Sharing an IP address with a troublemaker

P_1

Also how would somebody know if someone they live with even has a boards account.

I mean we're all supposed to be autonomous here right? It isn't that unreasonable to assume that the 'innocent' flatmate had no idea that the 'offending' flatmate had a boards account until the ban happens. Once the ban happens the only avenue for correspondence is in the Prison forum and all the sarky replies in there don't exactly tend to help matters.

Tombi!

P_1 wrote: »

Also how would somebody know if someone they live with even has a boards account.

I mean we're all supposed to be autonomous here right? It isn't that unreasonable to assume that the 'innocent' flatmate had no idea that the 'offending' flatmate had a boards account until the ban happens. Once the ban happens the only avenue for correspondence is in the Prison forum and all the sarky replies in there don't exactly tend to help matters.

Well I meant assuming that you know they have an account and are using it to break the rules then pointing it out so that you don't get banned by mistake is useful

P_1

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Well I meant assuming that you know they have an account and are using it to break the rules then pointing it out so that you don't get banned by mistake is useful

Fair enough, in that case then preventative action may well be advised. What about the cases where the other flatmate is in the dark so to speak?

mackg

Just to say that my comment was in jest, possibly inappropriately for feedback but no need to start an argument over it lads and lassies.

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

EDIT: ^^THIS

KevIRL

Reading this feedback thread prompted me to have a look at the Prison forum - like a few others I'm sure

Anyway the carry on in this thread involving glenjammin seems beyond ridiculous. Maybe moreso to me as I know for certain they arent the same person, but even besides that glenjammin has beyond around here for ages, and would have rarely posted in the same forum as that rogue CHD.

Can understand when a new account mysteriously pops up claiming to be a 'flatmate' after someone else was banned, but a bit of common sense here before banning would surely have worked better.

Insect Overlord

Buffy's posts do make for uneasy reading, it must be said. Black pots and kettles.

keane2097

Worst handling of a situation by a mod since the heady days of GuanYin and soccer?

BuffyBot's attitude is pretty awful, will be pretty cathartic to see the row back after being so thoroughly irritated by the misplaced superiority complex.

P_1

To a degree I would have some sympathy with Buffybot in this situation.

From what we can see, clearly a fcuck up was made by the admins (hey we all fcuck up from time to time) and admitting this fcuck up will mean losing some face.

Now the OP's anger (and their articulation of this anger) is giving Buffybot some scope to brush the complaint off as the OP being uncivil or abusive.

Hands up anyone who works in a consumer facing role who hasn't used this excuse in the past?

Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to hold your hand up, say 'yes I fcucked up', apologise and then fix the fcuck up.

Pawwed Rig

An apology would have been appropriate in this case.

P_1

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

An apology would have been appropriate in this case.

From my experience of this site and all the big 'user v mod/admin' flareups in the past I wouldn't recommend holding your breath for that to happen.

Canis Lupus

I'm always reading through the prison section as it can be quite funny but there are times when I wonder if it's handled in the best way.

I don't want to pick on Buffy but he/she seems very confrontational with people.

I've thought in the past to possibly start a thread on this but decided against it as I do like Gordons wit... but basically Boards is now a business and I can't help but think the responses should be a touch more professional if for no other reason than say, for example, creating paid for business accounts rather than turning a possible advertiser away by being 'smart' with them.

I know no one is getting paid to be professional but at least there should be some level of respect given from a business (ie boards) even if the customer hasn't shown any.

P_1

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'm always reading through the prison section as it can be quite funny but there are times when I wonder if it's handled in the best way.

I don't want to pick on Buffy but he/she seems very confrontational with people.

I've thought in the past to possibly start a thread on this but decided against it as I do like Gordons wit... but basically Boards is now a business and I can't help but think the responses should be a touch more professional if for no other reason than say, for example, creating paid for business accounts rather than turning a possible advertiser away by being 'smart' with them.

I know no one is getting paid to be professional but at least there should be some level of respect given from a business (ie boards) even if the customer hasn't shown any.

That's a very good point actually, now I'm not sure how much a business account here costs but calmly pointing out that they will need to get one and pointing them in that direction strikes me as a better way of doing things than the way things are done at the moment.

Morag

The admins have a lot more information on the accounts they are dealing with then we do.

P_1

Morag wrote: »

The admins have a lot more information on the accounts they are dealing with then we do.

Without a doubt they do, but does that mean that we're not allowed to say 'hang on a minute, that doesn't seem right or fair at all' when we see something that doesn't seem right or fair happen?

Ando's Saggy Bottom

Morag wrote: »

The admins have a lot more information on the accounts they are dealing with then we do.

Which makes glenjamin's banning and the downright arrogant and ignorant way he was treated all the more appalling. At the very least a sincere apology warranted as well as a long hard look at the way people are dealt with in future.

K-9

They're human, us mods are human, ye lesser mortal posters are human!
Yes, we all get things right 99.99% of the time.

Seriously, I see loads of cases getting the benefit of the doubt, some correctly, most come back as re-regs or most go back on their word, re-reg or prove too much hassle for the site.

We'll get the odd one wrong but we do get the vast majority right. It isn't a real prison lads!

P_1

K-9 wrote: »

They're human, us mods are human, ye lesser mortal posters are human!
Yes, we all get things right 99.99% of the time.

Seriously, I see loads of cases getting the benefit of the doubt, some correctly, most come back as re-regs or most go back on their word, re-reg or prove too much hassle for the site.

We'll get the odd one wrong but we do get the vast majority right. It isn't a real prison lads!

That's a fair point K-9 but I have to say that I was appalled by the attitudes that have been displayed in the 0.01% cases where ye were in the wrong, and to be frank in the majority of the other cases.

Now I don't know what if anything will come from this, best case we get a slight change of tone in the replies to the prison threads, worst case the prison forum goes private.

I hope you get the customer service point we've been making.

K-9

P_1 wrote: »

That's a fair point K-9 but I have to say that I was appalled by the attitudes that have been displayed in the 0.01% cases where ye were in the wrong, and to be frank in the majority of the other cases.

Now I don't know what if anything will come from this, best case we get a slight change of tone in the replies to the prison threads, worst case the prison forum goes private.

I hope you get the customer service point we've been making.

But to press my point my point home, we aren't a court of law, us mods get our suspicions, invariably backed by other mods or Admins. We'll get the odd one wrong but this isn't a case of group think, were the group gets it wrong, we get the vast majority right.

Indded, the accusation from the other side is we don't spot the re-regs quick enough. We give every new poster a fair chance, even somebody with similarities to a re-reg, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

So there's the balance, you tell me the better solution. I think it's pretty fine tuned, it isn't as if the site hasn't taken on feedback before. If something can tweak it that little further, well put forth your suggestion.

Working as part of 2 big mod teams, both are good at constructive criticism, we've an admin team who'll argue devils advocate often and then a higher layer.

We'll still get the odd one wrong, but we get the vast, vast majority right., with checks and systems in place.

If you can point to getting that extra 1% I doubt anybody will straight discard it.

Be prepared for constructive criticism, welcome to the world of a mod!

Lelantos

My wife liked to have a looksee on boards every now & again, in fact it was her that brought me to the site. I think she's posted 4 times in 2 years. One day she logged on to find she had been perma banned for ignoring a warning. So she contacted the prison mod & was told that yes, that was so, she told him check her 4 posts....came back later to say it was actually a rereg account to get past a ban! I think they finally accepted that it was no such thing, she had her account restored, but never darkened the doors of this place again.

Ando's Saggy Bottom

K-9 wrote: »

But to press my point my point home, we aren't a court of law, us mods get our suspicions, invariably backed by other mods or Admins. We'll get the odd one wrong but this isn't a case of group think, were the group gets it wrong, we get the vast majority right.

Indded, the accusation from the other side is we don't spot the re-regs quick enough. We give every new poster a fair chance, even somebody with similarities to a re-reg, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

So there's the balance, you tell me the better solution. I think it's pretty fine tuned, it isn't as if the site hasn't taken on feedback before. If something can tweak it that little further, well put forth your suggestion.

Working as part of 2 big mod teams, both are good at constructive criticism, we've an admin team who'll argue devils advocate often and then a higher layer.

We'll still get the odd one wrong, but we get the vast, vast majority right., with checks and systems in place.

If you can point to getting that extra 1% I doubt anybody will straight discard it.

Be prepared for constructive criticism, welcome to the world of a mod!

Anyone can make a mistake though. Its the ignorant stance taken in the likes of glenjamins case that's more troubling. Even when his good name is cleared and he's let back in there's no hint of an apology but rather an attitude that he's lucky to be allowed back at all despite doing absolutely nothing wrong. Unreal. You seem to be ignoring this point which seems to be the stock response to any point a mod/admin is afraid to or can't give a good answer to.

Another part of that thread that made me laugh was Buffy Bot breaking out the old "I have better things to be doing on my weekend." Well if you weren't banning innocent users and then talking to them like they're a piece of sh*t for daring to be annoyed about it then you'd have more free time. Not to mention the fact that whining about doing a job you are doing of your on free will is a bit lol.

SB2013

K-9 wrote: »

But to press my point my point home, we aren't a court of law, us mods get our suspicions, invariably backed by other mods or Admins. We'll get the odd one wrong but this isn't a case of group think, were the group gets it wrong, we get the vast majority right.

Indded, the accusation from the other side is we don't spot the re-regs quick enough. We give every new poster a fair chance, even somebody with similarities to a re-reg, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

So there's the balance, you tell me the better solution. I think it's pretty fine tuned, it isn't as if the site hasn't taken on feedback before. If something can tweak it that little further, well put forth your suggestion.

Working as part of 2 big mod teams, both are good at constructive criticism, we've an admin team who'll argue devils advocate often and then a higher layer.

We'll still get the odd one wrong, but we get the vast, vast majority right., with checks and systems in place.

If you can point to getting that extra 1% I doubt anybody will straight discard it.

Be prepared for constructive criticism, welcome to the world of a mod!

To be honest I'd prefer if you erred on the side of caution when issuing bans. It appears as though there is an approach along the lines of "This person appears to be a rereg/troll/sock puppet so we'd better ban him just in case he causes trouble. I'd rather see a bad person allowed stay on boards because of lack of proof than a good poster banned based on circumstantial proof.

As to the thread that's been posted. It seems quite obvious that the admin in question knew the poster was genuine yet for some reason decided they still needed to push the point of making the other person responsable and didn't lift the ban until the other poster agreed not to rereg. Where is the logic in that? How is that fair on the innocent person who got banned because of a housemates poor behaviour?

padd b1975

I had reason to visit the prison form a couple of months back following a site ban.

I know Buffy Bot is getting a lot of stick on this thread but regarding my appeal and from reading the prison forum, I feel he/she deals with these things as quickly and fairly as possible.

Thumbs up for volunteer Buffy Bot from me.

Spear

I think people are also unaware of the context of that thread. CHD had a grand total of 20 forum bans, 19 infractions and 15 warnings as well as a bunch of re-reg accounts. With that in mind, I don't think any admin can be blamed for being skeptical when someone pops up from the same IP as him.

Bobeagleburger

When you have a look a posters style and their history it's easy enough to spot if they are a re-reg for example.

There's (trouble making)posters closing their accounts before they get banned and re-registering under new names. In instances like this the ban should be carried over to the new username when the IP address is checked.

P_1

K-9 wrote: »

But to press my point my point home, we aren't a court of law, us mods get our suspicions, invariably backed by other mods or Admins. We'll get the odd one wrong but this isn't a case of group think, were the group gets it wrong, we get the vast majority right.

Indded, the accusation from the other side is we don't spot the re-regs quick enough. We give every new poster a fair chance, even somebody with similarities to a re-reg, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

So there's the balance, you tell me the better solution. I think it's pretty fine tuned, it isn't as if the site hasn't taken on feedback before. If something can tweak it that little further, well put forth your suggestion.

Working as part of 2 big mod teams, both are good at constructive criticism, we've an admin team who'll argue devils advocate often and then a higher layer.

We'll still get the odd one wrong, but we get the vast, vast majority right., with checks and systems in place.

If you can point to getting that extra 1% I doubt anybody will straight discard it.

Be prepared for constructive criticism, welcome to the world of a mod!

Fair enough, I can imagine that you might get a fair bit of that here Bit of an essay coming up here so you might want to grab a coffee or something

Ok my main concern in this case was that the user was seemingly banned on the incorrect assumption that they were a re-reg without any other consideration being made (that's how I see it, maybe there were other behind the scene things going on, I don't know and frankly it's none of my business). The user in question then went on to argue their case (now they could have been more polite about it but you can't unring a bell) and was basically treated like dirt by the Admin handling their case.

So in my view, there were two key mistakes made.

Mistake 1:
Normally a re-reg can be fairly easy to spot, they'd have a very low post count, post on the same topics as the banned account and would have joined fairly recently, right? In this case, the user in question had a fairly substantial post count, posted on totally different topics than the banned account and has been on the site for quite some time with a clean record. OK they shared an IP with the serial re-reg PITA but that's where the similarities end. I'm reasonably sure that comparing the two (or more) accounts would have made it fairly clear that we were talking about two different people. I don't think the accounts were compared in this case.

Mistake 2:
When the user in question started their thread in Prison they were immediately responded to in a hostile manner, fair enough maybe that's the Admin's style but lets say if I treated a customer in a similar manner in work the very least I'd be getting from it would be a warning (if not worse). For better or worse these days Boards.ie is a business and you wouldn't expect any business to treat their customers or even a randommer from the street with the levels of hostility that the user experienced in the Prison thread.

Still with me? Right so, usually when a mistake is made you try to avoid repeating the same mistake with some solutions (well that's how I usually do things, I'm not too sure about yourselves). So I've established the mistakes, please allow me to provide some potential solutions to them.

Solution to Mistake 1:
Without sounding like an arsehole, the easiest solution (well at least to me) is to use some common sense when the IP flag pops up. Take a quick look at the offending profiles and see what similarities and differences they share. If it seems that you have the same person here then chances are it's the same person out to cause ye yet more grief. If it seems that it's a different person, then chances are it's a different person. Now for an extra level of protection for yourselves, you could well send this person a quick PM saying something like 'Hi user X, we suspect that you might actually be user Y, can you help us make sure that you actually aren't'. That way everything is kept nice and tidy, if you don't get a reply then chances are ye have a re-reg on your hands, if you get a convincing reply then chances are ye have a different person on your hands, there's no need for a site ban, Prison thread and all the extra work that that would entail for ye.

Solution to Mistake 2:
You can call somebody out for what they are without coming across as rude and insulting. I've worked jobs like that in the past, trust me it is possible. Imagine the Prison forum being like a customer care call center or a customer service desk in a shop. You have your customer coming up to you all angry and agitated at a perceived wrong that you might have done to them and they might be a tad irate. What you should aim to do it to calm this person down, point out to them what the problem is and suggest a solution. If you made the mistake you fix it, if the customer made the mistake you suggest to them how they can fix it, if the mistake can't be fixed just say that. All of this can be done using polite words.

In conclusion, Boards.ie is great, the only trouble with it is in the 'clashing with authority' situations. A few tweeks to how these situations are handled on your end will make these situations much easier to handle for all concerned.

Wow, I feel like I've just written the sequel to 'War and Peace' here :pac:

P_1

Spear wrote: »

I think people are also unaware of the context of that thread. CHD had a grand total of 20 forum bans, 19 infractions and 15 warnings as well as a bunch of re-reg accounts. With that in mind, I don't think any admin can be blamed for being skeptical when someone pops up from the same IP as him.

Interesting point but whatever happened to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'? To me it seems that the concept of 'guilty until proven innocent' is used here instead.

SB2013

Spear wrote: »

I think people are also unaware of the context of that thread. CHD had a grand total of 20 forum bans, 19 infractions and 15 warnings as well as a bunch of re-reg accounts. With that in mind, I don't think any admin can be blamed for being skeptical when someone pops up from the same IP as him.

I don't think you can say he "popped up". He has 1800 posts and has been on the site for 6 years.

Spear

SB2013 wrote: »

I don't think you can say he "popped up". He has 1800 posts and has been on the site for 6 years.

Pops up in the general sense of coming to admin/mod attention, not in the sense of a brand new account appearing.

C.K Dexter Haven

Spear wrote: »

I think people are also unaware of the context of that thread. CHD had a grand total of 20 forum bans, 19 infractions and 15 warnings as well as a bunch of re-reg accounts. With that in mind, I don't think any admin can be blamed for being skeptical when someone pops up from the same IP as him.

It may also have been a way of creating a situation where one housemate gives the other a good bollicking about their behaviour on the site with a view to getting them to cop-on a little- I don't think the Admins should have to deal with good poster/ bad poster sharing the same IP- let them talk it out themselves for a while and see what agreement they can reach.

Every 2nd excuse on prison is "it was my flat-mate/cousin/next door neighbour/dad/son"- not me. I imagine that gets tiring after a while.

Pawwed Rig

I have lived with all sorts of people throughout the years. Some were great to live with some were assholes. In the last shared house I was in there was a girl who refused to leave her room or talk to any of the other residents. You are saying it is my resposibility as a boards user to keep her in line if she wants to be a troll on this site??

Seriously?