We banned a bunch of accounts today and sent a tremendous amount of warnings.
I did accidently run a batch with a bad config setting and had to manually reverse things.
I think many that got warnings today may be from things up to two months ago.
We don't check warnings like we do bans, so you can get a warning pretty easily but it's nothing to worry about, just a way of us saying "hey, your account showed up on the naughty report."
How does your script determine if someone is manipulating votes? Not asking for a friend, I just don't want to end up on the naughty list by using Voat in a weird way that makes the script flag me for whatever reason.
you know, in the IT world they never give out how something works specifically, if they did a "hacker" could tip toe their way around and avoid it.
even if you are 100% innocent in your question and dont want to end up on the naughty list, someone else could be reading the reply and use that information.
if you are that concerned about it you probably arnt anything to worry about.
you know, in the IT world they never give out how something works specifically, if they did a "hacker" could tip toe their way around and avoid it.
Except, strangely enough, in cryptography, where everyone acknowledges that obscurity doesn't work against determined experts and leads to a false sense of security and lack of scrutiny.
Not disingenuous, I have seen many hur-hur-ing half-wits blurt out that line and disrespect secreting the secret properly, that I insist the correct line is, "Security through ONLY obscurity is not security." And that line is not nearly as fun a song lyric for their fat lazy asses to sing.
If you actually have a conversion with someone, it becomes obvious pretty fast if they're a clueless charlatan or not. You don't have to assume it up front and derail every conversation by telling them "HAHAHA JUST CHECKING YOU'RE NOT A RETARD".
view the rest of the comments →
PuttItOut ago
We banned a bunch of accounts today and sent a tremendous amount of warnings.
I did accidently run a batch with a bad config setting and had to manually reverse things.
I think many that got warnings today may be from things up to two months ago.
We don't check warnings like we do bans, so you can get a warning pretty easily but it's nothing to worry about, just a way of us saying "hey, your account showed up on the naughty report."
ThisIsMyRealName ago
How does your script determine if someone is manipulating votes? Not asking for a friend, I just don't want to end up on the naughty list by using Voat in a weird way that makes the script flag me for whatever reason.
McFluffy ago
you know, in the IT world they never give out how something works specifically, if they did a "hacker" could tip toe their way around and avoid it.
even if you are 100% innocent in your question and dont want to end up on the naughty list, someone else could be reading the reply and use that information.
if you are that concerned about it you probably arnt anything to worry about.
HoneyTrap1488 ago
Except, strangely enough, in cryptography, where everyone acknowledges that obscurity doesn't work against determined experts and leads to a false sense of security and lack of scrutiny.
Locked_Account ago
Oh, obscurity isn't part of cryptography? Post your private key please.
HoneyTrap1488 ago
That's just disingenuous and not what "obscurity" is understood to mean in this context. At least not by anyone competent.
Locked_Account ago
Not disingenuous, I have seen many hur-hur-ing half-wits blurt out that line and disrespect secreting the secret properly, that I insist the correct line is, "Security through ONLY obscurity is not security." And that line is not nearly as fun a song lyric for their fat lazy asses to sing.
HoneyTrap1488 ago
If you actually have a conversion with someone, it becomes obvious pretty fast if they're a clueless charlatan or not. You don't have to assume it up front and derail every conversation by telling them "HAHAHA JUST CHECKING YOU'RE NOT A RETARD".
Locked_Account ago
Damn near everybody is "short" to Yao Ming.
....You're right, that was pretty fast. ;-)