[POLL] What to do in cases where an alt account is evading a sigban?

[nutildah]

I dare to guess that at least 70% of the accounts I've sigbanned so far are alt accounts. This wasn't on purpose but rather an effect of trying to identify low effort posting behavior. Aside from generally not caring, the two most common reasons for low effort posts are 1) posting too much from one account, and 2) posting too much across several different accounts. In the end, the result is the same: they've run out of things to say, as is human, and it shows.

I'm not certain this is a Reputation issue more than a Meta issue, but the definition of what an alt account is can vary widely. For the forum's purposes, the evidence is usually limited to common addresses or social media handles shared on the forum. While other types of evidence - such as shared wallets or exchange addresses - are often sufficient enough to justify red trust, they are not sufficient for application of a ban, and I feel the mod standards should also apply for sigbans. (not sure this has ever been set in stone).

My approach until now has been to ignore the issue, but The Cryptovator brings up a good point:

This is probably something that should be reported to the mods, because they are the ones who decide what constitutes an alt account for application of the law, and they can also issue sigbans.

Besides, things might get messy if I start handing out sigbans for being an alt. I've been sticking to a random sampling procedure, plus the occasional high-scoring AI poster.

It should report to the moderator if the signature ban is applied by forum moderators. If the ban is applied by you or any other users, then it should be reported to them; it really depends on them whether they will apply ban evasion rules here or not.

But from the community's end, I do not agree to leave a red tag for that. Probably if someone leaves neutral feedback, I won’t encounter that. But from my end, I will advise forwarding the case to whoever applied the signature ban. It’s not the matter of trust; it’s the matter of moderation.

This sounds reasonable except I don't see or handle reports. I'm not actually a moderator and just have one mod power (should have clarified that earlier).

I'm thinking for now I will only consider the alt account factor if a recently-sigbanned user is making an appeal and there is already mod-standard evidence in their trust feedback that links them with another account. This means the evidence has to already be there.

This is an undecided issue for a new problem so I welcome any feedback from the community. Thanks.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I've voted for the first option. Sigban should be to the person, not the account. I don't know if there might be an isolated case of someone who has three accounts—one where they're a shitposter, another where they're a shitposter, and a third where they post somewhat decently—but even in that case, I'd sigban them all, and if they want, they can appeal for review.

[Revolution2025]

sigban is not the same as autoban where if a user is banned In one of his accounts, it will also require to ban his other accounts to avoid ban evasion

if an account is sigbanned for obvious reasons and they happen to also do the same thing with their other accounts then it is appropriate to sigban both accounts but other than this, it will be too extreme to sigban main account and alt account of a user when the both profiles did not break same rules.

in the fourth option you provided in your poll, if you continue to do things based on your guts feelings you will have many problems just as you had in the sigban appeal thread you created (now locked) and also be ready to attend to every thread that will be created in the meta board to challenge sigbannings.

[NotATether]

The correct option is: "Sigban them using pre-established alt criteria (shared addresses, socials)".

But I voted - stop making new threads and just do what you're gonna do. Because gathering feedback from all these threads can get tiring 

[yahoo62278]

If you are banned from the forum on one account, technically you are banned from the forum on any account. This should apply to sig bans as well. I would make sure you can connect the accounts as alts, but otherwise they're done here. Your goal is to clean the cesspool up right? So do it!!!

Also voted for the last option but I understand if you might be questioning yourself. Community input is good to consider when it comes to some questions.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I also voted for the first option. It can be seen from those who filed an appeal during this time that only a few were against (out of the total number of bans), and these were probably those who did not have alternative accounts (I exclude those who were offended). Everyone else has probably moved to other alternative accounts. This would be seen in two cases, for example:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5590750.msg67025637#msg67025637

If bans are imposed on alternative accounts, and farmers become aware of this, they will simply have no choice but to stop increasing the number of their accounts. Although, of course, they learned to "be original" in cases where they could be linked at the same addresses. However, many people still make mistakes, as it is really difficult for many to keep a large number of accounts.

Thus, the forum will help the owners of these numerous accounts to defeat their greed and make them pay more attention to what they write, how often, and how much by focusing on one account.

[libert19]

I voted last option for laughs, but I was surprised to see that it had already 3 other users having voted too and apparently it's having highest voted option as of now so forum be like, 'In Nutildah we trust'.

[hosemary]

I also believe that sigbans should be applied to all alts, if there's enough evidence that the accounts are owned by the same person, but I don't think you need to have such a rule for sigbanning alts.
I highly doubt someone who is spamming the forum with one account would make quality posts with other account(s), and you will probably sigban their alts even if you review their posts history individually.

[Odohu]

This is a vey tricky issue that require critical thinking before coming to a conclusion. When a user is banned by the forum administrator, it means the person have committed a crime that the mods consider harmful and demand the maximum punishment. In other words, banned users are regarded as people not needed here unlike sigbanned users who were banned for a period and expected to retrace their steps, reflect and make improvements. Hence, the scenarios are different.

I believe that if a user is sigbanned for spamming in one account, other accounts linked to the user will automatically qualify for sigban because it will not be possible for a user to be spamming in one account and not do same in others. 

[holydarkness]

I too submit the last, but under basis of the first entry. Sig-ban works, more or less, like a flag on casinos. It follows the entity because they violated a term priorly agreed. An account got sig-banned here because they violated forum rules [clearly no mods will do the sig-ban hammer lightly], the one being banned is the entity, not the account, not the pseudonym, it's the one utilizing the keyboard and screen and their brain to do things. They did them then, they will do that again.

IMO, the only way to get sig-unban [be it the main account or the alt] is to make an appeal on meta, much like account-ban, after several months, to show that they've improved and the previous mistakes they did that earn them the sig-ban are learned.

So, with all due respect, stop making thread and do what you do, it seems so good so far... though I rarely roam gambling section where spam are the most abundant.

[LoyceV]

~ most common reasons for low effort posts are ~ 2) posting too much across several different accounts.

Why not give each additional alt accounts a longer sigban? First one a year, second one 2 years, third 3 years. That way, the account farmer won't be overwhelmed when he gets his signatures back

[vapourminer]

~ most common reasons for low effort posts are ~ 2) posting too much across several different accounts.

Why not give each additional alt accounts a longer sigban? First one a year, second one 2 years, third 3 years.

or they stack. 1 yr ban on one account. find 2 more alts now all 3 accounts get a 3 year sigban. found another? cool. 4 years on linked all accounts now.

edit: and voted 1st option

[snipie]

I didn't find the option ask theymos. Otherwise this poll should be moved to staff only discussion in my opinion. After all, the first decision came from top.
From my perspective, the accounts that went silent from the sigban, have its users moving to another account or simply purchasing the alts of other members. We have lone wolves here and clans.

[JollyGood]

Why not give each additional alt accounts a longer sigban? First one a year, second one 2 years, third 3 years. That way, the account farmer won't be overwhelmed when he gets his signatures back

If signature bans will be utilised to severely affect or completely dismantle the majority of account farmers then it will be a brilliant tool. In the event that it becomes a default position (to ban all accounts in the farm or a single alt-account), all of the associated accounts should have longer dates for the signature bans to be lifted as to not reward the puppeteers.

or they stack. 1 yr ban on one account. find 2 more alts now all 3 accounts get a 3 year sigban. found another? cool. 4 years on linked all accounts now.

This is another interesting proposal, it would work as strong deterrent against account farmers.

[DireWolfM14]

I'd like another option in the poll; Assess the situation on a case by case bases.

If the alt accounts aren't cheating campaigns, sharing merit, or committing any other "offense" that may indicate dishonest behavior, AND not spamming in the same way as the banned account, I would either ignore it or post it in the "Known Alts" thread.  If the behavior is noticeably different I wouldn't sig-ban the alt.

I imagine that you are faced with this dilemma (and asking this question) because one of the accounts isn't spamming.  Perhaps it's the user's "main account" that's being used in a natural way and not committing one of the common distrustful behaviors that lead alt accounts to get red-tagged.  Otherwise, I think you have the insight, understanding, and ethics to do what's right.

[AB de Royse777]

Assess the situation on a case by case bases.

I would like this to be added on the pool and my vote goes for this.

[hugeblack]

Since an "alt account" is considered a circumvention of the "signature ban" rule, it's natural that banning any account will result in banning all alt accounts.

As for applying the rule, it's best to treat each case individually. If the alternate account is posting high-quality content, the ban period should be short, as the ultimate goal is to improve the quality of posts.

[joker_josue]

Well, I'm generally against unidentified alternate accounts.

If a user is honest, when they create an alternate account, they will say what their alternate account is.

I can't imagine a scenario, unless it's for mischief, where a user would create an alternate account without disclosing that they already have one. There might be a reason, I can't see it, but if anyone can point to it, I'd appreciate it.

In my opinion, if someone received a SIGBAN and it was discovered they had another, alternative account, they should receive the same treatment.

Assess the situation on a case by case bases.

I would like this to be added on the pool and my vote goes for this.

But I admit that this might be a somewhat radical stance on my part (which isn't usual for me, sorry). Honestly, this whole thing about alternative accounts, without identification, is starting to bother me.

I acknowledge that there are different cases. Despite my opinion that the same sanction should be applied, I recognize that each case must be carefully analyzed.

Either way, since I can't see a positive reason for having two accounts without identifying that they both belong to the same person, I always get the impression that there's an attempt to deceive the community.

That, in my opinion, is the main reason why there's so much spam on the forum. It's the alternative, unidentified accounts. These accounts harm the community by abusing the ecosystem that allows everyone to benefit from it in some way. When you have one user pretending to be 3 or 4 and benefiting from it, you're harming another user who is just one person and can't benefit from anything the forum might offer.

In other words, when a person has 3 unknown accounts and participates in 3 different campaigns, it means that one person is occupying the space of 2 other people—people who only have one account. If we replicate this in 5, 10, or more cases, we see many real users being harmed.

If the alt accounts aren't cheating campaigns, sharing merit, or committing any other "offense" that may indicate dishonest behavior, AND not spamming in the same way as the banned account, I would either ignore it or post it in the "Known Alts" thread.  If the behavior is noticeably different I wouldn't sig-ban the alt.

Where can I find this topic?

[LoyceV]

I can't imagine a scenario, unless it's for mischief, where a user would create an alternate account without disclosing that they already have one. There might be a reason, I can't see it, but if anyone can point to it, I'd appreciate it.

The reason is freedom of speech without consequences to your main account:

If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.