[Interest Check] - User Rank 'Banned'

[Lauda]

I was recommended to create a thread and check whether there was demand for the user rank 'Banned'. I'm aware that this has been suggested and denied by BadBear in the past. With the addition of this rank I see a fair amount of potential in aiding the analysis and fight against spam & account farmers done by the community. However please note that, in this suggestion we are only considering users that are permanently banned.
So: Any thoughts, suggestions, concerns? Is this a good or a bad idea?

[1714043518]

1714043518

[1714043518]

1714043518

[1714043518]

1714043518

[1714043518]

1714043518

[1714043518]

1714043518

[1714043518]

1714043518

[actmyname]

This would be a good idea. It allows for the possibility of cross-referencing old posts which can no longer be deleted with current ones. It can be used for scambusting and finding farmed accounts/alts.

[U2]

Yes, I think it's necessary. That way you don't have to wonder if someone's still going to be able to scam/spam/farm or if they're gone. Obviously it'll only apply to their one account or possibly an IP ban but still, it's necessary!

[Lutpin]

The only reason I can see for it being denied back then would be because the original suggestion included non-permanently banned accounts, is that correct?
Could you link to the thread back then (if there was one) or at least give the reasoning from BadBear why exactly something like this was not whished?


Comming back to today, I would support a change like that and definitely think it might help with fighting spam, aswell as account farming supporting said spam.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yes,  yes, yes.  Do something.   Anything!  I'd be all for bringing the old SCAMMER tag back, but I'm sure that's not going to happen.

[BitHodler]

Honestly, it surprises me that this hasn't been a basic rule/policy from the very beginning.

It would be nice that when I come across spammers, or obvious farmed accounts quoting each other several times just to level up, that I know whether or not they are banned.

If I know they are banned, I don't have to PM a mod or admin as the problem is most likely taken care of already. It saves the staff also a good amount of time.

I say go for it. Mainly because of the fact that a banned rank should be part of any forum.

[Lauda]

Could you link to the thread back then (if there was one) or at least give the reasoning from BadBear why exactly something like this was not whished?

I can't find it at this time as I've also seen it quoted by someone else not long ago. There is some discussion here.

The only reason I can see for it being denied back then would be because the original suggestion included non-permanently banned accounts, is that correct?

Most likely for all banned accounts (including temporary and permanent), yes. Theymos has some concerns for both temporary and permanent bans (although less for the latter) which I do not necessarily need to specify here. However, if there is sufficient demand, backed up by decent reasoning, I'm almost positive that it could be a thing of the *near* future.

[monbux]

Could you link to the thread back then (if there was one) or at least give the reasoning from BadBear why exactly something like this was not whished?

I can't find it at this time as I've also seen it quoted by someone else not long ago. There is some discussion here.

The only reason I can see for it being denied back then would be because the original suggestion included non-permanently banned accounts, is that correct?

Most likely for all banned accounts (including temporary and permanent), yes. Theymos has some concerns for both temporary and permanent bans (although less for the latter) which I do not necessarily need to specify here. However, if there is sufficient demand, backed up by decent reasoning, I'm almost positive that it could be a thing of the *near* future.

Yes, please.  How come you're not considering adding a "temporarily banned" status?

[npredtorch]

A btctalk staff/mod note on the signature will work also ( not just blank ). So, people would not guess if this users are already banned or not.
As for the current ban system, I wouldn't be surprise if another user mistakenly pm'ed an already banned user.

[botany]

I was recommended to create a thread and check whether there was demand for the user rank 'Banned'. I'm aware that this has been suggested and denied by BadBear in the past. With the addition of this rank I see a fair amount of potential in aiding the analysis and fight against spam & account farmers done by the community. However please note that, in this suggestion we are only considering users that are permanently banned.
So: Any thoughts, suggestions, concerns? Is this a good or a bad idea?

I would whole heartedly support the move.
If this is applicable only to people who are perma-banned, it would remove the privacy concerns which were there earlier. This information is anyway available on modlog.php (although only for a couple of weeks).

[DarkStar_]

Yes,  yes, yes.  Do something.   Anything!  I'd be all for bringing the old SCAMMER tag back, but I'm sure that's not going to happen.

It won't because the tag was manually updated by admins, and with the amount of scam accusations occuring, and half of them not having solid proof, it would be a huge hassle of theymos/others' time. Getting a team to do it would also be a waste.

This information is anyway available on modlog.php (although only for a couple of weeks).

Is it? I just went to the log, and while I'm sure bans are rare, all I see on modlog (with a HTML title of deletion log) is nuking, post/threads being deleted and auto bans.

[botany]

This information is anyway available on modlog.php (although only for a couple of weeks).

Is it? I just went to the log, and while I'm sure bans are rare, all I see on modlog (with a HTML title of deletion log) is nuking, post/threads being deleted and auto bans.

I am talking of the auto-bans, which indicates that a member has been permanently banned.
Temp bans don't appear in the modlog and the current proposal doesn't consider making them public.

[BlackMambaPH]

I think you should make a poll instead of making us to reply in this thread.

Anyway, This a very good idea. +1

[newIndia]

+1

I support this suggestion. Instead of considering users that are permanently banned, it would be better to consider anyone banned, temporary or permanent. When temporary banned users are unbanned, they may be returned to their normal rank, e.g. Member, Full Member etc.

[altcoinhosting]

Yes, please.  How come you're not considering adding a "temporarily banned" status?

I'm also a big fan of both the "banned" and "temp banned" status. It would make it a lot easyer for allmost everyone (with the possible exeption of the person being banned in the first place).

If you have an ongoing business deal and your partner stops replying => check his status, if it's "temp banned" you at least know why he/she doesn't respond.
If you run a sig campaign, you can filter out the banned users in a heartbeat.
...

I know with the new forum software around the corner, chances are slim of this being applied to the current SMF tough, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a nice to have feature (imho)

[DarkHyudrA]

So it would work like the old scammer tag?
I don't see anything other than benefits for being able to see who was banned. I approve the idea.

[hilariousandco]

I think BadBear's argument against it was just along the lines of why does anybody else need to know? I don't think showing that users are banned is a bad thing. Showing only users that are perma banned won't help much though. I think there needs to be more punishment or negative consequences to being banned especially for spam. If you are banned currently the worst that happens is you don't post for a week or two and resume activities after. At least if people are essentially publicly marked as banned it will be a shameful thing to be tarnished with so people might put more effort into avoiding this. If it has consequences for their ability to join a signature campaign this would also help.

[Lauda]

I think you should make a poll instead of making us to reply in this thread.

No, thank you. Polls can be *anonymous* manipulated. If necessary, I could summarize supportive comments as in "Number of supporters vs. opposers".

Yes, please.  How come you're not considering adding a "temporarily banned" status?

I'm also a big fan of both the "banned" and "temp banned" status.

Please do not try to move this thread into that direction. From what I can tell, 'temporarily banned' is not going to happen. So let's focus on what I clearly express in the OP.

I think BadBear's argument against it was just along the lines of why does anybody else need to know?

The primary idea behind this is to help the community, especially those who are actively trying to fight spammers and account farmers.

I think there needs to be more punishment or negative consequences to being banned especially for spam.

That is not the point of this idea, and thus should probably be discussed separately (as it has a broader effect and would require more discussion).

[hilariousandco]

Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?

[rizzlarolla]

Thanks for picking this up Lauda, i'm 100% for this idea.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1597201.msg16665309#msg16665309

However please note that, in this suggestion we are only considering users that are permanently banned.

Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?

Not pointless at all.
The perma banned are the most important to me. I can cross them off any list forever more. Job done.

snipped

Agreed.

[shorena]

-snip-
Not pointless at all.
The perma banned are the most important to me. I can cross them off any list forever more. Job done.
-snip-
Agreed.

Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.

[Lauda]

Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.

You can easily conclude, without the need of staff intervention, whether someone is ban evading if you correlate them and their other (banned) accounts (as an example). With the current we, we already have some state of uncertainty for such. Users do not know whether someone is permanently banned, which can and has (in the past) lead to questions that are redundant. The same (primarily) applies those attempting to tackle the account farming & signature spam problem.

[LoyceV]

I like it (but you already know that). It seems like a normal forum feature to know which user will never talk back again.

And obviously it helps the scam/alt-fighters to know which "problems" have been tackled already.

Theymos has some concerns for both temporary and permanent bans (although less for the latter) which I do not necessarily need to specify here.

I don't need to know which user has a temporary ban. Even if I'm talking to that person, he'll be back again later. And if someone is hunting for alts/scammers, there's also no reason to stop the search if the user will be back the next week.

Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?

It saves them time. They don't have too look into an account that has been banned already.

[shorena]

Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.

You can easily conclude, without the need of staff intervention, whether someone is ban evading if you correlate them and their other (banned) accounts (as an example). With the current we, we already have some state of uncertainty for such. Users do not know whether someone is permanently banned, which can and has (in the past) lead to questions that are redundant. The same (primarily) applies those attempting to tackle the account farming & signature spam problem.

Alright, its little help when fighting spammers. Im not against a banned tag/rank btw, but maybe it should be given with the 2nd temp ban. This could discourage spammers further as it would likely get archived somewhere and make it easier for campaign managers to refuse those as participants.

[Lauda]

Alright, its little help when fighting spammers. Im not against a banned tag/rank btw, but maybe it should be given with the 2nd temp ban. This could discourage spammers further as it would likely get archived somewhere and make it easier for campaign managers to refuse those as participants.

Fair point. My primary suggestion is the rank 'Banned' for those that are permanently banned. This seems to have the highest chance for possible addition to the user rank system, and implementation should be fairly trivial. I will also consider proposing 'Temporarily Banned' or 'Temp. Banned' for those serving out their secondary temporary ban afterwards.

[rizzlarolla]

Would the "banned" tag include all "nuked" accounts?
(and any other method used that effectively ensures an account is never coming back, including "zombie" nuked accounts)

How many temp bans can/does an account receive before perma ban, or is this case by case?

[shorena]

Would the "banned" tag include all "nuked" accounts?

Nuked accounts are perma banned, so yes.

(and any other method used that effectively ensures an account is never coming back, including "zombie" nuked accounts)

How many temp bans can/does an account receive before perma ban, or is this case by case?

1st is usually a short ban as a warning, 3rd is usually perma.

[rizzlarolla]

Take a look at what we (researchers) are faced with. hopefully it will help explain why a "banned" tag would be useful.
and hopefully help speed up the process.

this "registration snapshot" shows all consecutive accounts registered june 19 2016, over 2.5 hour period
some days 2.5 hours registration period would be thousands of accounts long.
(members cannot easily find this info, admin can, i did ask theymos or admin to share so all could see, they declined)

Code:

u=#          username            activity      last active

864279   invinciblerasca        0      June 19 2016 04:45:37 AM      
864280   tallabdomen62          0      June 19 2016 04:50:34 AM      
864281   mattizzano1            0      June 19 2016 04:52:50 AM      
864282   kiichan                0      June 19 2016 05:03:06 AM      
864283   faruk8954              0      June 19 2016 04:59:19 AM      
864284   Saikumargadipelly      0      June 19 2016 01:05:43 PM      
864285   Metatarsallysnqs       0      June 19 2016 05:06:13 AM      
864286   patr0nbriza            0      June 19 2016 05:18:09 AM      
864287   antiger2612            0      June 19 2016 05:51:25 AM      
864288   flygirl0505          126   October 22 2016 11:11:43 AM   Komodo signature      
864289   jollyswamp20           0      June 19 2016 05:47:09 AM      
864290   every7878            126   October 18 2016 06:57:43 AM   Komodo signature   
864291   swankycostume12        0      June 19 2016 05:49:25 AM      
864292   pedropimienta          0      June 19 2016 05:53:32 AM      
864293   johnny11011          126   October 12 2016 12:50:04 PM   no signature
864294   chronus265             1      June 20 2016 07:15:12 AM      
864295   jackci123            126   October 22 2016 10:45:32 AM   Komodo signature   
864296   roamingnode            0      June 20 2016 06:24:20 AM      
864297   nanay777             126   October 12 2016 12:48:43 PM   no signature
864298   fight432100          126   October 21 2016 06:28:27 AM   no signature
864299   Parsonagedzet          0      June 19 2016 05:58:37 AM      
864300   follow-nana          126   October 12 2016 12:45:48 PM   no signature
864301   number-o             126   October 18 2016 11:00:58 AM   Komodo signature      
864302   bntggy928            126   October 12 2016 12:42:06 PM   no signature
864303   hafid1980              0      June 19 2016 06:20:22 AM      
864304   raneedy              126   October 21 2016 06:39:10 AM   no signature
864305   samhar                 0      June 19 2016 06:23:09 AM      
864306   Impliedaxws            0      June 19 2016 06:26:12 AM      
864307   benjamin1880          37 September 01 2016 06:43:22 AM   no signature   
864308   BTCInvestmentGroup     2      June 20 2016 07:15:13 AM      
864309   christian2585         36    August 21 2016 07:14:26 PM   no signature
864310   andrew3995            35    August 21 2016 07:14:38 PM   no signature
864311   decryptic              0   October 29 2016 01:55:55 AM      
864312   matthew1556           36    August 21 2016 07:17:17 PM   no signature
864313   raspyvacancy2          0      June 19 2016 06:38:58 AM      
864314   kenturion              6      June 22 2016 06:14:20 AM      
864315   levelhate24            0      June 19 2016 06:49:04 AM      
864316   arifshani94            0      June 19 2016 06:52:12 AM      
864317   Uploadssomz            0      June 19 2016 07:06:26 AM      
864318   Minnesingerlxln        0      June 19 2016 07:09:13 AM     

all zero activity accounts are either spam, cover for farmers, or dormant farmed accounts. (i think mostly made by the farmer) are they going to spring to life in the future?

only 3 accounts created in this period, 864294, 864308, 864314, have any chance of being "real". 2 of those last logged on within 10 minutes of each other (864294 and 864308), so don't hold your breath. are they coming back?

all other accounts with activity are chinese farmed.
the lower activity accounts, 35,36,37 activity, have not posted in a while, are they banned, are they coming back?
the higher activity accounts, all 126, are all still active. they are farmed, chinese, common signature campaign - komodo.

exactly the same chinese farm attack happens 6 hours after this one. another 11 accounts with now 126 activity. and the next day. and in previous days. (not sure exactly when this started)

if i was to create a farmer list from the info here, (which i will do at some point, bit inundated atm) it would not contain any of the zero activity accounts.
if account "864288 flygirl0505 (126a)" is banned, will the next account "864289 jollyswamp20 (0a)" replace it?
i (or anyone else) cannot "keep watching" 900,000 accounts for activity.

(goddamn, i made the list all tidy, easy to see, but it has posted a bit of a mess, sorry. looked - can't fix! fixed - thanks Loyce, mental block!)
(signiture signature - fixed   i lost the plot on this one!)

[Lauda]

There seems to be almost unanimous support for this so far. I'll leave it open for another week before I talk to theymos again. Hopefully this will see the light of day very soon.

[AgentofCoin]

Alright, its little help when fighting spammers. Im not against a banned tag/rank btw, but maybe it should be given with the 2nd temp ban. This could discourage spammers further as it would likely get archived somewhere and make it easier for campaign managers to refuse those as participants.

Fair point. My primary suggestion is the rank 'Banned' for those that are permanently banned. This seems to have the highest chance for possible addition to the user rank system, and implementation should be fairly trivial. I will also consider proposing 'Temporarily Banned' or 'Temp. Banned' for those serving out their secondary temporary ban afterwards.

I support the original idea for both temporary bans as well as permanent bans.

Throwing out some suggestions:

1. When a forum name displays the "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" user rank, make the rank a link
that goes to the forum rules. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0
Many times I have seen noobies complain they didn't know the rules nor ever see them, especially
after they have been banned. This addition would help diminish that argument further as well as
help guide other users to the thread when they see that a member has a "BANNED" marking by
chance within normal thread browsing.

2. What about having a ban counter (obviously for temp bans)?
So for example, if you have been banned once before, you will receive a "1" in some section within
your profile, but not displayed in the normal thread displays. That way Signature Campaign Admins
could institute policies or auto scripts that drop or don't include users with 1 or 2 bans within their
campaigns. This may create a shaming by having ban numbers and cause sig spammer to "attempt"
not to spam as much, especially after their account is flagged with a "2". It may reduce spamming.

3. Make the user rank of "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" a different color, like Red or Orange.

Just throwing these out there. I have no idea what it would take to code #2 and whether it would
even be helpful in any worthwhile way.

[LaudaIsFucker]

LAUDA AND  RIZZAROLLA ACTING  LIKE  ADMINS, BETTER  YOU CREATE  YOUR  OWN  FORUM  RATHER THAN  IMPLEMENTING THOSE  BULLSHIT  SUGGESTIONS, TRUE ADMINS DOESNT  CARE  ABOUT THIS PRESENT  ISSUES  , ONLY THE BOTH  OF YOU ARE  JUST TRYING  HARD  AND  JUST SHOWING  ACTS THAT EVERYBODY HATES, IF I WERE   YOU,jUST FUCK  YOURSELVES  BOTH

[shorena]

[size= 37pt][color=r ed]LAUDA AND  RIZZAROLLA ACTING  LIKE  ADMINS, BETTER  YOU CREATE  YOUR  OWN  FORUM  RATHER THAN  IMPLEMENTING THOSE  BULLSHIT  SUGGESTIONS, TRUE ADMINS DOESNT  CARE  ABOUT THIS PRESENT  ISSUES  , ONLY THE BOTH  OF YOU ARE  JUST TRYING  HARD  AND  JUST SHOWING  ACTS THAT EVERYBODY HATES, IF I WERE   YOU,jUST FUCK  YOURSELVES  BOTH[/color] [/size]

So, you are mad because they care? Interesting. If what you say is true, that none of the admins care about users abusing the forum, there will be no forum long term, because every decent person left and the spammers among eachother will just fill a database.

[Lauda]

I support the original idea for both temporary bans as well as permanent bans.

I'll be happy if we get it only for permanent bans, if we get it for both then it is even better.

1. When a forum name displays the "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" user rank, make the rank a linkthat goes to the forum rules. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

You mean that the rank itself should be a hyperlink to the forum rules? Interesting suggestion! I'll bring this up as well (in case that theymos is not reading this thread).

2. What about having a ban counter (obviously for temp bans)?

This would actually be very useful internally, since most of the time I'm left guessing whether someone has been banned before or not.

3. Make the user rank of "BANNED"/"TEMP BANNED" a different color, like Red or Orange.

Just throwing these out there. I have no idea what it would take to code #2 and whether it would
even be helpful in any worthwhile way.

Thank you for all of your suggestions (I've snipped the post so that it takes up less space). I'll surely discuss them with the admin.

If what you say is true, that none of the admins care about users abusing the forum, there will be no forum long term, because every decent person left and the spammers among eachother will just fill a database.

Unfortunately this has already happen to a good extend. Decent users are posting less and less due to garbage content & input from spammers, which in return leads to them slowly visiting the forum less frequently..

-snip-

[sheffters]

Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?

it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.

[Lutpin]

it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.

It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts.
Don't be surprised that some others do care, though.

[size= 37pt][color=r ed]LAUDA AND  RIZZAROLLA ACTING  LIKE  ADMINS, BETTER  YOU CREATE  YOUR  OWN  FORUM  RATHER THAN  IMPLEMENTING THOSE  BULLSHIT  SUGGESTIONS, TRUE ADMINS DOESNT  CARE  ABOUT THIS PRESENT  ISSUES  , ONLY THE BOTH  OF YOU ARE  JUST TRYING  HARD  AND  JUST SHOWING  ACTS THAT EVERYBODY HATES, IF I WERE   YOU,jUST FUCK  YOURSELVES  BOTH[/color] [/size]

So, you are mad because they care? Interesting. If what you say is true, that none of the admins care about users abusing the forum, there will be no forum long term, because every decent person left and the spammers among eachother will just fill a database.

People caring are the worst.

[sheffters]

it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.

It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts.
Don't be surprised that some others do care, though.

you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?

[shorena]

it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.

It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts.
Don't be surprised that some others do care, though.

you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?

Many farmers are barely above shitposts. They dont really contribute to a discussion, they dont help other users. They post an opinion or a copied paragraph every now and then until the account is old enough for sale. Even though there is no clear rule against account farmers, they often get banned because they are unable to keep the quality high enough. A single account with a few posts might be just someone that posts like that, if you have 100 accounts dont expect mercy.

[BitHodler]

it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.

It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts.
Don't be surprised that some others do care, though.

you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?

There is no need to farm accounts when you are here just to read and take part into certain discussions.

Purposes of account farmers :

Selling them when they have enough activity.
Enrolling them in signature campaigns.
Farming giveaways.
Trolling and shilling.
In some cases even scamming.

All above is pure negativity. Nearly all with the intention to squeeze out every penny of this forum.

Having a few (2 or max 3) alt accounts is not much wrong with, but why would a regular person have hundreds of accounts in some cases? Financial benefit.

[Lauda]

Please. There are zero (at least obvious) cons to this idea. Even if it were not that beneficial (which I would argue that it is going to be; rizzarolla is free to explain this further), implementing it is not hard and it does no harm.

you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?

I've yet to see an account farmer that is not shitposting, talking to each other among their accounts (which is implicitly against the rule as it is spam) and such. That said, if you are not doing anything wrong, this change does not affect you.

[sheffters]

it will not benefit them any more than inflate their already giant ego.

It's ok you don't give a shit about the forum, or maybe you're afraid about your earnings from trafficking accounts.
Don't be surprised that some others do care, though.

you make out as if it is a crime...if people spam, they get banned. if you farm accounts and follow the rules why is that such a problem?

There is no need to farm accounts when you are here just to read and take part into certain discussions.

Purposes of account farmers :

Selling them when they have enough activity.
Enrolling them in signature campaigns.
Farming giveaways.
Trolling and shilling.
In some cases even scamming.

All above is pure negativity. Nearly all with the intention to squeeze out every penny of this forum.

Having a few (2 or max 3) alt accounts is not much wrong with, but why would a regular person have hundreds of accounts in some cases? Financial benefit.

1. Selling them when they have enough activity = nothing wrong with this?
2. Isn't that the point of sig campaigns? So that they are advertising the product in their signature? Farmed account or not, they assist that economy.
3. who cares. giveaways are a joke anyway. if people want to waste their time making 100 accounts for 0.0001 giveaways good luck, they will get caught.
4. Seriously... this is a reason why this economy should be destroyed? because of trolling and shilling? like i said earlier if rules are being broken they will be banned anyway
5. this is rare, the trust system is there for a reason. but it is not there for people to abuse it if the account is purchased or not. no one is guilty until proven so.

these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.

Please. There are zero (at least obvious) cons to this idea. Even if it were not that beneficial (which I would argue that it is going to be; rizzarolla is free to explain this further), implementing it is not hard and it does no harm.

as I said above, it will do nothing but inflate the egos of these low esteemed wannabe mods. it's completely pointless. it serves no purpose other than that. i bet as soon as it is added it wont be long before people like The Pharmacist make threads or posts mentioning how many people they think they got "banned" and all of a sudden it will turn into a contest on who can get the most members banned. getting people banned should be because they have done something wrong, mods deal with it, end of story. not show a public ban tag, inflating their ego further, and then bragging about it around the forum.

[Lauda]

these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.

So how exactly does this damage the "healthy" (account sale) economy if we only tag permanently banned accounts? Do you sell permanently banned accounts under the premise that they're not banned or something  

[Lutpin]

these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.

We're far from a point of it being healty to the forum in any way.
That being said, what has this to do with the original suggestion brought up in OP?

[sheffters]

these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.

So how exactly does this damage the "healthy" (account sale) economy if we only tag permanently banned accounts? Do you sell permanently banned accounts under the premise that they're not banned or something  

dont make assumptions. if that was the case my trust rating would be full of valid negative feedback. it's not about that, it's about it being nothing more than a pointless feature that only contributes to this forum by allowing nazi's to brag about their ass licking. not like that doesn't happen here enough.

[BitHodler]

1. Selling them when they have enough activity = nothing wrong with this?
2. Isn't that the point of sig campaigns? So that they are advertising the product in their signature? Farmed account or not, they assist that economy.
3. who cares. giveaways are a joke anyway. if people want to waste their time making 100 accounts for 0.0001 giveaways good luck, they will get caught.
4. Seriously... this is a reason why this economy should be destroyed? because of trolling and shilling? like i said earlier if rules are being broken they will be banned anyway
5. this is rare, the trust system is there for a reason. but it is not there for people to abuse it if the account is purchased or not. no one is guilty until proven so.

these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.

1: It's wrong when you know for what purpose they are being used. Especially when they will be enrolled into signature campaigns along side the other accounts the buyer has. There is no way that you can maintain a decent level of quality throughout all accounts if there are plenty.

2: Signature campaigns have very clear rules when it comes to participants - 1 account per person. If you are busted with several accounts, they'll ban you from the campaign and deny you payment.

3: It does actually matter. It's much better to have 100 different people get something rather than 10 people getting everything.

4: This is of course arguable, but there are entire armies of these shills derailing threads, trying to spread fud in an attempt to take down a certain service, and the list goes on.

5: Rare or not, every scam attempt is one too many.

It doesn't destroy a healthy economy at all. It helps protecting a healthy economy stay healthy.

[sheffters]

1. Selling them when they have enough activity = nothing wrong with this?
2. Isn't that the point of sig campaigns? So that they are advertising the product in their signature? Farmed account or not, they assist that economy.
3. who cares. giveaways are a joke anyway. if people want to waste their time making 100 accounts for 0.0001 giveaways good luck, they will get caught.
4. Seriously... this is a reason why this economy should be destroyed? because of trolling and shilling? like i said earlier if rules are being broken they will be banned anyway
5. this is rare, the trust system is there for a reason. but it is not there for people to abuse it if the account is purchased or not. no one is guilty until proven so.

these are such ridiculous reasons to destroy a healthy economy on bitcointalk, and to add a "banned" rank just to encourage the already huge egos of these wannabe moderators.

1: It's wrong when you know for what purpose they are being used. Especially when they will be enrolled into signature campaigns along side the other accounts the buyer has. There is no way that you can maintain a decent level of quality throughout all accounts if there are plenty.

2: Signature campaigns have very clear rules when it comes to participants - 1 account per person. If you are busted with several accounts, they'll ban you from the campaign and deny you payment.

3: It does actually matter. It's much better to have 100 different people get something rather than 10 people getting everything.

4: This is of course arguable, but there are entire armies of these shills derailing threads, trying to spread fud in an attempt to take down a certain service, and the list goes on.

5: Rare or not, every scam attempt is one too many.

It doesn't destroy a healthy economy at all. It helps protecting a healthy economy stay healthy.

1. so what? if the rule you mentioned in point 2 is effectively enforced (by the sig campaign owner) then doesn't that force a satisfactory level of quality?
2. that's the risk of account "farming" and always has been.
3. again, who cares. if the owner of the promotion wants to strictly enforce the rule nothing is stopping them.
4. if thats the case, make the thread self moderated. that function is there for a reason.
5. that is a very bland response. if the user does their research or uses an ESCROW like there are so many on this forum, then they wont get scammed

[LoyceV]

So how exactly does this damage the "healthy" (account sale) economy if we only tag permanently banned accounts?

Let's think out of the box: wouldn't it be nice if Bitcointalk auctions accounts instead of giving them a permanent ban? I know it's not likely to happen, but it would undermine the business model of account farmers/spammers, as it lowers the selling price.
Or, one step back, farming is caused by the account level system. I know this too has to be the way it is, but if a newbie could instantly have a big signature, there would be no reason to farm accounts for activity.

[redsn0w]

I was recommended to create a thread and check whether there was demand for the user rank 'Banned'. I'm aware that this has been suggested and denied by BadBear in the past. With the addition of this rank I see a fair amount of potential in aiding the analysis and fight against spam & account farmers done by the community. However please note that, in this suggestion we are only considering users that are permanently banned.
So: Any thoughts, suggestions, concerns? Is this a good or a bad idea?

Bad idea, I suggested this few months ago (maybe more than 1 year ago) and BadBear said it was a bad idea :/. I don't remember why, maybe privacy reason... at the end only the user that is banned must decide to reveal to the others his 'ban status'.

[Lauda]

Let's think out of the box: wouldn't it be nice if Bitcointalk auctions accounts instead of giving them a permanent ban?

What makes you think that this idea would be any good?

Or, one step back, farming is caused by the account level system. I know this too has to be the way it is, but if a newbie could instantly have a big signature, there would be no reason to farm accounts for activity.

There would, as there are not that many campaigns for newbies. If the campaign model changed to accommodate newbies, we'd likely see a new flood of spammers.

Bad idea, I suggested this few months ago (maybe more than 1 year ago) and BadBear said it was a bad idea :/. I don't remember why, maybe privacy reason... at the end only the user that is banned must decide to reveal to the others his 'ban status'.

You say that it is bad, but do not elaborate why? I'm aware that BadBear shot it down, read the thread. Theymos is likely willing to implement it, if there is demand/support for it. I've made this thread after already discussing this with them.

[Lutpin]

Bad idea, I suggested this few months ago (maybe more than 1 year ago) and BadBear said it was a bad idea :/. I don't remember why, maybe privacy reason... at the end only the user that is banned must decide to reveal to the others his 'ban status'.

Seeing as you suggested similar things in the past, you're generally in favor of this, right?
I would hence asume that your label as "bad idea" comes from being blocked with it in the past by BadBear.
That shouldn't keep you from supporting it now and giving things another shot.

[rizzlarolla]

The only reason I can see for it being denied back then would be because the original suggestion included non-permanently banned accounts, is that correct?
Could you link to the thread back then (if there was one) or at least give the reasoning from BadBear why exactly something like this was not whished?

Bad idea, I suggested this few months ago (maybe more than 1 year ago) and BadBear said it was a bad idea :/. I don't remember why, maybe privacy reason...

i presume these to be the relevant threads? The first (started by redsnOw) seems more about general reporting. nearly 2 years ago.
the second is about banned tag, but doesn't really go anywhere. redsnOw links back to first thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=891783.msg9885941#msg9885941 - linked to page 2 where i think BadBear first posts.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=948415.0

...RIZZAROLLA  ...

...rizzarolla...

i thought that was me for a moment...  very similar username. 

[deisik]

I was recommended to create a thread and check whether there was demand for the user rank 'Banned'. I'm aware that this has been suggested and denied by BadBear in the past. With the addition of this rank I see a fair amount of potential in aiding the analysis and fight against spam & account farmers done by the community. However please note that, in this suggestion we are only considering users that are permanently banned.
So: Any thoughts, suggestions, concerns? Is this a good or a bad idea?

If users are banned permanently (for whatever reason), what is the purpose of labeling such users as banned? In any case, they won't be spamming any longer, but ultimately everyone should decide for themselves if the victim of the ban-hammer has been actually posting crap (so mods will be more careful about giving out bans). If your point is punishment (which seems to be the case), then getting a perma ban as such will evidently suffice. I don't think that adding an extra level of punishment by making the punishment public will do any good for the forum. So I'm with BadBear on this...

TLDR: the idea is meaningless

[rizzlarolla]

^^^ "If your point is punishment (which seems to be the case)," ^^^

where did you get that idea?
i'm pretty sure the purpose is not further punishment, it is for clarity.

---------------

bit of off topic fun, click on theymos show posts!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35;sa=showPosts

[deisik]

^^^ "If your point is punishment (which seems to be the case)," ^^^

where did you get that idea?
i'm pretty sure the purpose is not further punishment, it is for clarity.

This is not an idea, this is a gut feeling of sorts. I heavily suspect that this type of "clarity" may raise more questions than solve. If some user gets banned, and that pitiful fact is publicly announced (by bestowing the Banned rank on him), the majority of the forum members would like to know what this particular user has been banned for, who exactly banned him, and so on. If this info is provided (as it should be), some people may start asking themselves how come that some mods are giving out more bans than others...

And question if they aren't abusing the ban hammer?

[Quickseller]

When you make it public that someone is banned, you make them vulnerable to imposters impersonating them in order to make it appear that the banned user is (attempting to) evading their ban.

Especially considering that the member's table as of mid last year is nearly public, it is not difficult to make it appear that you are an alt of a specific user from an admin's point of view. 

[Lauda]

This is not an idea, this is a gut feeling of sorts. I heavily suspect that this type of "clarity" may raise more questions than solve. If some user gets banned, and that pitiful fact is publicly announced (by bestowing the Banned rank on him), the majority of the forum members would like to know what this particular user has been banned for, who exactly banned him, and so on. If this info is provided (as it should be), some people may start asking themselves how come that some mods are giving out more bans than others...

And question if they aren't abusing the ban-hammer?

No, I don't see that happening (occasional question or two is normal for everything). Do not push for extremities. There is a very small group of people that are able to ban users, and that includes administrators and *some* global moderators. Information about bans will not likely be given out (unless a moderator comes forward stating that they've banned someone which is fine). Those questions really serve no purpose anyways.
I've yet to see proper concerns against this, besides: 1) Account farmer(s) fighting against it. 2) Concerns that it may not be really useful.
Update:

When you make it public that someone is banned, you make them vulnerable to imposters impersonating them in order to make it appear that the banned user is (attempting to) evading their ban.

I do not see anything that prevents this from already happening, especially in permanent bans where the signature and profile information is removed?

[Lutpin]

When you make it public that someone is banned, you make them vulnerable to imposters impersonating them in order to make it appear that the banned user is (attempting to) evading their ban.

What damage would that do to a user that is banned permanently already anyway?
You are be thinking about temporarily banned users, which would be banned longer/permanently if evading their ban?

[rizzlarolla]

^^^ "If your point is punishment (which seems to be the case)," ^^^

where did you get that idea?
i'm pretty sure the purpose is not further punishment, it is for clarity.

This is not an idea, this is a gut feeling of sorts. I heavily suspect that this type of "clarity" may raise more questions than solve. If some user gets banned, and that pitiful fact is publicly announced (by bestowing the Banned rank on him), the majority of the forum members would like to know what this particular user has been banned for, who exactly banned him, and so on. If this info is provided (as it should be), some people may start asking themselves how come that some mods are giving out more bans than others...

And question if they aren't abusing the ban-hammer?

questions are good.
most members will never care.
you prefer that we know "some" banned users, as now, but not all.
most big names are probably already known, if banned, through members questioning mods.
i don't think ban's tags will include allocation to individual mods?

When you make it public that someone is banned, you make them vulnerable to imposters impersonating them in order to make it appear that the banned user is (attempting to) evading their ban.

Especially considering that the member's table as of mid last year is nearly public, it is not difficult to make it appear that you are an alt of a specific user from an admin's point of view.  

makes little sense to me. if an account is banned, that "imposter" would be nuked i'm guessing. who cares.

[Quickseller]

When you make it public that someone is banned, you make them vulnerable to imposters impersonating them in order to make it appear that the banned user is (attempting to) evading their ban.

What damage would that do to a user that is banned permanently already anyway?
You are be thinking about temporarily banned users, which would be banned longer/permanently if evading their ban?

Even if a user is banned "permanently" they can potentially have their ban lifted some time after their ban is instituted. It is not uncommon for these types of requests to be granted absent ban evasion attempts.

Also, just as it is not difficult to impersonate a user from an admin's point of view, it is not difficult to impersonate a user from the public's point of view. So someone could make it appear to admins that an account is evading a perm ban, and get said account banned, while making it appear that said account is an alt of a 3rd account to the public, and making this account show as being banned would only add credibility to this.

[deisik]

This is not an idea, this is a gut feeling of sorts. I heavily suspect that this type of "clarity" may raise more questions than solve. If some user gets banned, and that pitiful fact is publicly announced (by bestowing the Banned rank on him), the majority of the forum members would like to know what this particular user has been banned for, who exactly banned him, and so on. If this info is provided (as it should be), some people may start asking themselves how come that some mods are giving out more bans than others...

And question if they aren't abusing the ban-hammer?

No, I don't see that happening (occasional question or two is normal for everything). Do not push for extremities. There is a very small group of people that are able to ban users, and that includes administrators and *some* global moderators. Information about bans will not likely be given out (unless a moderator comes forward stating that they've banned someone which is fine). Those questions really serve no purpose anyways.
I've yet to see proper concerns against this, besides: 1) Account farmer(s) fighting against it. 2) Concerns that it may not be really useful.

Since right now there is no Banned rank it seems that it is you who should first give proper arguments in favor of this feature (just in case, I've read the thread). On the other hand, withholding information about who banned a given user for what exactly doesn't look a very nice idea overall. Further, I cannot possibly agree that such questions serve no purpose as you claim. Otherwise, how could we find out why this user has been stickied as banned for? Especially if more users are expected to get permanently banned since this is what your idea obviously boils down to. As I got it, right now only few people have the privilege of permanently banning users, so it is not a problem so far...

Should I venture a guess and say that you expect the number of the "chosen" ones with the perma ban right to be expanded if your proposal gets accepted?

[Lauda]

Since right now there is no Banned rank it seems that it is you who should first give proper arguments in favor of this feature (just in case, I've read the thread).

Plenty of people have voiced such arguments, I merely asked for opinions.

On the other hand, withholding information about who banned a given user for what exactly doesn't look a very nice idea overall. Further, I cannot possibly agree that such questions serve no purpose as you claim.

It was always like that.

Otherwise, how could we find out why this user has been stickied as banned?

For a good part of the user-base you can *guess* whether they are permanently banned if they have been in a signature campaign or had some profile information beforehand. However, this requires you to notice the user prior in addition to only being applicable to 2016 bans (which is when this change was introduced IIRC).

Should I venture a guess that you expect the number of the "chosen" ones with the perma ban right to be expanded if your proposal gets accepted?

No. I do not expect that this will happen unless 1) A new global moderator is chosen. 2) Some of the old global moderators become very active again. 3) There is obvious need for this. This is actually not my proposal. It was suggested at least one time in the past, and brought up by someone else in another thread recently. I figured that it's an idea worth revisiting.

[redsn0w]

When you make it public that someone is banned, you make them vulnerable to imposters impersonating them in order to make it appear that the banned user is (attempting to) evading their ban.

What damage would that do to a user that is banned permanently already anyway?
You are be thinking about temporarily banned users, which would be banned longer/permanently if evading their ban?

Even if a user is banned "permanently" they can potentially have their ban lifted some time after their ban is instituted. It is not uncommon for these types of requests to be granted absent ban evasion attempts.

Also, just as it is not difficult to impersonate a user from an admin's point of view, it is not difficult to impersonate a user from the public's point of view. So someone could make it appear to admins that an account is evading a perm ban, and get said account banned, while making it appear that said account is an alt of a 3rd account to the public, and making this account show as being banned would only add credibility to this.

Interesting, now I also think the ban (perma-ban) should not be visible to the other users... just for security. It's not useful, otherwise Lauda can you post (again) some arguments in favour of your 'request'? Thanks.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Not sure how good the idea is but would certainly help me find if the accounts that I have personally reported to the admins (permaban requests) are banned yet or not.
Additionally, I think there should be a another page like seclog which shows updates on daily banned accounts.

[Lauda]

Interesting, now I also think the ban (perma-ban) should not be visible to the other users... just for security. It's not useful, otherwise Lauda can you post (again) some arguments in favour of your 'request'? Thanks.

Again, this is not my *request* nor my proposal. I picked this up in another thread as it was mentioned by someone as I thought it's an idea that deserves a shot. After a brief discussion with theymos, they told me that I should maybe create a thread to check what the community thinks about this/whether there was demand for it.
Just read through the thread again. A simple example, of what happens to me personally (but not very often, since I'm not a global moderator) are reports of users that are already permanently banned. This has happened a fair amount of times this year. This wastes time of both parties involved. It would also help people like:

Not sure how good the idea is but would certainly help me find if the accounts that I have personally reported to the admins (permaban requests) are banned yet or not.

Additionally, I think there should be a another page like seclog which shows updates on daily banned accounts.

For both or permanent bans only?

[rizzlarolla]

Interesting, now I also think the ban (perma-ban) should not be visible to the other users... just for security. It's not useful, otherwise Lauda can you post (again) some arguments in favour of your 'request'? Thanks.

From that thread you started, (bearing in mind it was nearly 2 years ago)

I don't know , I've seen some users that were banned and their latest posts are more constructive than his.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=891783.0

So how did you know that they were banned?
You asked, because you wanted to know, and were told by staff or admin, or you listened to rumour?

Should i ask every time i want to know if someone is banned?
Should the mods or admin tell me?

What if Joel_Jantsen wants to know if someone is banned, should he ask mods or admin?
Should the mods or admin tell him?

Looks to me like, as long as you know who is banned, when you need to know, that is what matters.

There will be many, many thousands of accounts marked as banned. (if all nuked zombie accounts are included as discussed)
banned accounts will be buried under new posts, only seen again by the diligent.

Have you read my posts on why it will be a useful tool?
Please explain how "security" is an issue here.

[redsn0w]

Yeah in the beginning I was only curious but lately I've changed my mind and I don't personally care to know if someone is permabanned or not.

Just read through the thread again. A simple example, of what happens to me personally (but not very often, since I'm not a global moderator) are reports of users that are already permanently banned. This has happened a fair amount of times this year. This wastes time of both parties involved. It would also help people like:

Thanks for the reply Lauda, so at the end it's only to avoid to lose precious time every time someone ask if an account is banned or not ... isn't it? Other reasons (from your point of view?).

[dogie]

Absolutely yes please. If someone is that bad that they have to be permabanned then the words that got them there should be disclaimered with that permabanned tag.

[snipie]

YES! please added this rank mods or add a tag!
i saw few days back someone having a tag under his activity counter called "Banned" for the first time here and it was a nice one
it will be less confusing for members to know the inactive account from the banned one

[Lauda]

Thanks for the reply Lauda, so at the end it's only to avoid to lose precious time every time someone ask if an account is banned or not ... isn't it? Other reasons (from your point of view?).

That's pretty much it. It should save time for pretty much any party involved in addition to removing redundancy and inconsistency. This helps people that are hunting account farmers, spammers or just any other kind of rule-breaking users. I could see potential harm in doing this with temporarily banned accounts, but it seems pretty okay to do it with permanently banned ones IMO.

[Gunthar]

Thanks for the reply Lauda, so at the end it's only to avoid to lose precious time every time someone ask if an account is banned or not ... isn't it? Other reasons (from your point of view?).

That's pretty much it. It should save time for pretty much any party involved in addition to removing redundancy and inconsistency. This helps people that are hunting account farmers, spammers or just any other kind of rule-breaking users. I could see potential harm in doing this with temporarily banned accounts, but it seems pretty okay to do it with permanently banned ones IMO.

Personally i dont see any issue with temp bans being tagged, i wish we had such a thing in the actual "trust" indicators indeed...you get temp banned for any reason...it stays on your curriculum...
but yeah i know i look a bit nazi sometimes...
~Gun

[Timelord2067]

I've only just tripped over this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating what's been said before.

This has been discussed in the past with the now defunct Scammer setting.

Scammer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178608.msg2514705#msg2514705 http://archive.is/8hx0n

SCAMMER:

Manually applied by administration, regardless of post count and gets 5 red Xs under his name.

It's very unlikely scammer tags will be ever be coming back. They were removed fairly recently for good reason. We don't need them anymore as the community policies itself with feedbacks and trust. And no, negative trust does not 'reset'. It can only be removed by the person who left it.

It would be better to add this tag for scammers since default trust can be manipulated by some green trust members !

SCAMMER: Manually applied by administration, regardless of post count and gets 5 red Xs under his name.  

It would be too much work for staff and mods generally don't get involved with scam accusations and is why it was removed. And what makes you think staff couldn't be manipulated the same way? It would be just too much fuss and people would be pestering mods to tag the hundreds of accounts that try scam here.  

http://archive.is/hOUK2#selection-301.0-375.26

Code:

Name: 	mexxer u=64650 
Posts: 	129
Activity: 	126
Position: 	Full Member
Date Registered: 	August 19, 2012, 05:40:49 PM
Last Active: 	July 08, 2014, 02:45:43 PM

had one of these Scammer flags and received negative trust (when they (the old scammer tags) were removed) from a DT user:

OldScammerTag 110: -0 / +11   2014-05-13   0.00000000   Reference   This person was given a scammer tag by a forum administrator prior to the existence of the trust system. This means that they were either a proven scammer, someone linked to a proven scammer by IP evidence, or someone with an account likely compromised by a known scammer. However, this information is very old and maybe not 100% accurate, so use this rating as only part of your trust judgement.

(Not to be confused with http://archive.is/sfwRY#selection-301.0-375.29

Code:

Name: 	mexxer-2 u=341982
Posts: 	3883
Activity: 	574
Position: 	Hero Member
Date Registered: 	June 10, 2014, 04:50:25 PM
Last Active: 	October 19, 2016, 10:52:54 AM

 I hasten to add   )

There were a lot of Alt's created around mid June to mid August 2014 - isn't that right ❝ QuickSeller ❞ ?

Ref: Removing legacy scammer tags https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=603586.0 11 May 2014, 02:12:53

Before the trust system was added, I would manually add a SCAMMER tag to the accounts of people who were proven scammers, likely alts of scammers, and sometimes to hacked accounts (if they were being used for scamming). Because the trust system now exists, I will be removing all old scammer tags in about 7 days. If you still don't trust any of these people, you should manually give them negative trust.

The scammer tag also prevents people from deleting or editing their posts. If you suspect that any of these people will start deleting posts, you should make a note of their post count. I can restore any deleted or edited post if necessary.

Here's the list of people with scammer tags currently. People in bold will retain a hidden scammer tag so that they cannot delete their posts.

In a separate discussion, UIDs are being ❝Nuked❞ but not removed, so they appear to be ❝Brand New❞ with zero posts, so they can then be mistaken for a created, but not active account.

By ❝Nuking❞ and then going the one step further flagging them as ❝Banned❞ at least any of us who are investigating account farmers such as QuickSeller can at least know with certainty a UID we are looking at has been ❝Banned❞, not just ❝Nuked❞ much less ❝created, but not active❞

 So, I guess the obvious question would be under what circumstances would an account be slapped with the ❝Banned❞ tag - ie being ❝Nuked❞ ?

[deisik]

Thanks for the reply Lauda, so at the end it's only to avoid to lose precious time every time someone ask if an account is banned or not ... isn't it? Other reasons (from your point of view?).

That's pretty much it. It should save time for pretty much any party involved in addition to removing redundancy and inconsistency. This helps people that are hunting account farmers, spammers or just any other kind of rule-breaking users. I could see potential harm in doing this with temporarily banned accounts, but it seems pretty okay to do it with permanently banned ones IMO.

Personally, I am quite happy if some bullshit poster stops posting. Whether it was a temporary ban, a perma ban, or that user stopped posting on his own is of no interest to me, just like the content of their posts. On the other hand, you say that placing a tag to a banned user will save time and effort. But withholding info regarding who banned that particular user and for what exactly could actually lead to even more waste, since users may start asking questions and nagging mods...

Right now spammers just stop spamming after a perma ban, and no one gives a fuck about them

[BitHodler]

I think we have heard people's pros and cons about this subject already - where the far majority thinks a banned rank for perma banned accounts is an added value.

I would like to see an admin or theymos himself come with a reaction here if they find the time to do so. I think that's the most important thing right now.

[redsn0w]

Thanks for the reply Lauda, so at the end it's only to avoid to lose precious time every time someone ask if an account is banned or not ... isn't it? Other reasons (from your point of view?).

That's pretty much it. It should save time for pretty much any party involved in addition to removing redundancy and inconsistency. This helps people that are hunting account farmers, spammers or just any other kind of rule-breaking users. I could see potential harm in doing this with temporarily banned accounts, but it seems pretty okay to do it with permanently banned ones IMO.

Personally, I am quite happy if some bullshit poster stops posting. Whether it was a temporary ban, a perma ban, or that user stopped posting on his own is of no interest to me, just like the content of their posts. On the other hand, you say that placing a tag to a banned user will save time and effort. But withholding info regarding who banned that particular user and for what exactly could actually lead to even more waste, since users may start asking questions and nagging mods...

Right now spammers just stop spamming after a perma ban, and no one gives a fuck about them

This, I think there isn't at all a real/valid reason to see who is banned or perma-banned (always imho).

[deisik]

It kinda seems that some people would get a lot of pleasure and satisfaction in witch-hunting once it is started. Burn them all!

Yes,  yes, yes.  Do something.   Anything!  I'd be all for bringing the old SCAMMER tag back, but I'm sure that's not going to happen.

Not sure how good the idea is but would certainly help me find if the accounts that I have personally reported to the admins (permaban requests) are banned yet or not.
Additionally, I think there should be a another page like seclog which shows updates on daily banned accounts.

YES! please added this rank mods or add a tag!
i saw few days back someone having a tag under his activity counter called "Banned" for the first time here and it was a nice one

There seems to be a universal consensus among the advocates of the new Banned rank that adding this rank will help people who are "hunting account farmers, spammers or just any other kind of rule-breaking users". But how many are there such people on the forum? Maybe, a dozen, maybe, even less than that, and I'm not speaking about occasional reporters. I'm speaking about those members who are purposefully crawling the forum in search of forum rules abusers, making this endeavor into their job or duty of sorts. As to me, bringing forth these wannabe moderators as a reason for changing the current system of silently banning shit posters looks more like a pathetic excuse for the lack of real arguments in favor of making bans public...

Moreover, the very idea of the forum itself certainly doesn't hinge on people hunting account farmers, spammers, and their kind

[Gunthar]

lack of real arguments in favor of making bans public...

Make it public! Make it loud!
It is the value of a community. When you are a part of a community you dont have to count on your own strenght to solve issues (in this case spammers, scammers, scumbags) but you have the added value of an entire community helping you (look at scam accusation board, meta, etc).

So again: i'd like a banned tag on perma banned scumbags AND a banned tag (possibly in the trust section) of temp banned "mates"...it would be a part of your forum history...you would have to deal with it...
~Gun

[deisik]

lack of real arguments in favor of making bans public...

Make it public! Make it loud!
It is the value of a community. When you are a part of a community you dont have to count on your own strenght to solve issues (in this case spammers, scammers, scumbags) but you have the added value of an entire community helping you (look at scam accusation board, meta, etc)

What community value do you mean exactly, the value of ostracizing? I guess this has more to do with a herd, not a community. If you don't mind me reminding, the question is not about banning users by other users as their joint, community effort. It is still essentially about mods banning users as they have been doing years before. Maybe, a little more banning than before if there is need for this. Community has nothing to do with that, if only derive some pleasure in seeing somebody banned. In any case, you can continue to report spammers, scammers, and just scumbags as always. But ultimately, I'm all in, provided that they also don't forget to disclose who banned whom and for what reason...

For the sake of community, of course

[Gunthar]

ostracizing?

Sounds like medieval...no! The value of a community chasing scumbags aint something like that: i see in many scam threads, members helping each other to find evidences, past, doubts etc. If i see a tag like "fuck this user has been temp banned before" it would help...woudnt it?
~Gun

[InvoKing]

-snip-
So again: i'd like a banned tag on perma banned scumbags AND a banned tag (possibly in the trust section) of temp banned "mates"...it would be a part of your forum history...you would have to deal with it...
~Gun

Yes for tagging a perma banned member but definitely not for tagging the temp banned one.
Temp ban could be for a reason that have nothing to do with scamming others or +/- harming the community.
A guy temp banned for bumping his topic several times in 1 day or posting in a self-dictatorship (moderated) thread where the OP asked him several times to leave shouldn't be considered as a risk in my opinion and thus tagging him as temp banned will ruin his reputation even if he never made a trade!

[deisik]

ostracizing?

Sounds like medieval...no! The value of a community chasing scumbags aint something like that: i see in many scam threads, members helping each other to find evidences, past, doubts etc. If i see a tag like "fuck this user has been temp banned before" it would help...woudnt it?
~Gun

I thought this thread was primarily about permanently banning shit posters (after a warning or two), right? Now you talk about banning scumbags, i.e. scammers. If I'm not mistaken, scammers aren't banned here simply because there is already a trust system implemented on the forum, which should work better since not all accusations turn out valid and founded at the end of the day. In any case, the trust system is not the question discussed in this thread as far as I can see. Regarding chasing or hunting shit posters, doesn't it sound like medieval too? Personally, I'm not going to chase any shit poster, I mostly choose to ignore them, occasionally reporting on them in my own threads. And I don't give a fuck about whether they have been tagged as banned as long as they don't post any more (to be honest, I wouldn't like to see anyone with such a tag). Besides, I also hope that most users have more important things to do than to deliberately chase down spammers and farmers, find alt accounts and go for stuff like that...

This is not what this forum is about

[Gunthar]

I thought this thread was primarily about permanently banning shit posters (after a warning or two), right?

Wrong:

It should save time for pretty much any party involved in addition to removing redundancy and inconsistency. This helps people that are hunting account farmers, spammers or just any other kind of rule-breaking users. I could see potential harm in doing this with temporarily banned accounts, but it seems pretty okay to do it with permanently banned ones IMO.

both matters are being discussed

the trust system is not the question discussed in this thread as far as I can see.

it was an attempt of mine to contribute with a hopefully constructive proposal in a thread about the future of the forum. I hope you dont mind...

Regarding chasing or hunting shit posters, doesn't it sound like medieval too?

No it doesnt or Lauda and the staff woudnt bother to ask an opinion about "people that are hunting account farmers, spammers or just anu other kind of rule-breaking users"

This is not what this forum is about

Personally i would suggest you to always add "IMHO" to your affirmations as despite i would agree with you, this forum (as the entire crypto-community) is far away from being clean by scammers and scumbags and it might not be your daily interest but you should respect those people that are daily fighting against scammers and scumbags for the same "community sake" you mentioned.

IMHO
~Gun

[dogie]

Was there a conclusion on this? I am very much for the feature or at least a trial of it. If it doesn't feel right then we can discontinue it but otherwise there seems little reason not to implement it.

[Lauda]

Was there a conclusion on this?

Still trying to get a hold of theymos so I can tl;dr him and he reviews this thread.

I am very much for the feature or at least a trial of it. If it doesn't feel right then we can discontinue it but otherwise there seems little reason not to implement it.

Most of the people were supportive of this, with some raising concerns of whether it will be really useful or not.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

<snip> I'm speaking about those members who are purposefully crawling the forum in search of forum rules abusers, making this endeavor into their job or duty of sorts. As to me, bringing forth these wannabe moderators <snip>

I hear what you're saying.  Just want to say what I've said in other threads:  I myself am not looking to be a moderator OR to be on default trust.  I don't think people should be on DT simply because they're "scam hunters".  Anyone can that, but not anyone can be part of deals and be honest, be trusted.  That's where DT members should come from--but that's my opinion and I know others disagree.  There was a hue and cry about Lutpin and Mexxer-2 being added to the list and I was sort of against Lutpin being added until I finally realized Lutpin was a campaign manager.  Now I have no problem with it whatsoever (don't know about Mexxer-2).  I'm just very against account sales and farming.  There's no good reason for that shit that I can see.  I drop neg bombs for that reason, not to sneakily advance my own status on this forum.  I'm content to be a nobody here.

[Chris!]

I'm all for the rank 'banned'. It would help for naming farmed accounts and not having to worry about them anymore. I don't see what harm could come from the new title being added to a profile so hopefully it's implemented in the new forum if not this one 

[deisik]

<snip> I'm speaking about those members who are purposefully crawling the forum in search of forum rules abusers, making this endeavor into their job or duty of sorts. As to me, bringing forth these wannabe moderators <snip>

I hear what you're saying.  Just want to say what I've said in other threads:  I myself am not looking to be a moderator OR to be on default trust

This still doesn't say anything in favor of adding a new Banned rank or otherwise exposing banned members to the public unless complete info about the ban is provided (as I have already said), though the benefits of that would still be highly debatable. So it is not actually relevant whether you personally (or anyone like you) want to be a moderator or not. My point is that making bans public to help people search abusers sucks as an argument in favor of such bans. Moreover, the public bans are not very encouraging themselves since they closely follow the practice which was widespread throughout medieval Europe and consisted in leaving corpses of the executed to hang along the roads till they rotted away completely...

It seems like people overall didn't change much since those cruel times

Personally i would suggest you to always add "IMHO" to your affirmations

Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you where to go

[Lauda]

The proposal has been accepted (not yet implemented):

<theymos> ok, I'll add it to my to-do list and we'll see if it causes any problems

[deisik]

The proposal has been accepted (not yet implemented):

<theymos> ok, I'll add it to my to-do list and we'll see if it causes any problems

As to me, it looks more like a polite refusal than actual acceptance. In any case, we have only to wait and see now what will come out of your proposal at the end of the day. Personally, I'm very skeptical and suspicious of these poorly concealed attempts at grabbing more power across the forum, at first through such "interest checks" and then by kicking up a racket about "elections" of a new global moderator...

But maybe it is just me, after all

[Lauda]

As to me, it looks more like a polite refusal than actual acceptance.

No. This is not how theymos rejects proposals.

Personally, I'm very skeptical and suspicious of these poorly concealed attempts at grabbing more power across the forum, at first through such "interest checks" and then by kicking up a racket about "elections" of a new global moderator...

This rank does not give anyone any kind of power. FYI: Theymos suggested that this thread be created. I think someone needs a tinfoil hat?

[minifrij]

Personally, I'm very skeptical and suspicious of these poorly concealed attempts at grabbing more power across the forum, at first through such "interest checks" and then by kicking up a racket about "elections" of a new global moderator...

Would you honestly prefer it if things went on entirely behind closed doors? I like things such as Interest Checks as it gives a chance for the community to say how they feel about a certain addition to the forum. If a feature is implemented into the forum that negatively affected people here it wouldn't be very good for the forum or the community, something like an interest check prevents this from happening.

If you're against the person posting them, tough; Lauda seems to be one of the few staff members trying to help things here. Posting thread such as this gives Lauda no power over anything to do with the forum without theymos' permission. If you can't trust that theymos would do the right thing, you shouldn't be here.

[deisik]

As to me, it looks more like a polite refusal than actual acceptance.

No. This is not how theymos rejects proposals.

Personally, I'm very skeptical and suspicious of these poorly concealed attempts at grabbing more power across the forum, at first through such "interest checks" and then by kicking up a racket about "elections" of a new global moderator...

This rank does not give anyone any kind of power. Do you need a tinfoil hat?

Indeed, it doesn't. But as I said in one of my earlier posts in this thread, it justifies giving new privileges and rights, and as it eventually turned out, it came down to adding a new global moderator. As I got it, only global moderators can give out permanent bans, right? At first this "interest check" which shows that people are eager to see more blood spilt, and then the "elections" which arrive just in time to ride the wave of rage and wrath toward poor fellas trying to earn a few pennies (this shouldn't be misconstrued as if I were justifying shit posting). I'm curious if I'm the only one who sees these events as closely connected...

Or am I the only one who has enough courage to speak it out loud?

[Decoded]

The proposal has been accepted (not yet implemented):

<theymos> ok, I'll add it to my to-do list and we'll see if it causes any problems

As to me, it looks more like a polite refusal than actual acceptance. In any case, we have only to wait and see now what will come out of your proposal at the end of the day. Personally, I'm very skeptical and suspicious of these poorly concealed attempts at grabbing more power across the forum, at first through such "interest checks" and then by kicking up a racket about "elections" of a new global moderator...

But maybe it is just me, after all

Global Mod just gives the mod responsibility over a larger area of the forum. It doesn't give them any extra power besides deleting/moving posts and respect. The ones with real power are the admins.

So you're opposing the fact that Lauda wants a new global mod to be the choice of the community? You'd rather it just go on silently and behind the scenes, like with Cyrus?

It seems like you have some sort of personal vendetta towards Lauda, so I'll just stop here.


So let me get this straight. You believe that Lauda is just selfish and wants the power to themself?

And your proof is that she is all of a sudden making a bunch of new topics related to mod spots?

This thread has nothing to do with that, in any case. This is about making it visible to whether a user is banned or not. What do you have against that, huh? I don't see a reason, besides someone's privacy. However, if they're banned, they shouldn't care anymore.

[Lauda]

But as I said in one of my earlier posts in this thread, it justifies giving new privileges and rights, and as it eventually turned out, it came down to adding a new global moderator.

No, that is not the case. All this proposal does is change the rank of permanently banned users to 'Banned'.

As I got it, only global moderators can give out permanent bans, right?

Correct, global moderators and admins.

At first this "interest check" which shows that people are eager to see more blood spilt, and then the "elections" which arrive just in time to ride the wave of rage and wrath toward poor fellas trying to earn a few pennies (this shouldn't be misconstrued as if I were justifying shit posting). I'm curious if I'm the only one who sees these events as closely connected...

I've suggested this proposal to theymos after it has been mentioned somewhere else, and they told me to create a thread. The elections were actually not my idea, I was just one of the people that helped create it.

So you're opposing the fact that Lauda wants a new global mod to be the choice of the community?

Ultimately theymos decides (or does not decide) based on the factors that they seem most important, but the election is off-topic here.
This is one of the rare times that I hear complaints about doing things transparently (regarding the 'Banned' rank in particular).

[deisik]

Personally, I'm very skeptical and suspicious of these poorly concealed attempts at grabbing more power across the forum, at first through such "interest checks" and then by kicking up a racket about "elections" of a new global moderator...

Would you honestly prefer it if things went on entirely behind closed doors? I like things such as Interest Checks as it gives a chance for the community to say how they feel about a certain addition to the forum. If a feature is implemented into the forum that negatively affected people here it wouldn't be very good for the forum or the community, something like an interest check prevents this from happening

Not all things, of course. But some of them should not be really discussed in public for the reasons that I have explained in the Elections Discussion thread. In short, because such discussions could potentially affect the objectivity and impartiality of the decisions to be taken on these issues by the decision makers (forum administration). On a more global level, it essentially boils down to claiming that democracy (i.e. the right of majority), which you implicitly refer to here, doesn't work if applied for real...

In other words, majority might not be always right, and that could be devastatingly detrimental

If you're against the person posting them, tough; Lauda seems to be one of the few staff members trying to help things here. Posting thread such as this gives Lauda no power over anything to do with the forum without theymos' permission. If you can't trust that theymos would do the right thing, you shouldn't be here

So far I see a rather poorly concealed strife for power

[deisik]

As to me, it looks more like a polite refusal than actual acceptance. In any case, we have only to wait and see now what will come out of your proposal at the end of the day. Personally, I'm very skeptical and suspicious of these poorly concealed attempts at grabbing more power across the forum, at first through such "interest checks" and then by kicking up a racket about "elections" of a new global moderator...

But maybe it is just me, after all

Global Mod just gives the mod responsibility over a larger area of the forum. It doesn't give them any extra power besides deleting/moving posts and respect. The ones with real power are the admins.

Rome was not built in a day

So you're opposing the fact that Lauda wants a new global mod to be the choice of the community? You'd rather it just go on silently and behind the scenes, like with Cyrus?

Yes, such matters should not be discussed publicly. When you hire somebody for a job, you don't discuss them with other employees. And no, I don't mind if Lauda wants to be a new global moderator. In fact, it is not bad overall that someone might want to become a moderator. If you ask me, I don't want, but then again, it is just me (I'm more inclined to anarchy and personal responsibility). In fact, I'm not even against Lauda as a new global moderator (or someone else, for that matter). I rather question the methods chosen to get there...

You may deem that as a reply to your assumption of some personal vendetta against her (just in case, there's none)

So let me get this straight. You believe that Lauda is just selfish and wants the power to themself?

It is not a question of belief. It is a fact that everyone is selfish and acts in his own best interests as he understands them (and in someone else's, to the degree he doesn't)

[neochiny]

I would like to ask when this would be implemented?

I hope it's done soon as it would really be a big help.

I report users who copy/paste in the forum, but I always end up somewhat confused and worried because I have no way to see for myself if my report was seen or acted upon by the mods.  
There's always the chance that it might have been missed due to them being swamped at the time.

So, I always check the account/s I've reported to see and check if there was any indication that they were banned.
There was nothing I could see, and so in the end, just to make sure, I always send a PM to Lauda to report it directly.
It's the only way I could be at ease since they always make sure to send me a message to confirm that the appropriate action has been taken.

And so, Please implement this 'banned' title as soon as you can. It would be a great help for us who try to contribute to the forum since it would eliminate the need for the 'wait and see', and all that 'back and forth'.

(I sometimes hesitate to send a report because what if 'It's already been reported' or 'It's already been acted upon'?
I do not wish to waste other's time but there is just no way for me to check for myself.)
If you have suggestions, please say so, but I do not wish to engage in debate/nitpicking just for the sake of.

As you may have noticed, I'm not a native speaker and have trouble expressing myself, so apologies for any error.
Thank You.

[DarkStar_]

I report users who copy/paste in the forum, but I always end up somewhat confused and worried because I have no way to see for myself if my report was seen or acted upon by the mods.  
There's always the chance that it might have been missed due to them being swamped at the time.

So, I always check the account/s I've reported to see and check if there was any indication that they were banned.
There was nothing I could see, and so in the end, just to make sure, I always send a PM to Lauda to report it directly.
It's the only way I could be at ease since they always make sure to send me a message to confirm that the appropriate action has been taken.

Copy and pasting has always been a permaban IIRC, and permabanned accounts' signatures are removed.

[neochiny]

--

Copy and pasting has always been a permaban IIRC, and permabanned accounts' signatures are removed.

I see. I did a quick check on some and they were indeed missing their signatures. Thanks, DarkStar!

Edit: It works on the higher ranks but not on Member, lower, those who have yet to join a campaign, or those still being ranked up/farmed. Still, it's a great start. Again, thank you for the info.

[Lauda]

Copy and pasting has always been a permaban IIRC, and permabanned accounts' signatures are removed.

Correct. However, keep in mind that it still does not help if:
1) Member in question had no signature or relevant information in the first place.
2) You encounter the member in question after they've been banned. You can't know whether they had been wearing a signature prior unless you do some digging or report it to a moderator (hence this being time wasteful).

[botany]

I report users who copy/paste in the forum, but I always end up somewhat confused and worried because I have no way to see for myself if my report was seen or acted upon by the mods.  
There's always the chance that it might have been missed due to them being swamped at the time.

So, I always check the account/s I've reported to see and check if there was any indication that they were banned.
There was nothing I could see, and so in the end, just to make sure, I always send a PM to Lauda to report it directly.
It's the only way I could be at ease since they always make sure to send me a message to confirm that the appropriate action has been taken.

Copy and pasting has always been a permaban IIRC, and permabanned accounts' signatures are removed.

There is always a nagging doubt about whether the signature has been removed due to a ban, or whether the user has removed the signatures.
In case of permabans, which are due to your copy-paste report, the best way is to check the modlog. Perma-bans are reported there.

[deisik]

I report users who copy/paste in the forum, but I always end up somewhat confused and worried because I have no way to see for myself if my report was seen or acted upon by the mods. 
There's always the chance that it might have been missed due to them being swamped at the time.

So, I always check the account/s I've reported to see and check if there was any indication that they were banned.
There was nothing I could see, and so in the end, just to make sure, I always send a PM to Lauda to report it directly.
It's the only way I could be at ease since they always make sure to send me a message to confirm that the appropriate action has been taken.

Copy and pasting has always been a permaban IIRC, and permabanned accounts' signatures are removed.

There is always a nagging doubt about whether the signature has been removed due to a ban, or whether the user has removed the signatures.
In case of permabans, which are due to your copy-paste report, the best way is to check the modlog. Perma-bans are reported there.

I heard about that but didn't pay attention to this fact at that moment. Basically, it means that all arguments about local agents Bonds looking for copy-pasters and pretending that they can't know if a user has been banned already are unfounded, at least as far I can see. Since it doesn't make sense to grant the Banned rank to a member who is in a temporary ban, this reason (i.e. being unable to determine if a member has a permaban) is not very convincing...

If I'm not missing something, of course

[LoyceV]

If I'm not missing something, of course

Modlog only goes back a few days (or maybe weeks).

[botany]

If I'm not missing something, of course

Modlog only goes back a few days (or maybe weeks).

The last 7 days' activity can be found there.
I had raised a question of whether the full (or a slightly longer) log can be made available.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1209243.0
If this is done, it would list out all the permabans.....

[Lauda]

The last 7 days' activity can be found there.
I had raised a question of whether the full (or a slightly longer) log can be made available.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1209243.0
If this is done, it would list out all the permabans.....

I guess increasing the length of the log is another option. However, that would not work for older bans (unless it was made permanently viewable) and it would be inefficient in comparison to just having the user have the rank.

[botany]

The last 7 days' activity can be found there.
I had raised a question of whether the full (or a slightly longer) log can be made available.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1209243.0
If this is done, it would list out all the permabans.....

I guess increasing the length of the log is another option. However, that would not work for older bans (unless it was made permanently viewable) and it would be inefficient in comparison to just having the user have the rank.

Correct. But making the full modlog would bring out other useful information too.
Like the number of posts of a user which have been deleted..

[deisik]

The last 7 days' activity can be found there.
I had raised a question of whether the full (or a slightly longer) log can be made available.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1209243.0
If this is done, it would list out all the permabans.....

I guess increasing the length of the log is another option. However, that would not work for older bans (unless it was made permanently viewable) and it would be inefficient in comparison to just having the user have the rank

I'm curious when peeps will finally stop contriving arguments for justifying the introduction of the Banned rank? Is there really anyone interested if some user got a permaban a month ago? What would be the purpose of that if that user is no longer able to post thanks to the ban anyway? The main argument in favor of adding this ugly rank seems to help catch copy-pasters, but if an alleged scofflaw hasn't been posting for a week or longer, aren't we already there?

In respect to making longer logs, what prevents the agents of justice and masters of destinies from just copying this log daily?

[Lauda]

I'm curious when peeps will finally stop contriving arguments for justifying the introduction of the Banned rank? Is there really anyone interested if some user got a permaban a month ago? What would be the purpose of that if that user is no longer able to post thanks to the ban anyway?

The idea is to save time and avoid uncertainty. I could say that a fair % of reports that I get via PM have already been handled (i.e. banned). Not only does this waste my own time, but also the time of the person that wrote up the report (unless they are the first one to catch the violator). I'm certain that this happens to other moderators as well.

The main argument in favor of adding this ugly rank seems to help catch copy-pasters, but if an alleged scofflaw hasn't been posting for a week or longer, aren't we already there?

It applies for different kinds of violations. There are plenty of people who are contributing (specifically reporting) to the forum and in favor of this. I don't see why we should listen to the non contributors (does this include you?), since it doesn't really affect them. It would be easier to find ban evading alts for the people looking into that, but that's another story.

In respect to making longer logs, what prevents the agents of justice and masters of destinies from copying this log daily?

Nothing. This is a question for botany, as I don't have a stance on the log.

[deisik]

I'm curious when peeps will finally stop contriving arguments for justifying the introduction of the Banned rank? Is there really anyone interested if some user got a permaban a month ago? What would be the purpose of that if that user is no longer able to post thanks to the ban anyway?

The idea is to save time and avoid uncertainty. I could say that a fair % of reports that I get via PM have already been handled (i.e. banned). Not only does this waste my own time, but also the time of the person that wrote up the report (unless they are the first one to catch the violator). I'm certain that this happens to other moderators as well

Doesn't the aforementioned log do just that already?

The main argument in favor of adding this ugly rank seems to help catch copy-pasters, but if an alleged scofflaw hasn't been posting for a week or longer, aren't we already there?

It applies for different kinds of violations. There are plenty of people who are contributing (specifically reporting) to the forum and in favor of this. I don't see why we should listen to the non contributors (does this include you?), since it doesn't really affect them. It would be easier to find ban evading alts for the people looking into that, but that's another story

I'm actually curious what is driving all these people, I mean supporters of this idea (not the people who search for body doubles, though they seem to be mostly the same individuals). Are they just striving for more blood spilt? If they are sincere and do really want to help forum get rid of shitty posters and the garbage they post (I'm all in, just in case), why don't they just stick to using this log? If it is not very handy for this aim, a utility can be designed for analyzing it specifically for this purpose. People have been writing all kinds of scripts for obtaining various statistics about the forum, so there shouldn't be any difficulty in developing a specialized tool for these headhunters, right?

What are their real motives?

[Lauda]

Doesn't the aforementioned log do just that already?

As I've already mentioned, it doesn't work in several scenarios and isn't as efficient as a user rank would be. Unless there is a tool, that is easily available for all of the reporters, which keeps track and helps with analyzing the log, then this just isn't enough.

I'm actually curious what is driving all these people,
-snip-

What are their real motives?

Who are these people that you're talking about? I do not like to speculate regarding their intentions. I'll let someone else do this.

[botany]

In respect to making longer logs, what prevents the agents of justice and masters of destinies from just copying this log daily?

Nothing. In fact, I did maintain a summary of the perma-bans.
I think I have the list from September 2015 to around Feb 2016.
Then I got tired of doing it.