[Interest Check] - User Rank 'Banned'

[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.