some of the trolls off.

If a troll is still here after all that then at least they will have had to post 10 nice things before becoming nasty.

[jno]

I see an Ed has come on duty and removed the rubbish. Excellent. But I'd still prefer it to vanish instantly, even if an Ed is not around.

[NazNomad]

jno, it would mean confirmation of a valid phone number (like a captcha) before they could even join here ... like I say, prevention.

Cut out the cancer before it grows.

[boxtops]

bibble, I love your outfit!

[Prudie]

Yonks ago I suggested a £5 subscription fee. It was not received well by ABers (and I'm sure this is still the case) but would help stop this kind of stuff IMO

[boxtops]

Yeah, I remember that suggestion prudie, I thought it was OK. £5 to register a new name, not a bad idea.

[jno]

Naz, so it would stop people using the same phone number with more than one username? (That might be tricky for those people whose spouses are also ABers, though I don't suppose there are many.)

[Barmaid]

Naz's idea is brilliant. Quite simple. You register and your "registration code" is sent to your mobile. If the same number is given more than once there is an automatic block. Only problem I foresee is that it would go against those who do not have a mobile. and I don't know what percentage of site users don't.

[jno]

well, I don't have a mobile. 31,526 answers down the pan... and several of them were correct, too.

[NazNomad]

You can use any valid phone ... mobile or landline.

That would limit most people to two, or three, accounts at most.

Mobile / Landline / Voip

[starone]

I don't jno, but I think I am probably in the minority in that I don't need one. I am home most of the time so a land line is sufficient.

[jno]

presumably, for the likes of those who both use the same phone number, it could simply be calibrated to allow two accounts per number instead of one? That should still decrease the troll count to somewhere near zero.

[NazNomad]

I fear it's too easy for the Ed to implement ... An unfortunate, but alas, realistic outlook on the whole proceedings.

Probalby a complete waste of a good idea, IMO