Signature Ban Power

[The Cryptovator]

I was more recently in discussion with nutildah about how to address the signal-to-noise issue, and he volunteered to help, in general terms. It was my idea to give him sigban permissions in particular.

So there is no process or requirement yet to get a signature ban? That means there is currently no standard for how a user can obtain the power of a signature ban. It totally depends on you; either me or someone would get the signature ban power. So if someone or I want to get this power, I have to write to you. Would it be a public request thread or just a private discussion?

It's better if you set a primary standard to write you about getting signature-ban power. I think more users are interested.

[Hhampuz]

The ability to add signature bans was added a long time ago as something that all global moderators and admins can do.

I was more recently in discussion with nutildah about how to address the signal-to-noise issue, and he volunteered to help, in general terms. It was my idea to give him sigban permissions in particular.

I do appreciate this answer and there is a key piece of information here, the volunteering part.

[theymos]

That means there is currently no standard for how a user can obtain the power of a signature ban. It totally depends on you; either me or someone would get the signature ban power. So if someone or I want to get this power, I have to write to you. Would it be a public request thread or just a private discussion? 

There's not generally a strict process for this kind of thing. Anyone can suggest anything to me, publicly or via PM.

But I'm probably not going to add anyone else in the next 6 months at least. I want to see how nutildah's particular methodology pans out, so I want to give him a lot of discretion, and not add more people who would complicate matters. So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

[dkbit98]

So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

I am not sure most of the forum members would agree with you about this, even if they are not affected by signature ban.
There is a good reason why ALL moderators have this ability to sig ban members, and nobody was doing it in mass like he is.
I am not against sig-bans per se, but I think other moderators need to approve them first.

[Rikafip]

There is a good reason why ALL moderators have this ability to sig ban members, and nobody was doing it in mass like he is.

Not all moderators have sig ban powers, but instead only global moderators and admins, which means only a few people overall.

The ability to add signature bans was added a long time ago as something that all global moderators and admins can do.

I am not against sig-bans per se, but I think other moderators need to approve them first

As per nutildah, they have power to reverse them.

[cryptofrka]

But I'm probably not going to add anyone else in the next 6 months at least. I want to see how nutildah's particular methodology pans out, so I want to give him a lot of discretion, and not add more people who would complicate matters. So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

Nobody minds the task, not many mind the job that was done. Many mind the attitude, and attitude is important when power is granted.

Some would also say that the ban wave looks biased, at least according to what nutildah alone announced:





23.5% from the poll against 68% from the actual sigban data.

[Upgrade00]

So far, I think that he's doing a great job. He made one definite mistake with arallmuus, but mistakes are bound to happen when dealing with a new process affecting so many users, and that mistake was reversed after not-too-long.

I can't agree or disagree with this cause I will admit I have not gone through each user that was banned to know if I think they were deserving of it. I see only the ones that pop up and get attention and with those I've disagreed with few more than just the one you mentioned.

What i disagree with fundamentally is the approach of having a subjective set of rules that leads to a signature ban, granted it was said that they still all get double checked before any action is taken but the criteria seemed to a be targeting a particular board and putting too much emphasis on things like merits which has never been so emphasized on the forum. These are what led to arallmus getting flagged and his initial ban appeal was rejected at first, only revised after push backs from "big" accounts on the forum. This should not be necessary for a mistake to be fixed.

I think there should have been more transparency in the process and a willingness to understand how different boards operate to know how to pick out members who are net negative to the forum.

[stompix]

23.5% from the poll against 68% from the actual sigban data.

You're missing the fact that you could have selected multiple options, there are 132 votes from 72 voters.
 
Depending on how you calculate those
- raw numbers 31 votes from 72 users
- excluding the ones opposing cleaning 31 votes out of 62 wanting a cleanup
it's 43% and 50%.

Also, I think the percentage should be correlated with the size of the board

Gambling board 186164 posts in 120 days, 24948 made by sig-banned users, 13.40%
Economics 21511 posts in 120 days,  2310 made by sig-banned users, 10.73%
It stops being so biased, right?

To be honest, my complain would be about how he manages to go after and ban users who have barely made any posts in the last 6 months when there are some fat, juicy targets right there, screaming in all caps to let people know they have no clue which teams play in which championship or what the actual game last week was.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I have to admit, I don’t like it. If somebody is making 10 word shit posts repeatedly or posting in English speaking sections of the forum really poorly then maybe it’s something I would support but I think some people have been harshly treated.

Perhaps a decision to issue a sig ban should have to receive 3 out of 5 mod/admin approvals to enforce it. nutildah  is a very smart guy, that’s always been obvious. I think he should have a board of 5 admin/mods where he suggests a potential sig ban and requires 3 out of 5 to enforce it. That would clear up any bias or witch hunts.

I think the criteria should be really quite harsh for a sig ban though. This forum has a lot of history, it’s responsible for driving a lot of Bitcoin adoption. Some people from poor countries really need the $100 a week or whatever. You have to remember that when considering taking food off their table.

[TryNinja]

Nobody minds the task, not many mind the job that was done. Many mind the attitude, and attitude is important when power is granted.

Some would also say that the ban wave looks biased, at least according to what nutildah alone announced:

23.5% from the poll against 68% from the actual sigban data.

Wouldn’t that be because most signature campaigns nowadays require you to post on the Gambling board? If you’re here to farm the sht of the campaigns, you probably need to post there.

I have to admit, I don’t like it. If somebody is making 10 word shit posts repeatedly or posting in English speaking sections of the forum really poorly then maybe it’s something I would support but I think some people have been harshly treated.

If you don’t mind, would you PM me a few usernames that, in your opinion, shouldn’t have been banned? So far I actually agreed to all of the bans I checked (I didn’t look at all 180+ bans). The only one I wasn’t too keen about was the guy that got unbanned.

I would like to understand the mind of who thinks X post is fine, and if I’m able to change his idea if I think the post is a shitpost.

Regarding the “people need to put food on their table”, remember theymos said this forum isn’t a charity. People should respect the forum if it is giving them a chance to earn 1x, 2x their local salary. Shitposting is spitting on the hand that feeds you.