[Interest Check] - User Rank 'Banned'

[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.

[1714867230]

1714867230

[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