Site Banning. A False Economy?

Into The Blue

Is it a bit of a false economy to permaban habitual problem posters?

From the prison (terrible name btw) threads, the admins site something along the lines of "youve become too much of a mod timesink"..
Nine times out of ten, they'll just rereg, causing over worked mods more work.. only next time they'll be back with a chip on their shoulder..

A year ban would drive home the same message..

Tom Dunne

Re-regs are very easy to spot, plus we have a number of tools and techniques that make detecting serial re-regers straight forward, which usually result in a straight up ban. Yeah, there are one or two loons who go to extreme lengths to avoid detection, but if their sole existence revolves around trying to avoid detection, well then they have bigger problems.

It takes, what, 10 mins to set up an account (assuming a disposably email account has already been created), it takes 14.2 seconds to siteban an account.

Yes, we've timed it.

Zaph

Into The Blue wrote: »

A year ban would drive home the same message..

The length of the ban isn't a factor for re-regs. Even if it was only for a day or two some would re-reg anyway if they wanted to continue being a nuisance.

Ten minutes. you kidding

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Re-regs are very easy to spot, plus we have a number of tools and techniques that make detecting serial re-regers straight forward, which usually result in a straight up ban. Yeah, there are one or two loons who go to extreme lengths to avoid detection, but if their sole existence revolves around trying to avoid detection, well then they have bigger problems.

It takes, what, 10 mins to set up an account (assuming a disposably email account has already been created), it takes 14.2 seconds to siteban an account.

Yes, we've timed it.

Your research is lacking, any rereg worth their salt can do it in less than a minute.

Edward Hopper

Ten minutes. you kidding wrote: »

Your research is lacking, any rereg worth their salt can do it in less than a minute.

Probably takes a bit longer if you're putting more effort into your username.

Tom Dunne

Ten minutes. you kidding wrote: »

Your research is lacking, any rereg worth their salt can do it in less than a minute.

Yes, my research is lacking. Clearly I don't know how to bait re-regs.

At least I can spell.

Canadel

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Re-regs are very easy to spot, plus we have a number of tools and techniques that make detecting serial re-regers straight forward, which usually result in a straight up ban. Yeah, there are one or two loons who go to extreme lengths to avoid detection, but if their sole existence revolves around trying to avoid detection, well then they have bigger problems.

True.

Yet one could also argue that banning someone from your site for life, while no doubt a potentially disproportionate punishment, points also to one or two potential bigger problems pertaining to the operators of the site, and those who implement the policy with resolute, and often gleeful, obedience.

KERSPLAT!

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.

Tom Dunne

Canadel wrote: »

Yet one could also argue that banning someone from your site for life, while no doubt a potentially disproportionate punishment

Well it all depends of your definition of disproportionate, doesn't it?

A siteban can be undone in just under 2 seconds. And yes, we've timed it.

Canadel wrote: »

points also to one or two potential bigger problems pertaining to the operators of the site, and those who implement the policy with resolute, and often gleeful, obedience.

First up, it's not a policy. The site doesn't operate like some corporate entity with clear, unambiguous procedures and policies for Mods/Cmods and Admins where sanctions fall into some neatly pre-defined equation.

Secondly, I'm intrigued as to the notion of obedience. To whom? Do you have visions of Dav sitting in his mist-cloaked citadel, surrounded by subservient megalomaniac Admins that seek his counsel when deciding on what punishment to mete out to wayward posters?

Into The Blue

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Do you have visions of Dav sitting in his mist-cloaked citadel, surrounded by subservient megalomaniac Admins that seek his counsel when deciding on what punishment to mete out to wayward posters?

Don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answers to. :PAC: :pacman :pacman:

How the hell do you do a pacman face on touch?!?!

The Hill Billy

Lowercase pac between colons :pac:

Into The Blue

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Lowercase pac between colons :pac:

So close

padd b1975

I think the whole permabanning system could do with being reviewed at Administration level at first and then some suggestions being put to the masses for a wider conversation.

Some discussions seem to me at least to have taken on a slightly echo chamber vibe in recent years for want of differing opinions.

Not really a road boards.ie should be (subconsciously) leading itself.

cdeb

padd b1975 wrote: »

I think the whole permabanning system could do with being reviewed at Administration level at first and then some suggestions being put to the masses for a wider conversation.

Why?

padd b1975

cdeb wrote: »

Why?

Mainly because the system that's currently in place was drawn up for a much smaller site with fewer users and forums.

cdeb

I don't see how that explains things?

Getting rid of disruptive posters encourages others to keep posting. Constantly letting them back would discourage people again.

And I'm sure there's more than a few formerly banned posters who've re-joined and stayed below the radar by copping themselves on

uck51js9zml2yt

The prison forum is like Dilbert. Its my daily read and causes severe disappointment when there is no activity.

Do away with bannings and boards would be very boring

Paz-CCFC

Tom Dunne wrote: »

It takes, what, 10 mins to set up an account (assuming a disposably email account has already been created), it takes 14.2 seconds to siteban an account.

Yes, we've timed it.

Do ye have any idea what the highest number of accounts one fella has created is?

KERSPLAT!

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Do ye have any idea what the highest number of accounts one fella has created is?

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.

Overheal

Jesus, making 30 accounts in a day you might as well send the information to the NHS and get them some help.

Tom Dunne

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.

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 ).

Overheal wrote: »

send the information to the NHS.

To the what now?

Cabaal

Canadel wrote: »

True.

Yet one could also argue that banning someone from your site for life, while no doubt a potentially disproportionate punishment, points also to one or two potential bigger problems pertaining to the operators of the site, and those who implement the policy with resolute, and often gleeful, obedience.

I'd argue that if you get yourself site banned the issue is less with the operators of the site and more your attitude to others and posting style,

I've over 23k posts and a member since 2001, from what I remember I was banned once from after hours for posting what I believed at the time to be an amusing image but the reality is it was offensive.

When I got banned I took it on the chin and knew I had stepped out of line, however some people seem to have an inability to do this and instead they live off of just stirring **** on the site....they honestly must have sad little lives.

weisses

Without knowing all the ins and outs there where quite a few posters site banned who I thought to be good posters/contributors, even acknowledged by mods.

KERSPLAT!

weisses wrote: »

Without knowing all the ins and outs there where quite a few posters site banned who I thought to be good posters/contributors, even acknowledged by mods.

Plenty of good posters get site banned I'm sure but you can't change the rules for someone because they're a good poster. Continue to rack up the cards and bans and eventually you'll get site banned.

Keep in mind that you won't be site banned for 3 or 4 cards and a few bans and it wouldn't be straight to a site ban either so they get plenty of warning. Unfortunately many posters don't take heed of these warnings.

Pat Mustard

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Do you have visions of Dav sitting in his mist-cloaked citadel, surrounded by subservient megalomaniac Admins that seek his counsel when deciding on what punishment to mete out to wayward posters?

Cabaal

weisses wrote: »

Without knowing all the ins and outs there where quite a few posters site banned who I thought to be good posters/contributors, even acknowledged by mods.

Good posters is open to debate, I've seen many long term posters get banned because they simply refused to follow any previous warnings. Hard to know if they actually wanted to be banned...perhaps they did.

After all I do remember people previously asking to be site banned so they wouldn't use boards anymore, (prior to a/c closing being an option)

KomradeBishop

It's a kind of disappointing to see the modding lead to a loss of some good long-term posters recently. The way the site is moderated can discourage posters and worthwhile debates (*), not just encourage constructive discussions.

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' - except the frequency isn't the point here, if you're getting rid of a well established poster, who has contributed a lot to discussion, then that is bad for the site.


Reregs being easy to spot doesn't seem to matter either, as they seem more than happy to go through the account creation process again and again - not much of a hindrance, when you consider that it's probably less effort to make an account, than it is to write up a single post (*looks at member post counts*).

Reregs often also come disproportionately from one side of the debate in many topics too, giving greater power over narrative-control in the forum - especially if the standards of debate can be dragged low enough, that their opponents in debate can start getting dinged with mod action every now and then. Even if over a very long period of time, this can slowly tip the narrative of discussion in the site, in the favour of these posters.

The number of times I've seen posters (including mods/cmods...) pile-on with an obvious re-reg (the usual back-patting, sharing thanks, sometimes collaborating to try and mob a poster), who is dragging the standard of a debate into the gutter...

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.


* Please don't throw out a kneejerk and self-serving "well those discouraged are the problem posters then..." argument to this, which counts as asserting that all mod action is inherently accurate/justified.

Into The Blue

Into The Blue wrote: »

A year ban would drive home the same message..

CASE IN POINT!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057575466

Gordon

Into The Blue wrote: »

CASE IN POINT!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057575466

Not sure what your point is.

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.

Tom Dunne

KomradeBishop wrote: »

<snip>

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?

Into The Blue

Gordon wrote: »

Not sure what your point is.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Into The Blue

Gordon wrote: »

What do you suggest instead?

Apart from what's in my op? Nothing.

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.

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".

Chips Lovell

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

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).

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

Gordon

Into The Blue wrote: »

Think we'll leave it. Cheers

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.

Into The Blue

Gordon wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Fr_Dougal

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

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.