Antiscam/spam measure
#21
fs_coyotik
Posted 20 July 2008 - 20:49
#22
fs_angiefc
Posted 20 July 2008 - 21:01
#23
fs_silvrdrag
Posted 20 July 2008 - 22:51
#24
fs_coyotik
Posted 21 July 2008 - 08:55
I like the idea but I want to lean more towards no because of the work load it could give the staff. As it is they get a heavy load. There was an idea put out by several people not long ago to add an ignore button, hopefully one that would also remove the person's post from your log (which would be awesome to begin with) if such a thing happened then this wouldn't be needed.
Ddid you read this thoroughly? It would actually DECREASE the load
1) check the 10 messages that were reported as abusive
2) were they abusive?
3) yes? and were they bad enough for full lock? (scam, serious insults?)
4) no? does the reporter deserve to be punished instead?
5) yes? a simple click will increase the reporter's spam index instead.
If this is thought up upfront and programmed well, it will make the staff workload much lower than today, because there will be absolutely no hassle with "oh, you say that player xxx called you an idiot. Could you send us a screenshot?" "oh, you don't know how to make a screenshot, well... do this..." "hmm, I'd better check that the screenshot is genuine... could somebody with DB access verify that player xxx sent to player yyy "you're an idiot"?...
I don't know how much time does it on average take to handle ONE abusive message complaint, but I'm convinved that the auto-system would lessen the workload significantly.
#25
fs_coyotik
Posted 30 July 2008 - 19:24
#26
fs_tawniteamo
Posted 30 July 2008 - 21:57
#27
Posted 30 July 2008 - 22:39
Did you know that there are likely over 2000 rouge black holes in our galaxy alone. Each of them can reach very high speeds, even in space terms, are each capable of destroying anything in their path, and are invisible. Well, goodnight!
#28
fs_coyotik
Posted 31 July 2008 - 08:57
I'd say good, but there needs to be a way to prove that the message was spam, and you're not just trying to mark someone you don't like as a spammer or scammer.
That's why it doesn't work on a single report. If you accumulate a certain amount of reports (i.e. 10 or 20), your "send message" function is disabled, telling you to contact the support staff and try to get it resolved.
When you contact them, they will immediately be able to fetch all the reported messages from the database and see (without anyone having to provide any screenshots). They will see if the sender has been spamming/scamming/insulting somebody or not. (And if not, anyone abusing the report system CAN be punished (just as they can get punished now for avatars).
It's just a matter of setting certain limitations to the system. I.e. if you report one message, you cannot report it again.
Part of this already works in another place. About 1M users (REAL users, not just accounts), they have the abuse report system for EACH message and the ratio between "wrong" reports and deserved reports is something like 1 to 20 or so....
#29
fs_coyotik
Posted 21 August 2008 - 11:54
#30
fs_coyotik
Posted 21 August 2008 - 13:26
How about just put in a delete button?
Well, I think that the system should aim to fight the cause, not the symptoms. Your advice could be used for all spam e-mails, after all - but it's not a solution to the problem.
#31
fs_evillove
Posted 21 August 2008 - 13:38
How about just put in a delete button?
Hmm....well no, since this idea really tries to get rid of those who intentionally spam, and scam or whatever you want, not for fun between friends but just that. So deleting the messages would only benefit yourself.
I'm not really looking at how it will decrease workload, but more so how effective it is. In general I quite like it, since it sends over the actual message and has a counter to when the messengers spam will be looked at and judged it's useful.
It would be good if HCS posted a guideline of what we can report....seeing as soemtimes you get people unable to differentiate between what is actually reportable and non-reportable. That is if they do this.
Either way it's good, if someone does decide to hit the button on the same person for no reason, then they can just be temp-banned for false reports. O.o
#32
Posted 28 August 2008 - 11:16
#33
fs_coyotik
Posted 26 September 2008 - 10:06
With the amount of scammers around, I think that this is a necessity. I really believe that it would actually decrease the workload of the Support as they would no longer have to deal with screenshots and verification of those.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

