Suspension from AB

[sarumite]

Dear Ed
Last week my account with AB was suspended with no prior explanation. I have today received your e-mail as below:

"Thanks for the email and sorry for the delay in getting back to you, your account has now been unsuspended.

As none of the content on any of your postings has been explicit, offensive, abusive etc the reason behind the suspension is most likely to be due to excessive posting i.e. you have posted more than 3 times in 5 minutes. This
rule has always been in place and is not by any means a new feature.

Hope this explains the problems"

Would you please consider the following:-
1) If this is a rule of Answerbank, surely it should be listed accordingly with other site rules.

2) Whilst I can understand your wish to eradicate spam, there is often good reason to provide answers quickly on Q&P site when jointly solving certain puzzles, so can the ruling not be applied more selectively?

And may I also ask if the 3 postings in 5 minutes applies to Q&A in different threads, or only Q&A within the same thread, or both?

Since my suspension I have looked carefully at other postings, and there seems to be absolutely no uniformity with the implementation of this rule.

Regards (sarumite)☺

[jno]

I don't think it's a rule in the normal sense, it's just a trigger point which kicks in the robots (to block spam, as you say). Presumably there wouldn't be much point in suspending the rule for Q&P because then Q&P would risk being spammed?

[sarumite]

Thanks jno .. but the practices outlined in my final paragraph indicate that there really is no automatic enforcement of this rule by pre-programmed androids.

[Octavius]

The line from EB Ed,

� the reason behind the suspension is most likely to be due to excessive posting i.e. you have posted more than 3 times in 5 minutes.�

suggests there is. Personally I can�t see any �good reasons� for quick replies other than being the first to reply or for rapid repartee.

[kettledrum]

Dear Ed

I, too, have just read the Site Rules and cannot see any rule about (not) posting more than 3 times in 5 minutes. If this is a rule, and your techno-systems automatically suspend people who transgress it, surely it should be published as such.

There appears to be a suspicion that sarumite's and aquagility's recent suspensions were due to over zealous interference from another member of Q & P. To prevent this happening without justifiable cause could suspendees be made aware of the name of the person who has triggered their suspension. This would not discourage us all from putting a stop to anything 'explicit, offensive, abusive etc' but would deter jealous, petty-minded bureaucrats from spoiling everybody else's harmless fun.

[B00]

kettledrum, Maybe you're reading more into the suspension that what's actually there?

I really do think it's more a case of posting several answers in a category in quick succession rather than any form of maliciousness from another user or users. As for wanting to know who's reported your posts....why? Won't that cause ill feeling on the site? All a user would need to do would be to register another name to report with.

[lector]

I don't see why this has to be pursued to the nth degree?

There is 'built in' within the program 'some coding' that attempts to identify spamming .... it is not an exact science ...but it is reasonable to try and stop spamming ....

Part of this automatic coded process obviously 'picks-up' on postings from the same Aber in a short time period - as a possible attempt by spammers to make a number of posts.

it doesnt work very well - but it might stop a 'major' attempt by spammers to slow down/close down answerbank through a massive bombardment?

This is a 'site integrity' matter and I can understand if there is a reticence to refer to this in Rules (ie tell spammers).

Nonetheless perhaps the anti-spamming defences were set up a while ago - are now a little out of date - and should be reviewed comprehensively - updated etc?

Many Abers are aware of this 3 quick answers and you are suspended' feature (as is shown by the wide response to the suspension of sarumite et al).

So, I think that Abers may have to live with the 'imperfect' as 'defending' against spammers is not an exact science!

I don't buy into 'good reason' for supplying answers quickly .... seems a justification to fit the circumstances ... slow down and relax - it isn't a race or a matter of life and death?

just enjoy this site for what it sets out to do ... be courteous to others .... share knowledge .... come and go .... this is the anonymous Internet of Etherspace .... this is not the site to build friendships on and enter into dedicated chat .... relax and chill

.... and hasn't this matter taken up enough space ?.... I cannot see why those affected cannot have a discrete dialogue with Ed .... let Ed do her job? let the rest of Ab get back to posting questions and answering happily .....

[shaneystar2]

"this is not the site to build friendships on and enter into dedicated chat "
Amazing ..........I am so glad I don't class you as a friend lector .
Been reading your Rule Book again have you ?
AB Rules state
Do not abuse the AnswerBank�s registration procedures and attempt to acquire multiple usernames...but funnily enough ..........we have no proof ..........do we lector / AN other / all the other names you float around Q&P with.
You hate me don't you ? Because I know who you are .
Just waiting for you to get me suspended ...well....wait in vain.

[lector]

oh dear shaneystar2 - why get personal? .... I have a point of view, always have .... but you have a problem.

[evsajo]

As a fairly new member to AB Q+P i cannot understand why anyone objects to friendliness.This world has got enough problems without people making a fuss because one or two of us,when answering questions get to know the other people. I joined 6 months ago when my husband died from a brain tumour.I didn't tell everyone about it but in the following weeks some ABs found out and often gave me messages of encouragement and explained various things on the computor which I couldn't use!!! How can anyone seriously object to this. They must be very sad, uncaring people and I am glad I have only met the GOOD ABers. Regards Evsajo

[shaneystar2]

No lector ..you have the problem ....it's called multiple personality disorder.

What is wrong with people being friendly on AB and particularly Q&P?

Why are you always knocking everyone on Q&P because they are supportive and helpful in providing people with answers.?

Why do you post all the clues to the EV ..accept peoples generous help and then stab them in the back ?

When I see you recommend a book to someone ...give someone a recipe ....help someone with a problem ....or sympathise with or support anyone I may change my opinion .....but I think I may have to wait a long time .

[wideboy]

Only just came across all this discussion. I sympathise with Sarumite and the others. May be a simple question, but why instant suspension - why not a warning first? Even banks and employers do that (even by law)!!

[gen2]

The aspect of this three-posts problem that annoys me, and I believe annoys sarumite, is the arbitrary way it is applied. I know for a fact I posted at least 4, possibly 5 replies once within 5 minutes (without suspension). Posters are encouraged to post multiple questions in the same post, but answers come one at a time. At busy times a post of half a dozen questions from a puzzle or quiz will be answerd by half a dozen people - sometimes more. At quiet times, the same person may answer each one in succession as I did.

I wasn't suspended, sarumite was. If this rule WAS being applied rigidly, then there would be many more suspensions and a greater clamour for the rule to be relaxed or applied less stictly in Q&P. There is no other section where multiple questions requiring short answers are posted in a single post. As far as I can tell, other members outwith Q&P who have fallen foul of this rule have done so through chat, not through offering legitimate answers to questions. I really do believe Q&P is a special case requiring a review of how the rules are applied.

[sarumite]

May I ask what precisely is your problem lector? ... other than perhaps wishing to be the centre of attention, whilst simultaneously alienating yourself to the vast majority of Q&P site users.

I have noted on several occasions during the past week, that you have delighted in hinting that my temporary suspension was self imposed and without doubt fully justified. In my defence, I can only say that I was unaware of any multiple posting rules, and still do not know precisely why my access to the site was temporarily denied.

And do you really believe that when a group of members regularly solve problems together, they should remain totally anonymous and not strike up any form of rapport?? That scenario would perhaps be appropriate to automatons but surely it should not be advocated for us consumers!

[jno]

all the same, I think lector is right: anti-spam defences are a good idea. It does mean we have to slow down posting a bit. If we overdo it we're suspended until the Ed can sort it out, which is usually fairly soon. It's not like losing your job, as wideboy thinks. It just means you can't post on a website for a while. This isn't really such an unreasonable or intolerable restriction, it's just a minor inconvenience.

[shaneystar2]

If indeed there is such a Rule then it should be made clear and set down in stone in the Site Rules ..Like gen2 I have done the same thing and answered one Q after another in Q&P well within this "five minute " thingy and never been suspended.So presumably the robots were on a tea break at the time ..

I still maintain though that it is far too much of a coincidence that our three popular helpful gentleman on Q&P were all zapped at more or less the same time .And then made to feel like naughty schoolboys by the head monitor .

Let's have this five minute rule written in black and white please Editor just to keep the head boy happy and out of our hair .

[gen2]

jno, You can't slow down giving answers. Many answerers are male and when the brain is engaged in solving a puzzle, they cannot be expected to multi-task and keep looking at their watch to monitor the time. Just a few minutes ago I was answering questions in Q&P and suddenly realised I had posted 3 answers in 3 minutes

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Quizzes-and-Puz zles/Question388085.html

As you can see, I am still here so the 'rule' isn't being rigidly applied.

[Ont-ice]

Excellent point gen2. As I frequently come on site before retiring to my bed (which makes it early morning 4:00am UK time) , I often pick up some questions that haven't been answered during the day. Frequently I answer them one or two at a time (especially if its a list) and can recall on one occasion answering approx 4/5 questions within the, debated, five minutes.
Perhaps the robots or the 'automated coded process' also sleep!!!!!!! If so they need to be set for 24/7. If they didn't suspend me for my 4/5 answers then one is left wondering if robots or 'automated coded processes' actually do exist.
Humans sleep, robots don't.
Go figure.

[jno]

actually, I would have thought after hours was just when the robots needed to be switched on to full power. I imagine the Ed is being slightly cagey about how they work in order not to give information to spammers; the downside is that ABers are left in the dark too. To those why type too fast, can I suggest you put a huge glove on your right hand and force yourself to type slowly with your left. This will bring a wide range of health benefits such as helping to lower blood pressure and providing time for philosophical meditation.