Boards is becoming a Ghost Town

K-9

Yeah, a simple friendly take it to pm mod post wouldn't go astray now and again. However if they are being relatively civil just use the scroll button, page down or flick past!

smash

Neyite wrote: »

A re-reg is on any mod's antenna because 9 times out of 10, it is someone actively trying to evade a ban. If someone with an old closed account goes back to the very forum they were banned from and posts on it then I can see why it would be hard to convince a mod otherwise.

All I could suggest is a pm to the mods of the forum prior to posting, declare your former account and discuss it with them if it's ok to have another chance. I've occasionally had a query I didnt want to associate with my regular username so a throwaway account plus a heads up to the resident mods is usually fine.

Your suggestion completely goes against re-regging for the purpose of anonymity.

Tilly

Neyite wrote: »

I fully agree. When I see someone pick apart another persons post with a wall of multiquote I lose interest too.

Can we limit the amount of multi-quote in a post to about 3 or 5?

Ah but then you get the person who replies to EVERY post one by one. That's drives me insane.

intheclouds

Neyite wrote: »

A re-reg is on any mod's antenna because 9 times out of 10, it is someone actively trying to evade a ban. If someone with an old closed account goes back to the very forum they were banned from and posts on it then I can see why it would be hard to convince a mod otherwise.

All I could suggest is a pm to the mods of the forum prior to posting, declare your former account and discuss it with them if it's ok to have another chance. I've occasionally had a query I didnt want to associate with my regular username so a throwaway account plus a heads up to the resident mods is usually fine.

I wanted to remain anon.

I wasnt given a chance to send a friendly pm. I posted something in feedback and as a result someone decided to take a look at my account and immediately hit me with penalty points for being a re-reg.

I wasnt denying I re-regged at all. But it certainly wasnt for the purposes of evading anything. And I would have thought the 6 month gap would have shown that. I hadnt got any bans on the old account. Id closed it because someone had rumbled my username in work.

But I was given a complete stonewall when I responded asking why I was being given points. I was TOLD I was re-regging to evade mod actions and not to bother trying to argue it.

I closed that account too because it seemed to have attracted so much negative attention over nothing - it had no infractions, no bans, nothing, until someone somewhere decided I was trying to evade something.

Saying this here is probably going to result in my account being pored over again for nothing, so I may as well close this account now also.

K-9

Take it up with C-mods or Admins if you aren't getting any where with mods, that's what we are here for.

intheclouds

K-9 wrote: »

Take it up with C-mods or Admins if you aren't getting any where with mods, that's what we are here for.

I did. Got stonewalled.

Look - this is ancient history. That was my experience.

Its all very well to say its ok to re-reg if its not to evade a band or infraction but the truth is that even if you do re-reg for "legitimate" reasons, you may not be believed and there is nothing a poster can do about that.

Neyite

smash wrote: »

Your suggestion completely goes against re-regging for the purpose of anonymity.

That's boards guidelines though. Its not allowed to re-reg to evade a ban. It's not going to matter if you re-reg in an attempt to give yourself a clean sheet the old mod actions will still be taken into account. But if you are poster who just wants to re-reg and aren't banned from any forum then its of no interest to anyone, including mods.

Maireadio

Neyite wrote: »

So, we need people to post, and post freely, under anonymity in order to keep the site even ticking over. We need women in Trying to Conceive explaining the ins-and-outs (yeah, I know!) of IVF, fertility tests and so on to others. We need people talking in Banking and Finance about their investments without Mary-Next-Door knowing what they have in the bank. We need LBGT for those who are not quite ready to come out about their sexuality to the wider world yet, and have a homophobic boss.

People do post under anonymity. Unless you mean usernames shouldn't be used at all? How would that even work? Or in any way bring back the sense of community that people want back on the site? If all user were just called 'User'? That sounds awful. That's what would be bland, not some people not posting during the day because they are paranoid about their boss being bothered about them posting on boards on their lunchbreak in the present.

smash

Neyite wrote: »

That's boards guidelines though. Its not allowed to re-reg to evade a ban. It's not going to matter if you re-reg in an attempt to give yourself a clean sheet the old mod actions will still be taken into account.

I'm not talking about bans here. I'm talking about people who re-reg for anonymity.

Neyite wrote: »

But if you are poster who just wants to re-reg and aren't banned from any forum then its of no interest to anyone, including mods.

intheclouds is proof that this isn't true.

Neyite

Maireadio wrote: »

People do post under anonymity. Unless you mean usernames shouldn't be used at all? How would that even work? Or in any way bring back the sense of community that people want back on the site? If all user were just called 'User'? That sounds awful. That's what would be bland, not some people not posting during the day because they are paranoid about their boss being bothered about them posting on boards on their lunchbreak in the present.

No I don't mean that people would be called User. But I think you knew that already. I was clearly talking about the concern a person would have if a person in real life linked them over time to the stuff they posted.

smash wrote: »

I'm not talking about bans here. I'm talking about people who re-reg for anonymity.

intheclouds is proof that this isn't true.

I don't think that's fair for me to comment. I don't know ITC's mod action history, or which mod apparently refused to listen to them or even what their previous N-names were. And even if I did know this, it would be wrong of me to drag that in here to rebut a point.

But I'm not really sure what point you are making, could you elaborate?

K-9

smash wrote: »

intheclouds is proof that this isn't true.

It is proof that a couple of mods acted incorrectly.

Misunderstandings often get sorted out at admin level, in prison or the Helpdesk.

intheclouds

Neyite wrote: »

I don't know ITC's mod action history, or which mod apparently refused to listen to them or even what their previous N-names were.

I cant recall the account username now but I definitely know there were no bans on it. There were definitely some expired infractions. And possibly a live infraction. I cannot remember the mod who took issue with my new account. But I did pm them and then stonewalled me and then I tried to appeal to a CMod or an Admin. I was stonewalled by everyone.

The fact is, if there is an infraction on your account and you close it for any other reason - you just wont be believed. Even if you do not go near the same forum or attract any negative attention at all. I was "investigated" on the new account because I agreed with a poster in feedback who was complaining about mod actions - not because I was doing anything wrong myself.

Wibbs

intheclouds wrote: »

I wasnt given a chance to send a friendly pm. I posted something in feedback and as a result someone decided to take a look at my account and immediately hit me with penalty points for being a re-reg.

Another reason I avoid using those bloody red/yellow cards like the plague. Too much corporate time and motion stuff, Internets serious bizness, whose advantages are outweighed by their disadvantages as far as member experiences go. All members BTW. Seeing "cards" handed out is like teacher giving out bad marks that are going on file. In a filing cabinet. Never mind that it further encourages the overly strong moderator culture mentioned earlier. Which needs no such extra encouragement.

TBH when they first came along I did broadly support them in the pursuit of transparency, but now I really think they along with closed accounts all over the shop send a general bad impression to passersby, newbies and established folks.

smash

Neyite wrote: »

But I'm not really sure what point you are making, could you elaborate?

The point is that a lot of people close accounts and re-reg just to stay anonymous. When this is raised, you just keep talking about people who re-reg to avoid bans and disregard those who re-reg just for anonymity.

Maireadio

Neyite wrote: »

No I don't mean that people would be called User. But I think you knew that already. I was clearly talking about the concern a person would have if a person in real life linked them over time to the stuff they posted.

But sure, maybe people don't want their boss to know anything they are posting. How far back should we go to get rid of something someone wished they didn't say? Maybe they regret saying something a week ago. Should we just slap a generic username on any post someone regrets making? If the posts are recent, that would be utterly crap for the forum and take even more from the sense of community that has been already lost.

I mean, in theory, it seems like a decent idea going back to an very old thread and placing generic usernames where former usernames used to be. But if the thread is more recent, it would be just a bit odd.

All this seems a lot of work for the site, with dealing with the posts and the posts that quote the posts. Why don't people just take responsibility for what they type and if they want to type about something sensitive like IVF or something, then yes, do that in your own time.

smash

Maireadio wrote: »

Why don't people just take responsibility for what they type

Oh would you stop. We live in an age where you can be turned away from airport emigration for saying "can't wait to get to NY. Gonna wreck the place!" On Twitter.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How on earth did that happen?

smash

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How on earth did that happen?

Sure the journal have often taken quotes from AH. Although that's hardly special

Beasty

smash wrote: »

can't wait to get to NY. Gonna wreck the place!

Quoted and link sent to the FBI



:pac:

mzungu

smash wrote: »

Sure the journal have often taken quotes from AH. Although that's hardly special

I think the Indo did that the odd time too.

Neyite

smash wrote: »

The point is that a lot of people close accounts and re-reg just to stay anonymous. When this is raised, you just keep talking about people who re-reg to avoid bans and disregard those who re-reg just for anonymity.

Ah ok, gotcha. I was actually talking about people who close accounts and re-reg for anonymity too. I was responding about the bans when ITC brought it up.

intheclouds

Neyite wrote: »

Ah ok, gotcha. I was actually talking about people who close accounts and re-reg for anonymity too. I was responding about the bans when ITC brought it up.

There are a number of legitimate reasons to close an account and re-reg.

Anonymity, lost access to email associated with account, cant remember login password (or even username!), a desire to keep the personal internet footprint low so not wanting accounts that last years etc....

But if you close an account for any of the above and there happens to an infraction on that account none of the above will be listened to or believed.

Even when there has been a 6 month gap and nothing negative on the new account.

So how is that fair?

Beasty

intheclouds wrote: »

There are a number of legitimate reasons to close an account and re-reg.

Anonymity, lost access to email associated with account, cant remember login password (or even username!), a desire to keep the personal internet footprint low so not wanting accounts that last years etc....

But if you close an account for any of the above and there happens to an infraction on that account none of the above will be listened to or believed.

Even when there has been a 6 month gap and nothing negative on the new account.

So how is that fair?

If someone has been permanently banned from a forum and re-registers and starts posting in that forum, they have circumvented the ban and of course we will look to act accordingly

If they picked up the odd yellow or red under a prior account then I'm sure no-one will be too fussed.

However say they pick up 4 yellows in the Soccer Forum so reregister and pick up another 2 in the same season. On a single account they would be banned and asked to re-apply after 6 months. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to someone re-regging to rid themselves of that "history", or else everyone with a similar record would try it.

Similarly I've seen posters pick up maybe 20 cards and bans across all forums, then think they get a "clean slate" by re-regging, and pick up another 20. They close and rereg again, and the cycle continues. It's pretty clear they think they are re-regging to get that clean slate, so of course we can then consider that "history" in determining any future mod actions. However I would only do so when the Admins confrim whoi it's a re-reg of. I would not make that assumption myself.

Maireadio

smash wrote: »

Oh would you stop. We live in an age where you can be turned away from airport emigration for saying "can't wait to get to NY. Gonna wreck the place!" On Twitter.

The above post both shows that we have a responsibility for what we post and the complete paranoia some people have about posting!

We have all heard of high profile cases of tweets being investigated but they are few and far between. In reality, to use your example, I would imagine countless posts along that lines are made every single day and nothing ever comes of it because it is obvious that they are lighthearted. I really hate this shít about "Oh you can say anything on social media these days without being arrested!". Yes you can. You can say lots. Lots and lots. Even if it was investigated, it wouldn't take long to figure out that there was nothing sinister behind it. And there has often been criticism of the investigation of some tweets.

And that's on Twitter. It is different for boards.ie. The post in your example would likely crop up in a ""What are you doing for the weekend"-type thread. It wouldn't be hard to work out that it was light-hearted. People are capable of reading nuance. And, again, even if someone contacted boards.ie about it and it was formally investigated, I don't think it would take long to clear up.

That's where the responsibility part comes in. If someone questions you about an old post or an ambiguous one, you should be well able to explain what you meant or explain that you no longer hold those views. Don't post something you can't explain or are not prepared to stand by. In reality, very few tweets or Facebook posts are very formally investigated and I would imagine when they are, good sense prevails. There is something just a little spineless about wanting your past posts deleted, not too mention a bit self-regarding!

KomradeBishop

Neyite wrote: »

A re-reg is on any mod's antenna because 9 times out of 10, it is someone actively trying to evade a ban. If someone with an old closed account goes back to the very forum they were banned from and posts on it then I can see why it would be hard to convince a mod otherwise.

All I could suggest is a pm to the mods of the forum prior to posting, declare your former account and discuss it with them if it's ok to have another chance. I've occasionally had a query I didnt want to associate with my regular username so a throwaway account plus a heads up to the resident mods is usually fine.

Declaring your former account doesn't work though - I did that and suspect it is what led to all the nightmarish grief I had later on with mods (so it was actually severely counterproductive for me) - you'd assume mods would be reasonable in cases like this, and most probably are, but some are not.

There should be an automated way of declaring a new account, as being linked to an old one (even if this is kept hidden publicly, something just for mods to see) - or of just recovering an old closed account or something - so that there is no ambiguity here; otherwise it can lead to a lot of trouble/grief, for both posters and mods.

smash

Maireadio wrote: »

That's where the responsibility part comes in. If someone questions you about an old post or an ambiguous one, you should be well able to explain what you meant or explain that you no longer hold those views. Don't post something you can explain or are not prepared to stand by.

It's really not as simple as that. A very quick glimpse of your post history and I saw a post in a thread about people being "thick c*nts" where you have absolutely slated people you've worked with. If your identity was made known and they say it, it could potentially damage your career going forward.

KomradeBishop

Also, can mods/admins be restricted from upgrading bans after an account is closed - unless there is a really really really good reason? (e.g. a closed account gets linked to a serial re-reg poster or something)

That's part of the danger of closing an account for a legitimate reason, and re-regging - that alone can cause your bans to be upgraded.

intheclouds

Beasty wrote: »

If someone has been permanently banned from a forum and re-registers and starts posting in that forum, they have circumvented the ban and of course we will look to act accordingly
.....

Im not disputing any of the above.

But it also happens that when someone closes for a legitimate reason that they are not believed and despite absolutely no negative behaviour on the new account - they are infracted for re-regging.

intheclouds

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Also, can mods/admins be restricted from upgrading bans after an account is closed - unless there is a really really really good reason? (e.g. a closed account gets linked to a serial re-reg poster or something)

That's part of the danger of closing an account for a legitimate reason, and re-regging - that alone can cause your bans to be upgraded.

This is definitely a problem. Except I had no bans to upgrade but was infracted with penalty points anyway.

Beasty

intheclouds wrote: »

Im not disputing any of the above.

But it also happens that when someone closes for a legitimate reason that they are not believed and despite absolutely no negative behaviour on the new account - they are infracted for re-regging.

Are they "infracted" or is a note put on their profile (which I have seen done) confirming their prior account (which can only be viewed by Mods & Admins and is there simply as a note, not any form of "disciplinary action")?

Put it this way, in the 150 or so appeals I've dealt with in the DRP I cannot recall a single one concerning an infraction given for "re-registering". If I had and there was no other reason for an infraction being given I would quickly overturn it.