Banning Voluntary Site-Bans

jumpguy

Okay, so we all know we all waste a little too much time on boards, it is the chatty procrastinator's favourite website. So when something huge and important comes along and we want to force out all distractions, why can't we request a friendly temp. siteban from boards anymore?

I don't really understand why it was done away with, not many members requested a temp siteban in the first place, so it's not like it was a difficult job. Wouldn't it be nice to do for people who've contributed quite significantly to boards and it's community? Why was it done away with in the first place? It seemed like a good idea.

AlmightyCushion

When you're banned you can still read the site and if someone is so addicted to posting on boards that they can't just take a step back and concentrate on something important then I don't think registering a new account will put them off as too much effort.

jumpguy

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

When you're banned you can still read the site and if someone is so addicted to posting on boards that they can't just take a step back and concentrate on something important then I don't think registering a new account will put them off as too much effort.

Ahh, but registering a new account would incur a more considerably permanent siteban. And I think losing the fact to post would make boards wearsome quite quickly. It's not an addiction, it's just sometimes an annoyance, it's like any distraction in life...

Even at that, everyone's different, maybe some people get a kick out of just reading posts, but was it really a nessicary thing to do away with voluntary temp sitebans? Did they do harm/cause significant hassle?

AlmightyCushion

jumpguy wrote: »

Ahh, but registering a new account would incur a more considerably permanent siteban. And I think losing the fact to post would make boards wearsome quite quickly. It's not an addiction, it's just sometimes an annoyance, it's like any distraction in life...

I doubt an admin would permaban someone for re-regging to get around a voluntary ban. They're not doing anything wrong when they re-reg.

jumpguy

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I doubt an admin would permaban someone for re-regging to get around a voluntary ban. They're not doing anything wrong when they re-reg.

You'd have to have a serious problem to give up your old identity, register a new account, and at the same time bypass your good ole temp siteban. Even then, maybe the admin could make a rule to permaban a user who requests a siteban, but that's be more hassle, but it'd clear up this point.

Even so, sitebans may not have went well for some people (I don't really know many, because they're not exactly popular requests), but they went well for some. I don't think it was nessicary to take them away, and they didn't cause too much trouble, even if the user re-regged, according to you it was no bother, so there was no trouble in that department.

It was just a seemingly unnessicary cessation of a right users had, y'know? Why can't it be brought back? Why was it stopped?

Zaph

Because as the thread in Help Desk says:

you are ultimately responsible for controlling yourself

While there may not have been that many when compared to the full user database, my understanding (as this took place before I was made an admin) is that it was becoming an increasingly common request, and a lot of those requests were at the same time, e.g. coming up to exam time. This was placing additional, unneccessary work on the admins, and so the practice was ceased.

jumpguy

Zaph wrote: »

Because as the thread in Help Desk says:




While there may not have been that many when compared to the full user database, my understanding (as this took place before I was made an admin) is that it was becoming an increasingly common request, and a lot of those requests were at the same time, e.g. coming up to exam time. This was placing additional, unneccessary work on the admins, and so the practice was ceased.

What was ever wrong with serving a nice little ban to some LCers anyway? Even in comparison to the active number of members, the number's have gotta be tiny. I know, as you say, we're all "ultimately responsible for controlling ourselves", yes, that's true, but couldn't boards give a helpful nudge? Enrich it's members lives, brighten their futures, by ironically, removing itself... Okay, I've romanticised that.

How hard is it to siteban someone, I always imagined it was 2 or 3 mouse-clicks, typing a nice little message (wit is optional here, but recommended unless the user is a spammer)? I know it was unnessicary, but it was nice touch, and sure, it did no harm. C'mon admins, where is the love? We can get banned from TCN voluntarily, why not boards? Bring back the ole bans...there will be no requests en masse, it's not like there's a massive backlog of wannabe banned users.

Magenta

A temporary siteban for a Boards addict is like sellotaping a box of Disprin closed for a painkiller addict. It's hardly foolproof!

jumpguy

Magenta wrote: »

A temporary siteban for a Boards addict is like sellotaping a box of Disprin closed for a painkiller addict. It's hardly foolproof!

Ah c'mon, I'd give it atleast more of a "stapling" status. It mightn't work for everyone, but it might work for some!

AlmightyCushion

Magenta wrote: »

A temporary siteban for a Boards addict is like sellotaping a box of Disprin closed for a painkiller addict. It's hardly foolproof!

Your sig doesn't lie.

jimmycrackcorm

The only answer is to provide a hosts. file for download.
>
# Boards ban

127.0.0.1 boards.ie

Zaph

I know at least one person who asked to be banned and before long was posting under an alt account. I'm sure they weren't the only one. So what's the point in banning someone at their own request if they're going to re-reg and post anyway?

jumpguy

Zaph wrote: »

I know at least one person who asked to be banned and before long was posting under an alt account. I'm sure they weren't the only one. So what's the point in banning someone at their own request if they're going to re-reg and post anyway?

Absolutely no point, but here's the kicker, what if they don't want a new persona and re-reg and post? There's just something psychological about it, you get sitebanned, that's it. You're only spiting yourself re-regging and posting.

Is there any way to IP ban users btw? I thought that was all the fancy tech these days.

Look, at the end of the day, it was flawed, but not pointless. I just don't think it was nessicary to scrap it, if some users want to be temp sitebanned, why not just fulfil their request?

It's only kinda annoying you took it away in the first place, the reasons in the post in help desk are kinda hollow, and don't really provide a solid reason why it was done away with, other than the admins think we lemmings should go off and practise more self-control.

Would it really be such a hassle to allow requests? Or even just allow requests from members of boards who have contributed a good bit to boards? As a gesture of good will (in an ironic way)?

Magenta

jumpguy wrote: »

Absolutely no point, but here's the kicker, what if they don't want a new persona and re-reg and post? There's just something psychological about it, you get sitebanned, that's it. You're only spiting yourself re-regging and posting.

Furthering on the painkiller analogy, that's like saying "sellotaping the Disprin box will cure them because they hate the taste of Panadol".

Zaph

The decision was made well before I was made an admin, so I'm afraid I don't have any more to go on other than what I've just told you. What I do know from my own observation is that it went from being a very occasional favour to a regular stream of requests, particularly around exam time.

jumpguy

Magenta wrote: »

Furthering on the painkiller analogy, that's like saying "sellotaping the Disprin box will cure them because they hate the taste of Panadol".

Although I'm a massive fan of analogies, even at the bones of this, it was a nice service, you may even call it a gesture, that was taken away.

I'll give you analogy, getting sitebanned is like the nicorette, it helps, but willpower is still required.

johnnyskeleton

jumpguy wrote: »

It was just a seemingly unnessicary cessation of a right users had, y'know? Why can't it be brought back? Why was it stopped?

You could always change your password into something you won't remember. Then, when you try to log in you won't be able to. When you want back in, simply request a password reminder/new password.

Thus achieving the exact same result with less work for the admins.

jumpguy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You could always change your password into something you won't remember. Then, when you try to log in you won't be able to. When you want back in, simply request a password reminder/new password.

Thus achieving the exact same result with less work for the admins.

Except you can retrieve the password and regain your identity again at any time you like.

C'mon, seriously now, how much "work" is it? 3/4 mouse-clicks? If it doesn't matter if they re-reg, then it's a relatively minor nuisance. Even though when people request sitebans I'm sure they usually don't mind waiting a day or two until the admins have time to respond.

Magenta

jumpguy wrote: »

I'll give you analogy, getting sitebanned is like the nicorette, it helps, but willpower is still required.

That's a good one!
I now have a mental image of someone shaking and sweating over their keyboard cos they can't log in

johnnyskeleton

jumpguy wrote: »

Except you can retrieve the password and regain your identity again at any time you like.

C'mon, seriously now, how much "work" is it? 3/4 mouse-clicks? If it doesn't matter if they re-reg, then it's a relatively minor nuisance. Even though when people request sitebans I'm sure they usually don't mind waiting a day or two until the admins have time to respond.

You can request that you be unsitebanned / re-reg any time you like either. A temporary site ban does not prohibit you from accessing boards, at it's height it reduces the temptation and/or is a reminder, when they go to make a post, that they really shouldn't be using boards and should be doing something else. Losing your password is no different - it lowers the temptation and reminds people that they wanted to stop using the site.

But why should the admins do the work - why should they have to exercise will power for you? Do you think that if you got a temp site ban and asked for it to be lifted they would say "hey jumpguy, focus on your exams, you can do it, we believe in you, just one more week"? No? Then it's the same as getting a password reminder in that the answer is automated and non-personal.

The thing about re-registering is that it skews the user numbers and increases the size of the database. So they want to prevent this if possible.

pickarooney

You can request this from your ISP I believe
Otherwise get someone to change your password to some rubbish so you can't log in, or block the site yourself with a proxy/firewall/hosts file as suggested

star-pants

To be fair they're right, why should the Admins go around banning/unbanning people at their request?
Do you ask Eircom (example) to cut you off?
Do you ask your parents to cut tv cable?
Do you ask your shop keeper not to sell you cigarettes/alcohol/chocolate/insert vice here?

No. It's all the same really, it comes down to will power. You don't HAVE to turn on your computer/laptop. You don't HAVE to log onto boards. As said, sitebanning is minor in the scheme of things, you can still read, you can still technically post if you *really* want to. A good few of my regular posters haven't gotten their accounts back so they've re regged for now, and are posting. So if someone really wants to post, there's always a way.

I'll admit to be addicted to boards, but when I was very sick before Christmas I just said, you know what? no, I'm not checking. I let my comods know I'd be afk for a bit, and I just didn't check boards for a while. It's possible you know.

Zaph

pickarooney wrote: »

block the site yourself with a proxy/firewall/hosts file as suggested

From the Help Desk thread

Gordon wrote:

To block this website from your web browser:

From Internet Explorer - Click on Tools > Internet Options > Privacy > Sites > Address of Site > Block

From Firefox - You can download a tool to block sites here

jumpguy

Right, while I'll admit defeat on the willpower front, I think that since ye had them in the first place, they shouldn't have been revoked. If it really IS such extra work for the admins, then fair enough. BTW, johnnyskeleton, I know it's just an automated message, I might be willpowerless, but I'm not brainless as well. :rolleyes:

I also doubt the re-regs skewer the numbers no more than the countless members registered with none or one post.

I just think it'd be comforting for LC students in a way, the fact it was allowed and now is no longer allowed is more annoying than anything.

star-pants

Actually having modded LC forum last year for a bit, coming right up to/during the exams, with all the madness over the 'leaked paper', we were having to ban people and they'd instantly pm you begging for an unban because they really needed the LC forum during that time.
An awful lot of them relied on the LC forum, for advice, for venting, for whatever. There's huge numbers in there around that time and I think for most of them it's probably good to relieve a bit of stress or get a last min question answered.

randylonghorn

jumpguy wrote: »

What was ever wrong with serving a nice little ban to some LCers anyway?

I don't mind banning you from LC any time you want, jumpy! :cool:

pickarooney wrote: »

Otherwise get someone to change your password to some rubbish so you can't log in ...

Giving your password to someone else is not the best idea.

At least one person did that last year as a temp measure, they decided to have a little fun, had a little TOO much fun (without any real malice I suspect) and he ended up sitebanned permanently.

jumpguy wrote: »

I just think it'd be comforting for LC students in a way, the fact it was allowed and now is no longer allowed is more annoying than anything.

Thing is, it wasn't just LCers though, if it was the numbers wouldn't have been that big probably. A large proportion of users are college students, and it was becoming more and more popular to request a tempban with exams coming up (sometimes twice a year with them). I thought it was a pity it had to be discontinued myself, but the number of requests was definitely growing steadily, and it was only going to continue to do so.

Zaph

jumpguy wrote: »

I think that since ye had them in the first place, they shouldn't have been revoked

As I posted before, it was a favour, not a right. And as randy said, it wasn't just LC students, there were also JC and college students to take into consideration. That all started to mount up pretty quickly.

I requested a one week site ban a year or two ago and it helped immensely. I seriously don't think I would have done as well in certain exams if I hadn't been sitebanned. It's a small gesture that can help people in a very important way.

pickarooney

randylonghorn wrote: »

Giving your password to someone else is not the best idea.

At least one person did that last year as a temp measure, they decided to have a little fun, had a little TOO much fun (without any real malice I suspect) and he ended up sitebanned permanently.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking straight... just as easy type in some scrambled rubbish yourself - open notepad, close eyes, mash keyboard, copy/paste rubbish into password field... but if you've no willpower you'll just request a new password mailed to you at the first sign of weakness.

Asiaprod

As someone who was involved in issuing temp bans. A great number of these users lasted for all of 2 days and were then back looking for their access back. That was not really so much of an issue when only a few users requested the service. As the numbers grew, it became impractical. It is more than just a few clicks of the mouse. Admins had to spend time checking up on why a site ban was issued, who issued it, and then go through the process of returning access. As a result, other areas of the site that needed attention began to suffer. In light of this, the decision was made to recall this service for the greater good of the site.

jumpguy

Zaph wrote: »

As I posted before, it was a favour, not a right. And as randy said, it wasn't just LC students, there were also JC and college students to take into consideration. That all started to mount up pretty quickly.

Nothing is a right on Boards, it's all just favours, I know that. Hence, this is just the same as anything really.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I requested a one week site ban a year or two ago and it helped immensely. I seriously don't think I would have done as well in certain exams if I hadn't been sitebanned. It's a small gesture that can help people in a very important way.

That's what I'm saying! It's helpful to some people.

Asiaprod wrote: »

As someone who was involved in issuing temp bans. A great number of these users lasted for all of 2 days and were then back looking for their access back. That was not really so much of an issue when only a few users requested the service. As the numbers grew, it became impractical. It is more than just a few clicks of the mouse. Admins had to spend time checking up on why a site ban was issued, who issued it, and then go through the process of returning access. As a result, other areas of the site that needed attention began to suffer. In light of this, the decision was made to recall this service for the greater good of the site.

If you just have a strict rule where you can't come back to your account before the siteban is up, twill be grand. That way, there'll be no molly coddling of admins trying to enrich all our personal lives. You could just make it very clear that there's no going back.

If admins were under so much pressure, why not just take on more admins? Ye have a large host of Cmods who seem very competant and who like all the other admins, would happily do it for free. It's like not eating food for a day because you're too lazy to go to the ATM (not implying admins are lazy! Just saying, if the current admins are stretched, surely the logical solution is to get more, instead of cutting service.)

There's only a spike in requests when exams roll around, besides that, it's just a steady trickle of requests that would be happy if they were obliged. However, I think bringing in a no-comebacksy's rule would be good.

Also, why would people PM you, if supposedly they could just as easily create a second account? Surely this proves that their identity makes a big part of boards.