Overzealous Ban for trying to help

flibz

In the course of trying to assist with some confusion over a feature, user gidget16 was banned from the mobiles/pda forum for "shilling".

Only thing is, the user in question was trying to help. Now I undertand that "A friend of mine works for XXXX ltd" could be construed as deceitful, but at the end of the day the user was only trying to protect themselves from professional criticism for posting through "unsanctioned" channels and was in no way trying to upsell or misrepresent anything.

Also, the "I have a friend who..." is a world renowned method of saying "Me, but not saying it's me". I think most people realise this.


I think it's a bit harsh (to say the least) and certainly heavy handed.

See post http://boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=54324530 for more detail.

The user in question cannot create a new account (which I was advised by the mod that they could).

On top of which, the user in question is actually in a position where they can take on board issues raised and actually get things done (as opposed to being a techy like me - I can only make suggestions) - surely the whole point of a forum in the first place?

Suggestions appreciated..

Cheers,
F

Tom Dunne

flibz wrote: »

On top of which, the user in question is actually in a position where they can take on board issues raised and actually get things done (as opposed to being a techy like me - I can only make suggestions) - surely the whole point of a forum in the first place?

So why the initial deceit? Why not come straight out and say I work for That Company? It's the underhandedness that annoys moderators. If you knew the amount people signing up just to pimp their business/employer.... how was The Corinthian to determine if she was genuinely trying to help or to advertise?

flibz

By reading the message: -

Hi..

Springhill 6 - You've misunderstood the web text on Meteor as my friend wors for them and told me all about the new web text.

*Firstly - it isnt 1 sms per month etc etc. it was just there to explain the misunderstanding behind GROUP text (see my second point) BUT.... now on the new web text you CAN! You can select all different types of people, AND groups, and send them the same message...

*Secondly - the Groups situation is slightly crappy.... but my understanding (again, my friend explained it) is that... if you have 30 friends in 1 group... then you could ONLY send 1 SMS to that 1 group (as there are 30 people in it)as n in GROUP text it IS 1 SMS per recipient.....

Any more questions - ASK ME as i know a lot about this.. i just annoy my friend!

I think it's very very obvious from the text of the message it was intended to be helpful. You can hardly misconstrue "the Groups situation is slightly crappy" as trying to shill anybody.

But there is a slight criticism of a the product. I don't think it's unreasonable to make a slight attempt to deflect any professional implications is it?

F

Tar.Aldarion

I don't think that person should have been banned, especially not permanently. The 'make a new account' thing is nonsense.

Tom Dunne

Here's a few pointers when looking for shills:

• poor spelling
• unhealthy interest in a product/company on first post
• extra punctuation
• over-eagerness

I'm sorry, but your co-worker ticked all the right boxes for a shill.

Was it a wrong call? Perhaps. Was it a valid call? Damn right it was. I would have banned the person, as would have the vast majority of moderators on this board.

flibz

But can a ban be lifted - and who can do it - and more importantly (having been a mod myself on other forums over the years) who is actually prepared to unban somebody banned by a different mod.

The tone of response in the original thread (with all due respect) seemed a little belligerant, and suggests that the mod in question is unlikely to un-ban.

Tar.Aldarion

That is not shilling, he came on and answered a question people wanted answered. He did not start a thread advertising it, or even make a post, and did mention the service in a negative way. Even if he did capitalise things like 'group' and 'can' etc.

flibz

From the referenced wikipedia article in the RULES post: -

A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists.

The product is not praised, it's criticised. They don't encourage any kind of signing up and I think it's clear that everybody reading it can see that it's an attempt to be helpful by an obvious employee trying to be circumspect.

If there's forum guidelines then they should be followed. It's not shilling, it's arse covering.

Obviously, I'm not expecting the ban to be lifted at this point, but it would be nice.

As I've mentioned, this forum could have become a useful place for feedback that may actually get acted upon. Oh well. I guess the attempt to help end users of the product in question wasn't well received.

flibz

Also, here's a few pointers when looking for 95% of the people on the internet:

• poor spelling
• unhealthy interest in a topic being discussed in the thread on first post
• extra punctuation
• over-eagerness

Vegeta

its a borderline call and with shills its better safe than sorry

in this case the person is just guilty of making the odd word a capital and probably working for the company.

I suppose ban first ask questions later is a fair policy for potential shills

Hell I think half the guys in the playstation forum are shills going by the above definition.

Tom Dunne

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That is not shilling, he came on and answered a question people wanted answered. He did not start a thread advertising it, or even make a post, and did mention the service in a negative way. Even if he did capitalise things like 'group' and 'can' etc.

I agree, but do you agree, the first impression you could take from that poster is one that is a shill?

flibz wrote: »

But can a ban be lifted - and who can do it - and more importantly (having been a mod myself on other forums over the years) who is actually prepared to unban somebody banned by a different mod.

The tone of response in the original thread (with all due respect) seemed a little belligerant, and suggests that the mod in question is unlikely to un-ban.

I'm not going to comment on the way another mod does his job, but I think that it has been handled as he sees fit and complaining here will not achieve much. Your co-worker has been told she can sign up again and continue posting.

And yes, an s-mod can over rule a regular mod.

Beruthiel

This user was brought to my attention by the Mod of that forum.
She was a shill.
I site banned her.
It was approved by an Admin.
Get over it.

flibz

tom dunne wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on the way another mod does his job, but I think that it has been handled as he sees fit and complaining here will not achieve much. Your co-worker has been told she can sign up again and continue posting.

Apparently not. Fresh attempts to create an account have been unsuccessful.

Like I said, I wasn't expecting the ban to be lifted. I am familiar with how forums work in reality. And the mod in question doesn't seem the mind changing type.

It's just a shame. People who can make a difference don't often try to... Can't imagine why....

I can't say I'm not disappointed

Tom Dunne

Beruthiel wrote: »

This user was brought to my attention by the Mod of that forum.
She was a shill.
I site banned her.
It was approved by an Admin.
Get over it.

Ah, how we all adore the Jackboot of Love.

Tar.Aldarion

Vegeta wrote: »

Hell I think half the guys in the playstation forum are shills going by the above definition.

tom dunne wrote: »

I agree, but do you agree, the first impression you could take from that poster is one that is a shill?

Yes, I suppose people could mistake him for that at first, his first post, 'my friend' and his grammar. Perhaps it is best to ban potential shills and ask questions later, but those questions should be asked and answered fairly.
I don't think that that poster should be banned permanently from boards, or told to 'make a new account' to essentially circumvent a ban that should not stand...in my opinion.

flibz

Beruthiel wrote: »

This user was brought to my attention by the Mod of that forum.
She was a shill.
I site banned her.
It was approved by an Admin.
Get over it.

Oh believe me, I'm over it.

So we can't even discuss it now... I thought that's what a forum was?

I'm not being offensive. I'm not even expecting the ban to be lifted - I've already mentioned that. I'm just openly discussing an issue - is that really a problem?

Like I said, i'm just disappointed that an attempt to be helpful by somebody who actually could help resolve issues (who may not be familiar with this forum or forum ettiquette in general) was site banned for something that barely fits the "shill" description.

Based on the feedback in the forum the user was actually putting steps in place to get the issues raised resolved. I wouldn't expect that to happen again if they can't even use the site...

Beruthiel

flibz wrote: »

As I've mentioned, this forum could have become a useful place for feedback that may actually get acted upon. Oh well. I guess the attempt to help end users of the product in question wasn't well received.

If an Admin had been approached and asked if they would allow this then they would have looked into it and things may have been different.
We get a large amount of people signing up on this site to shill - we deal with them all in the same way.

Beruthiel

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yes, I suppose people could mistake him for that at first, his first post, 'my friend' and his grammar. Perhaps it is best to ban potential shills and ask questions later, but those questions should be asked and answered fairly.

You think I should spend time asking every shill questions?
I see them pimping, I check the IP and see it's a certain telephone company - as is the e-mail - I ban - end of.

Tar.Aldarion

Where was the pimping?

I clearly didn't mean ever shill, I mean the ones that may or may not be. This is the first one I have seen banned that I did not think was a shill.

Beruthiel

Tar
If you have a problem, drop DeV a PM as he's the one who approved the ban.

azezil

Beruthiel look you're wrong, its not your fault, its because you're a woman... its understandable! The best thing you can do is just go back to the kitchen and make the man folk some pie, k! *kisses* ^_^

flibz

Beruthiel wrote: »

You think I should spend time asking every shill questions?
I see them pimping, I check the IP and see it's a certain telephone company - as is the e-mail - I ban - end of.

No,
I agree that it would be a time consuming process, but surely reading the post in question is not unreasonable before issuing a site ban.

I raised the ban with the original mod almost immediately after the user was forum banned and they were unprepared to lift the ban.

I just think that contextually it wasn't pimping, It was trying to clarify an issue that was causing confusion to users.

The "signs" of shilling are also the signs of forum inexperience. When taking the context of the post into account I don't believe it warranted a ban.

The way it works in many many largish corporates is that non-sanctioned external communication is not encouraged (i.e. you'll get roasted). The user in question was trying to help without getting an *rse kicking at work.

I take it that there is no chance of the ban being lifted then? Even though the context of the post was meant to be helpful.

The Corinthian

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I clearly didn't mean ever shill, I mean the ones that may or may not be.

Please read the rules of the forum regarding disclosure in such cases. Regardless of whether he/she was shilling they intentionally not only failed to disclose a potential commercial conflict of interests, but attempted to deceive people on this point. End of story.

This is the first one I have seen banned that I did not think was a shill.

I've banned a few in the past. Just because you don't get to see it it doesn't mean it doesn't happen - so, FYI, you don't have to be a porn star to have sex.

Tar.Aldarion

Beruthiel wrote: »

Tar
If you have a problem, drop DeV a PM as he's the one who approved the ban.

I know he did, no problem, I'm just of a different opinion.

Please read the rules of the forum regarding disclosure in such cases. Regardless of whether he/she was shilling they intentionally not only failed to disclose a potential commercial conflict of interests, but attempted to deceive people on this point. End of story.

i have no problem with the rule of teh forum being disclosure or get banned, but that does not warrant a permanent ban from the site imo. Or in this case even a permanent one from that forum.
I agree witha temporary ban from that particular forum.

I've banned a few in the past. Just because you don't get to see it it doesn't mean it doesn't happen - so, FYI, you don't have to be a porn star to have sex.

You are saying that you have sitebanned people that I have thought were not a shill, and I didn't see them? That's impressive . i think you misunderstand what i was talking about there.

The Corinthian

flibz wrote: »

I just think that contextually it wasn't pimping, It was trying to clarify an issue that was causing confusion to users.

Screw context. I don't have time to debate the finer points of context every single time there's a post. No mod has.

Read the rules. Follow them. In some cases, such as yours, there's even leeway. Otherwise get banned.

I take it that there is no chance of the ban being lifted then? Even though the context of the post was meant to be helpful.

Does no one have the brains to delete their cookies and use an alternate email address before re-registering anymore?

flibz

If it makes any difference I will ensure that the user in question (in the event of the ban being lifted) adds a sig that removes any amiguity, i.e. mentions possible conflict of interest, without necessarily mentioning specific companies.

this will both protect the anonymity of the user, whilst ensuring that other forum-goers are aware of an affiliation.

I'd like to hope that this would be sufficient, whilst enabling us to use the forum to provide assistance to end users.

cornbb

I agree with Tar for the record. I see the SMods deal with shills swiftly and admirably every day, its a very necessary part of keeping boards running smoothly, but I don't see how the poster in this case could be defined as being a shill. There was no pimping, it looked like a genuine attempt to be helpful tbh.

flibz

The Corinthian wrote: »

Screw context. I don't have time to debate the finer points of context every single time there's a post. No mod has.

Read the rules. Follow them. In some cases, such as yours, there's even leeway. Otherwise get banned.

Does no one have the brains to delete their cookies and use an alternate email address before re-registering anymore?

I do appreciate the leeway I was shown. I thought I made it obvious enough thaty I was connected without giving away too much, which was my aim.

I'm certainly not expecting context to be debated, but the post for which the user was banned was nothing more than attempting to provide clarification of an issue. I was hoping there could effectively be "an appeal".

The user in question is not a technical person, so almost certainly wouldn't know about deleting cookies, forum rules, etc. They just wanted to help users...

Also, thanks for taking the time to clarify the position on this and apologies for going on a bit - I'm just trying to dlear up what is essentially a misunderstanding...

Vegeta

The Corinthian wrote: »

Read the rules. Follow them. In some cases, such as yours, there's even leeway. Otherwise get banned.

But if you are and you do post on a topic where your views may be viewed as biased you may wish to qualify it by disclosing that you work for an operator (without unnecessarily identifying which one).

Just a heads up, none of my business really but the rule seems like more of a guidline than a banable offence, the phrase "may wish" implies some form of option here.

faceman

as someone who has no vested interest to any of the posters involved in this, gigdet and flibz or the forum in question, if you take a step back you can see both sides of this.

Rules are rules, but it wouldnt appear to me that the poster who was banned wasnt a die hard shill. Perhaps a deletion of their post and a PM asking them to clarify their position would have been more appropriate. (Perhaps they wish to keep their occupation anonymous for privacy reasons?) There was nothing in their post that suggested we should all go out an join the meteor network and other operators are crap etc. even if a ban was necessary as it was a first post, a forum ban may have been more appropriate

However im not sure what the volume of shill and spoofers in the particular forum is like and whether its too much hassle for the mods. To me it just seemed like this particular poster didnt read the rules or understand them clearly before posting. If the shill post is so serious to warrant a site ban, why not delete the post too?

togster

I think it was the right thing to do at the time. However she is obviously not a shill and should have her account reinstated pronto.