Validation Of New Members - And Re-Validation Of The Rest Of Us?

[sunny-dave]

Hello Ed - from a rather damp Dave

In the light of the appalling hoax perpetrated on AB (and Craft1948) by persons unknown, is it time the AB toughened up its procedures for registration of a username?

I hope that you will be asking your techies to have a dig into the details (IP Address, MAC address etc etc) used by the current hoaxer, and referring the matter to the Police if possible?

But ... I won't hold my breath for any positive outcome to enquiries.

Perhaps this will be the motivation for a change?

For example, AnswerBank (or more precisely Silverdisc) must already be set up to process credit/debit card transactions .

Requiring a card number and matching name to validate registration is a commonplace and easy to implement system - no charge needs to be made - just a pre-authorisation to confirm name and card number are valid.

How about all new usernames must do this after a maximum of five posts (or a couple of days) - with the username going inactive if they don't comply? A process of re-validation of existing members over a period of a month or two wouldn't hurt, either?

Not only would it stop some of the spammers, but (more importantly) it would weed out the serial 'returners' who cause 99% of all the grief on here?

Cheers

SD xx

PS : Still fishing, still house-hunting :)

[spathiphyllum]

The stiring of trouble isn’t from the OP, give it a rest

[AuntLydia]

Jack I can completely understand the concern over fake obituaries, this is a disgrace. As everyone has to provide an email address to join, it would not be difficult to email the alleged 'dead' person to verify if they had in fact passed. No reply would probably indicate a passing, though emails change etc.

[AuntLydia]

spath, everyone has a right to their opinion, and if its given within the Site Rules then its a fair opinion.

[jackthehat]

AL - I used my business e-mail when I signed up to AB almost 12 years ago. Since that time I have had 4 (possibly 5) personal e-mail addresses *none* of which I could access these days.

[Peter Pedant]

dead right ! - no actually that was a joke

using credit card numbers for validation - terribly bad idea
deal breaker as far as I am concerned
consigns AB into the pit in which scammers, boiler room scammers, estate agents, telephone sanitisers dwell.

so someone said X was dead and she's not
lardy dah - it is better than the other way round isnt it?

can we get back to something important like President Trump's - - -

[Peter Pedant]

honestly I cant get j+cked up by being called dead when I am not
( but I am 'under' the Christie )

[rowanwitch]

Some people just don't check their emails that often.
It was a stupid and unkind thing to do that caused significant upset.
I think however it is the extreme end of a spectrum of behaviours that goes down through banned users rejoining to continue their squabbles, the idea that this somehow isn't real, so no one can get hurt, and general discourtesies. No one minds a reformed character coming back after a while and rejoining in an acceptable way but it would be useful if they were identifiable. Mainly to avoid treading on toes that we know to be sensitive.

[237SJ]

I would never use a site that stores my c card details as ID. I try to avoid ever storing them on a site full stop (apart from Amazon).

[AuntLydia]

Anyone joining a forum should be welcomed and treated with courtesy. If they abide by the Site Rules and interact, ask questions and even get best answers then they should be left alone and not hounded as to 'who they may have been' in another life. Asking people to join using a credit card is exclusive and would be the end of AB.

[ChillDoubt]

I’m always amazed at the amount of Happy Birthday threads.

As if I’d put my real date of birth on an open forum website like this??

[anneasquith]

I may be wrong but, I did not get the impression craft was upset about the fake post ? Card details to partake in a Q&A site, police involvement, lol .

[jackthehat]

I think people get very comfortable when using this rather benign site, and don't really appreciate just what information they are actually divulging.
And there is no way of restricting people from just *reading* (and by default, gathering) information on those who are more relaxed about exactly what they reveal about themselves.

[rowanwitch]

The trouble is very few manage that, and it is often the case they return with the same approach to those they don't get on with. I think one attempt at return is reasonable but if multiple attempts at rejoining result in eventual re- banning something is amiss with the system.

[nailit]

//I think people get very comfortable when using this rather benign site, and don't really appreciate just what information they are actually divulging//

And so easy to do when you get chit chatting, not realising that not everybody is as trustworthy as oneself.

[anneasquith]

I'm always surprised how much details some abers share on this site :-(

[kvalidir]

I think if people don't have nefarious intent then they generally make it public who they were before. I certainly did, the exception to that being when someone has been bullied off the site, then they would obviously wish to remain anonymous a second time.

[sanmac]

As annesquith said earlier, I also have seen no indication that craft was terribly upset about the incident. Why others on her behalf are, I don't understand.

[kvalidir]

At the risk of also breaking Site Rules, when I was 14 years old I was a 'victim' if that's the word we are calling it of the user Dave mentioned, and I did fight back, I gave as good as I got and frankly found her sad and pathetic (I was told I wasn't diabetic, I was making it up lol, when I changed my avatar to a picture of me I was told I was trying to be 'sultry' lol, no, I was in a Naruto cosplay outfit, then I was accused of bieng my Dad in disguise and a multitude of banned users in an effort to get me banned, and this was all day every day relentlessly) however, I wouldn't like to think that someone like that is given enough credence to alter Site Rules to make it more restrictive for people who sometimes are posting in an emergency to get help. Much as they are wrong and irritating I think we're best to weather the storm with them and just carry on, to do otherwise gives them power they don't deserve.

[AuntLydia]

I personally have no idea what time the Editor 'clocks off' lol!

I really don't know who you see to have a bee in your bonnet about sunny dave, but I hope you can find peace of mind . This is after all just an Internet Forum and not worth getting stressed over.