Hub Abuse in Off Topic

Page: 1 2
ID:189334
 
Aug 14 2003, 1:10 am
Well, it was bound to happen eventually. Some little brat decided to post a fake version of MLAAS up, containing a porn site apparently (I alt-F4'd out of it before it finished loading, those things screw around with IE). I seriously think that there should be a validation code for each hub entry, to prevent this type of stuff from happening.

Oh, and the guy was "Portfolio 2", key created today, so obviously he thinks that he can get away with this by creating a new key.

These people depress me...
#1 Aug 14 2003, 1:24 am
Garthor wrote:
Well, it was bound to happen eventually. Some little brat decided to post a fake version of MLAAS up, containing a porn site apparently (I alt-F4'd out of it before it finished loading, those things screw around with IE). I seriously think that there should be a validation code for each hub entry, to prevent this type of stuff from happening.

Oh, and the guy was "Portfolio 2", key created today, so obviously he thinks that he can get away with this by creating a new key.

These people depress me...

Cant we just get automatic hub filters? Ones which remove Explicit content in their descriptions and others which are called rips. Also we should have a button on each hub entry which allows people to report that hub entry
#2 Aug 14 2003, 1:36 am
In response to Mrhat99au (#1)
And then 1337 sp33k will proliferate.

Oh, and your idea will cause more trouble, what with the DBZers spamming random complaints.

We just need a verification code for hub entries, like with the subscriptions.
#3 Aug 14 2003, 2:25 am
Yep, very depressing.
I think they may be adding validation codes in v4.0. I remember it came up ages ago in one of those "The HUB has turned to crap" posts that get real big every now and then.
It really stumps me as to why someone would bother pulling a stunt like that, they really have nothing to gain at all from it.
#4 Aug 14 2003, 2:31 am
In response to Garthor (#2)
I'd rather see people appointed to cleaning out the Hub, just people who meander through and delete anything they deem to be worthless, which is practically 75% of the Hub. Sure, the stupid little DBZers and such will spam with "omg wtf happened 2 my dbz game???/" and the like, but that's nothing a total ban won't fix. If Dan and Tom are thinking of going "public" with BYOND, they're going to need to clean out all of the junk that's cluttering their servers. If they deleted 75% of the stuff that nobody uses, and is worthless, then maybe we wouldn't have to see "pay-to-play" or "pay-to-program" services or anything like that.

Although, I bet a little bit of programming could be used to delete the Hub items that haven't been used in a certain amount of time. Oh well, I'd rather see a mass deletion of all the junk instead of chipping away bit-by-bit.
#5 Aug 14 2003, 6:07 am
In response to Mertek (#4)
Personally, I would like to see the hub completely wiped out, then, they hire more reviewers, and don't have an unpublished section/hub entries that show up in searches. The only games shown would be in the official channels. I guess we could have an unpublished channel, but without hub entries. Just a list of the games live:
Unpublished Channel
-------------------
Game
Game
Game....
#6 Aug 15 2003, 11:04 am
In response to Dragon of Ice (#5)
It would be better to just delete every hub entry thats not a library/demo/in an official channel.
#7 Aug 15 2003, 11:12 am
In response to Jotdaniel (#6)
an even better plan would to get hold of the ip when the hub is enterd and then if it contains things like that ban the ip so it can not be accessed from that ip
#8 Aug 15 2003, 11:17 am
In response to Dragon of Ice (#5)
Dragon of Ice wrote:
Personally, I would like to see the hub completely wiped out, then, they hire more reviewers, and don't have an unpublished section/hub entries that show up in searches.

They pay reviewers? Wow, I'd work for free :P. Sounds like a fun duty ^_~.

-Camaro-
#9 Aug 15 2003, 11:21 am
In response to Camaro (#8)
Just because you hire someone doesn't mean you pay them anything.
#10 Aug 15 2003, 11:23 am
In response to Jotdaniel (#9)
*leans the other way*
*swipes a dictionary*

To engage the services of (a person) for a fee; employ
To engage the temporary use of for a fee; rent
To grant the services of or the temporary use of for a fee

=/

-Camaro-
#11 Aug 15 2003, 11:26 am
In response to Camaro (#10)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hire


Theres more than one form of the word. Don't choose the ones that serve your purpose.
#12 Aug 15 2003, 11:41 am
In response to Jotdaniel (#11)
Hire = being payed.
Otherwise it'd be volunteering.

-Camaro-
#13 Aug 15 2003, 12:23 pm
In response to Camaro (#12)
You can hire a person for a volunteer job. Read the damned link I pasted.
#14 Aug 15 2003, 12:25 pm
Garthor wrote:
Oh, and the guy was "Portfolio 2", key created today, so obviously he thinks that he can get away with this by creating a new key.

He may have a surprise in store.
#15 Aug 15 2003, 12:37 pm
In response to Jotdaniel (#13)
We obviously don't get along so well, so I'm going to just stop posting in this thread. With one final note:

You cannot hire somebody who is not getting paid. Hire means to engage the services of (a person) for a fee. (Taken directly out of the dictionary). Every definition has to do with payment. I think I know what you're trying to say but it's not hiring.

-Camaro-
#16 Aug 15 2003, 12:49 pm
In response to Deadron (#14)
Deadron wrote:
Garthor wrote:
Oh, and the guy was "Portfolio 2", key created today, so obviously he thinks that he can get away with this by creating a new key.

He may have a surprise in store.

it could be one of you...even me...it could be your best friend...it could be one of the admins to see how we react!
#17 Aug 15 2003, 12:50 pm
In response to Camaro (#15)
i would volenteer if i knew what i was doing.
#18 Aug 15 2003, 1:06 pm
In response to Camaro (#15)
Were not getting along because your ignoring what I'm telling you, screaming your right instead of looking at what I've showed you.



hire ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hr)
v. hired, hir·ing, hires
v. tr.

To engage the services of (a person) for a fee; employ: hired a new clerk.
To engage the temporary use of for a fee; rent: hire a car for the day.
To grant the services of or the temporary use of for a fee: hired himself out as a cook; hired out the cottage for the summer.

v. intr.
To obtain work: She hired on as a deck hand. He hired out as a photographer.

n.

The act of hiring.
The condition or fact of being hired.
#19 Aug 16 2003, 10:25 am
In response to Jotdaniel (#18)
The act of hiring.
The condition or fact of being hired.

These bolded definitions don't change the fee-based nature of hiring.... they do not extend the definition of "hire" in any way. The act of hiring... well, the previous definitions explain that "hiring" is getting someone to do something for a fee, and this definition doesn't contradict them.

Notice how it says n. above... all these definitions show is that you can use the word "hire" (normally a verb) as a noun to refer to the "act" or "condition" of being hired, per the previous definitions.

For instance, I hire you to work for $20. This makes you a hire of mine... the action in which we formalize this agreement is also a hire.

Now, you volunteer to work for me... I haven't hired you, you haven't hired on, you are not my new hire. The fact that hire is both a verb and a noun doesn't change this.
Page: 1 2