Sharing an IP address with a troublemaker

P_1

Something that has caught my eye lately browsing the prison forum (guilty pleasure) is that some users are getting banned for seemingly no other reason other than sharing an IP address with somebody who has broken various rules on the site.

Now I'm not 100% sure how these users get flagged, without going into too much detail I'm guessing that you run some sort of IP tracking program. The banned user goes onto Prison to try argue their case and are met with a 'I don't believe you now please fcuck off' type response, which causes more agro and leads to heated arguments and general other bad things.

To use the pub analogy, is that not the same as a bouncer banning you for being the flatmate of a troublemaker, i.e. guilt by association?

Now I understand that the site has gotten much bigger these days and 'timesinks' are being (rightly or wrongly) not tolerated but surely there's something wrong with the current system as it is?

What is taken into account in cases like this? Is it 100% the IP address or are other factors like the poster in question's history taken into account?

I mean it's not exactly fair to expect users to police the actions of somebody that they happen to live with now is it?

My name is URL

I doubt that many get banned simply for sharing an IP address with another banned user.

If they post in the same style as the banned person, or on similar topics / forums etc then they're more likely to run into hassle.

P_1

True, that would come into it I guess.

What I'm wondering is if it tends to be 'shoot first and ask questions later' or is there any other consideration given before 'shooting'.

There was a case a while back with 2 brothers, 1 brother got banned and the 2nd brother got caught in the crossfire because they posted in the same forum as the banned brother soon after he was banned. Now the 'innocent' brother went onto Prison to argue his case and was dealt with an a fairly rude manner before it was all sorted out.

Now if something like that was to happen in a shop or a pub you could imagine the outrage that would understandably occur.

P_1

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

It would be hardly the first time we've encountered that.

Either way, it's not our fault it's come to this. If some folks can't behave in a respectful manner towards the service we provide, I'm not sure how they can expect us to tolerate that. I suggest you take up this debate with that person, not with us.

Now I know the site is meant to be 'like a few friends chatting in the pub' but these days it's a business and frankly that is shocking customer service. I mean what would your reaction be if a similar scenario was being played out at the door of a pub?

So the poster in question here is being punished for the actions of a totally different individual, something that they would have little or no control over.

Is this a new way of punishing troublemakers, 'behave or not only will you be banned, but so will anyone who shares your internet connection, or your other friends'? That strikes me as being extremely draconian.

Best username ever

P_1 wrote: »

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:



Now I know the site is meant to be 'like a few friends chatting in the pub' but these days it's a business and frankly that is shocking customer service. I mean what would your reaction be if a similar scenario was being played out at the door of a pub?

So the poster in question here is being punished for the actions of a totally different individual, something that they would have little or no control over.

Is this a new way of punishing troublemakers, 'behave or not only will you be banned, but so will anyone who shares your internet connection, or your other friends'? That strikes me as being extremely draconian.

Go to vbulliten.org, they'll explain it to you. But boards probably have added admin tool extensions of their own for deciding guidelines on site banning multiple banned accounts. You're not going to get the answer here. They're not going to tell you how it's done.

P_1

Best username ever wrote: »

Go to vbulliten.org, they'll explain it to you. But boards probably have added admin tool extensions of their own for deciding guidelines on site banning multiple banned accounts. You're not going to get the answer here. They're not going to tell you how it's done.

That's not the point I'm trying to make, my point is that people seem to be getting punished for other people's actions and then being told to fcuck off when they try to explain their case.

Let's use a hypothetical, say we are flatmates and tend to post on similar forums.
- You decide to troll AH for whatever reason and then get banned.
- I post a reply to a separate thread and then find myself getting banned.
- I then go onto Prison and ask, 'Hey I've been banned, is it because of Best username ever's posts? I share a flat with him, why am I being punished for his actions'?
- One of the Admins then replies on Prison, 'I don't believe you, now fcuck off' or 'Well then Best username ever should have thought of you before he trolled AH' or 'You should have stopped Best username ever from trolling AH, because you didn't, we're banning you'.
- I then get frustrated and the frustration comes out in the reply to the Prison thread.
- The Admin's replies get sarkier and sarkier.

Can you not see the problem here?

Sarky

A lot of discussion tends to go into it behind the scenes. Sometimes mods are consulted (especially if they've had experience with the poster or a past alias), sometimes not. There's probably more techy stuff to it, not being an admin I couldn't say, but they're definitely not done on a whim.

You'll occasionally see posters getting unbanned too, so it's obviously possible to argue your case. If you have a case to argue, of course.

P_1

Sarky wrote: »

A lot of discussion tends to go into it behind the scenes. Sometimes mods are consulted (especially if they've had experience with the poster or a past alias), sometimes not. There's probably more techy stuff to it, not being an admin I couldn't say, but they're definitely not done on a whim.

You'll occasionally see posters getting unbanned too, so it's obviously possible to argue your case. If you have a case to argue, of course.

Fair point. I guess what inspired me to start this thread was some of the rude replies to the OPs by the Admins in the Prison threads, of course that is probably not helped by the OPs themselves coming across as (possibly understandably) angry in their opening posts.

Best username ever

P_1 wrote: »

That's not the point I'm trying to make, my point is that people seem to be getting punished for other people's actions and then being told to fcuck off when they try to explain their case.

Let's use a hypothetical, say we are flatmates and tend to post on similar forums.
- You decide to troll AH for whatever reason and then get banned.
- I post a reply to a separate thread and then find myself getting banned.
- I then go onto Prison and ask, 'Hey I've been banned, is it because of Best username ever's posts? I share a flat with him, why am I being punished for his actions'?
- One of the Admins then replies on Prison, 'I don't believe you, now fcuck off' or 'Well then Best username ever should have thought of you before he trolled AH' or 'You should have stopped Best username ever from trolling AH, because you didn't, we're banning you'.
- I then get frustrated and the frustration comes out in the reply to the Prison thread.
- The Admin's replies get sarkier and sarkier.

Can you not see the problem here?

I do see your point, there seems to a lot of housemates and posters associated with them banned as of late.

Much more than I have noticed before.

P_1

Best username ever wrote: »

I do see your point, there seems to a lot of housemates and posters associated with them banned as of late.

Much more than I have noticed before.

Of course, it could also be a tactic of muiti logins to get around the bans but someone with a genuine case could well be frightened off by some of the Admin replies to similar threads.

Micky Dolenz

In fairness, by the time it gets to prison, the site banned poster has been thoroughly investigated. The poster will have raised a flag, a mod will have looked at it and then put their case to why they think they are a re-reg poster. Then Admin use their all seeing eye to make a call on site ban. Which is something that isn't done lightly to be fair.

I think a big reason why Admin may seem short in prison is because they know full well they are being lied too. No one likes a liar.

Always best to come clean. You would notice genuine mistakes are often forgiven too and many site bans, after a promise to read the t's and c's. have been lifted.

Pawwed Rig

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I think a big reason why Admin may seem short in prison is because they know full well they are being lied too. No one likes a liar.
.

Liar is a strong word.
It often happens that at the end of a string of post the mod says 'We will give you the benefit of the doubt this time you can no longer post here' and then the user gets unbanned. No apology, no acknowledgement that a mistake may have been made.

I like the prison forum too as some of the threads can be very entertaining and the admins generally do a good jub but agree with the OP wit regard to shoot first ask questions later mentality. Also the mods can be antagonistic and wind the poster up who already is upset at being banned.

Gordon

P_1 wrote: »

Something that has caught my eye lately browsing the prison forum (guilty pleasure) is that some users are getting banned for seemingly no other reason other than sharing an IP address with somebody who has broken various rules on the site.

The operative word here is:

seemingly

This is how it seems to you, but to someone that has a much deeper information source to pull on, things will seem different.

What is taken into account in cases like this? Is it 100% the IP address or are other factors like the poster in question's history taken into account?

Various multitudes of factors, something we won't go into much detail on, sorry.

You'll find a lot of people using the flatmate defence, because people are getting savvier, so the people you're seeing on Prison will be using this defence because they think it will work, that's why you're seeing it more and more.

Yes flatmates exist, but they also don't exist.

Micky Dolenz

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Liar is a strong word.
.

No it isn't. People lie all the time. We are all liars in one way or another.

Ken.

Gordon wrote: »

The operative word here is:

This is how it seems to you, but to someone that has a much deeper information source to pull on, things will seem different.

Various multitudes of factors, something we won't go into much detail on, sorry.

You'll find a lot of people using the flatmate defence, because people are getting savvier, so the people you're seeing on Prison will be using this defence because they think it will work, that's why you're seeing it more and more.

Yes flatmates exist, but they also don't exist.

In the family defences its always always the brother or son. Never the sister or daughter.

Insect Overlord

ken wrote: »

In the family defences its always always the brother or son. Never the sister or daughter.

My brother nearly got himself banned for spamming his Ebay sales a few years ago. That could have been embarrassing.

P_1

Gordon wrote: »

This is how it seems to you, but to someone that has a much deeper information source to pull on, things will seem different.

That's fair enough. I'm guessing the Prison threads might be the extreme end of the stick alright.

Gordon wrote: »

Various multitudes of factors, something we won't go into much detail on, sorry.

That's no hassle, can't be letting those spammers how to beat the system afterall

Gordon wrote: »

You'll find a lot of people using the flatmate defence, because people are getting savvier, so the people you're seeing on Prison will be using this defence because they think it will work, that's why you're seeing it more and more.

Yes flatmates exist, but they also don't exist.

Yeah I was thinking that the 'flatmate' defense has become a tactic of choice as of late.

I'm also wondering if a more 'civilised' opening post would bring about replies that seem less 'smart arseish' replies from yourselves?

For example: 'Hi, have I been banned because of the actions of X, who I happen to live with? I have a clean enough record. How can I prove that I am who I say I am?' might bring about a better response than 'I've been banned, WTF, unban me now'.

Also something that has me slightly concerned is that you seem to be putting an expectation on users to somehow police the actions of their flatmates etc to avoid getting themselves banned. Is that right or am I reading into things the wrong way. Genuine curiosity.

I know, far too many questions for a Friday evening

P_1

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

In fairness, by the time it gets to prison, the site banned poster has been thoroughly investigated. The poster will have raised a flag, a mod will have looked at it and then put their case to why they think they are a re-reg poster. Then Admin use their all seeing eye to make a call on site ban. Which is something that isn't done lightly to be fair.

I think a big reason why Admin may seem short in prison is because they know full well they are being lied too. No one likes a liar.

Always best to come clean. You would notice genuine mistakes are often forgiven too and many site bans, after a promise to read the t's and c's. have been lifted.

On that point, is the 'suspect' contacted in any way before it all goes to sitebans and prison?

Micky Dolenz

P_1 wrote: »

On that point, is the 'suspect' contacted in any way before it all goes to sitebans and prison?

Yeah, normally forum banned for trolling or spamming.

Pawwed Rig

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

No it isn't. People lie all the time. We are all liars in one way or another.

Well it is as they are assumed to be lying from the word go.
If you are appealing something and repeatedly being considered a liar then I am sure you would get pretty agitated about it. I would anyway.

Often you can see the tensions rising in the prison threads. Maybe the mods could roll back a bit in that case. I have seen some get permanent bans for losing their head in prison.

P_1

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Yeah, normally forum banned for trolling or spamming.

Cheers for the answer, I'm guessing that things tend to get sorted out at that stage by PM and what have you?

(I know I'm full of the questions tonight, its just something that has had me very curious as of late)

Gordon

P_1 wrote: »

I'm also wondering if a more 'civilised' opening post would bring about replies that seem less 'smart arseish' replies from yourselves?

For example: 'Hi, have I been banned because of the actions of X, who I happen to live with? I have a clean enough record. How can I prove that I am who I say I am?' might bring about a better response than 'I've been banned, WTF, unban me now'.

Civility definitely holds a place in civil conversation, but generally, the tone will usually be defined by the user's actions prior to the ban, along with the civility. To take the pub analogy, if someone was told 'not tonight' and they spat in the bouncer's face, understandably he wouldn't be let back in, no matter what he had done prior to this. But if all you see is the person being told 'don't come back' by an angry bouncer, you only see one side of it.

In extreme cases, cues need to be drawn out of the Prisoner manually.

Also something that has me slightly concerned is that you seem to be putting an expectation on users to somehow police the actions of their flatmates etc to avoid getting themselves banned. Is that right or am I reading into things the wrong way. Genuine curiosity.

Their flatmates? Their actual flatmates or their pretend ones?

Why would this be of concern? If someone is sending people harassing private messages from, for example, a particular IP, and then someone else pops up that has no history of abuse - but on the same IP - what do we do? Do we automatically just believe them, take them at their word and let this person free to roam boards? Sure, we've banned the troublemaker, but what about this person? What if it's the flatmate defence? What if it's a duplicate account - are you happy for them to be here? This concerns me.

We'll investigate as necessary, take everything we see into account and if we say we don't believe someone, we don't believe them, what should we do instead? If they protest innocence and we don't have the proof - maybe they should get their flatmate to cough up. I'm loathe to create similarities between electricity usage and IP usage and paying the bills.. (Admin hat off) but there is a hint of similarity that can't be ignored surely?

Micky Dolenz

P_1 wrote: »

Cheers for the answer, I'm guessing that things tend to get sorted out at that stage by PM and what have you?

(I know I'm full of the questions tonight, its just something that has had me very curious as of late)

Loads of issues are settled by PM and reversed at mod level. Some are not. It is only passed up to Admin level if they are believed to be a re-reg. It's an Admin call after that. There are some people who re-reg so often that mods can tell who they are after reading a couple of posts.

P_1

Gordon wrote: »

Civility definitely holds a place in civil conversation, but generally, the tone will usually be defined by the user's actions prior to the ban, along with the civility. To take the pub analogy, if someone was told 'not tonight' and they spat in the bouncer's face, understandably he wouldn't be let back in, no matter what he had done prior to this. But if all you see is the person being told 'don't come back' by an angry bouncer, you only see one side of it.

I think we might be getting our wires slightly crossed here. To use the pub analogy, of course the person who spits in the bouncers face deserves to be banned from the pub, however does that person's flatmate deserve to be banned from the pub because of their flatmate's actions?

Their flatmates? Their actual flatmates or their pretend ones?

The actual flatmates, the pretend flatmate merchants deserve every bit of abuse that gets thrown their way IMO.

Why would this be of concern? If someone is sending people harassing private messages from, for example, a particular IP, and then someone else pops up that has no history of abuse - but on the same IP - what do we do? Do we automatically just believe them, take them at their word and let this person free to roam boards? Sure, we've banned the troublemaker, but what about this person? What if it's the flatmate defence? What if it's a duplicate account - are you happy for them to be here? This concerns me.

I'd be concerned about the innocent party here TBH, I'd repeat my pub analogy for this one.

We'll investigate as necessary, take everything we see into account and if we say we don't believe someone, we don't believe them, what should we do instead? If they protest innocence and we don't have the proof - maybe they should get their flatmate to cough up. I'm loathe to create similarities between electricity usage and IP usage and paying the bills.. (Admin hat off) but there is a hint of similarity that can't be ignored surely?

Again that's a very interesting analogy. The only concern I'd have there is that the 'offending' flatmate probably wouldn't be displaying any outward signs that could lead the 'innocent' flatmate to take any preventative action. I mean if someone was hogging the electricity it can be fairly easy to spot (say if one flatmate spends ages in the electric shower or leaves the energy hungry TV constantly running). It wouldn't be so easy to spot if the flatmate was causing trouble on the internet.

LizT

P_1 wrote: »

The actual flatmates, the pretend flatmate merchants deserve every bit of abuse that gets thrown their way IMO.

That's where the problem lies. How do you differentiate between the two?

P_1

LizT wrote: »

That's where the problem lies. How do you differentiate between the two?

That's the $64,000 question.

I guess if somebody says they are who they say they are they should be allowed to prove that without the semi-snide comments that would tend to get their backs up.

However civility is a two way street.

mackg

The solution is simple. If you suspect someone on your IP is causing trouble: Rat them out to the admins. All accounts related to that IP are banned except the "rat" account and all future accounts on the IP are banned. The other upside to this is if people know their house mate is on boards watching them turn on each other would be highly entertaining and the PM conversations could be posted in a special forum for our amusement.

P_1

mackg wrote: »

The solution is simple. If you suspect someone on your IP is causing trouble: Rat them out to the admins. All accounts related to that IP are banned except the "rat" account and all future accounts on the IP are banned. The other upside to this is if people know their house mate is on boards watching them turn on each other would be highly entertaining and the PM conversations could be posted in a special forum for our amusement.

TBH that to me sounds so wrong on so many ethical and practical levels I could be here for days trying to work out a semi-civilised rebuttal.

Tombi!

P_1 wrote: »

TBH that to me sounds so wrong on so many ethical and practical levels I could be here for days trying to work out a semi-civilised rebuttal.

I wouldn't really call it "ratting".
I mean I'm the only person on Boards in my home and if I was living with someone who had an account and also had a habit of trolling a lot and I knew about it. I'd probably PM an admin and say "hey so and so lives with me, you can check the IPs. They tend to troll a lot so I'm just making it clear that I'm not involved incase he gets into trouble".

I'd imagine that would trigger the admins a bit more instead of "ban both accounts that are doing similar things and get abuse off of one because they're different people".

SB2013

mackg wrote: »

The solution is simple. If you suspect someone on your IP is causing trouble: Rat them out to the admins. All accounts related to that IP are banned except the "rat" account and all future accounts on the IP are banned. The other upside to this is if people know their house mate is on boards watching them turn on each other would be highly entertaining and the PM conversations could be posted in a special forum for our amusement.

That's pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure where the idea has come from that housemates are all chummy. Many people have housemates who are complete asshats but are stuck with them. Some people don't even talk to their housemates. What if the person is lodging with a family and it's one of that family that's the troll? Telling them to "take it up with your housemate" isn't really a valid solution to the issue. I know it might make things a bit difficult but simply having the same IP should not be sufficient on its own to assume guilt. It certainly warrants investigation though.

At the end of the day it's a simple customer service matter though. To me the comment "Tell us about the other accounts" could easily be rephrased to "You are suspected of having alternate accounts". It's less confrontational and accusatory.

LizT

I think mackg's comment was light hearted. I don't think he's seriously suggesting we have a special forum for PMs to be posted in for our amusement in fairness.