Scratch

CheeseMunchy · 2012-01-04 14:52:45

Was the troll "attack" in misc?

imnotbob · 2012-01-04 14:57:13

CheeseMunchy wrote:
Was the troll "attack" in misc?

Yes

CheeseMunchy · 2012-01-04 15:01:29

imnotbob wrote:
CheeseMunchy wrote:
Was the troll "attack" in misc?
Yes

Oh.

maxskywalker · 2012-01-04 15:57:46

Okay, now that that's settled, let's get back on topic before this gets closed.

Daroach1 · 2012-01-04 16:00:37

I was TECHNICALLY online when it happened, I was in bed and my DSi was too glitchy to log in, but I saw the whole **** attack. I even saw JJROCKER being insulted.

Last edited by Daroach1 (2012-01-04 16:02:40)

GravityCatisalie · 2012-01-04 16:09:10

maxskywalker wrote:
cheddargirl wrote:
maxskywalker wrote:
Okay, we all know how the [url]tags got disabled. The mods say it's to prevent 'image spamming'. But let's make something of a poll here. Who has seen image spamming within 6 months, and on which topic, and how many times, and is the post or image still there, and when did you see it?
Well, they were actually removed because some of the images that were posted recently were extremely bad.

As for the image spamming in general, they're kind of more common than one might think - meme spam is actually the most relevant one, which happens every few weeks or so. (last few ones I've sen within the last week, when users were linking to it instead of posting it). It's probably not as severe as the really bad attack that happened recently, but they can often be rude responses at times, if not just pure spam.

werdna123 wrote:
I agree it's stupid to completely disable all images just because once every couple of years someone does something bad with them. It had been over a year between the two I know of. Sure, if we turn them on, one day it will happen again, but it's so rare that the benefits completely outweigh the problems. I think I'd rather another troll attack than permanent image removal.
I wonder why people say it's permanent when it isn't...
Oh um, and when did memes start going against the Guidelines?

They're not. It's okay as long as you have a post behind it.
But when you just keep on posting pictures of Forever Alone without anything else contributing to the discussion that's when it's spam.

Last edited by GravityCatisalie (2012-01-04 16:10:35)

ImagineIt · 2012-01-04 16:39:19

I only see memes, but they don't count to me. Count me as a nonwitness.

CheeseMunchy · 2012-01-04 16:42:08

I'm a non-witness.

Necromaster · 2012-01-04 17:18:17

It sucks I agree

We should make a petition

Laternenpfahl · 2012-01-04 22:54:35

Non witness here

veggieman001 · 2012-01-04 22:57:36

I support the temporary removal of images, although it's exactly what the person who did it wanted.

Last edited by veggieman001 (2012-01-04 22:58:04)

MrMokey · 2012-01-04 23:03:15

The image removal isn't permanent so there is no need for a petition whatsoever.

cheddargirl wrote:
I wonder why people say it's permanent when it isn't...

PaperMario123 · 2012-01-04 23:04:25

I saw the whole attack. yikes Scary stuff... I saw the bad images, JJROCKER getting insulted, and all that. The worst part of it all is that this person/ these people were, like, DEVOTED to this attack. It was in Misc., where New Scratchers can't post, and with ************ images, when New Scratcher can't even post any images. I wasn't technically online when it happened (was using my iOS device- for whatever reason, wouldn't log me in), but I saw it in my logged-offness.

Anyway, (and please don't go attackng me on this) I actually appreciate the ST's decision to temporarily remove [img]image tags[/img], but not if it goes on too long. 2-5 weeks is acceptable, anything beyond that, no.

Anyway, basically, I saw it.

Gatsby · 2012-01-04 23:10:36

I'm okay with the deactivation of images in posts. It's for the better

I'd be fine if it was permanent too

Last edited by Gatsby (2012-01-04 23:10:51)

veggieman001 · 2012-01-04 23:13:25

Gatsby wrote:
I'm okay with the deactivation of images in posts. It's for the better

I'd be fine if it was permanent too

Agreed.

puppetadventurer · 2012-01-04 23:56:32

imnotbob wrote:
JJROCKER wrote:
imnotbob wrote:

Doesn't mean they had to apologize or say anything to you :L
I mean apologize for the entire thing like the images and the trolling.
I know but they shouldn't have to apologize for what's not their fault.

That's what I keep telling my dad! Why should I be the one to apologize to my sister? I didn't even do anything!!!
fasgdfhdh

JJROCKER · 2012-01-05 00:04:09

puppetadventurer wrote:
imnotbob wrote:
JJROCKER wrote:

I mean apologize for the entire thing like the images and the trolling.
I know but they shouldn't have to apologize for what's not their fault.
That's what I keep telling my dad! Why should I be the one to apologize to my sister? I didn't even do anything!!!
fasgdfhdh

I know, right!

puppetadventurer · 2012-01-05 00:04:34

JJROCKER wrote:
puppetadventurer wrote:
imnotbob wrote:

I know but they shouldn't have to apologize for what's not their fault.
That's what I keep telling my dad! Why should I be the one to apologize to my sister? I didn't even do anything!!!
fasgdfhdh
I know, right!

Yeah!!!

cheddargirl · 2012-01-05 02:33:33

imnotbob wrote:
JJROCKER wrote:
imnotbob wrote:

Doesn't mean they had to apologize or say anything to you :L
I mean apologize for the entire thing like the images and the trolling.
I know but they shouldn't have to apologize for what's not their fault.

Part of me thinks that, since this is an all ages site, some accountability can be held (there should have been better measures to prevent this).

It kind of reminds me of when the deviantART website was, to a certain degree, held accountable by the community when a virus spread through the ad system and a lot of people got infected with viruses from browsing the site. The staff there did take the precaution of managing to single out the set of ads that were the problem and then implementing a system that allowed users to report future ads, but as you can imagine there was an angry reaction as to how the dA staff wasn't more careful with their ad system in the first place. Not sure how many parents of Scratchers know of the attack(s) on Scratch, but I'd imagine they would be pretty angry if they did (and perhaps even more angry if the ST didn't do anything to prevent possible attacks in the future).

Scratch

archived forums

#26 2012-01-04 14:52:45

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#27 2012-01-04 14:57:13

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

CheeseMunchy wrote:

#28 2012-01-04 15:01:29

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

imnotbob wrote:

CheeseMunchy wrote:

#29 2012-01-04 15:57:46

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#30 2012-01-04 16:00:37

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#31 2012-01-04 16:09:10

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

maxskywalker wrote:

cheddargirl wrote:

maxskywalker wrote:

werdna123 wrote:

#32 2012-01-04 16:39:19

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#33 2012-01-04 16:42:08

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#34 2012-01-04 17:18:17

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#35 2012-01-04 22:54:35

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#36 2012-01-04 22:57:36

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#37 2012-01-04 23:03:15

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

cheddargirl wrote:

#38 2012-01-04 23:04:25

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#39 2012-01-04 23:10:36

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

#40 2012-01-04 23:13:25

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

Gatsby wrote:

#41 2012-01-04 23:56:32

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

imnotbob wrote:

JJROCKER wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

#42 2012-01-05 00:04:09

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

puppetadventurer wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

JJROCKER wrote:

#43 2012-01-05 00:04:34

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

JJROCKER wrote:

puppetadventurer wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

#44 2012-01-05 02:33:33

Re: The Banning of the [img] Tags

imnotbob wrote:

JJROCKER wrote:

imnotbob wrote:

Board footer