And I 100% agree with you. In fact, on my forum there are virtually no bans and we're all friends, the environment is very relaxed compared to here. Maybe I worded my post in a bad way, I'm not saying that being ultra strict is the way to go, but that it's technically in the rights of the owner to do whatever he wants. So if we're not given any explanations, we have to live with it.
Then I am sorry for misreading your post and for getting carried away; English isn't my first language, and I apologise.
Now to hope I won't be banned for arguing with a moderator ;)
History has shown a lot of cases where admins could have preemptively acted towards certain infamous offenders but failed to do it in time due to lack of information. If all major communities had such blacklists it would have been much easier to prevent incidents. Which is especially true seeing as most notable troublemakers are vain enough to register under the same and/or similar handles on all communities they frequent.
In theory, this is a great idea. In practice, this is a lot of work, and can also be abused.
#1) 1-5 people join the site per day. Assuming that there were blacklists, they'd be on individuals sites, and linked to their posts. Thus, you'd have to page through a couple pages of google to find these blacklists. Per user. Per day. That is a shit ton of work.
#2) If a user had been blacklisted for illegitimate reasons, should we ban them automatically? That seems very easy to abuse.
#3) If a user is blacklisted, they can simply make a small change to their nick and remain the same. DarkKobold may have been blacklisted, but that doesn't prevent DarkKobo1d from going ape shit at a new site.
moozooh wrote:
When I asked a similar question as to why there can't be a public blacklist with reasons, Grunt replied in the vein of not attracting further attention towards the banned, who are usually very fond of any kind of attention.
This is the main reason, as I see it. Why create a list that could be seen as a trophy in the eyes of the disturbed?
Also, there are only 3 perma-banned users, AFAIK. Two of which are in their late 20s. They aren't growing up.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
At least in my opinion. I have my own forum about a German volleyball team on my own server.....
Link.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
#1) 1-5 people join the site per day. Assuming that there were blacklists, they'd be on individuals sites, and linked to their posts. Thus, you'd have to page through a couple pages of google to find these blacklists. Per user. Per day. That is a shit ton of work.
#2) If a user had been blacklisted for illegitimate reasons, should we ban them automatically? That seems very easy to abuse.
#3) If a user is blacklisted, they can simply make a small change to their nick and remain the same. DarkKobold may have been blacklisted, but that doesn't prevent DarkKobo1d from going ape shit at a new site.
No, no, you misunderstand. Why would anybody bother checking every new user, let alone autoban them? Troublemakers make themselves noticeable, but not everybody who makes themselves noticeable is a troublemaker. We already do basic checkup on users who are suspicious or otherwise scandalous. Having a decentralized database like this would just make that easier and save time and effort early on, although of course it would be even better centralized.
Do note that trading forums have employed this scheme for many years to inform people of scammers (like Japhei), and you can ask any admin of said forums for a confirmation of its usefulness. Money and property isn't involved as much here, of course, but you can see how it can be used.
DarkKobold wrote:
Why create a list that could be seen as a trophy in the eyes of the disturbed?
So that others could see things like that don't fly well here? Again, well-behaved members could have a reference to see why particular people were banned. After all I'm not at all bothered if it's useful to people I shouldn't care about in the first place, I'm more bothered when useful things aren't available to people who deserve better.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
At least in my opinion. I have my own forum about a German volleyball team on my own server.....
Link.
I didn't know you like volleyball, maybe one of these days we might TAS some volleyball videogame together.
I won't link you to that website though, because there is my home address and phone number in the whois record, and I don't trust you.
By the way, I am not stupid, and it is obvious by now that you have something against me, as most of your posts towards me have been hostile. Instead of doing this, and editing/deleting all of my posts, which makes me sad, if you don't like me you have the complete right to ban me right on the spot, as I said in my posts above. You are one of the admins, and therefore your decisions have to be accepted.
At least in my opinion. I have my own forum about a German volleyball team on my own server.....
Link.
I didn't know you like volleyball, maybe one of these days we might TAS some volleyball videogame together.
I won't link you to that website though, because...
It doesn't exist.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
Noob Irdoh wrote:
Now to hope I won't be banned for arguing with a moderator ;)
Can I express a pet peeve here? Personally I'd make it a bannable offense to make text anything smaller than size=8 around here.
That being said, I'm glad I got some dialogue going.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
It is usually none of your business why someone may have been banned.
...Which is not a good attitude to have towards members or the audience at all, because it's nontransparent and leaves ample room for distrust and speculations of abuse. If a person whom I considered to be a normal and helpful member of the community suddenly got erased from the site, what am I to think of them? Of the admins? Does that mean I can be banned for seemingly no reason too? There's no respect for community in this attitude, because expelling members is not a personal (as in: private) affair, it's a communal affair.
I think moozoh's point about public bans being useful for admins of other sites is a little silly (though it makes more sense in forums based around the exchange of physical goods, as he pointed out) but I agree with this part a lot. I think it would be great if any decision to ban a user was accompanied by the sort of thought-out judgment post by an admin that might accompany the acceptance or rejection reasoning on a controversial run.
This would make it clear to everyone what sort of behavior is not tolerated, and would make it clear to the bannee exactly what they did wrong. It would also make the admins somewhat publicly accountable for their actions; while I do mostly trust you guys, the occasional unsigned edit or inexplicable disappearance of a post do bother me a little bit.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
Technically, no, because the site owner (e.g. adelikat), as the word implies, literally owns the website. We are being nothing more than guests on HIS server, and we have no given right to be here if he doesn't want to.
If you own a website by paying for a server you have the right to turn it into a pure dictatorship if you want to (it's your complete right to ban everyone but you)
How about the people who contribute with monetary donations?
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Personman wrote:
...
This would make it clear to everyone what sort of behavior is not tolerated, and would make it clear to the bannee exactly what they did wrong. It would also make the admins somewhat publicly accountable for their actions; while I do mostly trust you guys, the occasional unsigned edit or inexplicable disappearance of a post do bother me a little bit.
I'm in full agreement with basically the entirety of this paragraph.
Warp wrote:
Noob Irdoh wrote:
Technically, no, because the site owner (e.g. adelikat), as the word implies, literally owns the website. We are being nothing more than guests on HIS server, and we have no given right to be here if he doesn't want to.
If you own a website by paying for a server you have the right to turn it into a pure dictatorship if you want to (it's your complete right to ban everyone but you)
How about the people who contribute with monetary donations?
They're monetary donations. The point of donations is that you're throwing money at a cause to keep it running. Donating money to something means that you're giving up the money 100% unconditionally; you're not buying shares at the share market.
They're monetary donations. The point of donations is that you're throwing money at a cause to keep it running. Donating money to something means that you're giving up the money 100% unconditionally; you're not buying shares at the share market.
That's quite a harsh attitude.
I didn't mean to imply that people who donate co-own the server. However, I think that the community deserves more than a one-man dictatorship because they donate and contribute. In technical and legal terms he may own the server (well, he doesn't really own it because it's a rented server, but he is the person directly responsible for its rental), but he doesn't own the community. The community consists of all people who participate and contribute.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Warp wrote:
Flygon wrote:
They're monetary donations. The point of donations is that you're throwing money at a cause to keep it running. Donating money to something means that you're giving up the money 100% unconditionally; you're not buying shares at the share market.
That's quite a harsh attitude.
I didn't mean to imply that people who donate co-own the server. However, I think that the community deserves more than a one-man dictatorship because they donate and contribute. In technical and legal terms he may own the server (well, he doesn't really own it because it's a rented server, but he is the person directly responsible for its rental), but he doesn't own the community. The community consists of all people who participate and contribute.
I didn't say I liked the reality of the situation.
I'd like to clarify the position of the administration here. First and foremost, we have Site Rules which explain the rules for behavior on this site. That should be sufficient to tell people how to behave, without requiring us to point out specific examples of how not to behave. I've updated them to clarify some recent banning activity. If you are wondering what activity will get you banned, look there.
Additionally, if you have issues or questions regarding a specific user being banned, then feel free to contact any administrator. I am happy to answer any questions you have regarding any of our previous banned users. Additionally, any issues you have, I will discuss with the other admins, or you can address them directly if it is an issue with me. I can also direct you to any relevant threads. However, do these via private channels, either IRC or PM.
What we will not do here is allow massive forum drama to revolve around banned users. Additionally, we won't create a list which some may see as an achievement to be put on. This is why threads involving banned users are quickly locked, and dealt with.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
And why is stopping any further civil discussion on the matter a good idea, again? Is this such a touchy subject you need to lock the thread before anything bad has even happened?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I believe the reason of ban shall be reported if some well known member is banned.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
