Dont allow Pics

[DannyBoy1]

graphics spam is worse, you never know what they could post.

 

[Computer Head]

graphics spam is worse, you never know what they could post.

They could post child porn or something and we would never know until we accidently opened the topic.

 

[lhuser]

I'd say harder than 100 post. When mods aren't present, it can go bad.

Say around 250-1000.

 

[Rudster8161]

I'd say harder than 100 post. When mods aren't present, it can go bad.

Say around 250-1000.

nay no person is goin to come in here and post 25 posts just to spam, they are hundereds of other high ranked forums.

 

[Celegorm]

Yeah, graphic spam is much worse, and has a great potential of getting members in trouble at work or home if that is seen over their shoulder.

I think 250 might be too high though. We all know we have some quality members who have been below that point for a while before they really started posting. Why punish those who are the quality? Most spammers stay for like 2 posts any ways.

 

[J03]

I think around 150 would do it.

 

[~NeonFire372~]

I'd say 200.

 

[DannyBoy1]

You don't need that many, 50-100 would be do fine, no spammer would stay for that long.

 

[dude_se]

most newbies who spam just post the usual dogey text. i havent seen many pics about except for furbys little fit. i think doing this is a bit of a waste of time tbh. its fine as it is.

 

[Rudster8161]

most newbies who spam just post the usual dogey text. i havent seen many pics about except for furbys little fit. i think doing this is a bit of a waste of time tbh. its fine as it is.

ive seen 3 spam threads with porn pic's in them in the last 3 days