🚀 go-pugleaf

Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:22:02 -0400,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> looked up from reading the entrails of the
>>porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>><snip>
>>>I just started TQ:IM with the Mrs recently, but we're struggling to find the
>>>time given all our RL commitments at present (building a house among other
>>>things such as the ski season here being upon us :). We also have another 3
>>>mths of LOTRO subs on 2 new accounts & have just started a couple CoH chars
>>>as well to take advantage of the 14 day free trial, which she seems to like
>>>the most *sigh*, because it's mostly just killin & no gear early on makes it
>>>easier to get into than most mmos.
>>>
>>>Mind you, NC offering a crippled trial is really bad form - there is no
>>>teaming, no trade & no mission architect for trial players, which sucks
>>>major mutant monkey balls if you ask me. 
>>
>>Since when is there no teaming?
>>
>>You can't start the team but you should still be able to be invited to
>>one.
>>
>>The trials used to be less limited, but they were seriously abused by
>>the gold farmers/spammers.
>
>Oh ok, thought it may have been something like that. I may have to re-sub my
>account for a month after the LOTRO one runs out & give my Mrs another
>decent run at the 14 days to see if she bites & gets lockjaw or not ;)
>
>>That's the main reason trials get very limited chat options - the
>>spammers pretty much forced NC to limit them to avoid losing
>>subscribers.
>
>Isn't it always the way? Farking spammers/gold farmers. You would think it
>would be easy to get rid of them wouldn't you? I mean, check the user
>reports, if more than a handful, check logs, ban account. Simple ffs. Surely
>the cost of each account must be prohibitive to their bottom line, if they
>were losing them within hours/short days of starting to spam? *boggle*
>I think it's really more a matter of they're a paying customer (whichever
>way you look at it) & there's so many of them that it wouldn't pay to look
>for them toooo hard or ban them toooo quickly, now would it...? ;)

That's why they used trial accounts to spam with - no associated cost.

They really didn't care if the account only lasted a day or just hours
since they'd have already sent spam emails (later tells and broadcast)
to loads of people before it got shut down.

Before the trials they had to risk an actual paid account, and kinda
have to again since trials can't send tells or email anymore.

My plan to stop it would be simply to check the number of spam
complaints to an account (preferably accompanied by screenshots) then
bill the offending account 1 months sub time for each complaint.

It wouldn't be profitable anymore, since there's no way they'd get
enough business to offset the costs.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr