Poll: Injustice of the Permaban

[blackrave]

I still don't understand how permaban is useful
For example, I get permabaned
Fine!
1.I try to make new user. If it's tied to email, then
2.I make new email and try one more time. If it is tied to IP, then
3.I go to another place (I have 4 spots to access net on the daily basis). If all of these spots are tied to my current user, since I visited Escapist from all of these, I go to public library, icafe, etc. If all fails I can call my provider and ask to change my IP, for "security reasons" (or some other BS)
Either way, I'LL BE BACK!!!

So how this circumvention is better than 1y extended ban?
(after ban ends you have 1-2 warnings before another extended ban)

 

[Eleuthera]

Although it may be some kind of default feature that appear when someone gets perma-banned. And normal mods may have no control over it.

^This

The perma-ban avatar is automated and not put there by the mods. I understand why people dislike it, and I'm not a fan myself, but this isn't something the mods can do anything about.

Now about an issue I want to voice my opinion on: While I hate to beat on a dead horse, I'm kind of disappointed with the apparent lack of will to moderate the R&P section properly and take the concerns of it's regulars into account. -snip-

The problem here is that a lot of people (including several mods) don't like to go into R&P.
Due to the mods not visiting the R&P forum themselves, the only posts they see is the flagged ones. Post flagging is irregular even on the more popular forums, but I think most of the R&P regulars don't flag anything unless it's very out of line (ie the dead baby picture yesterday). However whenever a new poster (to the R&P) section goes in there they tend to flag a lot more posts. The regulars have come to a reasonably workable status quo I think, but the newbies don't knwo this and get flag happy.
At least that's what I think is happening in R&P.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

On one hand, I personally haven't had any warnings or anything and I tend to be fairly blunt. On the other hand, I've seen people banned for posts that are barely calling the person irrational. In my opinion, a forum such as this, where there are actual opinions presented on divisive issues, should be more accepting of frustration and flared tempers than we are. There's being civil and then there's an obstacle to discussion. And I think the rules concerning admissions of piracy and accusations of trolling (the latter I can sort of agree with, but is often levelled against references that are not straight accusations of trolling) are stupid.

But yes, it does seem that a non-negligible amount of people manage to get banned by what amounts to being around too long.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I'm inclined to say "yes." There are a few topics where I'm downright afraid to post in because of the banhammer's ever constant vigilance. I can't, for example, say what I honestly think about subjects like piracy - even in articles about piracy! And this is despite being a swearing, quasi-drunken, passive-aggressive asshole to everyone. Especially you. Yes, you, reading this. Fuck you, whoever you are. (That was a joke, ladies and gentlemen.)

I don't think it's a problem in the way that I'd label it an "injustice". That's hyerbolic. But I would say there's a problem in the way that it often discourages genuine discussion. Perhaps that's a good thing. I can't say for sure. I haven't seen any truly unfair bans - even the coveted Vault101 crossed a line.

But then... on the other hand... a lot of drunk and stupid people with really poor snap-judgement have a great deal many interesting things to say. Hmmm. I don't think there's a conclusion we can draw, really, over what could happen. The conversations that might have happened if something or other was implemented or replaced.

 

[cerebreturns]

8 strikes over years is too strict? right...

The rules here are not exactly harsh, if you are getting that many strikes you are ignoring the rules.

If you post a lot you should be even MORE aware of the rules then people who are not posting.

I find 8 strikes absurd...in that where is the punishment in letting someone ignore your rules WITH warnings nearly 10 times?


I don't even know the rules, I post when ever and what ever I want and I've gotten ONE warning (lack of content for a post), now I don't do it anymore.



If you can't stand the idea of having to not be a total complete jerk on public & very popular forums...then you deserve to be banned.


No, the 8 strike rule is far too lenient.



And the whole "regular posters should be allowed more lineancy"...what makes you think they aren't? And isn't this usually the kind of conservative mentality (good old boys) that gets horribly flamed by nearly every "regular" on this forum?

Katatori-kun got banned? I had him blocked for giving me a stomach ulcer so didn't know.

Oh man I hope this is true.

 

[JoJo]

I myself have close to 8000 posts and no infractions.

Probably because in all my time here I have never even seen the text equivalent of you raising your voice. Nothing wrong with that mind you, just some people *points to self* have a hard time remaining 100% neutral. dammit sometimes people on the internet are WRONG and I feel the need to criticize them -_-.

Heh, not going to deny that, though remaining calm is a skill that can be improved with practice, you should try it. Having lived and worked with young children, it's one I have honed to a T. I have actually been involved in quite virulent debate at times on this site but I usually don't let it grind my gears, an opinion on an Internet forum is nothing to get worked up about. I see you have no infractions yourself major so you aren't doing too badly either

I still don't understand how permaban is useful
For example, I get permabaned
Fine!
1.I try to make new user. If it's tied to email, then
2.I make new email and try one more time. If it is tied to IP, then
3.I go to another place (I have 4 spots to access net on the daily basis). If all of these spots are tied to my current user, since I visited Escapist from all of these, I go to public library, icafe, etc. If all fails I can call my provider and ask to change my IP, for "security reasons" (or some other BS)
Either way, I'LL BE BACK!!!

So how this circumvention is better than 1y extended ban?
(after ban ends you have 1-2 warnings before another extended ban)

Permabans are still useful since I doubt most banned users would go to those lengths to come back here when they could just go to another forum. I'm sure it does happen given that ban-jumpers with several hundred posts have been uncovered on occasion but the worst offenders are going to stick out like a sore thumb and besides even if they do return it's still a punishment, who wants to start all over again after building up a rep?

 

[ShadowKatt]

The problem is when the moderation permabans someone and the quality of the forum drops. Take for example when they banned Danyal and the quality of R&P went down. I think the mods need to decide which is more important, the rules or the quality of the site?

This is absolutely ridiculous. It would mean that the same rules don't apply to everyone anymore, and posters that are popular can't be touched. Think about it, it's crazy. Everyone, regardless of their popularity, should abide by the rules as everyone else, no exceptions. Quality doesn't drop because of some jerks getting banned. And if you think it did, you are more than welcome to try and crank it up.

Anyway, like I said in another topic: Just follow the rules, it can't be that hard. Think before you submit.

Yeah it does sound bad but it's not like other people are treated differently. Jim Sterling is allowed to be as offensive as he wants and he's never even gotten a warning.

I've made that point before too. Insults? Got them. Inappropriate content? He draws dicks on everything and has a dildo sword. It's the most hypocritical part of the site as any of that done by a user wouldn't get a warning, it would get them banned instantly. The system would not apply, but since he's a content provider, free pass. One law for the ruler and one law for the ruled. The last time that was the case in the real world it ended with bloodshed.

 

[Legion]

Yeah it does sound bad but it's not like other people are treated differently. Jim Sterling is allowed to be as offensive as he wants and he's never even gotten a warning.

I've made that point before too. Insults? Got them. Inappropriate content? He draws dicks on everything and has a dildo sword. It's the most hypocritical part of the site as any of that done by a user wouldn't get a warning, it would get them banned instantly. The system would not apply, but since he's a content provider, free pass. One law for the ruler and one law for the ruled. The last time that was the case in the real world it ended with bloodshed.

In their videos, yes. As the staff mentioned in another similar topic, the creators of content on this site follow the same rules as we do on the forums, user groups and other forms of communication. The site rules are for those places, not the content of the site. Just like low content isn't against the rules when on Facebook.

If the rules applied to the entire site, then the articles and reviews would be against the "no advertising" rule, wouldn't they?

There is no "inequality" because they follow the same rules when in the same situations that we are. If Jim and the others were allowed to come onto the forums and call people whatever they liked without moderation, then there'd be an argument to be had, but they don't and they can't.

 

[anthony87]

Katatori-kun got banned? I had him blocked for giving me a stomach ulcer so didn't know.

I had him blocked, too. I just went and looked at the post that got him banned, though, and it sorta seemed dodgy to me.

Why did you have him blocked? I'd never seen you and he really disagree strongly on things.

 

[freaper]

You can still be interesting, offer a varied opinion, completely disagree with someone and personally dislike a person without being a dick about it. All the previous warnings should've maybe given you a hint that you're not proceeding too well.

 

[Kross]

If it helps, here's a count of users with more then 1000 posts who have logged in over the last few months - i.e. currently active forum users who aren't lurking much

 ban_level 	amt
0         1529
1         172
2         129
3         127
4         76
5         70
6         46
7         28
8         47

Note that all banned users can do everything on the site except post in the forums. Perma banned users also cannot send private messages.

Warnings are just that. Warnings.

This is a community of thousands of people. Behavior that is acceptable in small groups can quickly snowball into unreasonable proportions (low content posts are the best example) when presented inline in a forum thread. Many people are trying to read the interesting content of a given thread, and such things make reading more difficult, driving people away from the forums due to a frustrating and time wasting experience.

 

[ShadowKatt]

In their videos, yes. As the staff mentioned in another similar topic, the creators of content on this site follow the same rules as we do on the forums, user groups and other forms of communication. The site rules are for those places, not the content of the site. Just like low content isn't against the rules when on Facebook.

If the rules applied to the entire site, then the articles and reviews would be against the "no advertising" rule, wouldn't they?

There is no "inequality" because they follow the same rules when in the same situations that we are.

Actually, reviews and articles would NOT be the same as advertising, as the forums have an entire section devoted to reviews of various things. If that was true, then it wouldn't be a subforum; it would be a bear trap to permaban anyone that posted there. So that point is moot.

As for the first point about content creators being held to the same accountability on the forums...well, I can't argue that. Some of them post on the forums, some of them don't, but I can imagine that while they might be held to the same CoC, it would be much more lenient. More than that though, I think your comment speaks more to the Escapists content standards. If these things are bannable on the forums, but just a-okay in their FEATURED CONTENT ON THE FRONT PAGE, well, you can see the implications. I still believe that the equality between the classes on the escapist is an issue.

 

[Macgyvercas]

The moderation here is fine as it is, it's only when the big names at the time get banned the moderation suddenly becomes a damn problem.

Seriously. No one was complaining about this til a week or so ago.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Vault was still around, these things only crop up when someone people actually liked, get banned

Who was Vault again? Sorry, I may be an oldie, but I don't know everyone. Now if NeonBob got banned...I'd definitely notice that.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Everyone gets 8 chances, everyone regardless of join date, post count or pub club membership. Seems pretty fair to me, says the goody two shoes who hasn't got on the wrong side of the mods yet

Granted it does suck when you see users banned for the minor infraction that push them over the edge, however it was not really that minor thing that got them banned it was the 7 other previous ones that really did it. And really if people cannot learn to take a minute to think twice before posting when their on the line then they know full well the risk they run and consequences that could have.

 

[Macgyvercas]

If it helps, here's a count of users with more then 1000 posts who have logged in over the last few months - i.e. currently active forum users who aren't lurking much

 ban_level 	amt
0         1529
1         172
2         129
3         127
4         76
5         70
6         46
7         28
8         47

Kross...How in the hell did you get your post count to be the square root of negative one? Don't you know that's almost as bad as dividing by zero?! ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL US ALL?!?!

 

[Drathnoxis]

I still don't understand how permaban is useful
For example, I get permabaned
Fine!
1.I try to make new user. If it's tied to email, then
2.I make new email and try one more time. If it is tied to IP, then
3.I go to another place (I have 4 spots to access net on the daily basis). If all of these spots are tied to my current user, since I visited Escapist from all of these, I go to public library, icafe, etc. If all fails I can call my provider and ask to change my IP, for "security reasons" (or some other BS)
Either way, I'LL BE BACK!!!

So how this circumvention is better than 1y extended ban?
(after ban ends you have 1-2 warnings before another extended ban)

If a user becomes a constant problem on our site by repeatedly returning after being asked to leave, we can and will escalate to the relevant ISP abuse department; the user that posted the dead baby pics is now on this route. They may get a polite 'please use our services responsibly' letter or email, or they may find their service cancelled - and yes, the latter has happened more than once. If they connect from where they work, they may get a nice long chat from their supervisor - this, too, has happened before. People are not free from the consequences of their actions, despite common belief that you can do and act however you want on the 'net.

Regarding changing IP addresses and other tactics to mask your identity: we've seen it all over the years, and we have plenty of tools and experience matching data and behavior patterns. Same with ISP Network Abuse admins, and they don't enjoy having to deal with repeat problem users any more than we do.

 

[Kross]

Um yeah, you have to be super inoffensive around here.
DON'T even try to argue with other people much or you WILL rack up permanent warnings and good luck arguing with the moderation about the reasoning behind those.

The perspective about "arguing with moderation" is part of the issue. You don't argue with them, you reasonably and rationally present your side of the discussion. The moderators are just trying to keep the forums readable without the trolls, or even just people not used to discussing things in an online environment muddying any discussion or content.

MANY of the people who get these warnings are just not familiar with the way written text can come across to other readers. Things are more blunt then intended, but still "true" to how they feel (so don't get edited - and causes umbrage when moderators action it), which over time can add up to an abrasive and unpleasant Internet person. If one person in 100 presents their discussions in this manner, that can quickly add up among thousands of people browsing a forum, tainting everything with poorly constructed bile.

I'm reminded of this nearly every time I talk to my Dad via instant messenger or email. He's a rational and intelligent engineer, and for years his non formal text communications read like an angry 14 year old.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I've made that point before too. Insults? Got them. Inappropriate content? He draws dicks on everything and has a dildo sword. It's the most hypocritical part of the site as any of that done by a user wouldn't get a warning, it would get them banned instantly. The system would not apply, but since he's a content provider, free pass. One law for the ruler and one law for the ruled. The last time that was the case in the real world it ended with bloodshed.

Yeah, but here's the thing: Stern Jimling is a content provider. He creates original content, not only on here, but... places. All over the universe. People come here to see him speak, spout, drivel, drool or wear a wig - even those that don't like him much. People like Jim generate - at the very least - clicks. Clicks are proof of life. Clicks are one form of desirable currency in the online world as we know it.

Forum users are more like bio indicators of the site. The forums offer no manna, no free drinks and no random sex after the lights go out. They offer but the dream of a feeling of being a functional member of a mostly random community. Some people are happy with this. Some people move on to the next level and make things real. Some people are trapped in their country, city, neighbourhood, basement or just their own personal headspace. If Jim, content provider, steps down from his imaginary multi-trick Sancho Panza pony, he's just as controlled, gentle and humble as the best, nicest and most boring amongst us. It's called common sense and being a responsible human being, no matter your age, sex, gender, colour, race, creed, religion, political affiliation or level of intoxication.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

The problem here is that a lot of people (including several mods) don't like to go into R&P.
Due to the mods not visiting the R&P forum themselves, the only posts they see is the flagged ones. Post flagging is irregular even on the more popular forums, but I think most of the R&P regulars don't flag anything unless it's very out of line (ie the dead baby picture yesterday). However whenever a new poster (to the R&P) section goes in there they tend to flag a lot more posts. The regulars have come to a reasonably workable status quo I think, but the newbies don't knwo this and get flag happy.
At least that's what I think is happening in R&P.

This agrees with what I suspected. In this case it makes even more sense to enshrine this self-policing nature by finding someone from over there to take on a mod-baton for the section - it would make the moderation efforts more consistent in that regard and someone who reads around anyway might see posts that are unreported but worthy of moderation. Implementing something like this would also make the board more accessible for the newcomers as a single or maybe a pair of mods could work closer together and clearly state the rules about how to treat insults to minorities or very controversial opinions - a question that I think a lot of the criticisms that were levied back then and resurface sometimes these days are based on. To peruse my example from my previous post: if someone repeatedly describes homosexuality as a choice or immigrants as "toxic" is this just a very controversial opinion or an attention-worthy offense?

 

[Phuctifyno]

Your third paragraph had some good points, but I still voted no. I think the rules are well enough accessible and explained that they shouldn't be a problem to follow, regardless of posting frequency. It's their house we're pooping in, after all, so they have the right to tell us not to do it in the sink.

The only rule here that bothers me at all is the low content rule. Sometimes, a couple of words is all you need to make your point, but you'll get nailed if you keep it low. The favor seems to be for the literal amount of words and not for the amount of content within the words.

I think it discourages concision - which in and of itself isn't a bad thing; I understand that concision can discourage discussion as well, and discussion is the main priority of these forums... but I'm a fan of brevity. I'm also a fan of succinctness, and wit. Brevity is the soul of wit, or one could say that they are synonymous, meaning that they mean the same thing, or are close enough to be liberally used interchangeably. These forums sometimes like those qualities, because an idea that could be perfectly communicated with a word or two, must be unrolled and dissected into at least a sentence to meet the mod's standards. This causes further problems, because sometimes when you unroll a couple of meaning-packed words into a sentence, it loses much of the impact and some of the meaning, and you have to keep writing sentences to fabricate context that would have been pre-established in the tone of your original comment idea, but was destroyed when the tone got changed with the comment's structure. Before you know it, you have a paragraph. This massive, long, unending string of sentences that doesn't come close to having the impact, meaning, wit, conciseness, succinctness, brevity, punch, pizzaz, provocativeness, depth, electric boogaloo, bite, panache, coolness, clarity, terseness, or sweaty rightiousness of your original idea. For instance, everything I've just said could have been said in one word. Can you guess what it is?