Ban Someone Other Than Me

What To Do With 'unregistered' Posters

  • Ban 'unregistered' posters

    Votes: 37 50.7%
  • Allow 'unregistered' posters

    Votes: 24 32.9%
  • Allow 'unregistered' posters, but show their IP address

    Votes: 12 16.4%

  • Total voters
    73

cheryl

I started this.
Staff member
susiedriver said:
Cheryl,

Does this help? I found it on another board.

Not tested, but should work:

edit newthread.php and newreply.php, find:

// check max images

before that add:

if ($ipaddress AND $postusername=='Unregistered')
{$postusername=$ipaddress;}

(be careful about the caps of 'Unregistered'. Its caps should be exactly as your board uses the word)

That's it..
Now that's what I call resourceful... Could you post the link to the board or site where you got that hack? php coding is not something I'm skilled at so I'd like to know where to go for support if I kerfrumple the board while trying to hack those scripts.
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
Cheryl,

I'm sorry, I looked in my history, and couldn't find where I got that from. I tried a few google searches and that's what I found. If I find it again, I'll PM you. I hope it works, it would eliminate some confusion.
 

ok2bclever

I Re Member
Unregistered said:
I think it so interesting that OK
Oh good, getting attacked by an unregistered again.

I do not post under unregistered so most of that is tripe.

The only time I unlogged was to test the security problems that occured on this new format and I made that testing public knowledge immediately afterward.

Trying to construe that as "self-proclaimed unregistered poster" is intentful dishonesty on your unregistered part.

My browser is set to keep me logged in as I believe one should have the courage of ones words as well as ones actions.

It is a shame that is not also your philosophy.

Also, the math shows banning of unregistereds is in the lead, but the policy is up to Cheryl regardless in my opinion.
 
A

Anonymous Hero

Guest
over9five said:
My math shows allowing unregistered posters leads 25 to 16

If their IP address is shown, they are more indentifiable than if just a user name is shown.
 

iloadthetruck

Well-Known Member
traveler said:
I assume that there are only two choices that count, ban (choice 1) or allow (choice 2 + 3).

I'm gonna see if I can spin this around, but if, in the case of option 3, we aren't able to get the IP addresses to display, then perhaps it should count as option 1 instead? (Isn't democracy fun!) :lol:
 

cheryl

I started this.
Staff member
mr_roboto said:
how many registered id's are allowed per household?

roboto
There is no limit set on usernames registered at the same ip. At my house there are two of us that use the board and chat room and I am aware of other users where both spouses use the board and/or chat room. I don't want to limit registration by ip because some people do share the same computer and there is no reason to block them from registering their own usernames. If someone registers a username and then uses it to flame or post inappropriate material then I would simply ban their ip and that would ban all of their existing usernames.
 

wily_old_vet

Well-Known Member
susiedriver said:
Thanks Cheryl.

This poll is only open for 48 hours, btw.

Hey Cheryl by my count the 48 hours is up. since you can't post the IP's where does category three go. Whatever you decide is cool with me.:biggrin:
 
A

Anonymous Coward

Guest
Nine five, that is the way union thugs count ballots. And the way you and I count them is the way everyone else without an agenda counts them. So it would seem that OK is for banning.

As for your experiment there OK, Fine, you did it and it worked the way you wanted. And you voted to keep Susie on line. But five times? Sounds like you were much less than honest. Something I have noticed on many of your accounts. And after the fact, you posted not only that you did, but did it five times. Maybe becuase you knew that you would be caught from your IP addy if you did not admit it to begin with? Nothing like honesty before being caught with your hand in the cookie jar?
 
A

Anonymous Coward

Guest
Re: supervisors working

Interesting how Cheryl has flamed me by changing by changing the name to anon coward. I thought this was going to be open and honest in how we treat the anon poster. But it would seem that either she has changed her opinion or someone else in in comand of the controls. Just very interesting.
 

ok2bclever

I Re Member
No, actually I tried it and my system crashed (unrelated I believe :laugh: )

I tried it again when it came up and then realized I had not noted the actual counts to see if that one had added to it.

I tried it a third time and it added it and I answered a couple of emails.

Then I realized someone might have voted at just the right moment to make me think my unregistered one had counted so I voted two more times immediately in succession.

As both of those immediately counted it confirmed the test.

Then I reregistered and posted my findings that the ballot box could be and apparently had been stuffed by you and so was not reliable by the fact that you could vote unannounced repeatedly.

Mine was all above board and you are aware of that, but your agenda is just to smear me as an anonymous coward, so I am not really explaining anything to you, am I.
 

ok2bclever

I Re Member
over9five said:
My math shows allowing unregistered posters leads 25 to 16

Over, got it, you are counting allowing unregistered and anonymous posters together.

I was not and I do not think they should be, but it's a judgement call.

I will explain why I don't think they should be counted together.

I earlier stated I don't believe unregistered posters should be allowed to post, but I think I should define that better.

What I really don't think is anonymous posters should be allowed.

I actually would be willing to vote for the IP choice as I am more interested in keeping the forum responsible, so I could be lumped into the 25 side of the vote when I clearly do not believe those like the poster who is flaming me here anonymously should be allowed to do so.

The system use to show the unregistered's IP address so you knew when someone was repeatedly posting, even when they tried to pretend they were more than one and it also let us know when it was a manager pretending to be hourly.

Unfortunately, we lost that in the move to this more graphically expressive board that I prefer other than this one side effect.

Regardless, if Cheryl decides to leave it wide open to anonymous posters that is up to her and her right as the owner of the forum.
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
For what it's worth, my original intent was to have 'unregistered' as one category, but I would be willing to have 'unregistered with ip' post, since they are not anonymous. The problem with 'unregistered' is that there is no way to differentiate between two or more 'unregistered' in a thread.

Cheryl, do you think the hack would work to show the IP of the 'unregistered' posters?
 

iloadthetruck

Well-Known Member
I should mention I am all for displaying the IPs of unregistereds. I've said before one of the benefits of registering is that your IP would never be displayed. But if Cheryl can't get it to work, then Susie is right, we do need some way to distinguish between Anonymous Coward #1, Management Shill #3, and FedEx Troublemaker #4.
 

tieguy

Banned
I hope Cheryl does ban the anonymous poster. I get tired of being constantly accused of things on this board by the paranoid.









[EVIL]Liberals do my dirty work[/EVIL]
 
Top