Splodge's forum posts

#1 Posted by Splodge (1027 posts) -

That Balotelli almost goal was so good. Too bad it didn't go in, would've been hilarious.

Yeah I love a sneaky lob. He was so calm about it too.

#2 Posted by Splodge (1027 posts) -

eh what happened to the physio

#3 Posted by Splodge (1027 posts) -

what a fucking goal. England looking dangerous.

#4 Posted by Splodge (1027 posts) -


#5 Edited by Splodge (1027 posts) -

@mb said:

3. Premium users automatically bypass the queue regardless of their post count, and moderators can add or remove anyone to the white list at any time.

This reminds me of the ViewAskew boards (Kevin Smith's website). He was sick of people just trolling his forums and spamming nonsense so he put a procedure in place. To register on the board, you had to donate 99 cents during the sign up procedure to the red cross. Completely killed the trolling and spam.

Prob not a great idea for GB, but an interesting idea regardless.

#6 Posted by Splodge (1027 posts) -

Awesome game. First half was as lame as a bag of slugs, but the second half was as mad as a bag of spiders.

#7 Posted by Splodge (1027 posts) -

Well that sucks. But hey, it's nothing you can change so I will just have to survive without it.

Cheers :)

#8 Edited by Splodge (1027 posts) -

@ltsquigs said:

@xite: I'm pretty sure the google/twitter/facebook sign up services have captcha systems, so this isn't really 'easier'.

@nightriff @mattyftm: The signup captcha actually is already really hard. They use a service called "Are you Human" which actually requires you to play a little mini flash game in order to prove your human. Much harder to cheat than those images with text on them.

The problem is, at least this was the problem when I left (could have changed since then, disclaimer), a lot of the spammers *are* humans. They are people who are payed to spam on forums, not robots. So Captcha's don't really work that well on those types of spammers.

The funny part is, they don't get anything from spamming on these forums. GB (and GS/CV/OG) all make it so any new posts by new accounts automatically get a bunch of anti-SEO stuff on their posts (thats the main goal of these spam bots, not to get you guys to click on them, to spread links around the web to increase a websites page ranks). So they do all this work and get basically nothing out of it.

Trying to stop spammers will always be a push and pull, but at a certain point if your making these barriers at the cost of legitimate users ability to participate its a bad deal. Spammers will continue to do whatever they need to do to spam, a captcha on topic creation (or a wait time) will stop a lot of legitimate users.

Nothing is a substitute for a good skilled moderation team (like the great one GB has).

#9 Edited by Splodge (1027 posts) -

@leebmx said:

@majid said:

@sessh: You're spot-on about the refs. Though this is nothing compared to how bad they were in the 2002 WC.

@sessh said:

Man would I love it if this was finally the championship for the Netherlands. They had some really great plays, while the Spaniards seemed pretty much dead on the court.

Also what the fuck is up with the referees? 2 terrible goals in the first games (the penalty, and the goal that didn't count), 3 terrible goals in the second (both goals for Mexico were regular, and the should have gotten a penalty) and 1 terrible goal in the third game (that again, was no penalty). This is borderline ridiculous.

The problem is that instead of picking the best referees from round the world, they pick a selection from all the different federations. I know they are doing this to be inclusive, but what it means is that you get some referees from Africa/Asia etc that don't have experience officiating in really big, high pressure matches. This isn't meant to sound racist or anything, its just that you need to pick the best refs, even if it ends up with most of them being from Europe and South America.

Yeah the world cup can often house some of the worst displays of refereeing in any tournament. There is always controversy. The problem is a lack of consistency and different interpretations of the rules based on local play. Buckle up folks, this is only the beginning of ref-fest 2014 :)

#10 Edited by Splodge (1027 posts) -

I don't know what's happening in this thread anymore, but it's HOT!

Hot in a manly way though, right? You are not suggesting it's hot in a sexy way, and inferring the thread is female? Because if you are, we should have an argument about it that does not make any sense whatsoever. For ages.