[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?

[1715030209]

1715030209

[1715030209]

1715030209

[1715030209]

1715030209

[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.