Please tick the box to confirm you are not a robot.

Here, it's worth remembering that the captcha is to solve a generic wide access site problem while a P2P site has a narrow and known user problem that is much simpler. if a person is persistent enough to be a pain there is no requirement to continue to do business with them. It's hard for a bot to circumvent a "no purchases permitted" flag set on an account. Or a "no audio captcha, not visually impaired" flag. Sometimes technical solutions just aren't the neatest solutions, helpful though they can be.

Thanks for your reply. For me it clearly shows where you come from and where you stand.

You registered on this forum (at least with this user name) very recently - when the discussion of bots started being discussed. I suspect that you have been already registered on this forum with a different user name and thus fully aware of what was happening and said here. For whatever reason, you just did not want to use your usual registration.
Are you by any chance a bot user who has been negatively effected by the recent SS changes? You do say that you have the ability to do so. That is more than I can claim.

See also:
p2pindependentforum.com/post/83685/thread

You proposed a system which was flatly rejected on this forum. You could not get it through the door and would like to force it through the window. See thread : 
p2pindependentforum.com/thread/4086/bots-prefunding-secondary-market
You joined SS very recently and want to dictate the system. I do not know how that sounds to your ears but to mine, it is very dissonant.
p2pindependentforum.com/post/84537/thread

If you prefer a queuing system, you have no right to force it down our throats. There are other platforms which offer such systems.
p2pindependentforum.com/post/84454/thread
and
p2pindependentforum.com/post/84175/thread

I think that the expression that applies to the situation at this point is "poor looser".

Also I cannot understand how after referring to captchas as not the good, it seems that you recently changed your mind and suggested that captchas are good:
p2pindependentforum.com/post/85124/thread

Finally you have not said anything about your legal knowledge / authority. Are you a lawyer or a judge? I need to know because I need to understand if your take on the law is your own personal opinion or a professional legal one.

I'm staying well clear of the likely-to-be-moderated handbag-waving, but would just say this...

If Captchas are in breach of disability discrimination legislation, then the problem is not just SS's, but would apply to a HUGE swathe of web businesses, and - I strongly suspect - would be fairly easily palmable-offable back to Google.

It's far from a new argument, and it's far from a local one.
www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/google-challenged-to-drop-captcha-puzzles-20140205-321be.html
...and many other stories go over the whole issue - but they predate the current style, as SS are using. And one of the claims behind the launch of that was increased accessibility.
simplyaccessible.com/article/googles-no-captcha/

Bracknellboy,
With respect, I did NOT start this argument, NOR did I resort to name calling, such as "troll" which you have conspicuously left untouched, in the form of a huge picture!

What I did, is convey my opinion that the current system operated by SS breaches equalities legislation. I was then attacked, insulted, called a "troll", and a "poor looser" (sic) etc. You might want to think about that!

If you care to do some research, you'll very quickly find that Google is well aware of their obligations with respect to equalities, and offer various alternatives (as do other captcha providers).

However, you've missed the point entirely - any system of buying that disadvantages certain protected groups is sure to fall outside the law. A fastest finger first system is therefore guaranteed to do so, because it will leave those with limited upper body mobility at a disadvantage. It also disadvantages the elderly - people do slow down as they get older. That's two groups. It also disadvantages those with slow internet connections (although they're not a protected group). Furthermore, it encourages reckless buying, which might well be against FCA rules - and if it isn't, it certainly should be!

sunspot : you will have noticed that I made reference to there being possibility of it having been more than one way traffic. I have deliberately chosen not to edit ANY of the posts - including yours - as I was not inclined to spend time reviewing the whole thread. So I have left ALL posts untouched - for now and have reminded members of appropriate etiquette going forward.

However I did call you out as on my perusal I could see at least two if not more posts of yours which are directly insulting either an individual or a group of individuals and because the tone of a number of your posts were 'aggressive'.

I will not be commenting further on the historic posts on this thread. As per my earlier, I am interested in ensuring the future posts are within bounds.

Edit: and the thread will be closed if handbag waving continues, which would be a pity because there has been some useful discussion on it in between the spats.