Moderators or Spam Police Out Of Control?

[BazookaTime]

Wasn't me. Although I have banned the piss out of those "watch soccer here" type threads.

[Sanuku]

Looks like it was no one from the Spam Police...

[psj3809]

Can someone ban the latest football spammer ?

pobna587 - 34 threads already

[backtothis]

Originally Posted by psj3809

Can someone ban the latest football spammer ?

pobna587 - 34 threads already

Just did before you posted. 35 threads actually xP.

[psj3809]

Thanks ! He did well spamming, 35 threads in the space of 10 minutes or so ! Most do a few and leave it.

Is there any chance putting that website (avufo) in the banned words list so it wont appear ? Thats the site (i wont put the full address) that lots of 'clever' spammers use, they post and keep an invisible link to that address.

If avufo was in the banned words list it wont be picked up by Google etc

[mobile1up]

Originally Posted by psj3809

Thanks ! He did well spamming, 35 threads in the space of 10 minutes or so ! Most do a few and leave it.

Is there any chance putting that website (avufo) in the banned words list so it wont appear ? Thats the site (i wont put the full address) that lots of 'clever' spammers use, they post and keep an invisible link to that address.

If avufo was in the banned words list it wont be picked up by Google etc

he's back 3 threads posted in iPad forum.

[MrAlbum]

Well, my take on this issue actually stems from a dilemma common in law enforcement. Give me a sec, and I'll try to explain:

So let's say that you are a police officer. During your rounds you see three people acting suspiciously. What do you do? Two possibilities in no particular order:

1. Accost them and see how they respond.

This is a defensive response, and actually is a result of a criminology theory, I think. The idea is this: by "double-checking" suspicious people, it makes those people aware that authorities do pay attention. Thus, they would, theoretically, be less likely to do crime. This will also drive up the number of arrests, since if a person acts suspiciously enough, officers do have the authority to detain them until they can determine if said person is a "bad/good guy".

The obvious downside to this is that innocents may get unfairly arrested at a far greater frequency than otherwise. This could give law enforcement a bad image, and drives up the cost of the justice system. This leads to the second possible action:

2. Only intervene if a law is clearly broken.

This approach helps ensure that a no-gooder will be apprehended, and that officers will not be bogged down with minor suspicions when a crime is clearly in progress. This helps streamline the justice system and can take out some of the guesswork when it comes to judging grounds for an arrest. Also, fewer innocents caught in the net = better PR, which means better budget AND better reputation.

Of course, this brings up some drawbacks: what about people intelligent enough to evade the law successfully? If cops have to see a crime with their own eyes and ears in order to serve justice, then what about the crimes that are not visible? They slip through the cracks, like the Rescue Rangers theme song. Thus, actual crime rate will actually increase, which creates a false sense of peace since criminals could organize and create systems of avoiding the law that could paralyze the justice system from getting at the worst offenders, in the long run. One of the reasons the mob is such a fearsome villainous group (outside of entertainment portrayals) is because they found ways of doing exactly this, and they exploit it with impunity.

With this in mind, imagine the mods/spam police as the law enforcement officers. Think about how they have to deal with a similar dilemma.

I really have no hard or fast answer to the issue in this thread. But I do feel sympathy to all affected, innocent parties in this whole ordeal. Sure, what I outlined is at a far more serious and life-changing scale than what happens in a forum on the Internet. And yet, the similarities do give me pause, and make me at least see what the mods/spam police have to deal with.

Just a thought for consideration ^_^

Sincerely,

Mr. Album

[Donovan1209]

Originally Posted by MrAlbum

Well, my take on this issue actually stems from a dilemma common in law enforcement. Give me a sec, and I'll try to explain:

*random guff*

Just a thought for consideration ^_^

Sincerely,

Mr. Album

The thing is, this is the internet.

[laxking97]

Originally Posted by Donovan1209

The thing is, this is the internet.

This made me laugh so hard. Haha

[MrAlbum]

Originally Posted by Donovan1209

The thing is, this is the internet.

Just because this is the Internet doesn't mean parallels between similar (not exactly the same) situations/issues cannot be drawn, which is what I attempted to do. Also, this does not mean that people cannot take away other thoughts/perspectives on a particular issue from a similar, albeit more serious, issue.

As a result of these apparent truths, I fail to see why anyone would logically call my perspective a "random guff". Yes, some thought is needed to see my point, and if I failed to make the parallel connections between the issue I brought up and the issue in this thread, I apologize. If I wasn't clear, then I SHOULD have been clear. But that can be chalked up to linguistic incompetence, NOT with the argument that was linguistically miscommunicated. Hence why I do not logically (i.e. without any emotional response) see why you summed up the argument that way.

I still stand by the contents of my first post. That is still my perspective on this issue, but I am open to taking a look at other people's perspectives... if they even communicate them. Free will applied to a mass population can make communication a headache sometimes >_<

Sincerely,

Mr. Album