[Interest Check] - User Rank 'Banned'

[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.

[1714866070]

1714866070

[1714866070]

1714866070

[1714866070]

1714866070

[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.