Kill the fucking spammer already



  • Seriously, can we not stop the fucking passport spammer? I'm getting pretty fucking sick of getting ten of his posts per hour in my mail notification. IP ban? Deactivate his account, since he keeps posting from the same one?

    Change the Captcha? Turn the user registration to "mods must approve" for a while?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Seriously, can we not stop the fucking passport spammer? I'm getting pretty fucking sick of getting ten of his posts per hour in my mail notification. IP ban? Deactivate his account, since he keeps posting from the same one?

    Change the Captcha? Turn the user registration to "mods must approve" for a while?

    Dude, just Send a Spike! That'll stop them!



  • @rad131304 said:

    Dude, just Send a Spike! That'll stop them!
     

    > SEND SPIKE

    > ENTER

    ....

    FUCKING HELL WHY DOES IT SEND TWO SPIKES WHEN I PRESS ENTER ONCE?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @rad131304 said:

    Dude, just Send a Spike! That'll stop them!
     

    > SEND SPIKE

    > ENTER

    ....

    FUCKING HELL WHY DOES IT SEND TWO SPIKES WHEN I PRESS ENTER ONCE?

    That's what she said?



  • He posts from different accounts. We kill one just to have another pop up. I think account-creation requires moderator approval, but that only slows the rate of spammers signing up, it doesn't stop it.

    I'm pretty vigilant about deleting spam. Even when I'm not posting, when you "Report Abuse" on a post, it goes to my Inbox.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    He posts from different accounts. We kill one just to have another pop up. I think account-creation requires moderator approval, but that only slows the rate of spammers signing up, it doesn't stop it.

    I'm pretty vigilant about deleting spam. Even when I'm not posting, when you "Report Abuse" on a post, it goes to my Inbox.

    SO YOU ARE SHADOWMOD!

     

    who knows?  - the shadowmod



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    He posts from different accounts.
     

    Very different IPs also.



  • @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    He posts from different accounts.
     

    Very different IPs also.

    Murder anyone who posts with more than 20 <br> tags. It'll fix other problems, too.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    He posts from different accounts.
     

    Very different IPs also.

    Murder anyone who posts with more than 20 <br> tags. It'll fix other problems, too.

    If CS was less of a joke, it might have some options like "Users with less than X comments automatically get sent to a moderation queue until" and "Users with less than Y comments can't post new threads". (And, of course, efficient tools to allow moderators to see and approve or reject pending comments.) That would beat a lot of the spam right there.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    He posts from different accounts.
     

    Very different IPs also.

    Murder anyone who posts with more than 20 <br> tags. It'll fix other problems, too.

    If CS was less of a joke, it might have some options like "Users with less than X comments automatically get sent to a moderation queue until" and "Users with less than Y comments can't post new threads". (And, of course, efficient tools to allow moderators to see and approve or reject pending comments.) That would beat a lot of the spam right there.

    You're expecting a theoretical CS to be useful. That is fallacy.



  • @Ben L. said:

    SO YOU ARE SHADOWMOD!

    Me? Ho ho, certainly not! I'm just a mild-mannered (spam) reporter..



  • @Ben L. said:

    You're expecting a theoretical CS to be useful. That is fallacy.

    Could God create a CS so usable that even He could run his forums on it?

    That reminds me of a question some friends and I came up with: Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He cannot eat it?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He cannot eat it?

    So; either God cannot accomplish the above, which proves him fallible or he is unable to consume the result, which also proves him fallible. You've just proven God fallible by Xanatos gambit; nice...



  • @Ragnax said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He cannot eat it?

    So; either God cannot accomplish the above, which proves him fallible or he is unable to consume the result, which also proves him fallible. You've just proven God fallible by Xanatos gambit; nice...

    It's just a reformulation of "Can God create a stone so large He cannot lift it?"

    And I wouldn't say it proves anything; that's fallacious reasoning. The problem is that, taking the premise that God is omnipotent, then it's merely a question of self-imposed limitations: if He wants to eat the burrito, then He will. The fact that He can't microwave a burrito so hot He cannot eat proves nothing, since His desire was to eat the burrito.

    Also, all of this assumes an omnipotent being who created the universe is bound by our notions of mutual exclusion, which gets to the core flaw of trying to use logic to disprove (or prove) something about God: God presumably created logic, so who's saying he is bound by it's rules? Hell, even we humans have figured out that non-trivial formal systems cannot be both complete and consistent.



  • The weird thing is, he's not even advertising a web page, it's just an email address. Meaning, he doesn't even get any PageRank, once his posts get deleted, it's gone forever.

    Besides, you'd have to be VERY desperate to buy fake passports from a guy that advertises by spamming his address on TDWTF forums.



  • @spamcourt said:

    Besides, you'd have to be VERY desperate to buy fake passports from a guy that advertises by spamming his address on TDWTF forums.

    Hmmm, Barack Obama?

    How come nobody made that joke? Because I assume the whole idea of people believing that he wasn't American was a joke, right? RIGHT?


  • @serguey123 said:


    Hmmm, Barack Obama?

    How come nobody made that joke? Because I assume the whole idea of people believing that he wasn't American was a joke, right? RIGHT?

    No one believes he isn't an American citizen. Some people believe(d) that his birth occurred outside of America, though. It didn't help that his literary bio, associated with his book, claimed that he was born in Kenya.

    What was the joke that you were expecting?



  •  @serguey123 said:

    @spamcourt said:
    Besides, you'd have to be VERY desperate to buy fake passports from a guy that advertises by spamming his address on TDWTF forums.

    Hmmm, Barack Obama?

     

    How come nobody made that joke? Because I assume the whole idea of people believing that he wasn't American was a joke, right? RIGHT?

    Well, yeah. You have to be born in America to run for President in the US, and knowing how paranoid you people are about your presidents, I'm sure the Secret Service did fairly extensive background checks.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    What was the joke that you were expecting?

    Somebody to impersonate Obama or pretend they were working or their behalf and ask the spammers for fake documents as a joke
    @boomzilla said:
    Some people believe(d) that his birth occurred outside of America, though.

    And that is a totally reasonable belief? Because nobody check that? Hey, Arnold for President right now, I would pay just to hear him give the State of the Union speech in his Terminator character



  • @serguey123 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Some people believe(d) that his birth occurred outside of America, though.

    And that is a totally reasonable belief? Because nobody check that?

    Well, like I said, Obama himself used to claim that he was born in Kenya when that seemed advantageous to him.

    There was also some confusion over Hawaii's birth certificate system, and some traveling done by his mom right around the time of his birth, IIRC. The FEC (Federal Election Commission) and the state equivalents were satisfied with his eligibility, but of course, political opponents often look for any excuse, and there are always plenty of people who will believe just about anything. And when you have something potentially very easy to exclude such an awful candidate as Obama, why not go for it?

    The bottom line being that there were some valid reasons for suspecting that he was not born in the US, but those were either ultimately proved incorrect and / or the result of self serving lies by authors (including the man himself) who wanted to sell books.



  • @boomzilla said:


    And when you have something potentially very easy to exclude such an awful candidate as Obama, why not go for it?

    Are we extending this logic to all people (like Ted Cruz) or just when it's a politically expedient way to justify racism?



  • @Snowyowl said:

    Well, yeah. You have to be American to run for President in the US, and knowing how paranoid you people are about your presidents, I'm sure the Secret Service did fairly extensive background checks.

    The problem isn't that you have to be American (duh), the problem is that according to a pedantic dickweed reading of the Constitution, you have to be born in US territory (or one of the original 13 colonies before they were US territory.) (BTW, this is the reason Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for President.)

    Nobody anywhere denies Obama is an American citizen, he would be one by naturalization long before now even if he had been born in Kenya. The question was whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii. And that was settled when the Federal Election Commission gave him the thumbs up. So anybody bringing it up after about 3 days into the 2004 primaries is a dumbshit. Especially Donald Trump, who is the king of all dumbshits.

    I love when Europeans pretend to be experts in American issues they have almost zero knowledge about. That's not at all annoying.

    ... you fucking shitter I just realized you edited your post from the emailed version I got. Well I'm posting this anyway. And I'm changing the quote text to read what I'm replying to. So screw you.



  • @rad131304 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    And when you have something potentially very easy to exclude such an awful candidate as Obama, why not go for it?

    Are we extending this logic to all people (like Ted Cruz) or just when it's a politically expedient way to justify racism?

    What are you asking? Who is justifying racism? Are you one of those idiots who equates disagreement with racism? Do you think "Chicago" is racist? What about "thin?" Maybe you just think that talking about being able to read or make a coherent argument is racist? It's so hard to keep up with the racism accusations these days.

    I've heard random rumors about people wanting Cruz to run for President, though as I understand it, he was born in Canada, and so would be ineligible. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson about pushing first term Senate candidates as potential Presidents by now, though Cruz would surely be a much better President than Obama.

    The "born in America clause" was put into the Constitution to keep European royalty from being eligible to be the chief executive. Considering the times, it was not unreasonable, though I personally think it's outlived its usefulness.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:
    @boomzilla said:
    And when you have something potentially very easy to exclude such an awful candidate as Obama, why not go for it?

    Are we extending this logic to all people (like Ted Cruz) or just when it's a politically expedient way to justify racism?

    What are you asking? Who is justifying racism? Are you one of those idiots who equates disagreement with racism? Do you think "Chicago" is racist? What about "thin?" Maybe you just think that talking about being able to read or make a coherent argument is racist? It's so hard to keep up with the racism accusations these days.

    I've heard random rumors about people wanting Cruz to run for President, though as I understand it, he was born in Canada, and so would be ineligible. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson about pushing first term Senate candidates as potential Presidents by now, though Cruz would surely be a much better President than Obama.

    The "born in America clause" was put into the Constitution to keep European royalty from being eligible to be the chief executive. Considering the times, it was not unreasonable, though I personally think it's outlived its usefulness.

    No, what I am saying is that I think that a calculation was made during the 2008 election by the political class of the Republican Party to use the possibility that Obama had (contrary to Hawaiian birth records) been born in Kenya in order to encourage racists to come out and vote against Obama (and, by proxy, the entire Democratic ticket because a significant number of voters do not split tickets). I did not intend to intimate that I thought you were racist, and I apologize if that's what my statement made you think.



  • @rad131304 said:

    No, what I am saying is that I think that a calculation was made during the 2008 election by the political class of the Republican Party to use the possibility that Obama had (contrary to Hawaiian birth records) been born in Kenya in order to encourage racists to come out and vote against Obama (and, by proxy, the entire Democratic ticket because a significant number of voters do not split tickets).

    Well, the racists already mostly vote Democrat (as they have for the last 150 years). I'm not sure why being born in Kenya would be more persuasive than his complexion. And it was definitely not the "political class of the Republican Party" who was pushing the birther stuff. More like the John Birch Society types. And the self promoting, do anything for attention, retards like Trump.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:
    No, what I am saying is that I think that a calculation was made during the 2008 election by the political class of the Republican Party to use the possibility that Obama had (contrary to Hawaiian birth records) been born in Kenya in order to encourage racists to come out and vote against Obama (and, by proxy, the entire Democratic ticket because a significant number of voters do not split tickets).

    Well, the racists already mostly vote Democrat (as they have for the last 150 years). I'm not sure why being born in Kenya would be more persuasive than his complexion. And it was definitely not the "political class of the Republican Party" who was pushing the birther stuff. More like the John Birch Society types. And the self promoting, do anything for attention, retards like Trump.

    I'd disagree, but only because I think both sides have a plethora of racists.

    Regarding the Kenyan birth causing more racism ... because there's never been organized racism against blacks in the US (o wait ... DUH!). For clarification: a career politician by the name of Andy Martin was the original "source" of the "birther" movement (he's the one who filed the lawsuit in Hawaii to get the long-form birth certificate). Hillary supporters perpetuated the attack during the primary until it got picked up in the general election. While these sources are hardly the political elite or even Republican, if questioning Obama's birth status wasn't sanctioned at the highest levels, why did it get so much television coverage? Murdoch is well known for his political connections, as is his willingness to use his media clout to promote or ignore a specific agenda (he's stated as much several times). His near total blackout of Ron Paul during the 2012 primaries shows that if the powerful of the Republican Party want an issue ignored, the coverage drops off significantly in the media outlets their supporters control.

    Edit: fixed muh bad grammah!



  • @boomzilla said:

    I'm not sure why being born in Kenya would be more persuasive than his complexion.

    I realized that I ignored this and didn't address it at all in my previous post. You're correct on this point - his complexion is the driver of the racism. I was trying to indicate that "being born in Kenya" gave them a plausible cloak to wrap their racism in because in their mind he should be ineligible to run because of where he was born. Most people don't like to - or are at least afraid to - be racist.



  • @rad131304 said:

    I'd disagree, but only because I think both sides have a plethora of racists.

    Regarding the Kenyan birth causing more racism ... because there's never been organized racism against blacks in the US (o wait ... DUH!).

    I'm not saying there are no racists in the Republican Party, but they're generally marginalized, or at least forced to keep their racist tendencies hidden. The organized racism has always been (and still is, though it's very different now) dominated by the Democratic Party. This isn't to say that every Republican has always been an angel, but the Democrats have done an amazing job of somehow making everyone forget about their history of Jim Crow, KKK, eugenics, unionism, welfare and abortion and the effects those have had on (especially) blacks.

    @rad131304 said:

    While these sources are hardly the political elite or even Republican, if questioning Obama's birth status wasn't sanctioned at the highest levels, why did it get so much television coverage? Murdoch is well known for his political connections, as is his willingness to use his media clout to promote or ignore a specific agenda (he's stated as much several times).

    The issue actually got more coverage in places like MSNBC, where they would drag out the crazies and then try to make everyone who opposed Obama look like a raving racist birther.

    @rad131304 said:

    His near total blackout of Ron Paul during the 2012 primaries shows that if the powerful of the Republican Party want an issue ignored, the coverage drops off significantly in the media outlets their supporters control.

    I doubt Murdoch has massive editorial control over his media empire. In any case, Ron Paul didn't get much coverage because his serious libertarian (to the extent that isn't an oxymoron) veneer covers a deep reservoir of crazy, and pretty much everyone knows that.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:

    I'd disagree, but only because I think both sides have a plethora of racists.

    Regarding the Kenyan birth causing more racism ... because there's never been organized racism against blacks in the US (o wait ... DUH!).

    I'm not saying there are no racists in the Republican Party, but they're generally marginalized, or at least forced to keep their racist tendencies hidden. The organized racism has always been (and still is, though it's very different now) dominated by the Democratic Party. This isn't to say that every Republican has always been an angel, but the Democrats have done an amazing job of somehow making everyone forget about their history of Jim Crow, KKK, eugenics, unionism, welfare and abortion and the effects those have had on (especially) blacks.

    I think the rhetoric has changed from both parties since the Democrats supported Jim Crow, and the Republicans' rhetoric has become more hostile to non-whites while the Democrats' rhetoric has become more inclusive. The change in actual policies is less dramatic, or clear.

    @boomzilla said:
    @rad131304 said:
    While these sources are hardly the political elite or even Republican, if questioning Obama's birth status wasn't sanctioned at the highest levels, why did it get so much television coverage? Murdoch is well known for his political connections, as is his willingness to use his media clout to promote or ignore a specific agenda (he's stated as much several times).

    The issue actually got more coverage in places like MSNBC, where they would drag out the crazies and then try to make everyone who opposed Obama look like a raving racist birther.

    [Citation Needed]

    @boomzilla said:
    @rad131304 said:
    His near total blackout of Ron Paul during the 2012 primaries shows that if the powerful of the Republican Party want an issue ignored, the coverage drops off significantly in the media outlets their supporters control.

    I doubt Murdoch has massive editorial control over his media empire. In any case, Ron Paul didn't get much coverage because his serious libertarian (to the extent that isn't an oxymoron) veneer covers a deep reservoir of crazy, and pretty much everyone knows that.

    I don't think he controls day to day publishing, but he probably gives significant direction about the kinds of things that should and should not be published. I also agree that Ron Paul is has some very non-mainstream ideas, but I would argue that he's not the only less than main-stream person in the Republican Party (Democrats have them, too) and some of them were fairly prominent recently (The 2004 VP, for instance).



  • @boomzilla said:

    And the self promoting, do anything for attention, retards like Trump.
     

    Isn't it amazing how people of all convictions can come together in their dislike of Donald Trump?



  • @boomzilla said:

    There was also some confusion over Hawaii's birth certificate system, and some traveling done by his mom right around the time of his birth, IIRC.

    I never paid much attention to the birth certificate stuff (there's plenty of reason to think Obama's a piece of shit without it), but why would it matter where he was born? His mother was a US citizen, right?



  • @rad131304 said:

    Hillary supporters perpetuated the attack during the primary until it got picked up in the general election.

    So you even know it started with Hillary supporters but are determined to blame the Republican leadership for this?

    And while I have no doubt the Republicans would have used the birth certificate thing if it had any traction (politics is dirty and I don't think either party is ahead of doing this slimiest stuff to get ahead), the truth is it was obvious early-on that it didn't play with the middle. In fact, I mostly heard about the birth certificate thing from liberals who would like to pretend it's some key part of the Republican platform, so they don't have to debate on any substantive issues.

    There were some fame-whore wackos like Trump who also jumped on it, but I barely consider him a real person, and I refuse to acknowledge any right for him to participate in the democratic process.



  • @rad131304 said:

    I was trying to indicate that "being born in Kenya" gave them a plausible cloak to wrap their racism in because in their mind he should be ineligible to run because of where he was born.

    If he actually was Kenyan, that would be a legitimate reason to bar him from the Presidency, but as far as I know, he's legally an American. Yes, the system has failed us mightily.



  • @rad131304 said:

    ...and the Republicans' rhetoric has become more hostile to non-whites while the Democrats' rhetoric has become more inclusive.

    What fucking planet do you live on? On my planet, Earth, when a black person dares to not fully devote themselves to the organized genocide of their race the Democrats "Get back on the plantation, Uncle Tom." But, you know, God must really like aborted little black babies, why else would he make so many of them?

    The really funny/sad thing is that the welfare state has finally accomplished the age-old Democratic goal of destroying black America. I don't think it was intentional (at least, Dear God, I hope not) but it turns out you can more effectively oppress people with food stamps and a degenerate culture which idolizes criminality, violence, misogyny and materialism--and vilifies education and self-improvement--than you can with whips. Whodathunkit?

    @rad131304 said:

    I also agree that Ron Paul is has some very non-mainstream ideas...

    Non-mainstream? The guy's a fucking nut job. Like a lot of conspiracy nuts, he occasionally finds a blind squirrel, but mostly he's just insane. The shit he says is the exact same shit I hear from drunk, mentally-disturbed bums*.


    (*Well, except for "What are you doing with that scalpel? Why are you holding it over where my kidney is? OH GOD NO---")



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @rad131304 said:
    Hillary supporters perpetuated the attack during the primary until it got picked up in the general election.

    So you even know it started with Hillary supporters but are determined to blame the Republican leadership for this?

    If we are going to split hairs about "who started it", you probably should have read up on Andy Martin. If you did, you'd find out that he had been running as a Republican since the 1990's. If I'm blaming the Republican leadership for anything, I'm blaming them for looking at the shit the Hillary supporters were spewing, and not saying "that's batshit insane, we don't want to be near it" and instead saying "hey, it didn't work for Hillary but I bet it would rile up our base pretty good even though it's not true". And you'll note I never stated the Republican elite started the rumor, I just accused them of willingly perpetuating it even though I have no proof (how's that for irony!).


    Edit: killed a double negative



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @rad131304 said:
    I also agree that Ron Paul is has some very non-mainstream ideas...

    Non-mainstream? The guy's a fucking nut job. Like a lot of conspiracy nuts, he occasionally finds a blind squirrel, but mostly he's just insane. The shit he says is the exact same shit I hear from drunk, mentally-disturbed bums*.

    I was just being polite.



  • @rad131304 said:

    If I'm blaming the Republican leadership for anything, I'm blaming them for looking at the shit the Hillary supporters were spewing, and not saying "that's batshit insane, we don't want to be near it" and instead saying "hey, it didn't work for Hillary but I bet it would rile up our base pretty good even though it's not true".. And you'll note I never stated the Republican elite started the rumor, I just accused them of willingly perpetuating it even though I have no proof (how's that for irony!).

    Oh, well, if we're just making shit up...



  • @boomzilla said:

    Oh, well, if we're just making shit up...
    Wait, that's not where we started?
    @boomzilla said:
    The bottom line being that there were some valid reasons for suspecting that he was not born in the US ....
    Because some asshole made something up is now a valid reason to question something at length?



  • @rad131304 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Oh, well, if we're just making shit up...

    Wait, that's not where we started?

    If by "we" you mean "you," then I suppose we did.

    @rad131304 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    The bottom line being that there were some valid reasons for suspecting that he was not born in the US ....

    Because some asshole made something up is now a valid reason to question something at length?

    Do you think that? I don't. I said pretty much the opposite: that there were some questions which seemed reasonable to begin with and were answered (at least to my satisfaction) fairly quickly. There were a few crazies who kept at it, and the useful idiots at MSNBC, et.al. who helped them by making it look like more than the crazies were keeping at it. I suppose that either it worked to convince you or that you were part of the et.al. to begin with. You seem to know a lot of stuff that isn't so, and ignorance or malice is always difficult to diagnose, especially on a forum like this.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @rad131304 said:
    @boomzilla said:
    Oh, well, if we're just making shit up...

    Wait, that's not where we started?

    If by "we" you mean "you," then I suppose we did.

    @rad131304 said:

    @boomzilla said:
    The bottom line being that there were some valid reasons for suspecting that he was not born in the US ....

    Because some asshole made something up is now a valid reason to question something at length?

    Do you think that? I don't. I said pretty much the opposite: that there were some questions which seemed reasonable to begin with and were answered (at least to my satisfaction) fairly quickly. There were a few crazies who kept at it, and the useful idiots at MSNBC, et.al. who helped them by making it look like more than the crazies were keeping at it. I suppose that either it worked to convince you or that you were part of the et.al. to begin with. You seem to know a lot of stuff that isn't so, and ignorance or malice is always difficult to diagnose, especially on a forum like this.

    Clearly we have a difference of opinion on whether or not the initial questions were at all reasonable.



  • @rad131304 said:

    Clearly we have a difference of opinion on whether or not the initial questions were at all reasonable.
     

    Wasn't the original question "can the mods do something about the spammer"? Is Obama spamming the forum? If so, can he be arrested under US law, or do we need international enforcement? Will Hillary Clinton's Republican Party use his illegal spamming in their attack ads to keep him from a third term in 2017?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Is Obama spamming the forum?

    Now that's a reasonable question!

    @Lorne Kates said:

    If so, can he be arrested under US law...

    No, the President can't be arrested while in office, he can only be impeached.

    @Lorne Kates said:

    ...or do we need international enforcement?

    HA HA HA HA HA! Oh God, that's a good one Lorne Kates!

    @Lorne Kates said:

    Will Hillary Clinton's Republican Party use his illegal spamming in their attack ads to keep him from a third term in 2017?

    Only if the Reptilians permit it.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @rad131304 said:

    Clearly we have a difference of opinion on whether or not the initial questions were at all reasonable.
     

    Wasn't the original question "can the mods do something about the spammer"? Is Obama spamming the forum? If so, can he be arrested under US law, or do we need international enforcement? Will Hillary Clinton's Republican Party use his illegal spamming in their attack ads to keep him from a third term in 2017?

    Well played, sir; well played.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.