Can you stop someone from sending you personal messages?

You should know better than to make assumptions, El Chup.

No, not the one I posted, that was made-up as an illustration. John has a real one composed of raw data from the server logs or some other wizardry beyond my skill set.

What assumptions am I making? That someone is advancing inaccuracies to claim I am doing something to an extent to which I'm not?

It's clearly a concerted effort to shut people up and drive them away.

How many rejected reports are there for me over the past 6 months?

I have your numbers, Chup.

For you? 38.

Post them then. What's the secret? You can accuse someone of something and not produce the evidence?

It's it's so bad, post it.

I'm not sure that's accurate. But if it is, that's an average of about six a month, which works out an average of around 1.3-.1.4 report posts a week as an average.

You're honestly telling me that 1-2 reports a week max is "abusing" the report function? Seriously? Utterly ridiculous. :jazyus:

Sure, why not? I've been given permission to post the data from my server log. Keep in mind these are rejected reports, not resolved reports.

This is yours over the past 60-90 days:
(removed because points made and I'd rather that info not be public for long)

This is @Dayton3's over the past 45 days:
(removed because points made and I'd rather that info not be public for long)

That list doesn't mean anything to me. It's just a load of techie text to me. You're going to gave to explain it to me. For instance, I haven't reported anything this month, so what is the range of dates? For all I know that list could be for the entire period the board has used Xenforo.

Also, why has it taken some three threads and multiple requests over many pages to get this information?

It's also not entirely about volume. If there's a ridiculous complaint now and then, fine. If there are several legitimate complaints, also fine. When there are several ridiculous complaints, that's really not okay. And the key thing is that we specifically told you guys to knock it off. That's why Dayton ran in to problems -- he ignored the warning.

So what constitutes a "ridiculous complaint"? Maybe a few examples?

And on to the next complaint, I see. John had to dig through the logs to get this stuff. You aren't the only person with a busy life. I'm sure he had a few other things to do beyond pulling the data to validate what he already knew. He went to some effort to give you what you wanted, but nothing is ever good enough for you, is it. Incredible!

Here's an example:

This request was made three weeks ago Gul. No time in three weeks to pull up a list, or give a number?

It's not "the next complaint". It's precisely what I said earlier today. You say I complain to much, but if these figures were produced at the start would I have kept labouring on trying to get them? No. I wouldn't. Frankly the list is a surprise to me. If it is accurate I had no idea I had reported as much as, to be honest, I don't keep count and compared to posting, I felt that I had used it very little.

You've got it into you head that I just like to complain for the sake of it, but that simply isn't the case, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Yes, it's ridiculous to think that if the evidence was offered up at the beginning this could have been resolved much more quickly.

Now, again, give me an example of a ridiculous complaint....and I mean one of mine, not one of Dayton's. I don't report 11 year old posts. Then, at least, I might have some idea what is off limits. Without such examples I'm basically banned from using the function aren't I?

Well, you might have just believed us. ShootER and I both already stated we didn't think it was possible to access the data. John figures out how to do it, and perhaps the response should be to congratulate him for solving a problem. And you wonder why people think you complain for the sake of complaining.

You really do. Or I should say "did". You haven't reported many posts at all recently, but prior to that you would go on "binges" of reporting stuff, almost none of which was worth reporting.

Same with Dayton.

A lot of the reports were you reporting Dayton and him doing the same to you.

It's not just about the figures. I also asked for at the very least, a half decent summary in the first thread on this rule. Nothing was offered. Under those circumstances, why should I "just believe you", especially after the bullshit ban you gave Castle?

I genuinely didn't think I reported that much (and there is no date range above), and now you're saying it's not about volume anyway. Most of, if not all, of the reports I made I obviously considered valid. So without an idea of what YOU deem ridiculous in a report, how are we meant to know what is off limits and what has been deemed stupid? You have created a situation were I am basically banned from using the function without knowing why.

Then why couldn't you just tell me this three weeks ago? Then I might have had some clue what this was all about.

I would've preferred not "outing" any of the offenders, including you, and because until John figured out how to show people the data, there wasn't a way to provide proof. If I'd told you three weeks ago that you were right up there with Dayton in the amount of reported posts, you wouldn't have believed me because there wasn't a way to back up the assertion.

Interesting how these threads cross pollinated. This is the one about whether or not NotDayton should be allowed to send private messages to @Dayton3.

@tafkats and @Captain X made some good points, and I think we are all in agreement. @NotDayton no longer has that privilege.

Then the rule should've have been implemented until the evidence was to hand. It's that simple.

As it is the figures still don't really tell us what constitutes "abuse", especially if gul says it's not about the number of posts. So, like I say, it seems to me that "abuse" is really down to the eye of the beholder. After the bullshit reason for Castle's ban, can you not understand why there might some concern that some on the "staff" might use a rule like this for bullshit reasons?

I made this point in post #6 of the thread. Why was my point not "good"?

So petty.

I had no idea I had 35 in 45 days.

Thanks for the information John. I'm not going to protest further. The moderators have provided data when I did not think they would.

You know what? You've been telling this lie for quite a while now. Hell, you may even believe it. But what you now call bullshit, you practically begged for at the time. You certainly endorsed it.

Enough with the disinformation, I'm going to start calling you on it.

Maybe, but we didn't know how to access that information at the time and didn't know that it was even possible to retrieve it until today.

@John works his ass off for this board, and it took even him quite some time to figure it out due to RL priorities.

Calling me on what? I was trolling the shit out of the man in the RR. You know full well that the experiment was a load of bullshit that he made up as an excuse for his pathetic posting style. You don't honest believe that his experiment was genuine do you?

For fucks sake...

Dude.