Closed Accounts

K_1

tbh wrote: »

it's only personal info - as far as I remember, that's just your email address. your posts are never removed, although if there's something you're worried about, drop the forum mods a line and explain what the problem is - I'd never refuse to delete a small number of posts, even if I thought the reason wasn't great.

Email addresses aren't removed though, as someone mentioned earlier that even if you close your account you can't open a new one with the same address, so the address must be stored somewhere by boards. Which makes the whole thing a bit pointless.

Mr.Biscuits

Overheal wrote: »

So you think older members should be treated more harshly for infractions committed years and years ago versus a rereg who picks up a new name every month?

You're making a clear strawman argument there as I never mentioned either user being a re-reg.

Sure, a new user may very well be a re-reg but that does mean all newbies should be treated as such.

My point still stands, if it's your second offence (no matter how long ago) you should not be treated as if it's your first and so would echo Steve's comments in that: "This is why we have human mods that can make human decisions based on information available to them.." and as far as I'm concerned, that "information" that is available to mods should include all bans and all infractions since that user joined the forum.

Overheal wrote: »

How does that encourage people to stay?

The only way Boards should be active in trying to encourage users to not close their accounts is make sure that they not let users be personally abused on the forum and give them a fair hearing should they have an issue with how they have been moderated. Other than that, I don't see why Boards should feel the need to wipe away past misdemeanours from user's accounts.

That is unless they have had infractions or bans overturned using the DRP. If that is the case, well then yes: that should be wiped from their ban history, as no dount they would be a chance that some mod would take a quick look at their history and not notice that on appeal, said infractions and/or bans were found to be unwarranted and overturned. So in that instance, I would argee with such history being wiped.

Mr.Biscuits

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But that scenario is not based on what I am suggesting at all.

"Based on" - no, but it explains why what your suggesting would be unwise and create further problems down the pipeline - did you actually read what I wrote.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Because we're just a forum on the internet and not the indonesian judiciary system.

So Boards compares to the indonesian judiciary system if they don't expunge past misdemeanours after a certain time period?? "Just a forum on the internet" or not - if you have been banned from a forum on Boards, then that should be availale for mods to view for as long as your account remains open, as such information will always be relevant when it comes to a moderator making a decision about how you should be moderated, doesn't matter if it's ten months past, or ten years - it's still relevant.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Because an alternative would not be based purely on an automated time system.

Did you not post:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If you can keep your nose clean (while being a regular poster) for X amount of time then the history should be wiped clean.

If I am misreading you, I apologise - but it seem that an automated time system is precisely what you're suggesting.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Because the intent is to reward good behaviour / learning from past behaviour and not to punish the wicked, because again, we want more good posters, not more pissed off posters.

I don't get why someone would close their account just bans or infractions from long ago. I see why someone would re-reg in order to circumvent a current ban but don't see the motive of a user closing their accounts just because they don't appreciate that their old bans are still in their ban history.

I mean, if this user has 'learned their lessons' as you put it - then why don't they just stay. What's bugging them so much about their ban history that they would feel the need to just close their accounts and re-reg?

Just to be clear, I can understand why a user would want to close their accounts and re-reg if they feel that are getting treated infairly by mods/users based on their past posting style and/or bans, but wiping ban history content from these users' profiles wouldn't solve that.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But sher, whatever, carry on with the incorrect analogy and the assumptions about my intent because I question your opinion.

My analogy wasn't incorrect ..

What I did was make a point which you just don't seem to want to take on board, but not taking it on-board doesn't for one second mean it less relevant nor less apt.

Gordon

K_1 wrote: »

Email addresses aren't removed though, as someone mentioned earlier that even if you close your account you can't open a new one with the same address, so the address must be stored somewhere by boards. Which makes the whole thing a bit pointless.

Why would you want to sign up again if you've closed your account?

Afaiu the email address is stored in an encrypted form, so we don't know what the email address is, but when you register, the email address becomes encrypted - sees there's an encryption match, and denies the email.

dr.bollocko

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

"Based on" - no, but it explains why what your suggesting would be unwise and create further problems down the pipeline - did you actually read what I wrote.



So Boards compares to the indonesian judiciary system if they don't expunge past misdemeanours after a certain time period?? "Just a forum on the internet" or not - if you have been banned from a forum on Boards, then that should be availale for mods to view for as long as your account remains open, as such information will always be relevant when it comes to a moderator making a decision about how you should be moderated, doesn't matter if it's ten months past, or ten years - it's still relevant.



Did you not post:



If I am misreading you, I apologise - but it seem that an automated time system is precisely what you're suggesting.



I don't get why someone would close their account just bans or infractions from long ago. I see why someone would re-reg in order to circumvent a current ban but don't see the motive of a user closing their accounts just because they don't appreciate that their old bans are still in their ban history.

I mean, if this user has 'learned their lessons' as you put it - then why don't they just stay. What's bugging them so much about their ban history that they would feel the need to just close their accounts and re-reg?

Just to be clear, I can understand why a user would want to close their accounts and re-reg if they feel that are getting treated infairly by mods/users based on their past posting style and/or bans, but wiping ban history content from these users' profiles wouldn't solve that.



My analogy wasn't incorrect ..

What I did was make a point which you just don't seem to want to take on board, but not taking it on-board doesn't for one second mean it less relevant nor less apt.

If you were, for example, a poster who previously had an account. Maybe this account was banned by me from a few forums or a few times. Then you closed your account...

Now maybe a few months pass and cooler heads etc. and you have a brand new account. It looks like you're new and you've never been banned before.

However maybe you get some posts reported and your previous account has been banned by me in the past. I have a lot more work to do to first off remember who you were and what was posted and then make a moderatorial decision.

Most likely I will not see a match with your former account and treat you like a new user once enough time passes if you keep your nose clean and don't appear to cause trouble.

If you were a poster in that situation then this is essentially an unfair benefit to you because you decided to close one account with a bad history and open another which is completely clean.

If I, as a regular, get banned maybe two, three, four years ago, yet I've been a good boy, haven't closed an account for whatever reason, haven't been infracted or warned and haven't generally caused trouble then my history is seen as worse than yours simply because you (remembering we are talking about a hypothetical former account with a history of bans) closed your account and then started posting again under a new name.

WindSock

I think the system as it is makes it unfortunate for some regular users to get caught up in a perpetual cycle of re-regging and being sitebanned. Their original 'crime' should really have a sell by date and they should be allowed to move on and get on with their new accounts unless they are using it to obviously take the piss / troll / etc.

K_1

Gordon wrote: »

Why would you want to sign up again if you've closed your account?

Presumably because they want a new identity, as was suggested earlier in the thread. Or just don't want to pay for a name change!

Gordon wrote: »

Afaiu the email address is stored in an encrypted form, so we don't know what the email address is, but when you register, the email address becomes encrypted - sees there's an encryption match, and denies the email.

Overheal

WindSock wrote: »

I think the system as it is makes it unfortunate for some regular users to get caught up in a perpetual cycle of re-regging and being sitebanned. Their original 'crime' should really have a sell by date and they should be allowed to move on and get on with their new accounts unless they are using it to obviously take the piss / troll / etc.

Thing is, most of the time thats the case. At least from what I've seen. Re-reg's don't usually show up again on the radar until, well, they show up on the radar. Usually by doing the same thing that got them banned in the first place.

The other thing is though that you aren't allowed to reregister to circumvent a forum ban. I don't think forums should have permaban lengths in most cases though. At most, a ban should be issued for a year.

Eleganza

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Mods can cheat.

ATABOY Bollocko. Keep fighting the good fight. Collateral damage is entirely acceptable.

Eleganza

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If you were, for example, a poster who previously had an account. Maybe this account was banned by me from a few forums or a few times. Then you closed your account...

Now maybe a few months pass and cooler heads etc. and you have a brand new account. It looks like you're new and you've never been banned before.

However maybe you get some posts reported and your previous account has been banned by me in the past. I have a lot more work to do to first off remember who you were and what was posted and then make a moderatorial decision.

Most likely I will not see a match with your former account and treat you like a new user once enough time passes if you keep your nose clean and don't appear to cause trouble.

If you were a poster in that situation then this is essentially an unfair benefit to you because you decided to close one account with a bad history and open another which is completely clean.

If I, as a regular, get banned maybe two, three, four years ago, yet I've been a good boy, haven't closed an account for whatever reason, haven't been infracted or warned and haven't generally caused trouble then my history is seen as worse than yours simply because you (remembering we are talking about a hypothetical former account with a history of bans) closed your account and then started posting again under a new name.

QED. Jaysus boys couldn't possibly go wrong there.

Congratulations, you just magic'd me in to now being the Troll that you mistook me for originally.

Insect Overlord

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck...

Eleganza

Law of unintended consequences as practised by Dr. Bollocko.
Trigger happy Bollocko decided I was a re-reg'd troll without bothering to investigate and banned me.
Might as well be hung for a Sheep as a Lamb.

Time for you to have an indepth metaphysical discussion as to my very relevant on-topic additions to the thread which Dr. Bollocko would immediately discount and ban me if he could.

So the on-topic subject: Collateral Damage from blunt moderation.
Discuss!

Eleganza

... please Sir, stop raising your voice and leave. You are causing a commotion....Damn right I am.

The Recliner

Eleganza wrote: »

... please Sir, stop raising your voice and leave. You are causing a commotion....Damn right I am.

If you had a valid reason for causing a commotion I don't think anyone would mind so much

But you have had an appeal for the ban independently upheld by myself and an Admin, if you don't agree with it that is your right but the appeals process has been used and anything else you do in relation to it is causing a disruption and will likely result in a banning for you which we would rather avoid

The reason for your ban which would have been automatically been PM'd to you at the time is for abusing other users, if in subsequent conversations with you Dr B said he thought you were a re-reg is totally irrelevant, the reason for the ban is correct and has been deemed so by 2 independant parties

g'em

Eleganza wrote: »

... please Sir, stop raising your voice and leave. You are causing a commotion....Damn right I am.

You had an opportunity to voice your concerns on the DRP thread. Please don't drag those concerns here to a completely unrelated topic.

Given that you're so fond of correct procedure I'm going to give you the opportunity to see that in action.

If you choose to post on this thread in a manner that is not directly related to matter discussed in the OP i.e. Closing Accounts, then you will be banned. (I specifically refer you to the boards.ie site Guidelines, ref: constructive contributions and respect and manners).

The choice, poster, is yours.

Eleganza

@The Recliner, please stop dragging this thread off topic. We're discussing closed accounts here. I'm discussing how some Moderators approach the topic of suspected owners of closed accounts and re-reging.

Now you'll probably ban me for referring to a PM in a forum other than dispute resolution but he said to me something very much exactly along the lines of "How many different accounts have you had at this stage?"
That's the first bit of true interaction I got from Bollocko and is relevant and on-topic.
If that ain't on-topic in this thread then I don't know what is but then moderators make up the rules and as bollocko says Moderators can cheat.

Overheal

Insect Overlord wrote: »

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck...

"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and everyone else says Its a Duck; you're damn right I will make sure for myself it isn't a Goose first."

-Overheal, 2010

The Recliner

Eleganza wrote: »

@The Recliner, please stop dragging this thread off topic. We're discussing closed accounts here. I'm discussing how some Moderators approach the topic of suspected owners of closed accounts and re-reging.

I think it is pretty clear to everyone that you are dragging a grievance with a Mod into this thread with faux concern for closed accounts

Now you'll probably ban me for referring to a PM in a forum other than dispute resolution but he said to me something very much exactly along the lines of "How many different accounts have you had at this stage?"
That's the first bit of true interaction I got from Bollocko and is relevant and on-topic.

it isn't relevant to what got you banned so it really isn't on topic

If that ain't on-topic in this thread then I don't know what is but then moderators make up the rules and as bollocko says Moderators can cheat.

Dr Bollocko's comment abvout Mods Cheating refers to tools that Mods can use to spot re-regs which was relevant to the conversation at hand, taking it out of context does nothing to serve your arguement

*I don't like taking a thread off topic but if a Mod of one of the forums I look after is getting their reputation dragged through the mud because of something they correctly did to keep the site functioning than I am damn well going to defend it*

Eleganza

Perhaps it would be good to extend the discussion to consider how Moderators view the common boards.ie punter out there.
some of the discussion on here is quite dismissive of the average poster and moderators appear to have lost sight of what they are supposed to be doing.
I'm being depicted around these parts as a malcontent becuase I have strong views.
I have a small post count, some bans, an infractions but a 50% thank score without having ever been a thank whore.
There are an awful lot of empty kettles out there with thousands of posts who don't contribute to discussions but know how to nudge and needle their other posters.
Shoot first, don't ask questions later approach is less than what the punters deserve.
All above considered with respect to handling of closed accounts and re-reg'd users.

Eleganza

The Recliner wrote: »

*I don't like taking a thread off topic but if a Mod of one of the forums I look after is getting their reputation dragged through the mud because of something they correctly did to keep the site functioning than I am damn well going to defend it*

And that dovetails perfectly with my last post. Mods protect mods and no regard shown to the common punter or their reputation on the board.
Mod was quite happy to see me being portrayed as a NAZI.
Mod never cheated to show that I was using the same IP as the person he suspected me to be.
Metaphsical question again, if a poster can't post from an account is it effectively closed. This was touched upon by others earlier in the thread and banning me from After Hours certainly effectively closed my account for that sub-forum.

The Recliner

Eleganza wrote: »

And that dovetails perfectly with my last post.

It really doesn't

Mods protect mods and no regard shown to the common punter or their reputation on the board.

You seemed to ignore the part of my post when I said if they acted correctly, it is important because if they hadn't acted correctly we wouldn't be having this conversation as I would have overturned the ban

I protect Mods where they are getting grief for doing their job

I protect Mods where they make mistakes and hold their hands up to it, their decisions will be overturned but I wont let them get grief for making a mistake and owning up to it

I wont protect mods where they abuse their position and wont admit to mistakes

With some small tweaks to the above sentences you could replace Mod with Poster and my duties as CMod still hold true

Eleganza

Back on topic.
When or how can you empower the moderator to determine if someone has re-reg'd so that Dr. Bollocko doesn't have to make a mistake like that again and there is no way for me to prove I'm not the Troll he thought he was banning as I don't know the Troll that he was banning.
Obviously the current validation method doesn't work.
It seems moderators are by and large happy with the current situation. Me, I'm pissed. I've been characterised as a fascist and have had no power to counter as the Dispute resolution system is a sham, less of a scam than the VRT appeal process, but a sham never the less.
But then I don't really matter as I'm just a standard poster, not a mod who can cheat.

dr.bollocko

There was no mistake made.
I banned you for abuse.
The very first PM I sent clarifies this.
Your crusade is laughable as this has been pointed out to you countless times.
You have appealed your case. Your appeal has been rejected because you are in the wrong.
You are wrong.
Also note I never accused you of anything relating to alternative accounts. I simply asked some questions.
Walk on.

Overheal

Eleganza wrote: »

a mod who can cheat.

I'm just going to stop and ask: You are being sarcastic right, or did you really take that flippant remark at the start of the thread this wildly out of context?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Eleganza wrote: »

not a mod who can cheat.

Jilted exes are the worst.

Tom Dunne

Eleganza wrote: »

Back on topic.
When or how can you empower the moderator to determine if someone has re-reg'd so that Dr. Bollocko doesn't have to make a mistake like that again and there is no way for me to prove I'm not the Troll he thought he was banning as I don't know the Troll that he was banning.
Obviously the current validation method doesn't work.
It seems moderators are by and large happy with the current situation. Me, I'm pissed. I've been characterised as a fascist and have had no power to counter as the Dispute resolution system is a sham, less of a scam than the VRT appeal process, but a sham never the less.
But then I don't really matter as I'm just a standard poster, not a mod who can cheat.

You were warned.

Banned.

Mr. Presentable

TheZohan wrote: »

Now I understand the reason why boards has decided to give posters the option to close their accounts. But might I suggest that the number of accounts that a person can open and close is limited? Perhaps one or two a year?

Since the Closed Accounts option has been offered it seems to me that a number of people are treating accounts as disposable, they come in, make posts for a month or so and then close their account only to open a new account shortly after. Personally I think this service is being abused by some members.

Am I talking through my hat or does anyone agree?

For what it's worth, my opinion.

It is nice TheZohan that you care, but in the Grand Scheme of Things none of this is even slightly important. OK, maybe to the Site Owner and the accountant. But the fact remains that the goings on on a message board based in a European backwater have no significance and, perhaps with this in mind, we should let people treat their accounts how they will - obviously so long as they are not abusing anyone.

MagicMarker

This may have been asked already but is it possible to see who's closed their accounts?

Boards.ie: Danny

No, and there won't be either

TeddyTedson

Maybe there should be a goodbye boards forum...
It would certainly be busier than the Mustard forum I reckon.