Eliminate ban appeals, but change the perma ban at the same time.

[PrimeNumber7]

It would have been a 'middle ground' that would make some people think a bit more. Taking the threats / plagiarized content off the table since I have been here for 8+ years and have a good history I would have to do something EPIC to get a perma ban. And there are more then a few users like me. This way the mods have another tool in their pocket.

This is not true. In order for you to get a perma ban, a mod/admin would need to "press the ban button" on your profile. If ban appeals were eliminated, you would lose the ability to contest a ban if you were banned in error for example.

[Poker Player]

You know something?  I'd be willing to bet that most of these plagiarists have alt accounts waiting in the wings in case one of them gets banned for plagiarism or whatever else, sort of like naim027. 

Speaking of scumbag. Does anyone doubt that at this very moment Naim027, AnotherAlt, etc. that scumbag is already farming up another account or two?

I am 100% in agreement here. 10000000000000% of the users that have been banned for offenses like plagiarism or spamming or whatever just accept the fact that that account is banned and either make a new account, already had an alt account they use, or would look to buy an account. Being banned on this forum doesn't really do anything but cost you the account that is banned.

I do agree that we need to get rid of ban appeals period. There may be a special case that pops up (unsure what that would be at this time), but for the most part just eliminate them altogether. If someone is doing something that gets them a permaban, do we really want them coming back?

I also agree. With a rule something like, "if I get a permaban you can't appeal within the one year period except to show that, in fact, a mistake has been made." I say that because sometimes a mistake can be made. But not appeal to say that it would be more positive for the community to have your account restored.

Haven't you ever heard a leopard cannot change his spots? The naim027 appeal was the last straw IMO. He made the forum look foolish and he had higher ups(at least 1) protect his secret.

Yes, there have been a few little secrets around here lately. And instead of regretting it, I'm glad I revealed one myself.

[yahoo62278]

You know something?  I'd be willing to bet that most of these plagiarists have alt accounts waiting in the wings in case one of them gets banned for plagiarism or whatever else, sort of like naim027. 

Speaking of scumbag. Does anyone doubt that at this very moment Naim027, AnotherAlt, etc. that scumbag is already farming up another account or two?

Being as he could not wait for his ban appeal to be answered 1 way or the other, my guess is he is still using the forum under an alias not yet found out. In time someone will get bored and scrape the forum and maybe link him to another accounts.

[lovesmayfamilis]

If you forbid the possibility of creating a certain number of alternative accounts, then the attitude towards their easy creation would change dramatically. How do many poker casinos determine that a user has already been in their system? They use an anti-fraud system, and this is not only a block by IP address but also many other fingerprints that the user leaves on the sites. All this, of course, can be bypassed, but this adds complexity for unprepared people.
Based on all this, the rules that exist today would sound more complete and logical. If you can not appear on the forum after the ban, then bypassing the protection would be more difficult, and for some, it is simply impossible.
The number of bounty cheaters and those who create new accounts without problems today would have sharply decreased if they received a negative tag.
But today the rules are written so that many can break them, thereby proving the rules' inferiority.

[Solosanz]

I disagree,

If permanent banned user has a chance to comeback in this forum and it's only need his merit to start from 0, a merit seeker can earn merit so easy since they're know how to create merit phishing thread and attract merit sources to look into his posts.

Ban appeals is needed especially for a user who get banned by just copied 1-2 liners and it's not even worth to be copied to be honest, but rules is rules and the user deserve to get permanent banned.

I would propose newbie user shouldn't get banned except he already broke the plagiarism rules for 2-3x times which he already aware of plagiarism rule is exist in this forum.

[Findingnemo]

I am kind of convinced with this idea because more strict the rules then better place it will become but I feel it has to be handled case by case because for various reasons a member may get banned temporarily not just for spamming so more work pressure for the mods so just let it be, cause even now most people who banned permanently may come with new account but they have to start from the beginning and all so the current system is doing the work efficiently so I don't want to give more work load for the staffs.

[Poker Player]

If you forbid the possibility of creating a certain number of alternative accounts, then the attitude towards their easy creation would change dramatically.

I talked about this recently in another thread:

I think theymos is not in favor of it, but I think the alts should be controlled in some way. It is good to have a couple of alts as many of you have, or even create another to say controversial things that someone wants to say without being recognized, but this to be able to create infinite alts that go building trust despite being a recognized cheaters or also create alts everywhere to question the reputation of forum members I think it should be put some limit.

There's no point in making a rule that can't be enforced.

How do many poker casinos determine that a user has already been in their system? They use an anti-fraud system, and this is not only a block by IP address but also many other fingerprints that the user leaves on the sites. All this, of course, can be bypassed, but this adds complexity for unprepared people.

I don't know if you're referring to how it works where you live, but in regulated Europe you have to pass KYC before you can bet with money. Without KYC you can still bet with play money but to play with money you have to send ID card or passport and maybe some other documents. Apart from that, Pokerstars has a great anti-fraud department.

In principle I would be in favor of putting some limit on the creation of alts but I think LoyceV is right that it could not be enforced. It would make things a bit more difficult, yes, but not much.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I don't know if you're referring to how it works where you live, but in regulated Europe you have to pass KYC 

I'm talking about the same casinos and paid sites where multi-accounting can be beneficial and work on the Internet. Providing documents that are sold and bought in batches on carding forums will not play a big role, without the uniqueness of the user's system. Anti-fraud analyzes the characteristics of browser fingerprints and, even without registration, can understand whether this user has been on the site before or not.

[Igebotz]

I don't know if you're referring to how it works where you live, but in regulated Europe you have to pass KYC 

I'm talking about the same casinos and paid sites where multi-accounting can be beneficial and work on the Internet. Providing documents that are sold and bought in batches on carding forums will not play a big role, without the uniqueness of the user's system. Anti-fraud analyzes the characteristics of browser fingerprints and, even without registration, can understand whether this user has been on the site before or not.

Not a bad idea, but how would the system detect someone who accesses the forum using Tor browsers or a VPN that does not store a user's browsing log or history? How would the proposed system identify such people?

If you forbid the possibility of creating a certain number of alternative accounts, then the attitude towards their easy creation would change dramatically.

I talked about this recently in another thread:

there are somethings beyond the admin control and limiting the number of alt account is one of them, it would be difficult to detect someone creating multiple account from different IP addresses. its either having alt account is prohibited or nothing.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Not a bad idea, but how would the system detect someone who accesses the forum using Tor browsers or a VPN that does not store a user's browsing log or history? How would the proposed system identify such people?

Not always changing the IP address can serve as a reassurance to the user that he is unique.
You can look at these articles, which say that in addition to changing the IP, there are still a lot of ways in which you can track a person and talk about their uniqueness. By changing the IP accordingly, everything related to the user's system will remain unchanged, and sites that have anti-fraud protection installed will very easily see their unique users, even if they try to change their IP. And those who use TOR immediately have a negative attitude.
There are a lot of trackers that are almost impossible for a simple user to change without additional equipment and knowledge.

https://webkay.robinlinus.com/
https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/

[PowerGlove]

I think my previous post on page 1 might have been missed by some, because it contained a discussion-worthy idea (I thought). DaveF is looking for something harsher than temporary bans, but not as harsh as permanent ones, so that the mods/staff have more options to choose from when they're considering what kind of punishment is appropriate (at least, that's my impression). I like his thinking, because I believe that bans (especially permanent ones) usually just lead to new account creation and ban evasion, anyway.

So, I think a new type of punishment that is harsh but doesn't incentivize new account creation is a good idea. One type of punishment I can think of that would satisfy both constraints is de-ranking (by way of "activity reductions"). As an example, let's say that a "Sr. Member" (with 300 activity) plagiarized something and instead of the mods banning them, they decided to reduce that account's activity from 300 all the way down to 30 (sending them back to "Jr. Member"). On their profile, activity might appear like this "Activity: 30 (+270)". Because everything else about their account is left intact (merit, trust feedback, etc.) I think it's very likely that they would keep posting under that account and wouldn't abandon it for a new one. You could even make the "reduction" temporary in some/most cases, so that mistakes that people have learned from don't end up haunting their account forever.

I suppose it covers some of the same ground as signature bans do, but it's a little more configurable (e.g. reducing an account's activity by just the right amount would still let them participate in campaigns, but only at the lower tiers). I can imagine scenarios where all of the types of bans that I'm aware of (temporary, signature and permanent) would lead to new account creation. But with activity reductions, I think the mods would basically always be able to find a pair of values (how much activity to remove, and how long to remove it for) that would leave the account in a state where it doesn't make sense to abandon it.

I know I've previously said that I'm against de-ranking, but that was in the context of Fivestar4everMVP's idea of reducing mindless posting by penalizing people for not earning enough merit within a given time window. As a punishment for offenses that would normally lead to bans, I think it's an idea that's worth serious consideration, especially because of the positive effect it's likely to have on account "churn" and ban evasion.

I'm also a little interested in what other options this style of punishment might open up. For example, tiny offenses like multi-posting (which I've done once or twice myself) being handled by removing 10 activity each time it's done, would put an end to it pretty quickly, I imagine.