[Interest Check] - Analyzing modlog for permabans

[unamis76]

As someone who keeps an eye on the forums, sometimes the patrol page and reports some posts, I am in favor of anything that helps to catch spammers, copy pasters, etc. However I don't see how this extra information could be useful in catching spammers. A live Patrol page would be something much more useful in this task. Maybe this could be a reality, some day, on the new forums.

[1714493647]

1714493647

[1714493647]

1714493647

[1714493647]

1714493647

[1714493647]

1714493647

[1714493647]

1714493647

[deisik]

As someone who keeps an eye on the forums, sometimes the patrol page and reports some posts, I am in favor of anything that helps to catch spammers, copy pasters, etc. However I don't see how this extra information could be useful in catching spammers. A live Patrol page would be something much more useful in this task. Maybe this could be a reality, some day, on the new forums.

Well, the headhunters and their likes are feverishly supporting the idea of adding the Banned rank on the account that it will let them avoid reporting already banned users as well as free mods from reading their reports. While I have some serious scruples about their activity, I certainly agree with them in this respect. But since there is no such rank at Bitcointalk so far (and I hope there will never be), the use of the modlog for finding users recently permabanned seems to be the only viable alternative as of yet (and as to me, it is the best alternative to the Banned rank out there)...

So what did I miss exactly in your reasoning?

[Quickseller]

I don't think theymos wants the forum to become too much of a police state. The forum is probably in more of a police state now then it ideally should be.

It's arguable if it's necessary. I doubt the forum is currently serving it's initial purpose to most users, therefore behaviors have to change along with it.

Some chances might be necessary for the forum, however I don't think a police state is ever the answer. This will do nothing other than drive people away from the community, especially considering the privacy ideals that most of the community values.

If I were to create a thread of list of perma-bans, which would be the right board to create it in?
Reputation board?

Just because a user is "perma-banned" today does not mean the ban will not be reversed some time in the future if they ask nicely. Also, just because someone is perma-banned does not mean they will be disallowed from participating in the community in the future if they use an alternate account.

[deisik]

Just because a user is "perma-banned" today does not mean the ban will not be reversed some time in the future if they ask nicely

This is another reason against public bans

If bans are made visible (e.g. by bestowing a Banned rank on a user), it will be a lot more difficult to revoke the ban. Right now, it is a business between a moderator and a user, and no one beside them would know if the ban was given, contested and probably lifted. When the bans are public (and still more so if it is made known who banned a certain user), revoking the ban will be something out of extraordinary since that would basically mean admission of being wrong by the moderator giving the ban, and people will inevitably start to question the authority of this moderator on account of that

[Quickseller]

Just because a user is "perma-banned" today does not mean the ban will not be reversed some time in the future if they ask nicely

This is another reason against public bans

If bans are made visible (e.g. by bestowing a Banned rank on a user), it will be a lot more difficult to revoke the ban. Right now, it is a business between a moderator and a user, and no one beside them would know if the ban was given, contested and probably lifted. When the bans are public (and still more so if it is made known who banned a certain user), revoking the ban will be something out of extraordinary since that would basically mean admission of being wrong by the moderator giving the ban, and people will inevitably start to question the authority of this moderator on account of that

Not necessarily the moderator making a mistake. Bans are sometimes lifted if the person who got banned did not cause excessive amounts of trouble, was a semi-decent contributor to the community in one way or another prior to getting banned, and asked nicely to be allowed to participate in the community again.  

But yes, making the fact that someone is/was banned public will make these instances more heavily scrutinized, which will lead to less people participating in the community.

[botany]

If I were to create a thread of list of perma-bans, which would be the right board to create it in?
Reputation board?

I think both Meta and Reputation would be acceptable for something like that in one way or another. Do you plan on doing that or are you just asking out of curiosity?

I do plan on creating one.
As I said earlier, I had kept a track of permabans for a few months in 2015. Then  I grew tired of it.
Let me go look at the reputation section.

[unamis76]

As someone who keeps an eye on the forums, sometimes the patrol page and reports some posts, I am in favor of anything that helps to catch spammers, copy pasters, etc. However I don't see how this extra information could be useful in catching spammers. A live Patrol page would be something much more useful in this task. Maybe this could be a reality, some day, on the new forums.

Well, the headhunters and their likes are feverishly supporting the idea of adding the Banned rank on the account that it will let them avoid reporting already banned users as well as free mods from reading their reports. While I have some serious scruples about their activity, I certainly agree with them in this respect. But since there is no such rank at Bitcointalk so far (and I hope there will never be), the use of the modlog for finding users recently permabanned seems to be the only viable alternative as of yet (and as to me, it is the best alternative to the Banned rank out there)...

So what did I miss exactly in your reasoning?

Are reports about already banned users hindering Staff/Moderation duties? I don't see how can there be a continuous surge of reports regarding already banned users. A user violates rules, is reported, then banned. In some/most cases, the violation may be deleted or the user nuked entirely. If a post that violates the forum rules isn't deleted after the ban, then it simply gets buried... I don't see this attracting too many erroneous reports, it's unlikely that someone will be reporting a post made a week or a month ago by a user that's already banned.

What I essentially mean is when there's a problem and it gets reported X number of times, the problem will be dealt with and it will "wear off" so to speak.

Maybe there's more to this in the Banned rank thread, which I haven't read...

[deisik]

Just because a user is "perma-banned" today does not mean the ban will not be reversed some time in the future if they ask nicely

This is another reason against public bans

If bans are made visible (e.g. by bestowing a Banned rank on a user), it will be a lot more difficult to revoke the ban. Right now, it is a business between a moderator and a user, and no one beside them would know if the ban was given, contested and probably lifted. When the bans are public (and still more so if it is made known who banned a certain user), revoking the ban will be something out of extraordinary since that would basically mean admission of being wrong by the moderator giving the ban, and people will inevitably start to question the authority of this moderator on account of that

Not necessarily the moderator making a mistake. Bans are sometimes lifted if the person who got banned did not cause excessive amounts of trouble, was a semi-decent contributor to the community in one way or another prior to getting banned, and asked nicely to be allowed to participate in the community again

I'm afraid that with public bans it will be next to impossible. Let's face the facts, by declaring the ban public, a moderator is burning the bridges behind him. Lifting the ban later means that the ban shouldn't be given at all, and it was just that, a mistake. No mod is going to recognize this in public simply because it will be equal to recognizing his mistake. But that means that the mod is not quite fit for his job, plain and simple. It could work out once or twice, but bans won't revoked...

It is a one way ticket

[rizzlarolla]

Just because a user is "perma-banned" today does not mean the ban will not be reversed some time in the future if they ask nicely

This is another reason against public bans

If bans are made visible (e.g. by bestowing a Banned rank on a user), it will be a lot more difficult to revoke the ban. Right now, it is a business between a moderator and a user, and no one beside them would know if the ban was given, contested and probably lifted. When the bans are public (and still more so if it is made known who banned a certain user), revoking the ban will be something out of extraordinary since that would basically mean admission of being wrong by the moderator giving the ban, and people will inevitably start to question the authority of this moderator on account of that

Not necessarily the moderator making a mistake. Bans are sometimes lifted if the person who got banned did not cause excessive amounts of trouble, was a semi-decent contributor to the community in one way or another prior to getting banned, and asked nicely to be allowed to participate in the community again

I'm afraid that with public bans it will be next to impossible. Let's face the facts, by declaring the ban public, a moderator is burning the bridges behind him. Lifting the ban later means that the ban shouldn't be given at all, and it was just that, a mistake. No mod is going to recognize this in public simply because it will be equal to recognizing his mistake. But that means that the mod is not quite fit for his job, plain and simple. It could work out once or twice, but bans won't revoked...

It is a one way ticket

Is it just me? You talk total bollocks.

Oh, the poor banned user must be protected until he can be "unpermabanned".
I don't see any support for your objections, except maybe QS.

I think everyone knows the reason this is not implemented is simply because theymos is such a dork.
He loves spammers and scammers and those who talk bollocks on his forum.

[deisik]

Is it just me? You talk total bollocks.

Oh, the poor banned user must be protected until he can be "unpermabanned".
I don't see any support for your objections, except maybe QS.

I think everyone knows the reason this is not implemented is simply because theymos is such a dork.
He loves spammers and scammers and those who talk bollocks on his forum.

What is the purpose of you posting this?

Well, the headhunters and their likes are feverishly supporting the idea of adding the Banned rank on the account that it will let them avoid reporting already banned users as well as free mods from reading their reports. While I have some serious scruples about their activity, I certainly agree with them in this respect. But since there is no such rank at Bitcointalk so far (and I hope there will never be), the use of the modlog for finding users recently permabanned seems to be the only viable alternative as of yet (and as to me, it is the best alternative to the Banned rank out there)...

So what did I miss exactly in your reasoning?

Are reports about already banned users hindering Staff/Moderation duties? I don't see how can there be a continuous surge of reports regarding already banned users. A user violates rules, is reported, then banned. In some/most cases, the violation may be deleted or the user nuked entirely. If a post that violates the forum rules isn't deleted after the ban, then it simply gets buried... I don't see this attracting too many erroneous reports, it's unlikely that someone will be reporting a post made a week or a month ago by a user that's already banned.

What I essentially mean is when there's a problem and it gets reported X number of times, the problem will be dealt with and it will "wear off" so to speak

This is the major argument of the headhunters and those sympathizing with them. Namely, that it would "save a fair amount of time for the parties involved". This argument has been repeated many times already. In fact, I agree with it if we consider this issue in isolation, though it still remains to be seen how plausible these claims are. Strictly speaking, I'm not against headhunters and their likes as long as they don't lose their own head while pursuing spammers, farmers and other suspicious types...

But the matter is more intricate than that

[Joel_Jantsen]

Well, it kinda seems that the idea of introducing the Banned rank didn't catch on (and personally, I'm quite happy and satisfied with this outcome).

Started a new topic ? Retaliation much ?

But there are still people who are busy with finding copy-pasters as well as other violators, and they claim that such a rank could help them greatly in their butcher job (which may well be the case) since they don't know if the offending user has already been banned. The modlog could help them in their toil, though in its raw form it may not be quite handy and usable overall...

I doubt there are as many active members who find copy pasters on regular basis.Only hilariousandco does most of the hard work.I still do not understand what's the point ?

So, is there a need for developing a tool for analyzing this log and representing its data in a more readable format for these activists (and mods alike)?

How many copy paste posters have you reported last week ? Apart from making controversial threads,I don't see you taking any actions.

[deisik]

Well, it kinda seems that the idea of introducing the Banned rank didn't catch on (and personally, I'm quite happy and satisfied with this outcome).

Started a new topic ? Retaliation much ?

Retaliation for what, I'm sorry?

After all, the Banned rank didn't get introduced, so what exactly should I retaliate for, and to whom? I've learned about the existence of the modlog, which allows to catch permabans in close to real time (with some reservations), and if there is actually a need to see who has been permabanned recently, this log, in the absence of the Banned rank, could help the headhunters. Provided the problem really exists in the first place, of course (which I now seriously doubt)

But there are still people who are busy with finding copy-pasters as well as other violators, and they claim that such a rank could help them greatly in their butcher job (which may well be the case) since they don't know if the offending user has already been banned. The modlog could help them in their toil, though in its raw form it may not be quite handy and usable overall...

I doubt there are as many active members who find copy pasters on regular basis.Only hilariousandco does most of the hard work.I still do not understand what's the point ?

So all those claims about the need of introducing the Banned rank for the purpose of making the lives of headhunters and mods alike are fake and far-fetched, right?

So, is there a need for developing a tool for analyzing this log and representing its data in a more readable format for these activists (and mods alike)?

How many copy paste posters have you reported last week ? Apart from making controversial threads,I don't see you taking any actions.

I don't search for copy-pasters specifically, but if I see them, I report them. So what's your point?

[Joel_Jantsen]

Retaliation for what, I'm sorry?

You said,you're "personally satisfied" that the banned rank didn't get introduced.Why would you be happy over something which was meant to help the community?

So all those claims about the need of introducing the Banned rank for the purpose of making the lives of headhunters and mods alike are fake and far-fetched, right?

No they aren't.It wouldn't matter as much.From what I have seen,the number of headhunters and mods who actively take care of copy-paste posters are comparatively low and this isn't a topic one should be bragging about.

I don't search for copy-pasters specifically,

Exactly.And hence my point.

[rizzlarolla]

I don't see any support for your objections, except maybe QS.

What is the purpose of you posting this?

After 2 days feverishly protesting, 100% of poll respondents disagree with OP.
Same as on the original thread.

Yes, it would greatly help both mods and headhunters   - 1 (100%)
No, it will only make these activists and mods lazy   - 0 (0%)
The access to modlog should be denied to everyone   - 0 (0%)

My bad, i guess QS ain't too bothered after all.

[deisik]

Retaliation for what, I'm sorry?

You said,you're "personally satisfied" that the banned rank didn't get introduced.Why would you be happy over something which was meant to help the community?

But where's retaliation here?

If something turned out in your favor over time, wouldn't you be "personally satisfied" too? I'm happy because even if this idea (that of the Banned rank) was meant to help the community, it would only cause real damage in exchange for dubious benefits (the reasons why I'm thinking so I explained before). To tell the truth, I think that the whole shebang with the Banned rank was only a cover for something else, which I also noted earlier, and the events that followed proved my point. I'm not going to discuss this here since it is basically none of my business (at least, I hope that it will never be), and I deplore you from discussing it either if you understand what I refer to. If you don't, then let's leave it at that

So all those claims about the need of introducing the Banned rank for the purpose of making the lives of headhunters and mods alike are fake and far-fetched, right?

No they aren't.It wouldn't matter as much.From what I have seen,the number of headhunters and mods who actively take care of copy-paste posters are comparatively low and this isn't a topic one should be bragging about

I guess you should finally make up your mind whether the introduction of the Banned rank would be justified or not on account of that (since this is the cheval de bataille of the supporters of this idea)

I don't search for copy-pasters specifically,

Exactly.And hence my point.

So, in your opinion, I'm prohibited from pointing out the advantages of using the modlog to those who do as well as checking the interest toward a tool or service that will make this log more useful and handy to them. Did I get your point right?

[shorena]

-snip-
Oh, the poor banned user must be protected until he can be "unpermabanned".
I don't see any support for your objections, except maybe QS.

I think everyone knows the reason this is not implemented is simply because theymos is such a dork.
He loves spammers and scammers and those who talk bollocks on his forum.

Youd be surprised how many members had been banned before, but got the message and are now contributing to this forum.

[deisik]

Youd be surprised how many members had been banned before, but got the message and are now contributing to this forum.

I heard that even Lauda and hilarious had once been banned, though I don't know if it's true or not. I don't think either that they will tell if they really were

I don't see any support for your objections, except maybe QS.

What is the purpose of you posting this?

After 2 days feverishly protesting, 100% of poll respondents disagree with OP.
Same as on the original thread.

Yes, it would greatly help both mods and headhunters   - 1 (100%)
No, it will only make these activists and mods lazy   - 0 (0%)
The access to modlog should be denied to everyone   - 0 (0%)

My bad, i guess QS ain't too bothered after all.

What makes you think that it was not me checking that option?

Typically, people adding polls choose as the first option what they prefer themselves. Other than that, I'm really perplexed by the fact that you haven't yet understood that I in fact support using the modlog as a viable alternative to the Banned rank, and precisely on the account why I'm against the introduction of that rank, i.e. because folks won't be intimidated by seeing users stigmatized as Banned. I'm against spam as everyone else, though I still disapprove of what the headhunters are doing, apart from going after the users who are copy-pasting, of course (the latter have no excuse and should burn in Hell)

[shorena]

Youd be surprised how many members had been banned before, but got the message and are now contributing to this forum.

I heard that even Lauda and hilarious had once been banned, though I don't know if it's true or not. I don't think either that they will tell if they really were

They will probably answer a politely asked question regarding that.

[Lauda]

Youd be surprised how many members had been banned before, but got the message and are now contributing to this forum.

I heard that even Lauda and hilarious had once been banned, though I don't know if it's true or not. I don't think either that they will tell if they really were

They will probably answer a politely asked question regarding that.

I don't know about hilarious, but I was banned twice (maybe in 2014). The 'Banned' rank and this suggestion would only display permanent bans, thus I am not the right example here. Although rare, I'm sure that there are more.