Leaderboard

Lately this forum has a bigger problem with spam. Maybe a solution would be to forbid new accounts to post links? Like you can't post a link in your first 5 posts, and neither if your account is still quite young.

try /art/actors/structures/britons/kennel.xml

But I want all the info I can get about keto and cbd gummies! /s

Thank you. I was going to answer the question, but I forgot.

I've recommended this several times. Ideally that policy would also apply to profiles, since many of the spam events are limited to posting links in the profiles. It looks like about 20 spam accounts are created per week, and only a few of them make posts. The rest are changing their profiles to include links and images. Forum moderators are deleting spam and banning spam accounts every day or every few days. It would be great to restrict new accounts by default, although then the problem would just be delayed since the bots would wait until their restrictions were lifted and start posting spam. The person to talk to about this is @implodedok There was a mention of a paid module for the forum that would help to prevent new spam accounts from being created. And, maybe switching to different forum software would provide more spam control features. But, it's not a pain point for implodedok because he doesn't do moderation of the forum from what I can see. It's a pain point for the forum users and moderators like me. We keep squashing spam, but it's reactive instead of proactive. Google indexes it within hours, not days, and it affects our PageRank.

Also, AQ: peer reviewed for universal acceptance that has occurred Trainer: not peer reviewed with no universal acceptance @Atrik is just substituting terms to make it sound innocuous. “Read user input” is newspeak for “decide which units to make, how many to make, and when to make them” which is exactly how I described it the first time. Just because the player sets the parameters doesn’t mean the mod doesn’t do exactly what I said. Playing with a chess with the “assistance” of AI would isn’t all of a sudden made fair if the “user input” is to play at a 2000 level instead of a 3200 level, and it certainly isn’t fair if your opponent doesn’t consent to the “assistance.” Even with the substitution of terms, he still has to admit that it does some things differently with no player action.

I can reproduce this on A26: - put units in defensive stance while idle (or not, I suppose) - tell them to garrison something - make sure that the garrisoned unit/building doesn't have a rally point set, and ungarrison it in any way the unit will move towards the previous idle position. this is very broken, needs fix. Possibly just add an instruction to forget this.heldPosition when garrisoning in UnitAI.js. thanks for reporting.