One post requirement for starting threads

[Cooper]

If it is possible to set this, it would halt a lot of the current influx of spam before it starts.

A few of the bots are clever enough to post in existing threads, but much of the spam here are by bots who register then post.

If users were unable to start threads without having at least posted once, these bots would be stopped.

Few non-bots post threads without having posted beforehand, and even for those that do it's hardly much of an inconvenience that they post in reply somewhere else too...

[Rii]

I think you underestimate their ability to adapt. The result would just be more spam.

[Kadayi]

What we really need is something like personal account approval like they have at NEOGAF. Time consuming, but it would stop the spammers.

[squirrelfanatic]

I have to agree, it's getting ridiculous with the spam threads. A few weeks ago I didn't really mind since their occurrence was sparse and the spam was flagged quite easily but now it has become really distracting. Please do something about it, Hivemind.

[Subatomic]

What we really need is something like personal account approval like they have at NEOGAF. Time consuming, but it would stop the spammers.

That's also the only solution I can think of, though I don't know how feasible it is... how many new forum accounts are created every day? The current system to keep spammers away is obviously insufficient, for example at the moment 6 of the 20 threads on the first page of the PC Gaming Discussion subforum a from spambots.

[Tikey]

I think you underestimate their ability to adapt. The result would just be more spam.

Resistance if futile. You will buy their discount jeans. Your economic savings will be added to their own.

[Kadayi]

That's also the only solution I can think of, though I don't know how feasible it is... how many new forum accounts are created every day? The current system to keep spammers away is obviously insufficient, for example at the moment 6 of the 20 threads on the first page of the PC Gaming Discussion subforum a from spambots.

I wouldn't of thought it was that many, and certainly not to the extent of NEOGAF. Let's face it if someone's called 'Poseidon fish' and their email is Poseidonfish@gmail.comthen it's likely they're a real person. But if it's cet123 and wrettyyu@ymail.com then probably a bot.

Alternatively it might be time to appoint a couple of pro-active moderators from the community, who can at least move spam threads to a hidden sub forum for Jim etc to peruse delete at their leisure. No fancy powers or titles to get uppity with, just the ability to move posts and suspend accounts.

[thegooseking]

That's also the only solution I can think of, though I don't know how feasible it is... how many new forum accounts are created every day? The current system to keep spammers away is obviously insufficient, for example at the moment 6 of the 20 threads on the first page of the PC Gaming Discussion subforum a from spambots.

The answer to that is to give approved users the ability to approve individual threads (but not accounts) themselves (á la Kotaku). Have an "x unapproved threads" link at the top of each page, which takes you to the forum "spam folder", and if one person approves it, it goes through (but says who approved it, so we know upon whom to heap scorn if they approve spam), whereas if, say, three to five people disapprove it, it gets removed from the list.

Likewise, unapproved accounts that post messages in threads could have those messages deleted if enough (approved) people flag it (I'd say a good rule of thumb is that 'enough' should be related to their post count, maybe half, so deleting a post of someone who has ten posts would need five flags, of someone who has four posts would need two flags, and of someone who has 100 posts will need 50 flags which will never happen but they should be effectively approved by that point anyway).

This makes it ok if they take a while to get round to approving people, and implements some moderation without specifically giving people scary mod powers with all the megalomania that entails.

But I don't know that it's possible on vBulletin.

[squareking]

Alternatively it might be time to appoint a couple of pro-active moderators from the community, who can at least move spam threads to a hidden sub forum for Jim etc to peruse delete at their leisure. No fancy powers or titles to get uppity with, just the ability to move posts and suspend accounts.

I'd love to help out with pruning duties.

[Rii]

Would a delay between registration and the ability to post be effective? It would require the spammer to return to the site on two separate occasions, maintaining and recalling the account registration info. Fark does something like this. (I only tried to post there once, I swear!).

[Timofee]

Fark does something like this. (I only tried to post there once, I swear!).

I read this and got confused thinking Fark was a south american rebel group, but a cursory google seems to indicate that is Farc.

Also I'd second the idea of some of the long standing RPSers with lots of time on their hands (I'm looking at you lazy lazy students, whoever you are) being made mods.

[QuantaCat]

more mods, the ones you can trust. And they only have the authority to delete spam. I vote me. I report them hourly anyway, and I maintain the server list anyhow, so Im not about to go OMG KICKBAN on your ass.

I also vote kad.

[Tikey]

I vote cet123 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?4395-Watch-Game-of-Thrones-Season-2-Episode-5)as a mod, he seems like a legitimate guy.

[Rii]

I am generally opposed to mods as, like other positions of power, they invariably tend to attract pathological personalities, however it would seem difficult for mods empowered solely to remove spam to abuse their power without it being very obvious.

[QuantaCat]

They could be marked for deletion, and not show up to the regular public, and the "real" mods just have to approve.

[QuantaCat]

ok, this is getting silly. I cant even report faster than a minute, though its clear where they are.

I promise not to delete anything nonspamrelated. PLEASE LET ME KILL THEM.

[Kadayi]

i promise not to delete anything nonspamrelated. Please let me kill them.

with fire!!!

[QuantaCat]

or to quote something most will recognise:

I KILL THEM, WITH DEATH!

[squirrelfanatic]

They are piling up, fast. I'm sure one of the officials has noticed already. If not, who would be the go-to-guy for these issues?

[QuantaCat]

Ill check perpetuum if jim is online.

[Rossignol]

The spam controls still need a bit of tuning, but there is significantly less than there was two weeks ago. We should have it under control shortly.

Make sure you do report spam if you see it, that makes it much easier to clear up promptly.

[QuantaCat]

thanks. it was just annoying to have to report so much spam, but I had to wait 60s to do it.

[Smashbox]

Once I registered for NEOGAF, because otherwise I couldn't click on someone's profile. Then literally four months went by and I got my approval email. I have never returned.

[Kadayi]

Once I registered for NEOGAF, because otherwise I couldn't click on someone's profile. Then literally four months went by and I got my approval email. I have never returned.

I pretty sure turnaround would be a lot faster on RPS. Also the spam posting is turning into a bit of a Joke. Whatever the present method is, it quite clearly isn't working.

[Megagun]

Seriously, about 95% of the current spam topics are made by people who haven't previously made a post. How about you give this 'one post requirement' a try to see if it works out? The situation as it is now honestly can't get any worse, so it's worth a try.

[Wizardry]

But they will probably spam in proper threads if you stick a limit on thread creation.

[Kadayi]

Well, it's just getting out of hand now. I'm on a few different forums, and there's nothing like this level of spam going on elsewhere. It's getting absurd now (although the spammer on spammer action is occasionally amusing).

[Wizardry]

I'm on a few different forums, and there's nothing like this level of spam going on elsewhere.
This forum failed its saving throw vs bots.

[soldant]

It's getting absurd now (although the spammer on spammer action is occasionally amusing).
No kidding, I've never seen this before. Why is RPS such a target for this stuff?

[Heister]

The spam controls still need a bit of tuning, but there is significantly less than there was two weeks ago. We should have it under control shortly.

Make sure you do report spam if you see it, that makes it much easier to clear up promptly.

Would it be possible to make it impossible for a thread title to contain any of these words?: Free, Tv, Live and Stream
As it seems that all of those threads use one or more of those words.

[Pertusaria]

This may seem really inane compared to the other possible helpful steps proposed here, but could we please have a "report" button at the top of a post, or maybe even one that can be clicked without having to open the thread if the thread is one post long?

I just went to report a spam post that was far longer than normal posts, or spam posts I've seen before the recent onset, and it's a pain to have to scroll down when you know it's all spam.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any way of telling when something's already been reported. I suspect the majority of spam threads have been tagged by someone already, but they don't look any different from every other thread / post. A "reported" tag would be nice, so that the people who are trying to help police this can spot the ones that need to be done, and so that whoever has to look through the reports only has one report per post.

[Splynter]

I've been reporting the threads I come upon, but I haven't been going out of my way to search for it. For what it's worth Pertusaria, the Pg Dn and End keys might save you a little effort.

Judging by the post subjects, apparently the bots think that all we do is stream television.

[Pertusaria]

Yes, sorry, as I said, probably inane. Also probably past my bedtime.

[Splynter]

Eh, no need to apologize, just trying to help out. Also, how did that one thread in Other Stuff get over 9000 views? Did we all report it? If so, I sure hope only one report per incident gets sent to the mods.

EDIT: I realized after posting what I had just done. Sorry Internet.

[Wizardry]

Eh, no need to apologize, just trying to help out. Also, how did that one thread in Other Stuff get over 9000 views? Did we all report it? If so, I sure hope only one report per incident gets sent to the mods.

EDIT: I realized after posting what I had just done. Sorry Internet.
Something strange is going on. If you have a look at the people browsing the forum, 50% of the guests seem to be browsing the spam threads. I'm guessing this is additional bot behaviour to... do something. Likely increase the popularity of said threads.

[Splynter]

That seems like a reasonable explanation Wizadry. What I'm confused about is what they hope to accomplish. Does ANYONE ever click those links? Then again, spam has always confused me. It's ridiculously obvious and one might think you'd need to be a fool to click through, yet it must make money or people would stop doing it. I can see email spam working, as that will end up in the inboxes of people who may be unfamiliar with the concept, but on a forum dedicated to PC gaming? I like to think we're all savvy enough to resist the temptation to STREAM ALL THAT AWESOME TELEVISION.

[Rii]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kmTNObny3k

[Heister]

Something strange is going on. If you have a look at the people browsing the forum, 50% of the guests seem to be browsing the spam threads. I'm guessing this is additional bot behaviour to... do something. Likely increase the popularity of said threads.

Almost 7,000 people viewing the off topic forum is a bit odd. And as nobody seems to be entering the threads then what's the point? That thread with 9000+ views is even stranger. There's no way that someone clicking on those threads could register something on another site is there?

[Sketch]

This is getting bad now, I wonder what the user/bot ratio is. 600 or so people in of topic seems crazy.

[Duckee]

Help! It all over my face!

[Sketch]

johncenajohncenajohncenaclickhereSOMEONEHELPjohnce nabrocklesnar

[thegooseking]

The anti-spam measure for registering an account right now is knowing Rossignol's first name. I wonder if there might be some mileage in making the answer more obscure, and emailing it out to people who register WordPress accounts on the main site.

(I know that means you effectively have to register two accounts to use the forums, but I would imagine the number of people who want forum access but emphatically don't want commenting access on the posts is marginal.)

[Nalano]

Holy donkey balls, Batman; somebody drowned the general forum!

[pakoito]

The anti-spam measure for registering an account right now is knowing Rossignol's first name. I wonder if there might be some mileage in making the answer more obscure, and emailing it out to people who register WordPress accounts on the main site.This are not spambots, they are physical people doing it so it's pointless. The best way to deal with it is to disable register for a couple of weeks and rewrite the rules, maybe get a moderator in to be the only one activating accounts, because it's starting to get out of hand.

[Subatomic]

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous:

1246

[soldant]

Ridiculous? We're well past that point. We'll have to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Nalano]

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous:

1246

That picture is clearly faked. I'm not the last poster for any of those threads.

[Tams80]

Wow, I've never seen spam this bad. As others have pointed out there are beyond a ridiculous number of accounts watching 'PC Gaming Discussion' and 'Other Stuff' (the other forums are slipping into their grasp as well). It seems to be just a few accounts actually making the threads, but there seem to be thousands of 'support' spam accounts.

I think volunteer moderators just for spam would be a good idea, but that alone will not solve the problem, merely slow it, we'd still get bombarded. Some sort of account creation control and new account activity control is needed as well.

[QuantaCat]

The spam controls still need a bit of tuning, but there is significantly less than there was two weeks ago.

^this is no longer true.

I am up for no regging for a week, no matter if we are having a great influx of multiplayer peoples.

[Unaco]

^this is no longer true.

The Spam can go back in time now? And change the past? Oh no! Let's hope it doesn't try and kill Hitler.

It may be that most of the spam threads are started by people with 0 posts. But, how many other, non-spam threads are started by people with 0 posts? Making this requirement would prevent them from creating threads as well. And, as others have said, it would just move the spam into already existing threads, or we'd end up with the spam bots spamming 1 post in an existing thread, and then going to town making their spam threads. It would hardly be an effective prevention.

I also don't see any justification for closing the doors here... that would just be a complete overreaction, punishing legitimate possible members due to the actions of the Spam posters. The spam isn't that bad... it's easy enough to spot and easy to scroll past and ignore... It's fairly obvious if the title is about 'Watch X Y or Z', or something about a specific episode of a show, or it's about a TV show in PC Gaming discussion, or the thread title uses @'s and the like, or the poster is called Kadayi, that it can safely be ignored, you can move on and nothing of value will be lost. Just ignore it, move on, and it'll get deleted soon enough. Report it if you're civic minded. All those posts from yesterday evening are gone now, and, aside from some amusement and having to skip to page 2 of the forum, what disruption did they actually cause?

Yes, there's a lot of spam, but it's easy to spot and avoid and not get caught up with... like a turd on the street, or a pensioner that's fallen and broken their hip - the look, the smell, the pitiful wailing for help are all easy to spot. I don't think we should overreact, make membership some reward for completing trials of Homeric proportions. I don't think we should put any hoops in place for people to jump through. It'll punish legitimate users, and the spam will still find a way to get through.

Also, Jom Rissignol says they're trying a new spam fighting solution this week. So maybe that'll fix it.

[Kadayi]

-Snip-

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?104-The-Rules

1. Be excellent to each other.

2. That means not insulting each other.

3. No, really, it's possible to disagree without insults. Just don't do it.

4. Please use English. I know, but our Foreign is pretty shockingly bad.

5. Please report spam or innappropriate behaviour using the tools provided.

It's a little wearing that you have to derail a thread into some kind of personal attack Unaco. No doubt I'm sure it will win you some browny points with a few others on the forum who've elected to hate my guts and disagree with everything I say as a matter of principle, but it's not really cricket. Realise I just don't care what you think in that respect and move on with your life man.

[Unaco]

yaddayaddayadda

6 words in a ~400 word post is hardly derailing the thread into some kind of personal attack Kadayi. It was a casual, throwaway joke. Please don't turn this into another one of your exhibitions of terrible, but persistent, rhetoric. Besides... aren't you supposed to be ignoring me (like I suggested, many, many months ago, and have reminded you about many, many times - you really should be taking the advice of your betters here). If you're going to keep responding to my posts, shouldn't you take me off that silly "Phasers set to ignore" list? And how much of a de-railer do you think that is, appearing in all of your posts?

(Please don't respond, those last 2 questions are rhetorical... sit back and think about them, but I don't expect an answer).

The thread is about the Spam issues... lets stick to that shall we.

[QuantaCat]

Well, first I thought it was getting back at me because I made the holocaust dancing simulator game up, in that off topic thread...

But I digress.

Im just extremely annoyed by the spam, thats all. I know I wont be a mod because Im asking to be one :D But I would like a spam free board. Lets just hope the measure jim is taking is doing it.

[Kadayi]

- snip -

Generally I do ignore you Unaco. I'm kept informed of your unwarranted digs by my friends. Mayhap if you desist eventually I'll stop ignoring you.

[thegooseking]

The spam thread titles all use Google-syntax (I don't know if that's a thing; I just made it up, but I mean the kind of thing you would type into Google that isn't quite proper English). I suspect that they're not even trying to spam us; they're just trying to create threads that would match to Google searches. Which makes it all the more infuriating.

Also, I would buy this game (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=08252005), and not even in a Steam sale: at full price!

[Kadayi]

Seems a bit weird that RPS is being targeted to this degree. Did someone rail on 4chan or some such at one point?

[thegooseking]

Honestly I think it's just because RPS (because the hivemind has limited time for taking out the trash) allows spam to stick around longer than most websites.

[Smashbox]

Yeah, sounds like they need some lesser hivemind nodes in different area codes.

[squareking]

Yeah, sounds like they need some lesser hivemind nodes in different area codes.

I got nodes (nodes) in different area codes (area), area coooodes

[Vicious]

Make new accounts have to PM Jim(or whoever) on the forum with a few random personal details(age, location, SEX, why you're joining) so you can be manually authenticated. Anyone who doesn't PM Jim, gets stuck in unauthenticated unable to post limbo

[Splynter]

Seems a bit weird that RPS is being targeted to this degree. Did someone rail on 4chan or some such at one point?

Some heathen probably posted a criticism of Katawa Shoujo, that most holy of holy games.

[Grizzly]

Hmm. How 'bout that each new signup has to get its first 10 posts approved by a moderator? Should be fairly easy to weed out spambots that way, as most people won't go into the hassle of making 10 posts and then spamming everything.
On the other hand it might scare off new blood... hmm...

[Kodeen]

I feel this could turn into a cat and mouse game, but what about blocking certain words in the thread title, like 'episode'? I thought 'season' would be a good candidate for that too, but there are legitimate threads with that (social tournmanents, mostly).

[Keep]

What about blocking for words like "http"/"www"/".com" in posts/signatures until you've hit 10 posts? Not much point in spamming if you can't include links.

[Smashbox]

That's a good solution, right? Disable linking until threshold met?

[Unaco]

That's a good solution, right? Disable linking until threshold met?

But then you're putting off new posters, that wish to post a link. There are a number of independent developers, or mod developers, that start topics (as their first) to bring attention to their games. No links in those posts wouldn't be very good.

Again, I don't think anything should be done to inconvenience legitimate posters/new members.

[Rii]

The anti-spam measure for registering an account right now is knowing Rossignol's first name. I wonder if there might be some mileage in making the answer more obscure

I don't know, asking Mr. Rossignol to change his name seems a bit overboard.

[Nalano]

I don't know, asking Mr. Rossignol to change his name seems a bit overboard.

Maybe just adding an umlaut?

[Smashbox]

Maybe they should ask his middle name.

[pakoito]

Maybe they should ask his middle name.

I don't have a middle name :(

[Nalano]

I don't have a middle name :(

So make one up.

We'll be judging you on creativity and originality.

[pakoito]

So make one up.

We'll be judging you on creativity and originality.
To be honest I have been going with my handle rather than my real name all my life. That is my actual middle name for whoever talks about me.

[Nalano]

To be honest I have been going with my handle rather than my real name all my life. That is my actual middle name for whoever talks about me.

Then by the CoL criteria, I give you a weighted aggregate score of 14.2.

[soldant]

Then by the CoL criteria, I give you a weighted aggregate score of 14.2.
I and my friends will now vote a score of 1 just to bring it down because I hear that there's a Signup Name DLC coming out and I don't like it.

[Nalano]

I and my friends will now vote a score of 1 just to bring it down because I hear that there's a Signup Name DLC coming out and I don't like it.

I didn't even tell you what the upper limit is!

However, I heard that for the low, low price of 250 RPS-bucks*, you can reserve your name for when the forums roll over next month.

*purchasable in batches of 400

[QuantaCat]

Now that’s what I call crowd-sourcing. Well done, forum. We promise to find a way to deal with the spam in thanks.

ehhhh.... yay.

[Smashbox]

Any detectives figuring out the problem should look at this:

1256

I'm pretty sure the thread was about 4 hours old when I took the shot.

[zookeeper]

Maybe they should ask his middle name.

Made me giggle when I read it as "maiden name".

[Dubbill]

Doesn't seem like a one or even two post requirement would work.

[Jams O'Donnell]

(I went on vacation.)

[Smashbox]

On the site where I work, if a posting gets too many flags, it is hidden until a moderator approves it. Could such a system be implemented here?

[fionny]

This captcha is like a perfect fit for the RPS world:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/03/playthru-hopes-to-kill-text-captchas/

[OrangyTang]

So, did this happen at all?

[Tikey]

What's the deal with this new wave of users that just post inane comments everywhere? Is is another kind of spam or just annoying people? I didn't want to ask as I don't want start any trouble but it's getting irritating.

[lasikbear]

I think they are spam in the making. At least one of them had a post that was a giant spam copy-paste, I would imagine either they are posting a lot then going to wait a week and edit them to something more malicious, or they are just getting a post count up before starting new spam threads.

[darko drako]

I am presuming this was never implemented? I am probably being stupid but I cant for the life of me see a "start new thread" button! Where is it?

[IHaveNoIdea]

I would appreciate some input as to when I will be able to post a new thread. I only joined here in the hopes of bringing an ongoing issue to the attention of RPS.

[kirrus]

I would appreciate some input as to when I will be able to post a new thread. I only joined here in the hopes of bringing an ongoing issue to the attention of RPS.

In a while, you need to show the spam system you're not a spammer. The best way to contact the RPS Hivemind would be to email them:
contact@rockpapershotgun.com

[Kodeen]

I just noticed today that I haven't seen a spam thread in a while. Curious, what was the solution?

[Alex Bakke]

I saw a few yesterday. I'm guessing they're just getting better at catching them :)

[Nalano]

I just noticed today that I haven't seen a spam thread in a while. Curious, what was the solution?

I recognize a set minimum number of posts required to start a thread, which usually gives time to find and kill the spammers before they destroy the main page.

[Dr.Nick]

It's annoying for a newbie like me but I can understand the need.

[rudsaki]

So, if i reply as i am now, I can now post a fresh question?
Guess i will see in a minute! ;-)

[rudsaki]

So, if i reply as i am now, I can now post a fresh question?
Guess i will see in a minute! ;-)

==============


You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

[Burning Man]

Gah. Can't do anything anywhere.

And here I thought you guys liked me.

[Dare_Wreck]

I'm in the same boat - I have a pressing question I'd like to ask that I haven't seen anywhere else here, but I can't start a new post. It's frustrating (though I too understand why it's set up this way). What is the minimum post count before I can start a new thread?

[Dare_Wreck]

I'm in the same boat - I have a pressing question I'd like to ask that I haven't seen anywhere else here, but I can't start a new post. It's frustrating (though I too understand why it's set up this way). What is the minimum post count before I can start a new thread?

Found the answer to my (and others') question: once I hit 11 posts, I was able to create a new thread of my own.

[Proctor Eldritch]

Found the answer to my (and others') question: once I hit 11 posts, I was able to create a new thread of my own.

Oddly enough I was given this ability by my eighth post. I guess each new member is approved after there is 100% certainty that they aren't a spambot.

[Velko]

Damn, those copy-spambots are frightening. They seem to copy a part of an earlier post in the thread and then post that. Because it's from the same thread and it's a (set of) full sentences, it often fits in perfectly. How the hell do you combat those? I've been reporting them as I happen upon them, but they just seem to become more and more frequent.

[Kaira-]

Damn, those copy-spambots are frightening. They seem to copy a part of an earlier post in the thread and then post that. Because it's from the same thread and it's a (set of) full sentences, it often fits in perfectly. How the hell do you combat those? I've been reporting them as I happen upon them, but they just seem to become more and more frequent.

They seem to try and link a picture in their post. At least there's the broken image link icon right after their posts.

[Eophasmus]

I just encountered one of them - I've not seen a spambot do that before.

Do bots ever create avatars? If not, would forcing an avatar to be chosen on sign-up, even if it's an 'invisible' or blank avatar for those who don't want one, work? Anything without specifically selecting / uploading an avatar would be very visible as a spambot.

I may be new and currently unable to post new threads, but it's a small price to pay for reducing the spambots.

[Velko]

I just encountered one of them - I've not seen a spambot do that before.

It's such a good trick and so simple one that I have to wonder why this was a first for me too. I mean, if you're not reading the thread too carefully, you could easily reply to a spambot now as it is. That's one line crossed right there.

I don't know if they actually perform any better (in the money-scamming sense) than before, but it sure as hell is more convincing than the usual åöåäöåäöåäöåäöå GUCCI åöäöåäöåäöåöäöåö NIKE åäöåäöåäöå stuff.

[OrangyTang]

Damn, those copy-spambots are frightening. They seem to copy a part of an earlier post in the thread and then post that. Because it's from the same thread and it's a (set of) full sentences, it often fits in perfectly. How the hell do you combat those? I've been reporting them as I happen upon them, but they just seem to become more and more frequent.

If it's a direct c+p from within the same thread (or even forum) without alteration then surely that would be fairly easy for the forum software to check when it's posted. More scary are cross-posting bots that c+p snippets from similar blogs/forums so they look on-topic but are 'new' text.

I've seen a few cheeky posts on my blog with vague comments that looks human-ish, only to see the text edited to the usual "+++ nike shoes +++" a week later (after they've got past the spam filter).

[dafeiji]

​Is a need to respond to the number of topics to post a topic?

[Nalano]

​Is a need to respond to the number of topics to post a topic?

Continually posting the same post isn't indicative of a bot, no sirree.

[GunnerMcCaffrey]

Hi. I'm just dropping by to find out what the current Turing test for a spambot is, because all I'd like to do is make a post seeing if anyone fancies a game of Warlock, but it seems I can't start threads.

[Tikey]

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
I mean: you're not helping! Why is that?

[GunnerMcCaffrey]

Are you saying I should tell you about my mother?

[Bobtree]

I had no idea the Warlock AI was so good. Who programmed you?

[GunnerMcCaffrey]

You know, if I were designing spambots, I'd design them so they accused other people of being spambots. That's just me, though.

[toynbee]

If users were unable to start threads without having at least posted once, these bots would be stopped.

Few non-bots post threads without having posted beforehand, and even for those that do it's hardly much of an inconvenience that they post in reply somewhere else too...

As someone who just registered, I can say it appears you are unable to start a thread without posting ten times first. (30%! w00t!)

[toynbee]

Also, wow, should have bothered to read through - I had no idea this thread was six pages long.

[aladinversuk]

I hate those spambots storming the forums today.

[Big_Z]

how many posts are required to make a new thread? I just signed up and can't start a tread so I goto the rules forun and the post in there mentions nothing about this. very confusing so now i'll start spamming replies until my counts get up so I can actually post the one message I wanted to.

[PoLLeNSKi]

Please some way of managing this so I don't have to dig through a ton of posts to find something where I can respond just to up my post count so I can make a thread about what I came here to say....

[toynbee]

how many posts are required to make a new thread? I just signed up and can't start a tread so I goto the rules forun and the post in there mentions nothing about this. very confusing so now i'll start spamming replies until my counts get up so I can actually post the one message I wanted to.

According to a kind forum user responding to my first post, the answer is: 10 posts.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?5952-Comment-Account-password

Not having yet reached ten posts (trying to be respectful, though the temptation to, as you say, spam responses is difficult to resist), I cannot verify this. However, I have no reason to doubt. 8-)

[Heliocentric]

I am wondering how many posts before I get my own forum.

[gundato]

Please some way of managing this so I don't have to dig through a ton of posts to find something where I can respond just to up my post count so I can make a thread about what I came here to say....
No offense and all, but if you can't easily find ten places where you want to join in on a discussion, should you really be MAKING a thread?

Spam isn't restricted to just the bots, if you catch my drift.

[Nikas]

it would be nice to start new threads after registration ;3

[Jesus_Phish]

There's plenty of easy threads you can post in after registering that will get your post count up and will also help introduce yourself to the forum.

But realize the post limitation is there to stop both spam bot advertising and people who couldn't be bothered looking for an answer coming on and making new threads on "How do I..." "I wan't to..." "Help plz..."

[Nikas]

and how many posts i need to post to start new threads?

[Tikey]

May I ask why is the thread you want to make so important that you feel the need to spam the forum?

[Nalano]

I have a bajillion posts but I think I've only thought a topic important enough to warrant new thread perhaps a dozen times.

To me, registering solely to create a new thread says to me that this is merely a stop in your cross-forum advertising campaign, especially if you don't want to join in any other discussions.

[Big_Z]

thanks for the answer!

[o0Slickman0o]

I am not able to start threads :(

[Wulfgar]

Me neither, how many posts do you need ?

[echoMateria]

I wonder how this really works...