924Board.org

[Peter_in_AU]

OK, I don't know if it's the heat up there or what but we have suddenly got a lot of shit going on that's really starting to piss me off.

First off, I get a message from Vaughan about one of the regular players on the board creating new accounts for himself.

Now I find we have someone creating an account for the sole purpose of attacking another board member. Interestingly, this board member is the same one who was being attacked almost exactly one year ago on the old board.

I am NOT talking about single-thread discussions, such as the gun issue, which have nothing to do with 924s.

I don't have the time or the inclination to put up with this. My options are:

1. Allow no more new members.

2. Run a query to check all the IP addresses that posts have been made from against username and ban all users that have posted from more than 1 username and also ban the Ip address range so no further posts are possible from that organisation or ISP.

3. Install the latest board software and force everyone to reregister with valid traceable email addresses - no hotmails etc.

4. Allow no further posts and just leave the board up as a read-only resource.

I'll decide what to do over the next few days.

Any and all input is appreciated

[D Hook]

I'm good with all EXCEPT #4.

Another option. Kiddy table. :lol:

[ This Message was edited by: D Hook on 2002-06-16 22:13 ]

[924_fan]

Peter,
First, it is truely sad that a few people who exhibit juvenile behavior can ruin it for the rest of us.

I believe that there are other options --
1)have one or more moderators approve the posts.

2) Or, give posters who post offensive non-924 material a non-posting status. This status could be temporary at first. And, it could change to permanent if required.

I am not in favor of options 1 or 4.

Option 1 would not allow people new owners, who quite possibly need this resource more than current members, to join.

Obviously, option four would not allow the posting of questions or the trading of parts and ideas ... It could change a dynamic resource into a stagnant resource that would not be able to accomodate new thoughts or products.

Please a little clarification on option 2. When you run an IP address check, what IP address comes up; The user's individual machine or the internet provider's machine? If it is the former, how do you account for dial-up connections that are different with each connection? If it is the latter, how do you discriminately stop the offender and not, say, all AOL users?
_________________
Skip Denton
'79 924 Sebring

[ This Message was edited by: 924_fan on 2002-06-17 00:43 ]

[teo]

Despite all of these lately behaviour I think we are still doing pretty good. Over 500 members and only 2 really stupid amongst them, most likely those are underaged anyway, you just throw them back when fishing, aren't you?
I think we can handle that part.

I don't really know how many other members we have who start offending but then became part of the board (1 for sure I know of, that's me), but I think it's Ok, called evolution.

What is more interesting and requires a solution is a regular member creating new identities for the sole purpose of attacking another member.
<some ideas here for a solution I will rather mail you to keep it off public>

[Peter_in_AU]

the IP checking is not perfect but it gives you a hint.

For example, the 4 posts from the belkin user came from 2 IPs 66.81.152.? and 66.81.158.? these IPs are assigned to o1.com which appears to be assigned the class 16 66.81.*

When I check for posts that have come from within the 66.81.* address range it spits out 3 usernames; belkin, mychael02 and 81turbo. Now all this tells me is that we have three guys who use the same ISP and a reverse lookup on the IPs identifies them all as assigned to modems ie dialups.

Now if I was really bored and someone was paying me I could check the text of the posts from all three users and the writing style, mistakes etc would give you an idea if they were the same person.

Even with monster ISPs like AOL the IPs allocated to dialups tend to be allocated on a geographical basis so the access servers for a community all have a very close IP range - it makes things easier to administer that way.

The situation with permanent home connections is easy - you're allocated an IP which rarely, if ever, changes. With most commercial, government and edu organisations the proxy is usually set to present only a single IP for all browser requests.

If I was totally obsessed I would just capture all the information your browser presents. Take a look at http://www.wtv-zone.com/bflo/browserinfo.html to get an idea. Everyone likes to customise their software so if you were looking at browser info that was identical from two IPs in the same address range you're be fairly sure they were from the same computer and that you were looking at the same person

[Peter_in_AU]

As for banning users, the software allows you to be as specific as you want. You can ban a single IP, a range of IPs, an organisation (wankers.com) or an entire country (.au).

There is currently a ban on all IPs assigned to Brazil because the attack on the board late last year used a Brazilian IP.

The system isn't perfect but the guys who can get around it probably aren't interested in 924s.

[dwak]

Step 2 and 3 seem ok and possibly also a strict 'no politics or religion' rule, in that we are all 'gentlemen/women'.ie: an arbitrator immediately deletes subject matter of this nature.
dwak

[Paul T.]

Peter,

In #3 of your post, you said no hotmails, well, I have a problem with that. I have been using my hotmail account for years, and I don't plan on changing it. My home e-mail address is useless to me, I don't hardly ever use it. I have never hid anything from anyone on this board. My profile says who I am and where I live, so hiding for me is not an option. And I wouldn't even take that option if I could, I'm not that kind of person. It is up to you what you want to do, but I oppose that "no hotmails, etc" thing.

[Paul T.]

Peter,

Why don't you change the profile page to include several items that must be filled out or you will not be able to have access to the board for posting purposes. Just an idea.

[Diesel]

Yeah, I like my Yahoo account, I use that for most everything.

[Rick MacLaren]

2 and 3 are perfectly reasonable.

Paying would also be useful. And lead to more benefits for those already here.

Password? Of course. Perfectly reasonable. Use 2 and 3 to determine who gets one.

I've updated my email to include a PCA email address. If you are in PCA you can still have your privacy and be a bona fide Porsche Club of America member.

[ This Message was edited by: Rick MacLaren on 2002-06-19 07:15 ]

[Cbass]

#2 sounds like a good idea, but that would mean somebody would have to check up on more than 500 users, and that sounds like a lot of work.

I think #3 is quite reasonable, I would have no qualms about answering any questions about myself. Then again, what prevents someone from filling out false info?

I think in general the no politics rule should be enforced, this a forum about 924s. I'm confident there are many forums out there where we could debate gun control.

[Rick MacLaren]

Yeah CBass, but you've missed something.

What about the guy who attacked Joe for cheap thrills?

[Paul T.]

If it's going to get this damned complicated just to talk to fellow 924 owners, then count me out. This is ridiculous, if we can't come up with a better system than what we have, then kill the whole damn thing and everyone fend for themselves. Yes, I'm aggravated by this whole damn thing. Just because a couple of dickheads want to try to stir up a little shit, everyone flies off the handle and wants to make it difficult for the rest of us. I sincerely hope we can get this figured out so those of us that truly enjoy using this website for its intended purpose can get back to business.

[Peter_in_AU]

at this stage I don't think that anything will change. The moderators may need to exercise their ability to lock or remove posts a bit more - I hope not.

I'll set up a regular scan for suspicious users.