Cannot respond to conversation

[whowhawhy]

The reason stated to increase the limit was not

read the stated reason again then

but also

generic spam like this

it was a reply to

I don't get why they didn't just restrict sharing images/urls in PMs

ask chatgpt to translate it for you?

 

[Naraden]

If your point is that you can still use a substitution cipher or any other type of encryption, then yeah sure by all means.

But a higher minimum post count doesn't prevent the abuse either, other than making a minor inconvenience for the bad actors.

 

[whowhawhy]

if you really can't think of any possible effects/uses of this, here's an example:
tech illiterate lurkers won't as easily fall for "message me for download" malware traps or participate in "don't trade in private messages" rule breaking.

it's not meant to be an impenetrable obstacle (the only sure way to prevent undesired behavior in conversations is the same one bob stated), but one in a series of new-and-existing hurdles (two other that you may have noticed are autocorrect censoring of certain keywords, and a much shorter timeframe for editing-in or editing-out stuff from messages in converstions) that together deter through inconvenience (without hurting legitimate users too much, and without making all offenders that won't be deterred engage in harder to detect evasion tactics because easier-to-trace methods were all blocked for them).

it's also not a huge inconvenience for the userbase (unlike some draconian solutions that were suggested earlier this year), and site staff aren't idiots, so if they're content with it for now, they have reasons for it and that should be enough for us (edit: by which i mean, sure we can try to guess what all possible reasons for the changes were and how that takes care of them, or have site staff explain it to us, but that'd be just for satisfying our curiosity on the inner workings of the site).

 

[Naraden]

There's no point in discussing this as nothing will change anyways, so yeah.

 

[Count Morado]

If your point is that you can still use a substitution cipher or any other type of encryption, then yeah sure by all means.

But a higher minimum post count doesn't prevent the abuse either, other than making a minor inconvenience for the bad actors.

I'm trying to figure out what someone who doesn't communicate in threads has anything to communicate about in private messages? About the only thing, with little exception, I've seen is people asking others, unsolicited, for links to content off site....

Of the number of people I have had active private conversations with on this site - nearly all the ones with valuable conversations had hundreds, if not thousands, of posts before they initiated contact. The few that had less than a handful only wanted something from me, instead of actually wanting to engage in a conversation, (link to content off site, personal help on a game issue that I had already addressed in a game thread, etc). I didn't broach starting a conversation with someone until I had several hundred posts.

So if allowing users with lower post numbers to simply engage in private conversations leads to people simply asking for a link to content on another site, or something similar, then increasing that number does create greater pressure on people to either communicate in threads or reconsider their idea of what private conversations should be used for. If limiting those users simply seeking other content then limits those who are seeking content which is against the site rules, then increasing the number of posts appears to be a good thing if it eventually limits the sharing of banned content.

Private conversations on this site should be considered a privilege, not a right, IMO. If private conversations are increasing the risk of this site being pulled into the sharing of banned content and, thus, increasing the possibility of unwanted attention by legal entities and/or hacktivists - for example:

You guys should check out what just happened to a site that some of our members are part of. They allow most rule 7 content and had a "restricted" section. Someone posted real exploitative material in those threads so they got visited by hacktivists. The moderators there ended up having to nuke entire threads and renamed the entire section to "exclusive". And speaking of their site name, they are now polling members to come up with a different site name because they can't find hosts.
Make it too lewd and you get canned.
Host R7 content and flirt with disaster.

That proves our decision to implement Rule 7 was wise. We haven't had to deal with all that because we don't allow extreme content and Rule 7 is part of that.

As whowhawhy pointed out in shithole last month, there's been some serious changes in the site's contact and abuse page as well as policies regarding certain content:

update between the 5th and today:
terms and rules:
- a few punctuation changes (e.g. , to ;)
- ncc/deepfakes: +For enforcement procedures and child-protection guidelines, see our CSAM Policy.
- whole Notice & Takedown section
- csam: +For detailed procedures and international cooperation, please see our CSAM Policy.
- last updated: May 4, 2025 to reviewed: October

pretty much the whole contact & abuse page (was a tongue-in-cheek link to official email address); of note, a separate email for users to report abuse, and a separte email for law enforcement, and a link to a new transparency report page (received requests from law enforcement agencies, etc.)

edit: links at the bottom of the page

Or a fair bit of malware spreading and other malicious activity is occurring with low-posting accounts being either (or both) the offender or the victim .... then, yeah... Because of abuse and that abuse has the potential of putting the site's viability in jeopardy, the "inconvenience" may cause some "bad actors" to just say forget it and move on... It may not. If it does not, expect more restrictions regarding personal conversations to come. This isn't an "etched in stone" policy, it will evolve as necessary for the viability of the site and the number of people who administrate, manage, moderate the site --- all doing so 100% as volunteers.

This isn't something you should feel compelled to respond to, but hopefully something to consider why the number is higher now (and why I personally think it should be MUCH higher).

 

[Naraden]

I'm trying to figure out what someone who doesn't communicate in threads has anything to communicate about in private messages?

I can't talk for others, but in my case it was intended to share contact information without making it publicly available, in the context of the game development recruiting forum. If you look at that forum most people there have low post counts, so exchanging info privately is difficult, more so now the receiver also requires a minimum of posts.

someone who doesn't communicate in threads

Again talking for myself, but if I have something to say specific to a game (question, appreciation, etc.) I rather do it off-site in the official game Discord which most have, as most developers are not active on f95 or don't even engage here.

Private conversations on this site should be considered a privilege, not a right, IMO.

The irony is that I intend to have private conversations off the site, but that makes it also difficult to do so.

I get the abuse it's a big problem, but it's frustrating that the increasing limitations hamper legitimate usage, and particularly regarding the development of new games, difficult as it already is to find people in this niche, as there isn't many other places where you can discuss this kind of thing.