Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Site Banning. A False Economy?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Into The Blue wrote: »
    My point was that permanently site banning posters is counter productive, as they'll rereg but with a chip on their shoulder. This thread popped up with is exactly what i was getting at, so linked to it as an example, nothing more.
    What do you suggest instead?


  • Options
    #33
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    So you are essentially reducing Mod/Cmod/Admin action to the old tried-and-tested Them vs. Us debate, with a sprinkling of unfounded allegations of mods/cmods using their banning tools to silence posters who do not conform to their world view?
    Who said anything about banning posters who don't conform with their world view? Don't make stuff up that I did not say, thanks...

    Portraying my post as generalizing about mods/cmods/admins overall is nonsense as well.

    Don't do a *snip* with my post, and then replace it with a load of misrepresentations that I never said.


  • Options
    #34
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Whether moderation policy causes some long-term posters to leave or get banned needs to be balanced by consideration of how many long-term posters it retains, i.e. how many regulars would lose interest if the standard of discussion were lowered?


  • Options
    #35
    Into The Blue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Into The Blue


    Gordon wrote: »
    What do you suggest instead?

    Apart from what's in my op? Nothing.


  • Options
    #36
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Into The Blue wrote: »
    Apart from what's in my op? Nothing.
    I don't understand what your suggestion is in your OP.

    Is it: don't permanently siteban people? If so does this reply cover things?
    Contrary to some beliefs, a permanent/year/month siteban isn't always set in stone, we have the discretion to reduce depending on behaviour or the Admins' understanding that the banned user will change their disruptive behaviour. It's usually on a case by case basis.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    Whether moderation policy causes some long-term posters to leave or get banned needs to be balanced by consideration of how many long-term posters it retains, i.e. how many regulars would lose interest if the standard of discussion were lowered?
    That's presenting a false dichotomy, it's not "keep high standards vs fix problems with moderation".


  • Options
    #38
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I never said there was "problems" with moderation. Don't make stuff up that I did not say, thanks.


  • Options
    #39
    The Hill Billy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,775 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    If only some posters copped on we wouldn't have to have this discussion. We don't take action against members who stick to the site rules. It usually takes some real messing about to cop a siteban.

    If some don't like the rules - well, the Web is a big place with plenty of other sites to suit all tastes.

    I don't see any benefit to the site in allowing people who persistently cause issues to be allowed to come back & carry on as before (which is what happens time & time again).


  • Options
    #40
    Into The Blue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Into The Blue


    Gordon wrote: »
    I don't understand what your suggestion is in your OP.

    Is it: don't permanently siteban people? If so does this reply cover things?

    Think we'll leave it. Cheers


  • Options
    #41
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Into The Blue wrote: »
    Think we'll leave it. Cheers
    :confused: Was hoping you'd offer insight into what isn't working, and therefore what you think can be done do make things work better. If you have any suggestions, feel free to post. It's a shame that people are quick to say what they think is wrong, but not offer any suggestion of how to improve things.

    One thing that I did think of is to have another siteban reason which instead of saying 'permanent', would say 'undefined' or summat. It'd still be a permanent siteban, just as the current system, but users banned with this method will maybe feel more comfortable in receiving corrective behaviour adjustment protocol in the Prison forum.

    But that's just one suggestion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Into The Blue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Into The Blue


    Gordon wrote: »
    :confused:

    I honestly haven't put that much thought into it. I don't know how to deal with trolls on a long term basis. As tom said, it's not really an issue as they can be sorted fairly quickly without much effort. As to the thread I linked to, that was just an example of a decent poster getting banned (needlessly IMO), and I said a year's ban would be more suited.


    I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, and give further solutions, but that's about all I have on the subject.


  • Options
    #43
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    I don't see the point in year bans, they have rarely worked, if ever, demonstrably.

    OK, if you have any other suggestions, pop em here.


  • Options
    #44
    Tom Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 23,212 ✭✭✭✭Tom Dunne


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Who said anything about banning posters who don't conform with their world view? Don't make stuff up that I did not say, thanks...

    Sorry, I am obviously misunderstanding this then:
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    When cmods look past a rereg, just because they are on their side of an argument, it's a bit suspect really. More than a few times, I've wondered whether the rereg is an alternate account from posters on one particular 'side' of an argument, given the very convenient timing at which they pop up.

    I must be mistaken.
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Portraying my post as generalizing about mods/cmods/admins overall is nonsense as well.

    So this isn't a generalization:
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    It's a kind of disappointing to see the modding lead to a loss of some good long-term posters recently.

    and neither is this:
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Posters end up leaving over, frankly, quite trivial/petty/stupid things on the part of mod action. Mods don't seem that bothered by this either, just dismiss this as 'rare' or that 'the vast majority get on fine'

    nor this:
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    The way the site is moderated can discourage posters and worthwhile debates (*), not just encourage constructive discussions.

    Clearly, I am mistaken.
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Don't do a *snip* with my post, and then replace it with a load of misrepresentations that I never said.

    You might want to look at your definition of misrepresentations in light of your posts above.


  • Options
    #45
    Into The Blue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,358 ✭✭✭Into The Blue


    Gordon wrote: »
    It's a shame that people are quick to say what they think is wrong, but not offer any suggestion of how to improve things.

    Don't think of it as a shame. One doesn't have to follow the other. Isn't it a good thing to have feedback on where an opportunity for improvement is spotted, saves on the cost of focus groups. Someone else can then join the discussion with ideas, such as yourself there with your Undefined Ban Length.


  • Options
    #46
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Into The Blue wrote: »
    Don't think of it as a shame. One doesn't have to follow the other. Isn't it a good thing to have feedback on where an opportunity for improvement is spotted, saves on the cost of focus groups. Someone else can then join the discussion with ideas, such as yourself there with your Undefined Ban Length.
    I'm not saying that someone pointing out what they think is an issue to them is a shame. It is a shame that when something works, and someone thinks it doesn't, they can't offer a solution. I prefer constructive criticism over criticism.

    Although I understood your initial "A year ban would drive home the same message.. " to mean that the message sent out by a permanent ban is the same as a year's ban, which wasn't clarified when queried.


  • Options
    #47
    Eugene Norman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,191 ✭✭✭Eugene Norman


    Just auto ban. Every infraction is 3 points. Every 3 point infraction lasts 6 months. Having 12 points or more site bans the user until the total drops. 3 site bans is permanent.

    You can play around with these actual figures.


  • Options
    #48
    The Moldy Gowl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,889 ✭✭✭✭The Moldy Gowl


    Gordon wrote: »
    What do you suggest instead?

    A good solid post to thanks ratio will give you leniency.
    We need more thankswhores.

    The worst offenders are the ones who re reg around a forum ban. Sick animals.


  • Options
    #49
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    The Moldy Gowl wrote: »
    The worst offenders are the ones who re reg around a forum ban. Sick animals.

    They call the site shît yet can't stay away for a few weeks...




    ;)


  • Options
    #50
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,166 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Why was Santa banned? 'plain that. :mad:


  • Options
    #51
    The Moldy Gowl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,889 ✭✭✭✭The Moldy Gowl


    Don't loads of re regs get away with it though? It's not exactly difficult.
    These 'automated' notices I always hear about, do they even exist or are they just a phrase admins use for the sake of an easier life because we can't prove they exist. Not that I blame them.

    I am a rehabilitated re reg, who re regged around a ban. *gasp*
    Took 5 months for this automated response to flag me and at that stage the account was inactive for 3 months and I wasn't even subtle and slipped a few times.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Fr_Dougal wrote: »
    Why was Santa banned? 'plain that. :mad:

    Rereg: Father Christmas/Papa Noel


  • Options
    #53
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    Sorry, I am obviously misunderstanding this then:

    I must be mistaken.
    Yea you are mistaken - no word of banning in what you quote - it was referring to mods/cmods backslapping with reregs, because those reregs are on their 'side' of a debate (and it's persistent with certain debates...) - despite it being incredibly obvious it's a rereg (e.g. when 2-3 usernames with same arguments/style, on the same thread, have been banned, and suddenly another newly regged poster pops up with the exact same style...).

    You'd expect a cmod of all people, to get the rereg removed - rather than engage in backslapping.
    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    So this isn't a generalization:

    and neither is this:

    nor this:

    Clearly, I am mistaken.


    You might want to look at your definition of misrepresentations in light of your posts above.
    Picking up on issues I've seen with mod action, isn't generalizing about all mods/cmods/admins...


  • Options
    #54
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    Yea you are mistaken - no word of banning in what you quote - it was referring to mods/cmods backslapping with reregs, because those reregs are on their 'side' of a debate (and it's persistent with certain debates...) - despite it being incredibly obvious it's a rereg (e.g. when 2-3 usernames with same arguments/style, on the same thread, have been banned, and suddenly another newly regged poster pops up with the exact same style...).

    You'd expect a cmod of all people, to get the rereg removed - rather than engage in backslapping.


    Picking up on issues I've seen with mod action, isn't generalizing about all mods/cmods/admins...

    Fire up some examples of this for us to look at. I don't believe it happens myself to be honest but if you can show where it has happened I'd be very interested.


  • Options
    #55
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    Fire up some examples of this for us to look at. I don't believe it happens myself to be honest but if you can show where it has happened I'd be very interested.
    I've gone digging briefly, but it usually happens that the reregs posts are deleted. I'll PM one example that you may be able to look at deleted posts of, but given they are deleted posts, I can't verify if that was a debate where it was happening.


  • Options
    #56
    Paz-CCFC
    Registered Users Posts: 1,527 ✭✭✭Paz-CCFC


    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    In the thousands for one in particular. You're talking 10-15 a week on average but if there's a topic he is interested in it could be 20-30 in a day. All usualy spotted within minutes. Pulling those numbers from my arse but I'd say they're close enough.
    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    Not far off it. There are one or two particular re-regs who are well into the thousands. On Sunday alone, I banned around 30 accounts from one particular poster (see my post above about re-regs being easy to spot ;) ).

    Some lad spent five hours of his Sunday making accounts? And on a "normal" day, is at it for about two hours? I feel really sorry for someone that feels the need to go to those kinds of lengths to try do something, whatever that may be, that they don't even manage to do anyway.


  • Options
    #57
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,623 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Paz-CCFC wrote: »
    I feel really sorry for someone that feels the need to go to those kinds of lengths to try do something, whatever that may be, that they don't even manage to do anyway.
    I don't know about that - they choose similar usernames/similarly-themed usernames, and post the same old stuff on the same old threads.

    It's like they want to be found in an "I'm still here" way.


  • Options
    #58
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    Thousands of members go for thousands of posts and years on the site with out as much as a warning/yellow card but those who breach the charter, get their warnings, cards and bans, always seem to blame the mods and the site. They can never own up to it. They think the problem is the mods and the site but in reality the problem is them, the poster, the one that earned that warning, card or ban.

    It's hilarious to see posters in prison threads plead their innocence only for an admin to point out the 15 warnings, 12 infractions and 14 forum bans. The problem there isn't the site. Its the poster, no two ways about it.

    And before anyone points out, no, of course mods aren't always right. There are often bans overturned whether by DRP or by mods themselves, but when you see a record like the above... there's no way that that many mods are wrong.

    With regards to the OP. If posters break the rules enough times they get site banned. Unfortunately some will rereg but they have caused enough trouble for the site and mods, there comes a time when enough is enough. They may continue to be a timesink for mods but reregs are spotted easier than you think, sooner or later. And lets be fair here, posters are given plenty of chances. If you saw the records of some active posters you'd be wondering how the **** they're still here, I know at times I do.

    I think it is important to note that the serial trouble makers and trolls cause a lot of bother for ordinary posters on the site. If somebody is getting 20/30 cards and bans and maybe 100's of on thread warnings they are a time sink for users far more than mods.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #59
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Into The Blue wrote: »
    My point was that permanently site banning posters is counter productive, as they'll rereg but with a chip on their shoulder. This thread popped up with is exactly what i was getting at, so linked to it as an example, nothing more.

    Unfortunately the chip on the shoulder develops pre the ban in most cases, hence the site ban.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #60
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Context is important.

    Someone getting a ban for their opinion is different to someone getting a ban for conning a boards member out of their hard earned cash.

    I make no apologies for the latter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    Paz-CCFC wrote: »
    Some lad spent five hours of his Sunday making accounts? And on a "normal" day, is at it for about two hours? I feel really sorry for someone that feels the need to go to those kinds of lengths to try do something, whatever that may be, that they don't even manage to do anyway.

    I've no idea about Sunday but if he creates an average of 2-3 accounts a day you're talking approximately 10 minutes for their creation in total, it doesn't take long. He'd normally get to post a couple of times before being caught and all posts removed. A waste of time IMO but sure, whatever floats your boat


Advertisement