[Interest Check] - User Rank 'Banned'

[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.

[1714864464]

1714864464

[1714864464]

1714864464

[1714864464]

1714864464

[1714864464]

1714864464

[1714864464]

1714864464

[1714864464]

1714864464

[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