Closed Accounts

TheZohanS

Now I understand the reason why boards has decided to give posters the option to close their accounts. But might I suggest that the number of accounts that a person can open and close is limited? Perhaps one or two a year?

Since the Closed Accounts option has been offered it seems to me that a number of people are treating accounts as disposable, they come in, make posts for a month or so and then close their account only to open a new account shortly after. Personally I think this service is being abused by some members.

Am I talking through my hat or does anyone agree?

g'em

Dav can correct me on this, but I think we're now obliged to give people the option to close their accounts. And yes, it's being abused to a huge degree.

TheZohanS

g'em wrote: »

Dav can correct me on this, but I think we're now obliged to give people the option to close their accounts. And yes, it's being abused to a huge degree.

I think Dav mentioned that it's a service boards has to offer as per the Data Protection Commissioner, but facilitating posters with new accounts any time they get bored of their existing account is not a service boards is under any obligation to provide. What I would suggest is a reasonable amount of say a maximum of 1 or 2 accounts per annum.

Most reasonable posters would not need to close their account more than once a year. If you need to change it twice or more in a year then something's amiss.

tbh

TheZohan wrote: »

I think Dav mentioned that it's a service boards has to offer as per the Data Protection Commissioner, but facilitating posters with new accounts any time they get bored of their existing account is not a service boards is under any obligation to provide. What I would suggest is a reasonable amount of say a maximum of 1 or 2 accounts per annum.

Most reasonable posters would not need to close their account more than once a year. If you need to change it twice or more in a year then something's amiss.

in fairness, if they can't prevent banned users from opening new accounts, I think it's going to be difficult to prevent closed accounts from re-regging. As I understand it, if you close an account you can't use the same email account to open a new account.

Boards.ie: Nicola

tbh wrote: »

in fairness, if they can't prevent banned users from opening new accounts, I think it's going to be difficult to prevent closed accounts from re-regging. As I understand it, if you close an account you can't use the same email account to open a new account.

You're right, as it stands the only obstacle to opening a new account is that you cannot use the same email address to register.

Surprisingly this is something that causes a lot of genuine re-regs some hassle and the most common reason is that they only have one email address and don't want to go through the bother of setting up a second.

TheZohanS

tbh wrote: »

in fairness, if they can't prevent banned users from opening new accounts, I think it's going to be difficult to prevent closed accounts from re-regging. As I understand it, if you close an account you can't use the same email account to open a new account.

Maybe treat someone who opens/closes more than "x" accounts as a sitebanned user? I've seen a few posters create an account, troll for a bit and then close their account when it was obvious that they were in ban territory. Likewise I've seen a poster create a new account, post on a forum and then proceed to tell other posters that they knew all about them, create a bit of a poop storm and when then close their account only to open another soon afterwards and do the very same thing.

Boards.ie: Paddy

TheZohan wrote: »

Maybe treat someone who opens/closes more than "x" accounts as a sitebanned user?

Aside from the email address used to register there is no way we can do tell how many accounts someone has opened/closed. We block email addresses of closed accounts from re-regging for a year after the account is closed so there's not much more we can do.

TheZohanS

Boards.ie: Paddy wrote: »

Aside from the email address used to register there is no way we can do tell how many accounts someone has opened/closed. We block email addresses of closed accounts from re-regging for a year after the account is closed so there's not much more we can do.

How about if a mod/admin comes across a user and after MU is used if it transpires that the user has had more than say two accounts in the last 12 months they get banned and have to explain why they have created so many accounts in Prison? Do we really need the likes of this happening? User is obviously a re-reg(might be previously sitebanned, but that's besides the point) can come in, make a mess and if they close their account before they do enough damage to receive a ban they can easily open a new account and start over.

Nody

Problem is that if someone is serial trolling and closing accounts before being banned chances are quite high that they did this before as well; the only difference being that their accounts were banned rather then closed by the user.

pickarooney

I don't really get what someone has to gain by closing an account in this way. Why would they not just abandon the account and create a new one?

Boards.ie: Paddy

TheZohan wrote: »

How about if a mod/admin comes across a user and after MU is used if it transpires that the user has had more than say two accounts in the last 12 months they get banned and have to explain why they have created so many accounts in Prison? Do we really need the likes of this happening? User is obviously a re-reg(might be previously sitebanned, but that's besides the point) can come in, make a mess and if they close their account before they do enough damage to receive a ban they can easily open a new account and start over.

Well yes, if they are closing accounts and opening new ones and this is clear from MU then they should be treated the same as any other re-reg.

Closing accounts is there because it's required by the data commissioner, it's not cart blanche to re-reg.

Overheal

€1 Paywall.

I went there. But seriously. Some additional layer of registration flood control needs to be put on the table.

Cardinal Richelieu

I put my hand up to closing my account because I didn't want to pay for a name change.

TouchingVirus

Overheal wrote: »

€1 Paywall.

I went there. But seriously. Some additional layer of registration flood control needs to be put on the table.

Why? In years gone by these people/trolls/whatever got their kicks from stirring sh*t and getting banned, and then re-regging. Now they stir sh*t, close their accounts and re-reg. I'm failing to see the difference between the two - we've tolerated* the first, so why not the second? If a user closes an account that was about to get sitebanned and then joins again they should be sitebanned as a re-reg.

*Tolerated - as in when it's brought to the attention of the admins they act on it.

Perhaps closed accounts could go into a queue, and be checked by an admin before closing is approved; check the account post history at close time and siteban trolls instead of closing?

I really am in favour of a paywall for closing accounts if Boards can do it, some nominal fee to scrub your data and deter muppets.

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I put my hand up to closing my account because I didn't want to pay for a name change.

Well that's tight..nice

El Weirdo

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I really am in favour of a paywall for closing accounts if Boards can do it, some nominal fee to scrub your data and deter muppets.

Surely if the service has to be provided in the first place due to some data protection jazz, then this would not be possible?

Sharpshooter

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I put my hand up to closing my account because I didn't want to pay for a name change.

Lolz at your *Location!:D
No offense intended...:p

We get a lot of closed accounts in AHs,sometimes right after they have started a thread just to troll.

I can only come to the conclusion that their lives are so empty, they need attention on boards,and that's really sad.

Subscribing is not too expensive btw and if you enjoy boards, some think it's a good thing to give something back,just to say "Thanks" for being here,glad I found the site.

minidazzler

Overheal wrote: »

€1 Paywall.

I went there. But seriously. Some additional layer of registration flood control needs to be put on the table.

That would stop so many people from signing up. Especially younger people. But really if you have a query you might sign up to ask a question but then you stay and use the site a bit more. But if you have to pay you never sign up.

Ken.

Free to sign up to boards with a €1 fee for re-reg but the €1 is refunded to you if you keep your account open 6 months(or longer maybe). If you close your account you lose your Euro.



It can be put in an account for the coke and hookers the admins have been missing since the recession started.

TouchingVirus

El Weirdo wrote: »

Surely if the service has to be provided in the first place due to some data protection jazz, then this would not be possible?

Well does the DPC say Boards has to provide it or Boards has to provide it for free

El Weirdo

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Well does the DPC say Boards has to provide it or Boards has to provide it for free

Dav wrote: »

Has there been a demand: surprisingly, yes. In the past, we just told people to stop posting, but after a consultation with the Data Protection Commissioner, they told us that this is a service we have to offer as we hold some personal information (it's also one of the reasons I'd imagine they're auditing Facebook here in Ireland as at no stage do they say they're removing your personal info from their databases).

Not sure about not being able to charge for the service, just a guess.

dr.bollocko

Nothing's changed except for it saying "closed accounts" under their title.
Re-regs have always treated accounts as disposable. People have always left and not come back. This just adds an air of finality.

stovelid

Can the charter be simply changed to make it possible to ban an "entity" of which the activity of more than one consecutive accounts can be used to make the judgement?

Earthhorse

I think the issue isn't with that but identifying said "entity" in the first place.

LuckyLloyd

El Weirdo wrote: »

Surely if the service has to be provided in the first place due to some data protection jazz, then this would not be possible?

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Nothing's changed except for it saying "closed accounts" under their title.
Re-regs have always treated accounts as disposable. People have always left and not come back. This just adds an air of finality.

Read post a few before yours.

The problem here is not merely about trolls who would normally have been sitebanned and rereg countless times. It's about people who have been here for years with thousands of posts to their name having the option to abandon ship on their identity and history within the community without good reason for doing so.

A foundation point of any good forum based community is screenames counting for something, and people having a history (whether it be good, bad or indifferent). I am aware that many people view the Internet as something seperate to real life, but I strongly disagree with such views. There should be no major disparity between you (the person behind the keyboard) and your Internet persona (the boards.ie screename). You should be accountable for what you say here, and have what you say to be searchable. The current setup flies completely in the face of that.

People should be allowed to close their accounts upon request providing they have good reason to do so. People should not be able to close their accounts because they want to change their name, or they want to disassociate themselves from posts they made X amount of time ago. Or because they had a bad week on here or in real life and decided to pack it in for a while - so many of those cases return, and when they return it should be under the same screenname.

stovelid

Earthhorse wrote: »

I think the issue isn't with that but identifying said "entity" in the first place.

Fair enough but I can immediately think of a few posters that are clearly reincarnations of closed accounts.

As can most people here, no doubt.

Overheal

there is no need, when those users are found out their reincarnations get banned already.

what I meant about the paywall is a paywall to register or something to that effect. Just a brainstorm idea, as I know it has many holes. Like perhaps newbies should only be allowed to post in a certain number of forums, or have their posts appear greyed out. Problem is you don't want to discourage legitimate new registrations but you want to find some way to discourage regular trolls from reappearing.

That said, the willfulness of some of these trolls far exceeds that of curious new members. You'd have to have some serious lack of a life to keep registering new email accounts and new boards.ie accounts to match them.

Another possibility is restricting the number of accepted email domains, like only permitting @yahoo or @gmail free acounts and paid @bellsouth or @eircom etc. accounts. But then I don't have hard data on what domain re-reges use the most. I know some sites do get by with far fewer trolls by only accepting registration from email accounts that require a fee, such as the one provided to you by your ISP.

Cardinal Richelieu

Hot Lips wrote: »

Lolz at your *Location!:D
No offense intended...:p

Thanks:D, for anoraks it's the most isolated populated place in the world viewed from sat images and also one of the most inbred so reminds me of my hometown:pac:

Hot Lips wrote: »

Subscribing is not too expensive btw and if you enjoy boards, some think it's a good thing to give something back,just to say "Thanks" for being here,glad I found the site.

Yeah I know its something like 5 euros but when I looked at the hassle of setting up paypal and the weak sales pitch for subscribing it was kind of "whats the point!" Giving money is not just the only way to give something back to boards. I consider myself a good poster, I don't get into much trouble(well lately), I am forever clicking the boards advertisement links:o when navigating the site, I report posts that overstep forum charters.

pickarooney

stovelid wrote: »

Fair enough but I can immediately think of a few posters that are clearly reincarnations of closed accounts.

As can most people here, no doubt.

I have to say I don't know how people make the connection. I can't even recognise Jake re-reges let alone reincs of less obvious posters.

dr.bollocko

pickarooney wrote: »

I have to say I don't know how people make the connection. I can't even recognise Jake re-reges let alone reincs of less obvious posters.

Mods can cheat.

Insect Overlord

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Mods can cheat.

This, plus the accounts seem to know their way around the forums and the posting functions too well to be "new" users. That's only a problem when the system is abused, of course.

pickarooney

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Mods can cheat.

stovelid's not a mod, is he?

I don't understand how you can cheat unless you already pretty much know what you're looking for.

This, plus the accounts seem to know their way around the forums and the posting functions too well to be "new" users. That's only a problem when the system is abused, of course.

Knowing someone has had an account before is one thing but knowing what their previous account was is something else entirely.

stovelid

I can think of one or two that post in a very similar fashion to departed posters. It doesn't have to be formerly problem posters either.Obviously It's just a hunch but I assume others have similar hunches too. I'm hardly going to name them, am I?

_blank_

I'm just waiting for SOTS to come back.

That would be awesome.

LuckyLloyd

stovelid wrote: »

I can think of one or two that post in a very similar fashion to departed posters. It doesn't have to be formerly problem posters either.Obviously It's just a hunch but I assume others have similar hunches too. I'm hardly going to name them, am I?

Jesus, this is ridiculous. There are obvious cases about the place at present. Are people really going to deny that to be the case?

LoLth

admin stuff
please. dont go naming names. Even if you do feel that you are 100% sure. Instead report them to an admin , be prepared to be asked why you think so. DONT try to "name and shame" , its not fair to the other user if you do turn out to be wrong
/admin stuff

@LuckyLloyd : I dont think anyone is going to argue that there arent re-regges or users that have closed an account to open a new one (or multiples). However, what is obvious to you may not be obvious to others and even if you explain there may not be enough evidence to support full scale nuking. However any report would be logged and may be the tipping point needed at a future date or the last piece in the puzzle to make a connection between two, or more, accounts.

Also note that re-regges that obeyed the rules but closed for whatever reason , and decided to return are not an issue really. Its ones that broke the rules and re-reg to escape the consequences or those that re-reg to continue with the disallowed behaviour that are of more concern.

LuckyLloyd

LoLth wrote: »

Also note that re-regges that obeyed the rules but closed for whatever reason , and decided to return are not an issue really. Its ones that broke the rules and re-reg to escape the consequences or those that re-reg to continue with the disallowed behaviour that are of more concern.

Again, I disagee with you on that. Every time that is done willy nilly it damages the integrity and history of the site.

pickarooney

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Jesus, this is ridiculous. There are obvious cases about the place at present. Are people really going to deny that to be the case?

I don't think anyone is denying it but I don't think most people pay enough attention to who posts what and how to pick up on any patterns.

Mercurius

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Again, I disagee with you on that. Every time that is done willy nilly it damages the integrity and history of the site.

How does a non-trolling, never-been-banned re-regger, like myself, damage the integrity of the site?

LuckyLloyd

Mercurius wrote: »

How does a non-trolling, never-been-banned re-regger, like myself, damage the integrity of the site?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The problem here is not merely about trolls who would normally have been sitebanned and rereg countless times. It's about people who have been here for years with thousands of posts to their name having the option to abandon ship on their identity and history within the community without good reason for doing so.

A foundation point of any good forum based community is screenames counting for something, and people having a history (whether it be good, bad or indifferent). I am aware that many people view the Internet as something seperate to real life, but I strongly disagree with such views. There should be no major disparity between you (the person behind the keyboard) and your Internet persona (the boards.ie screename). You should be accountable for what you say here, and have what you say to be searchable. The current setup flies completely in the face of that.

People should be allowed to close their accounts upon request providing they have good reason to do so. People should not be able to close their accounts because they want to change their name, or they want to disassociate themselves from posts they made X amount of time ago. Or because they had a bad week on here or in real life and decided to pack it in for a while - so many of those cases return, and when they return it should be under the same screenname.

.

Mercurius

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

.

Sorry for missing the above post.

I choose to re-reg because I don't wish to identify with an online persona (there is a separation despite your best wishes), or become obsessed with post counts or thanks counts, which I did do in the past.

By re-regging I can leave when I want and come back when I want, and by closing the account I'm not tied down by the weight of my online persona.

I move on and come back at a time of my choosing.

I've managed to cure an unhealthy addiction to the site by doing so.

Why should I be denied that choice?

Edit: I also browse Reddit, which allows throwaway accounts, and there doesn't seem to be a problem with integrity or community on that site, nor does it seem to have dented it's popularity.

LuckyLloyd

Mercurius wrote: »

Sorry for missing the above post.

I choose to re-reg because I don't wish to identify with an online persona (there is a separation despite your best wishes), or become obsessed with post counts or thanks counts, which I did do in the past.

By re-regging I can leave when I want and come back when I want, and by closing the account I'm not tied down by the weight of my online persona.

I move on and come back at a time of my choosing.

I've managed to cure an unhealthy addiction to the site by doing so.

Why should I be denied that choice?

Edit: I also browse Reddit, which allows throwaway accounts, and there doesn't seem to be a problem with integrity or community on that site, nor does it seem to have dented it's popularity.

You can say X now, say Y later, throw the toys out of the pram if it suits you to do so, etc. And the encouragement of throwaway online personas simply weakens strong and genuine conversation.

Obviously your position and mine are at opposite ends of a spectrum though, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Callipo

DeVore and boards.ie always said popup ads would never be allowed, in the past.

Now look at it.

Time move on with necessity. People grow older and wiser.


Never say never and other things like that.

Steve

Callipo wrote: »

DeVore and boards.ie always said popup ads would never be allowed, in the past.

Now look at it.

Time move on with necessity. People grow older and wiser.


Never say never and other things like that.

If you're talking about the campaign against internet censorship then technically it's not a popup, it's an overlay.

Facts & correctness etc.

Callipo

Steve wrote: »

If you're talking about the campaign against internet censorship then technically it's not a popup, it's an overlay.

Facts & correctness etc.

OK.

So technically......Overlay. Not POP UP

Sorry for being stupid about something POPing up, my eyes aren't what they used to be.

Overlay.


eh OK


Never say never.

Steve

I wasn't having a go there Callipo, pop-ups were / are a seriously nasty thing and have thankfully all but been eradicated from modern browsing.
They were the stuff of dodgy sites, especially before tabbed browsers, where the ad would open a new browser with another dodgy site which would itself open another one - etc, etc.. back then it was a benefit to have a lame slow pc so you could keep up with them and close them before it crashed everything..

Mr.Biscuits

Mercurius wrote: »

I've managed to cure an unhealthy addiction to the site by doing so.

Actually, I think this raises a good point:

Would it not be better have been better to make it so that members could re-open an account that they have closed after a set-time period has passed - like say, six months or so? As no doubt reasons like the above are why some users close their accounts along with need to study for exams etc.

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't really get what someone has to gain by closing an account in this way.

Cause' they get to be a smartarse and no doubt feel smug thinking: 'Ah closed it before you could ban me'.

Think a good solution to this would be that users could only close accounts that were opened for at least one month.

Mercurius

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You can say X now, say Y later, throw the toys out of the pram if it suits you to do so, etc.

I wouldn't be encouraging the allowing of overlapping accounts, as that could weaken integrity.

One per person is fair. I just don't see why having the same one should be compulsory.

And the encouragement of throwaway online personas simply weakens strong and genuine conversation.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Obviously your position and mine are at opposite ends of a spectrum though, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

old_aussie

Why not block the IP address from being reused?

_blank_

old_aussie wrote: »

Why not block the IP address from being reused?

Becaue most people don't "own" the IP address they post from.

I post from

1. work (from 2 different networks)
2. home
3. my parent's house
4. my friend's house

So that's 5 IP addresses, I know there are definitely other Boards.ie users in my job, and I live with another Boardsie.

My parents and siblings who live at home possibly use Boards too, but I don;t know for sure.

My friend who's house I sometimes I bring my laptop to also uses Boards.

Also, even if it were the "Home" IP address they blocked, most, if not all, ISPs use Dynamic IP addressing, meaning I'm not always guaranteed to have the same IP address anyway.

Boards.ie: Neil

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Would it not be better have been better to make it so that members could re-open an account that they have closed after a set-time period has passed - like say, six months or so? As no doubt reasons like the above are why some users close their accounts along with need to study for exams etc.

No it would not be better. It clearly states when closing that this is not reversible. Once that button is hit there is no going back and your personal data is gone from our end bar the hashed email address.

For the people who close their accounts for study, they should get a bit of cop on and find better ways like creating a random password and change it to that, then when they've failed their exams anyways come back and reset their password :pac:.

old_aussie wrote: »

Why not block the IP address from being reused?

Majority of IPs aren't static, and in the case of mobile operators they route traffic through about 50 IPs so blocking one IP means you block a sizable chunk of traffic, not something i'd like to do :pac:.

minidazzler

Callipo wrote: »

DeVore and boards.ie always said popup ads would never be allowed, in the past.

Now look at it.

Time move on with necessity. People grow older and wiser.


Never say never and other things like that.

Are you serious? That was one overlay that could be quickly dismissed. It's not a pop up and not an ad.