Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Minister Polarius on June 20, 2017, 05:35:38 PM
-
So I just directed someone to check out the boards to get some more info about what's been going on since he quit in the 90s. Apparently, you can't create an account unless you answer some redemption trivia. If this is true, it seems an alarming barrier to entry and displays a lack of confidence in the mod team. Which, granted, I also have but seems weird to be officially confirmed 8)
Anyone know anything about this?
-
when i created an account it just asked me what the most powerful card in the game was and everyone knows it's The Son Of God!
-
I've never heard of that but I can guess it's to limit the number of bot accounts that were being created. If you've ever played a game with a basic starter you probably know what the most powerful card in the game is.
-
Regardless, I feel a bit kovfefe that now that the toxicity has died down I was confident about sending new prospects here to be greeted by the community only to discover you can't sign up unless you already play Redemption.
I get a bot gate, but it shouldn't be impossible for uninitiated humans to get in.
-
I got asked questions such as what is Rob Andersons last name and what is the most powerful card in the game as said above- I would assume it's like Gabe said to limit boy accounts.
-
Asking for Rob Anderson's last name is fine because that's just a normal anti-bot puzzle.
Again, the situation is that a player who had quit in the 90s was convinced to check it out again, but then immediately got turned off by the pants-on-head signup question. It's a completely unnecessary pain point. I wouldn't care except there isn't another place to send people who are interested where they can be greeted and shown the ropes.
-
I agree that questions that appear to have multiple possible answers are not as inviting to new members as questions that only have one obvious answer. This needs to be fixed asap.
-
I have messaged Roy about this. Hopefully we can get a solution to this soon.
-
Thank you Travis for the heads up.
We have had a few spammers in the last couple of weeks who have passed beyond bot recognition but were safely rejected. I think they are not bots but humans doing research to get correct answers to the challenge questions. We are not anymore fighting bots but actual human spammers.
What does our Redemption family intelligently suggest we do with the questions then?
If you don't see me reply to this post exchange, a mod please PM me.
Thanks and blessings brethren. Peace.
-
Is there a way to do a referral system? Like if Daniel's friends could give his name and board name then you would know they were someone who was invited. This still makes it tricky for people who don't really have a connection but might be a place to start.
-
Wouldn't Moderators be the best way to stop human spammers? Spammers will eventually find a way in. Average Joe trying to learn the game may not.
-
We have been sending Emails to questionable applicants to possibly tie them up with player referrals. That is the easy part. The difficult part is how to approve seemingly 'clean' applicants who have nothing to do with Redemption previously. We have somehow been able to manage that as well but with a lot of discernment and prayer.
Unless we have a more secure method that allows easier quetions to be answered at the same time, we prayerfully have to impose our 'better safe than sorry' principle.
Thus far, we encourage member applicants who may know a Redemption player to help them answer challenge questions. Players who invite new friends are encourged to assist in answering questions as well as explain that the stronger pre-membership challenges are also for their own future good.
Once again, we welcome more wisdom into preventing actual human spammers from going beyond the security gate. We are pretty much safe against actual bots thus far. It's actual humans who have negative intentions that we need to beware of.
Peace.
-
as well as explain that the stronger pre-membership challenges are also for their own future good.
o_0
Once again, we welcome more wisdom into preventing actual human spammers from going beyond the security gate. We are pretty much safe against actual bots thus far. It's actual humans who have negative intentions that we need to beware of.
We're safe from bots no less just having the "Rob Anderson's last name" question without also having a question that is not how security questions work. Like you said, human spammers can find out the answer anyway (not that I can imagine anyone having any reason to physically, manually spam a forum with such a minuscule active user base). This is not a "better safe than sorry" principle, it is a system with no upsides. In fact, I don't understand any part of that sentence. More secure method for what? Same time as what?
The attitude that seems to be conveyed by that post would definitely explain the tons of pockets of redemption-havers all over the country that aren't even aware there are tournaments. It also seems out of character for you to be paranoid and unwelcoming, so hopefully you'll clarify since I can't have properly understood what you said.
-
Daniel, I am truly sorry if my post may have been vague. Thus far, we have only implemented the extra questions for the past couple of days. I have so far reverted to the two easiest questions to answer, awaiting feedback from others on this move. I also need your input (via PM only) as well as from the few who have posted comments on this thread, of 3 to 5 more easy questions we can ask an applicant.
Meanwhile, I encourage you to help your friend or acquaintance get on the boards soon.
I hope you do understand from how you've known me that it is out of prayerful discernment and not out of paranoia, and definitely not of being unwelcoming, that a move had been made. You know me way better than that.
Let us also see how a couple more people would react to the latest replies.
Thank you for your input, son. Godbless.
-
Roy, you know I love you like a brother, and you also know that I rarely agree with Polarius. ;)
However, I think you are putting too much of the burden of stopping occasional spammers on yourself. As much as we would love to stop them from ever getting in, the modern world is simply too tech savvy to expect a fool-proof system.
If a spammer gets through lighter pre-membership walls, they would then simply start spamming. People like me will spot their posts and alert a Moderator. Moderators will then delete their posts, and the offender will eventually get the Schaef Hammer.
I would much rather be annoyed by sporadic spam posts, than to have new players who stumbled upon Redemption be unable to access the message boards just because they think Authority of Christ is the most powerful card in the game. ;D
-
I mean everyone knows it's really the Buckler promo... 8)
-
I mean everyone knows it's really the Buckler promo... 8)
Is that the national promo this year? Is it a Borderless Bucker promo!!!?!
-
You nailed it and it's getting an ability. Something similar to "sow reap and rejoice" for OT. We want you to be able to lose playing a buckler Promo just as quickly as you lose from playing "SRaR"
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/3ecdb9_fa6ab1e06cbc43f7ad7766cc480feff8~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_370,h_500,al_c,lg_1/3ecdb9_fa6ab1e06cbc43f7ad7766cc480feff8~mv2.png)
Come to think of it we should've named this card "sow, reap and weep"
-
Wait until you see my Sow, Reap and Rejoice/Angel at Tomb deck... 8)
-
See...forum members spam too. ::)
-
Angel, AoCP, SoG, TSC, SRR for the 5th. It's not a good card but it is a usable card.
-
Angel, AoCP, SoG, TSC, SRR for the 5th. It's not a good card but it is a usable card.
How did your opponent get to 5 redeemed souls before you and not win?
;)
-
Dear old friends,
Please take what I am about to say with a grain of salt (or more than 1) because it is1:21 AM and I have not slept all night.
I agree with the initial sentiment which was echoed by YMT. Cactus Games does not have the monetary ability to prevent spammers who know even the smallest amount about computer/internet technology.
I would suggest that instead of limiting membership, limit the areas which new members have access to upon joining. New members will almost always makes their first posts in the same places so it should be obvious if a spammer has joined or not.
You could also establish a waiting period between posts (which was in place when I was last active). The waiting period could be triggered for every post or could be triggered if a certain number of posts are made within a small time frame.
:sleepy:
Blessings,
Sean