Topic: Woke up this morning...Blamed VOD - page 3. (Read 3715 times)

Afaik, there isn't a certain number of posts that you need to accumulate in order for you to get banned. The main point for you to get banned by posting is posting nonsense post (usually bump, +1, single pictures etc.) and replies that are really far from what the topic really is. You can actually post as many as you want and as you like, as long as it is constructive and doesn't stray away from what is being tackled upon in the topic.

Have you read the forum guidelines? 

7 days ban for Insubstantial Posts + sig.  

I'm tempted to blame VOD!

What is the reason this time? Is it a perma-ban or limited ban? Can you explain better  I can't understand.

Or maybe not. Banned again

With all due respect to the administrators of this forum: this is nuts!

It isn't like I've been horning in on other people's discussions. I stay in like two threads. I don't flame nobody.

I don't get it

I like to think I fall into this category and just got caught in the crackdown.

I think people are referring to this post when they say that having a signature tends to increase the chances of getting banned. After all, doesn't the ban message say "Insubstantial Post + Signature Campaign"?

to care about bumps at all is neurotic

What if i want to make simple posts which are short ? It's like a boundation , really annoying sometimes so Big Nope

We don't go searching out people who have signatures, people are just more prone to report people with flashy advertisement signatures as their spam is more noticable. How it works: someone reports a person's post in a thread for being off topic/spam whatever. We then read the thread to see if it is indeed off topic/insubstantial/against the rules if that is needed (Ie not a +1 or smiley face post) then we check that user's post history to see if they have a history of insubstantial posts. If not, the post is deleted and we move on. If they do, then the moderator posts the ban request and reason with evidence for Badbear/Theymos to review (As only Admins can temporary ban people (thank's SMF!)) it is then reviewed by an admin who does the banning.

Something to note, the only people the public really see get banned are those who make threads about it in meta. With that, the new trend of spamming in Meta as moderators are more careful about removing posts in Meta, giving the people "appealing their spam bans" the ability to spam posts while they are banned. I'd agree with the fact that there are more people with paid advertisement signatures that are banned daily than those without, but I could probably argue that they have more motivation to break the rules than anyone else, and people with paid sigs also make up a very large portion of the community.

My point being, if you have never been banned, you then get a paid advertising signature and continue posting how you have in the past, you aren't going to get a ban just because of the advertising signature. If you let your post quality deteriorate to meet quotas as tends to happen, then you do risk being banned.

Actually I think that you're wrong this time. I actually had a screenshot of some staff member saying something alike. Anyhow, when you post a lot without a signature you get eventually noticed and if it is really bad you get banned.
Now, if you have a signature you're like a target. We rarely see someone get banned for making 15 posts a day (decent ones) without a signature do we?

I don't know there seems to be a massive debate on this subject. A lot of people have it in for people who are "whoring" out their signature space and seem to think they should be banned for exploiting it or the signature itself should be banned.

I don't think there's anything wrong with signature advertising as long as it's not obstructive. Your signatre along with all the other paid signatures are very obstructive and annoying. Thankfully grue has come up with a script which hides those so there has been a temp soultion. I think there should be some restrictions put in place to make the signatures less annoying.

Yes. I don't know, there was no warning. Just a big red box informing me that my posts are too insubstantial. I can live with that

Only if you spam.

Vod, if you had a paid signature (with your current kind of posts) you wouldn't be banned.

I think you are wrong, because it is not against the forum rules "wear" a signature ad. Isn't it? The two important rules here are :

-don't spam,
-don't write insubstantial posts.


Simple?

and that is why i do not keep a signature in my profile.
why advertise someone for small amount of money and big risk of getting bnneed?

You were banned for three days for bump spam? Do you know if the bumps were actually made within less then 24 hours of each other?

I dont think thats true. The signature does not the ban make, the post quality is what does it. The correlation is between signature advertisers and low post quality, not so much bans to signature advertisers. While having a big flashy advertisement does make your spam stick out more to moderators, if you aren't spamming then it doesn't matter.

That's the main reason I don't have a paid signature.  It increases your probability of being banned significantly!

There are some signature campaigns which go solely by post count. People conveniently forget to delete bumps when they are enrolled in them.

Are you sure you don't want this in Meta? You can be banned for excessive bumping of a thread, as the rule is you may bump a thread every 24 hours, but if you mean you had old bumps deleted from a thread where you are the OP, you will never be banned for that. We just ask people to delete their old bumps to help declutter threads.

And excessive bumping isn't prosecuted as heavy handedly as spamming. Its annoying and against the rules, but you tend to get a verbal warning about it before any further action is taken.