Should leeching have a finite time scale?

[B4bcock]

From the site rules;

27 Lurking / Dormant Accounts
Members that do not contribute Reviews or where their accounts become dormant may have their membership revoked.

Firstly, I want to emphasise that this post is intended in no way to be a critique of old/new admin and their excellent running of this site.

   It just seems to be such a constant theme that a newbie is often deemed to have stepped out of line and what started as an interesting post ends up as a slanging match, ruining the thread along the way.   It's hard to know where to draw a line.   Should it be the case that at least 1 review should be done before a new member can post their opinions?   Should they be allowed a set number of posts before they then have to do a review to be allowed to carry on?   Should there be a set time limit after which a non-contributing leech has his account revoked?   Or is the current situation generally working ok?

[GingerNuts]

I may have missed them but as far as I know there haven't been any bannings specifically under Rule 27.

The criteria for the implementation of Rule 27, if there are to be any set criteria, will be determined by those who run the site.

In the meantime bannings for any reason will presumably be considered on a case by case basis.

[Blackpool Rock]

From the site rules;

27 Lurking / Dormant Accounts
Members that do not contribute Reviews or where their accounts become dormant may have their membership revoked.

Firstly, I want to emphasise that this post is intended in no way to be a critique of old/new admin and their excellent running of this site.

   It just seems to be such a constant theme that a newbie is often deemed to have stepped out of line and what started as an interesting post ends up as a slanging match, ruining the thread along the way.   It's hard to know where to draw a line.   Should it be the case that at least 1 review should be done before a new member can post their opinions?   Should they be allowed a set number of posts before they then have to do a review to be allowed to carry on?   Should there be a set time limit after which a non-contributing leech has his account revoked?  Or is the current situation generally working ok?

If it's working how the new owner and Mods want it to then it's just fine 
The rule change / statement is obviously a message of intent and i'm sure things will change in time but they've obviously had a nightmare just keeping the site running so let's give them time to effect any changes.

[mojo311]

I think stuff like this is pathetic
And it just cloggs the site up with more nonsense and crap and arguments.
Cant we just have a site where everyone gets on.  There is no need for posts like this.

[Derrick101]

There are leeches that contribute nothing, not even posts ! they just glean the information from reports to better there own punting.

There are others, that do not post reviews at all, that contribute in other ways.

I'm sure Admin have there own 'unwritten' rules regarding lurkers and leeches that they will implement in good time to the benefit of all contributing members. 

[Moby Dick]

I think stuff like this is pathetic
And it just cloggs the site up with more nonsense and crap and arguments.
Cant we just have a site where everyone gets on.  There is no need for posts like this.

And you’ve worked that out in 8days, or have you been here before?

[B4bcock]

Quote from mojo311 on 16 Aug;

Tbh my reviews would be very basic and boring my sessions are normally just vanilla and nothing more.
But i can imagine being trolled for not saying enough or not being fantasy enough but that kind of stuff dont happen in my case.



Probably a good job we don't all think the same, eh??? .

[daviemac]

From the site rules;

27 Lurking / Dormant Accounts
Members that do not contribute Reviews or where their accounts become dormant may have their membership revoked.

Firstly, I want to emphasise that this post is intended in no way to be a critique of old/new admin and their excellent running of this site.

   It just seems to be such a constant theme that a newbie is often deemed to have stepped out of line and what started as an interesting post ends up as a slanging match, ruining the thread along the way.   It's hard to know where to draw a line.   Should it be the case that at least 1 review should be done before a new member can post their opinions?   Should they be allowed a set number of posts before they then have to do a review to be allowed to carry on?   Should there be a set time limit after which a non-contributing leech has his account revoked?   Or is the current situation generally working ok?

I don't think you've read / understood the rule fully.

OldAdmin tried (possibly before you joined) to limit access the certain areas of the site unless regular posts were made, it didn't work.

The best advice I can give is if you think a thread has descended into a slagging match, don't read it, stick to ones you do find interesting.

[mojo311]

I don't think you've read / understood the rule fully.

OldAdmin tried (possibly before you joined) to limit access the certain areas of the site unless regular posts were made, it didn't work.

The best advice I can give is if you think a thread has descended into a slagging match, don't read it, stick to ones you do find interesting.

Thanks for clearing that up

[LLPunting]

I think stuff like this is pathetic
And it just cloggs the site up with more nonsense and crap and arguments.
Cant we just have a site where everyone gets on.  There is no need for posts like this.

Makes it more difficult to leech too, heaven forbid you have to scroll past threads you don't care for or read through through posts that prove to be uninformative.

[LLPunting]

And you’ve worked that out in 8days, or have you been here before?

I think smarrtie-pants will have used a new email and is using a new device and changed IP to avoid unmasking.  Hopefully due diligence by Admin will check.

[BrumTallGuy]

As a newbie. I would be happy for a leech cleanse. 

[B4bcock]

I don't think you've read / understood the rule fully.

OldAdmin tried (possibly before you joined) to limit access the certain areas of the site unless regular posts were made, it didn't work.

The best advice I can give is if you think a thread has descended into a slagging match, don't read it, stick to ones you do find interesting.

I first joined this site about 2 years ago and was a lurky leech for a few months before I suddenly found my account was closed due to my "service provider being banned from accessing the site".   Lesson learned, I rejoined and have made sure to contribute with reviews and, hopefully, sensible and useful posts.   I just find it irritating that blatant trolls and leeches are able to join the site and start immediately to cause disruption.   I appreciate the guys running this site have enough on their plates as it is and, as I made clear in my opening post, I did not start this thread intending any criticism of their sterling work.   Rather, I am hoping to provoke a bit of thought about something which I think many would agree can, at times, be an annoying distraction.

[Moby Dick]

I first joined this site about 2 years ago and was a lurky leech for a few months before I suddenly found my account was closed due to my "service provider being banned from accessing the site".   Lesson learned, I rejoined and have made sure to contribute with reviews and, hopefully, sensible and useful posts.   I just find it irritating that blatant trolls and leeches are able to join the site and start immediately to cause disruption.   I appreciate the guys running this site have enough on their plates as it is and, as I made clear in my opening post, I did not start this thread intending any criticism of their sterling work.   Rather, I am hoping to provoke a bit of thought about something which I think many would agree can, at times, be an annoying distraction.

Service Provider?
Please clarify
“Sex Worker/Slacker” or internet service provider/VPN?

[daviemac]

I first joined this site about 2 years ago and was a lurky leech for a few months before I suddenly found my account was closed due to my "service provider being banned from accessing the site".   Lesson learned, I rejoined and have made sure to contribute with reviews and, hopefully, sensible and useful posts.   I just find it irritating that blatant trolls and leeches are able to join the site and start immediately to cause disruption.   I appreciate the guys running this site have enough on their plates as it is and, as I made clear in my opening post, I did not start this thread intending any criticism of their sterling work.   Rather, I am hoping to provoke a bit of thought about something which I think many would agree can, at times, be an annoying distraction.

You don't seem to be understand very much do you.   

How would you define a 'useful and valid' post for a newbie in order for him to be accepted as a valid member.    

What I find the most annoying is threads like this with members coming up with ill thought out, unworkable suggestions. Oldadmin ran this site by himself for 9 years and he couldn't make your suggestion work. He did post some forum stats once, to demonstrate the number of regular posters compared to lurkers and lurkers far outnumbered the posters. This applies to all fora not just this one.


 

[LLPunting]

... my account was closed due to my "service provider being banned from accessing the site".

This would seem to indicate you had a Service Provider account so you were either misrepresenting yourself then or you are now.  Admin may want to investigate.

...
How would you define a 'useful and valid' post for a newbie in order for him to be accepted as a valid member.    

What I find the most annoying is threads like this with members coming up with ill thought out, unworkable suggestions. Oldadmin ran this site by himself for 9 years and he couldn't make your suggestion work. He did post some forum stats once, to demonstrate the number of regular posters compared to lurkers and lurkers far outnumbered the posters. This applies to all fora not just this one.

Indeed, you'd have to have a pretty broad base filter/criteria set to start:

1) Maximum time before first post which if violated would trigger automated banning.  Automation during registration would have to filter against email address used, IP and other identifiers to try to prevent serial registrations.
2) Minimum time between posts before review required.
3) Reviews hidden behind a second wall and access granted once the punter appeared to be genuine.
4) It would then fall to all the management and helpers to police punters, dipping into posting history of suspects to judge how useful they are being.  These would then either be summarily judged and booted by the reviewer (I am da Law!) or submitted for judgement by "senior" management.
5) Senior management would have to manage spats between management and "victimised" members.
etc...

[Steve2]

This would seem to indicate you had a Service Provider account so you were either misrepresenting yourself then or you are now.  Admin may want to investigate.

I think he means his ISP LL

[HarryZZ]

Such is life: "I am better than you because....."

Whether that's the car that you drive, your lifestyle choices, the colour of your skin or how many reviews you submit.

It is what it is, if there are 1000 users and 10 submit regular reviews on a free site, just use the reviews, the non reviewing 990 take nothing away from that, they don't make your experience any worse, perhaps it's better if they do review, but is forcing somebody to review against their will or creating false reviews just to have boxes ticked, is that better? There's always the chance that some "leech" who's been doing some nervous research before taking the plunge will start posting reviews a year after joining.

[LLPunting]

Such is life: "I am better than you because....."

Whether that's the car that you drive, your lifestyle choices, the colour of your skin or how many reviews you submit.

It is what it is, if there are 1000 users and 10 submit regular reviews on a free site, just use the reviews, the non reviewing 990 take nothing away from that, they don't make your experience any worse, perhaps it's better if they do review, but is forcing somebody to review against their will or creating false reviews just to have boxes ticked, is that better? There's always the chance that some "leech" who's been doing some nervous research before taking the plunge will start posting reviews a year after joining.

And in the meantime 990 extra dicks are dipping in the prize poonani that we've been finding... but it's not 990 it's thousands...

Just today over 500 online at 6.44am

A review posted at 2.40am has already had 89 views...

[B4bcock]

Service Provider?
Please clarify
“Sex Worker/Slacker” or internet service provider/VPN?

Sorry, I should have made that a bit clearer - it was my internet service provider which was deemed undesirable.

Thanks, everyone, for contributing to this topic.   I appreciate now that there is no simple "one fits all" solution and as it appears the guys running the site are happy with the current arrangement then it is almost certainly best to let things continue as they are.

[yandex]

What I find the most annoying is threads like this with members coming up with ill thought out, unworkable suggestions. Oldadmin ran this site by himself for 9 years and he couldn't make your suggestion work. He did post some forum stats once, to demonstrate the number of regular posters compared to lurkers and lurkers far outnumbered the posters. This applies to all fora not just this one.

I seem to remember it was the 90:9:1 rule he quoted - easy read about it here. External Link/Members Only

Can't see why it's so stressful to people that there are lurkers. They don't harm anyone and if one pops up and posts crap, they're pretty quickly called out

[Richthescouser]

Such is life: "I am better than you because....."

Whether that's the car that you drive, your lifestyle choices, the colour of your skin or how many reviews you submit.

It is what it is, if there are 1000 users and 10 submit regular reviews on a free site, just use the reviews, the non reviewing 990 take nothing away from that, they don't make your experience any worse, perhaps it's better if they do review, but is forcing somebody to review against their will or creating false reviews just to have boxes ticked, is that better? There's always the chance that some "leech" who's been doing some nervous research before taking the plunge will start posting reviews a year after joining.

But those 990 go to the better reviewed girls, making them more popular and potentially making them increase prices (due to the level of demand). There is more traffic to the site which will be costing someone somewhere money.   There are certainly costs to the posting minority from the leeches.

[Blackpool Rock]

But those 990 go to the better reviewed girls, making them more popular and potentially making them increase prices (due to the level of demand). There is more traffic to the site which will be costing someone somewhere money.   There are certainly costs to the posting minority from the leeches.

So what's the answer then, if the contributing members stop giving info and doing reviews so the leeches can't benefit then nobody benefits and we cut off our own noses.
Personally I take a bit of satisfaction knowing that I take info but also give something back and have to accept that others contribute sweet FA but hey that's life and it's a better option that the forum closing due to 0 posts.

The other thing is the info shared by PM's to other contributing members so the leeches don't see it until a couple of months down the line once the other trusted members have had a chance to punt a hidden gem 

[Happyjose]

If you find trivial things annoying you, I would thoroughly recommend booking a prostitute to help you ease away those petty stresses

[Moby Dick]

   It just seems to be such a constant theme that a newbie is often deemed to have stepped out of line and what started as an interesting post ends up as a slanging match, ruining the thread along the way.   It's hard to know where to draw a line.

I think it is OK for established members to question (and educate in a sporting way) any first time posters wether they are New Members or long time lurkers. It is to be expected. There are plenty of examples where they start threads without doing their own homework, white knight, tout, make fanboy comments, bragging about their exploits (yet no reviews) without understanding the ethos of this site. I don’t mind pointing newbies in the right direction, sometimes I treat them like children, but long time lurkers with idiotic comments should be shown the door, whilst I wouldn’t be suprised it long time lurkers who haven’t contributed a single post since registering are automatically deactivated.
This is a site for punters. If you don’t punt, and are unwilling to contribute then FECK OFF.

[LLPunting]

So what's the answer then, if the contributing members stop giving info and doing reviews so the leeches can't benefit then nobody benefits and we cut off our own noses.
Personally I take a bit of satisfaction knowing that I take info but also give something back and have to accept that others contribute sweet FA but hey that's life and it's a better option that the forum closing due to 0 posts.

The other thing is the info shared by PM's to other contributing members so the leeches don't see it until a couple of months down the line once the other trusted members have had a chance to punt a hidden gem 

Why do you suggest shutting us down rather than shutting them out?   

Admin/Management just mentioned yesterday that the severe limit on PMing between members is to force discussion onto the forum. 
Which forces us to perhaps consider either:
 1) keeping schtumm about details we don't want to broadcast (to leeches and members they don't like/trust)0
 2) share info outside of the forum (seems to be against the rules)
 3) stop broadcasting anything that they might want to keep part of restricted to a smaller audience.
All rather sad outcomes.

[Jonestown]

I thought that tens of thousands of open accounts with no discernible posting history were closed a month or so ago, that must have culled a large proportion of the lurkers. Rather than just delete accounts I'd expect the management / admin will be looking at ways to keep the membership numbers up and encourage the less active ones to take to their keyboard.

[yandex]

I thought that tens of thousands of open accounts with no discernible posting history were closed a month or so ago, that must have culled a large proportion of the lurkers. Rather than just delete accounts I'd expect the management / admin will be looking at ways to keep the membership numbers up and encourage the less active ones to take to their keyboard.

And presumably start posting crap just to keep up their post count 

[Blackpool Rock]

Why do you suggest shutting us down rather than shutting them out?   

Admin/Management just mentioned yesterday that the severe limit on PMing between members is to force discussion onto the forum. 
Which forces us to perhaps consider either:
 1) keeping schtumm about details we don't want to broadcast (to leeches and members they don't like/trust)0
 2) share info outside of the forum (seems to be against the rules)
 3) stop broadcasting anything that they might want to keep part of restricted to a smaller audience.
All rather sad outcomes.

I don't 
If you re-read my post in context that should be clear however the confusion is probably due to my post having a typo - "and it's a better option that the forum closing due to 0 posts."
"That" should actually be "Than"

[Jonestown]

And presumably start posting crap just to keep up their post count 

Well possibly, this is what happened 15 months ago when old admin made some access changes, we had a three day spree of freezing accounts, but I think he lost his nerve when he saw how many lingerers crept out of the woodwork, or at least something changed his mind. I'ts easy to spot and report one post wonders, just a question of what you do with them.

[daviemac]

Well possibly, this is what happened 15 months ago when old admin made some access changes, we had a three day spree of freezing accounts, but I think he lost his nerve when he saw how many lingerers crept out of the woodwork, or at least something changed his mind. I'ts easy to spot and report one post wonders, just a question of what you do with them.

He didn't lose his nerve, there were just too many accounts frozen for him to check them all individually, he had to 'un-freeze' on mass.

[Jonestown]

He didn't lose his nerve, there were just too many accounts frozen for him to check them all individually, he had to 'un-freeze' on mass.

yes, a shame, there were some right scoundrels in there.

[1969rja]

I don't review as I only use the red light area in Leeds but I do contribute to that thread so does that mean we should be removed too

[GingerNuts]

I don't review as I only use the red light area in Leeds but I do contribute to that thread so does that mean we should be removed too

Hopefully any bannings based on Rule 27 will be considered on a case by case basis.

There are those who don't submit reviews because they're just leeching information from the site.

There are those who can't submit reviews because they perhaps punt abroad or are in similar circumstances to yourself.

[LLPunting]

I don't review as I only use the red light area in Leeds but I do contribute to that thread so does that mean we should be removed too

Not to worry, it's been made clear it's about contribution not review count.  Reviews just make it easier to determine how useful you're being.