Is it technically possible to prevent new accounts from including links in their first post. It seems that could reduce some of the illegal streaming site spam we see.
TPTB prefer that new posters not be hindered. I’m guessing the spam load isn’t enough to worry about it.
Besides, the spammers have found out even with a ban, they can edit in the links immediately after posting.
In fact, they sometimes (often?) post without links and then edit them in. I noticed that many spam messages were marked as edited, and asked about the original text a while ago. One of the mods replied that it was the same text, without the links.
One of them from a couple of hours ago just repeated the title before it was edited.
Yes, that is possible. I’ve posted on several message boards that have that restriction.
Whether it’s desirable is another question. It can be pretty frustrating for legitimate first time users. For example, I’ve joined a computer forum to ask a particular technical question, and I’ve been unable to include screenshots.
OTOH, I’m sure we all know there are several legitimate ways to circumvent that restriction, which might make scam posts not worthwhile, but not prohibit first-time posters from including a useful link.
For example, if the poster were not able to post a single-click link, but could post something like www-dot-doorbell-dot-net, he would accomplish his task, but I doubt if it would be worth it to a spammer, who would have to rely on a viewer reconstructing the link to make it work.
I guess it’s up to our mods as to what compromise works best for all.
Given their MO, how about removing guests’ ability to edit for their first 48 hours?
How long do you think it will take for them to realize all they have to do is wait one minute and make a second post? That’s hardly rocket science.
Pretty much always, for the posts that you see. The posts that contain links right from the start get whacked by our spam filter.
Boards that limit links usually restrict new members for 5-20 posts. That’s why occasionally(haven’t seen any in a while, probably because of the editing trick) you get spammers who make several “nonsense” posts to run up the count.
We have running coach. What else do we need?
Why haven’t you guys just made him a mod already, and save the middleman?
A dedicated Spamhunter General would be cool. But maybe Running Coach would give us one of those “If nominated, I will not run, if elected I will not serve” situations because of the obligation.
If so, we need to give him a new Username. Perhaps Sir SpamGoneALot? 
He’s afraid of the goat.
I was hit by a pickup truck/horse trailer and it bounced off.
Goats don’t scare me.
Riding herd on this bunch? That scares me. 
The Spaminator?
I don’t think the board software can support it, but I would like a spam-moderator ability. The one and only thing I could do is vanish new spam and the new account that created it. All such things get logged explicitly so that real mods can occasionally check I am not abusing the capability. One could bestow the capability on a bunch of people - like Running Coach (or even me) and get the dual benefit of faster spam removal and a lightened load on moderators.
I notice things because I’m in a very different timezone, so the usual streaming spam seems to hit just as I’m doing a bit of late night Doping. But often it is apparent that the mods are all in a local time where they are not active, and it takes a while for the reports to get actioned.
The current MO of some spammers is creating a new thread with a title much the same as an existing thread, and going back after a few minutes to edit the content to insert the spam links. I have even got the the point of reporting the unedited post when it is clear what is happening.
The software shouldn’t be an issue. I’d think. There’s no way to empower someone to delete spam posts that doesn’t also allow them to delete non-spam posts. There’s no way to give them spammer blocking powers without them being able to block non-spammers. I guess you could block them from handing out Warnings, but those are so public that it would be obvious.
Seems to me that the issue is just whether they would want to take on additional people they had to trust.
Trust is the thing.
What I was asking for in terms of new functionality is not so much a restriction in capability - but rather an easy logging ability. Mods get a separate stream of notifications of everything a spam-mod has done, and if they want they can check it.
An intermediate capability might be to just be to be able to push the spam post to the cornfields and notify the mods. Spam is invisible, mods implicitly notified.
It isn’t as if we see a huge amount of spam, but what we mere mortals don’t see is how much work goes on in the background to ensure this. If there were a way to improve things (where improved means anything from even less spam to lightening the Mod’s loads) by providing for spam-modding it might be worth considering.