# Administration Category > Administrative issues >  Reasons for banning

## Dave A

I'm currently engaged in some email correspondence with a recently banned "new" member - banned for using a particular method to circumvent the spam control measures of this website.

Here's the conversation so far:



> Good day I would just like to know why my account has been suspended.
> 
> Thanks





> > You were banned effectively for deceptive posting practices. The spam 
> > control mechanisms are there for a reason.
> > 
> > Ironically your post might have been approved, but the (and let's be 
> > honest here just for a moment) method by which you got your links in, 
> > thereby circumventing moderation, is not accidental and is 
> > automatically considered an offence worthy of a permanent ban regardless of the content.





> My aim however was to help the businesses on the forum, by sllowing them to advertise for free, so obviously the site needs to be mentioned.
> 
> Business forums are there to help businesses and if by offering free services and then getting banned is a policy, the policy should be reviewed.





> Person's name - I've approved similar content in the past. But that's not the issue. To be clear - right now I only care about one "intention" in this transaction - your deliberate avoidance of the spam controls of TFSA. Why did you do that?
> 
> You can try to rationalise this as "the ends justify the means" - but ultimately you didn't trust me to recognise the value in what you are trying to do - so why should I or anyone else on TFSA trust you?


Am I being too harsh?

----------


## IanF

Dave,
Can you be too strict on spam?
This member did circumvent the anti spam measures then he should be banned. This is your forum and 99% of the gut feel is right.

----------


## Mark Atkinson

> Am I being too harsh?


Not at all. If his aim was to help the businesses on the forum, he would surely have taken the (limited) time necessary to rack up some posts in order to be able to include links. 

Spam is spam is spam.  :Ban:

----------


## BusFact

> My aim however was to help the businesses on the forum, by sllowing them to advertise for free, so obviously the site needs to be mentioned.
> Business forums are there to help businesses and if by offering free services and then getting banned is a policy, the policy should be reviewed.


I get dozens of offers for "free" services every day ... you know the type.... winning lotto tickets / free investments / free commissions / free business listings ... "Free" makes me lose trust and interest unless I understand the intentions.

A forum is a vehicle for discussion. It should not be a place where "fantastic offers" are spewed forth from unknown persons. If you allow that to happen, it becomes a noisy place to be. The valuable content posts become too much effort to find amongst the clutter of offers. I for one would lose interest.

I will gladly follow links in posts from established members or from someone who after even just a few posts shows he has some experience in the topic. I will also gladly follow links in responses to a question I might post. I don't however want to sift through promotional posts. 

I don't agree with this guy on the role of forums. It is here to help businesses, but in a much more subtle way.

Please continue to be the mean bouncer at the door  :Smile:

----------


## AndyD

What was his method?

----------


## Dave A

> Not at all. If his aim was to help the businesses on the forum, he would surely have taken the (limited) time necessary to rack up some posts in order to be able to include links.


 I'd agree you need to rack up some posts to build credibility, but you don't need to rack up posts to include links. If they're appropriate and not spam, they'll be approved.



> What was his method?


I think I've managed to close the door on this method, so it should be safe to reveal now.

You make a short post going "Hello" or something innocent that doesn't have any spam flagging triggers. The post flies through the spam filter automatically and gets posted on the board. You then immediately edit that post to include all the spam flag trigger stuff you didn't want screened. The edits are tracked so it's easy to manually spot deliberate attempts to beat moderation, but the edit doesn't run through the spam filter program (there are massive programming and resource issues).

There are a few variants of the technique, but that's the main gist of it.

Now that I've slept on it, I'd suggest it isn't an issue of trust - it's an issue of respect. When someone comes in doing the online equivalent of a stranger picking the lock to your front door, walking into your house without wiping his feet on the mat provided, goes straight to the refrigerator and starts eating the meal prepared for the regular diners, I see it as a big "F8ck you".

Well, my view is "right back at you, mate - cheers".

I don't care *why* you thought you are entitled to do that - It's not acceptable behaviour. Period.

----------


## Mark Atkinson

> I'd agree you need to rack up some posts to build credibility, but you don't need to rack up posts to include links. If they're appropriate and not spam, they'll be approved.


Ah, I must have been thinking of including links in signatures. I'm sure then you need 10-20 posts in order for it to be allowed? 

In any event, quite right on the respect issue. His intentions are obviously questionable if his methods are so devious.  :Mad:

----------


## Dave A

> Ah, I must have been thinking of including links in signatures. I'm sure then you need 10-20 posts in order for it to be allowed?


Unfortunately spam filtering on signatures is not a viable option. So yes, that's the situation with signatures.

----------


## garthu

All for the ban. The HELL IN with guys on my blog and VERY unsympathetic to stories. He purposely bypassed.... all for it..cheers!

----------


## AndyD

Yep, it's not a new trick but it was premeditated so bye bye. Banning spammers is a necessary approach, you need a balance of people who contribute against people who focused only on benefit to themselves. Sometimes it's a fine line between the two but more often it's not. I think with the MLM content of this particular forum the job is doubly difficult, the MLM'ers are a notoriously bolshie bunch when it comes to getting their product advertised and linked. There is also the odd occasion where a member who has spammer written all over him turns out to be a reasonable contributor in good time.

----------


## Chrisjan B

I vote for a ban - it ties in with the racism thread - the word anomic is applicable here... ( Social instability caused by erosion of standards and values) - it is a worldwide trend and not only in South Africa.

Just ban him before you ban me for swearing!

----------


## IanF

Anomic now that is a word I haven't heard before.

----------


## Chrisjan B

http://www.theforumsa.co.za/forums/s...cism-.../page2
See post #18 and #19

----------


## IanF

Saw that after I commented. My anomic reading skills coming out.

----------


## Chrisjan B

Just be glad you have reading skills at all!!!!

----------


## Dave A

> Banning spammers is a necessary approach, you need a balance of people who contribute against people who focused only on benefit to themselves. Sometimes it's a fine line between the two but more often it's not.


Absolutely. Fortunately most of what I have to deal with is so spammy, they haven't come in for a meal - they've taken a dump on the table. Not much thought involved as to what to do with those ones. 




> I think with the MLM content of this particular forum the job is doubly difficult


Do you think so? I was told to expect problems with people pushing MLM on the forum. I thought dedicating an area to it and setting a "don't sell, tell (/inform)" standard was pre-empting potential hassles. And I thought it had worked  :Confused: 




> Just ban him before you ban me for swearing!


I'd prefer to keep the public area fairly family safe, but if you feel the need to truly vent - there's the members only forums. 
I believe I might have "vented" occasionally myself  :Wink:

----------


## tonyflanigan

You rock Dave!  :Thumbup: 

Without a doubt, shut the dude out. As you mention, it's a respect issue. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size, who takes the time and trouble to browse around the forum will see that you are (in my opinion, and I'm sure many other members will support me on this), extremely fair. 

One of the reasons I enjoy the Forum SA is because I know that there is no cr@p here. I come here to chill, any kind of business that comes my way via the Forum is a bonus.

----------

Dave A (10-Jan-11)

----------


## Martinco

> You rock Dave! 
> 
> Without a doubt, shut the dude out. As you mention, it's a respect issue. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size, who takes the time and trouble to browse around the forum will see that you are (in my opinion, and I'm sure many other members will support me on this), extremely fair. 
> 
> One of the reasons I enjoy the Forum SA is because I know that there is no cr@p here. I come here to chill, any kind of business that comes my way via the Forum is a bonus.


I agree 100% and want to add that the *privilege* to subscribe to a forum like TFSA gives one a wider view of the world out there and how other people see it plus picking up valued info which one would otherwise miss out on. AND making friends in the process. What a bargain ! *And it's FREE*  :Rockon:

----------


## SilverNodashi

Dave, I'm with you on this one. He was unethical and purposefully bypassing your rules. No need to lift the ban.

----------

