Where is the line? When is the IP-Ban hammer needed?
Just a few moments ago someone posted a picutre of a dead fetus in the general boards. Is that person IP-Banned? I want to know that, because if not, the moderation and administration of this forum should go and bash their heads against a wall. Maybe that would rattle them up enough to get a grip here, because people who do things like what I said, should not be welcome here and be banned forever, as long as possible.
So tell me, Moderation: Where is the line? When does it become too much? Does someone first have to post a videolink to even more serious stuff?
The poster in question should never have gotten to general discussion. He first posted a threat of physical violence and then the same picture with the same thread title in off-topic.
I was really surprised that that thread lasted the 15 minutes on the boards that it did. It was deleted shortly after I reported it, though.
If there was ever an example of irredeemably crossing the line, this would be it.
There is actually more to this story. This was first a thread that is now locked but still visible in the Off-Topic Tavern. The only difference was that the OP on the first thread just provided a link, while the one posted in General Discussion was the actual picture. The member who posted the dead fetus on General Discussion appeared to use a sock puppet for the OP in Off-Topic Tavern, then used his main account to support and agree with the OP. After that thread was locked and the sockpuppet assumably banned, he posted the picture on General Discussion.
If there was ever an example of irredeemably crossing the line, this would be it.
It's also worth noting that this wasn't this particular poster's only set of alts. He's revealed to me via PM (which were then forwarded via screencap to the proper authorities, I don't know if they were ever acted upon) that he's had other accounts, which some here can probably guess at, banned. He's been using this same sort of tactic for some time now.
It shouldn't have made it this far. This is a pretty stark indication of a massive breakdown in the way moderation is handled around here, not at the level of individual mods but rather in the CoC and it's interpretation. Posters should not have multiple accounts, and if they start fights they should be banned.
Honestly, this isn't a conversation we should still need to have. The events of the last few months have made it rather apparent that we need tighter moderation around here. If this is acting as a wakeup call to anyone, that's somewhat disappointing, but at least it might result in some action.
It's also worth noting that this wasn't this particular poster's only set of alts. He's revealed to me via PM (which were then forwarded via screencap to the proper authorities, I don't know if they were ever acted upon) that he's had other accounts, which some here can probably guess at, banned. He's been using this same sort of tactic for some time now.
It shouldn't have made it this far. This is a pretty stark indication of a massive breakdown in the way moderation is handled around here, not at the level of individual mods but rather in the CoC and it's interpretation. Posters should not have multiple accounts, and if they start fights they should be banned.
Honestly, this isn't a conversation we should still need to have. The events of the last few months have made it rather apparent that we need tighter moderation around here. If this is acting as a wakeup call to anyone, that's somewhat disappointing, but at least it might result in some action.
agreed 100%, If this is the same person i suspect (and i am 99% sure it is the same person) it seems every time he gets banned, called out or basically looses his temper it results in swearing, threats of physical harm or inappropriate images being posted.. i mean, i think he is actually seeing how many times he can get away with it before he is perma-banned.. and really it should not have got this far.
PS: I wonder if this is going to become another case of him being victimized by the avengers....
I have contacted Solice to chime in here. Let's hope she and maybe some other mods come in here, too, at least recognizing this thread!
Somethings is going wrong, if this poster has not received any kind of IP-Ban or something similar.
For what its worth, I've PMed Webster and asked him to come here and comment on or recognize this thread.
If it's really a gross violation, they can get an instant ban.
I'm not free to discuss it much further than that.
(If someone has links they'd like to thow my way, (in PM
)I'll see what can be done.)There is actually more to this story. This was first a thread that is now locked but still visible in the Off-Topic Tavern. The only difference was that the OP on the first thread just provided a link, while the one posted in General Discussion was the actual picture. The member who posted the dead fetus on General Discussion appeared to use a sock puppet for the OP in Off-Topic Tavern, then used his main account to support and agree with the OP. After that thread was locked and the sockpuppet assumably banned, he posted the picture on General Discussion using his main account.
If there was ever an example of irredeemably crossing the line, this would be it.
Oh, you missed one.
There is the now locked but visible "The Truth about abortion" then "Abortion=Murder" in off-topic and then "Abortion=Murder" in General Discussion.
agreed 100%, If this is the same person i suspect (and i am 99% sure it is the same person) it seems every time he gets banned, called out or basically looses his temper it results in swearing, threats of physical harm or inappropriate images being posted.. i mean, i think he is actually seeing how many times he can get away with it before he is perma-banned.. and really it should not have got this far.
It followed an identical pattern this time;
He started a thread to pick a fight with one alt, jumped in with the other. It got locked, so he started a second with the SpearSpike account in Off Topic (it was the same picture that was in the GD thread), then jumped into another thread in the same forum and shot a quick threat of violence my way, which has since been deleted/hidden. Then, since he was still unbanned, he moved the party to GD.
PS: I wonder if this is going to become another case of him being victimized by the avengers....
I would assume that if he weren't currently banned we'd be hearing about how he's being ganged up on here.
(If someone has links they'd like to thow my way, (in PM )I'll see what can be done.)
I'd love to link you to his past antics, but they're all hidden from the public at this point. Do a search on his posting history, he has a blowup under one of his accounts about once every three weeks. Each time, the pattern seems to be;
- Use sockpuppet to support argument,
- Escalate to using sockpuppet to harass posters in disagreement,
- Post thread with one account to start fights, jump in with other alts to take own side,
- Post wholly objectionable material, get thread locked,
- Start threatening violence (sometimes overtly lethal violence) against people who are viewed as having wronged said poster,
- Get banned, start new account to replace old one in stable.
It's a pretty clear pattern, and I'd guess most of GD and Off Topic could tell you this guy's alt history if you asked.
I'm just not free to discuss proceedures now. But there are things in place. Just report the offenders. We've got staff on 24/7 to handle such situations.
;)
If after the behavior we saw tonight this guy is free to come back and post again, with or without his banned identity, then the moderation policies here do not work.
Given what we've seen and been told, he's going to be back. The policies around here provide for multiple accounts, even for proven trolls.
I'm just not free to discuss proceedures now. But there are things in place. Just report the offenders. We've got staff on 24/7 to handle such situations.
;)
This individual has been reported to those authorities on multiple occasions by myself at the very least and I have to assume by others as well.
If nothing's been done so far, I don't really see why we should have faith that this time would be different.
give it 24 hours and he will be back, or at least it will be somebody who walks and talks like this particular duck.. but heaven forbid anybody accusing him of being that same duck..
edit: come to think about it i reported him just last week for posting inappropriate images..
give it 24 hours and he will be back, or at least it will be somebody who walks and talks like this particular duck.. but heaven forbid anybody accusing him of being that same duck..
That would be against the troll coddling CoC. Innocent until proven guilty, again and again and again and again...
This individual has been reported to those authorities on multiple occasions by myself at the very least and I have to assume by others as well.
If nothing's been done so far, I don't really see why we should have faith that this time would be different.
The posts are gone, are they not? Just keep at it and he'll get bored.
And it's not like you'll never have this come up ever again. This jerk or the next, it's happened before, it will happen again. The trick is not to lose your head over it.
Every time he has to make an account, that's more hoops he has to jump through. Sure, it's easy to get another account, but getting an account again and again and again? Meanwhile attempts to upset the community fail and doesn't get him what he wants as his posts get removed as if they never existed.
People always ask to instantly ban someone they don't agree with, or say is a troll. We've never instantly banned someone unless it was in an extreme case. I'd classify this under those rare cases.
Upsetting people is the goal. Not getting upset by reporting it and moving on means he loses. It really is that simple.
The posts are gone, are they not? Just keep at it and he'll get bored.
And it's not like you'll never have this come up ever again. This jerk or the next, it's happened before, it will happen again. The trick is not to lose your head over it.
Every time he has to make an account, that's more hoops he has to jump through. Sure, it's easy to get another account, but getting an account again and again and again? Meanwhile attempts to upset the community fail and doesn't get him what he wants as his posts get removed as if they never existed.
People always ask to instantly ban someone they don't agree with, or say is a troll. We've never instantly banned someone unless it was in an extreme case. I'd classify this under those rare cases.
Upsetting people is the goal. Not getting upset by reporting it and moving on means he loses. It really is that simple.
On other websites I use (THe Adultswim boards) this honestly would be an IP ban not only because the innapropriateness of the image but all so because he does keep coming back again and again despite all the hoops he has to jump through.
Every time he has to make an account, that's more hoops he has to jump through. Sure, it's easy to get another account, but getting an account again and again and again?
This particular individual has shown a marked willingness to keep jumping through those hoops. At this point, maybe we should try something else, like setting the hoops on fire or leaning them against a brick wall.
Yeah that guy is a huge troll, remember the motivator thread?
sure do.. and most of the other threads he ever entered.. it seems every time he popped up in a thread flames/tantrums and bridge dwelling behavior were sure to follow..
The posts are gone, are they not? Just keep at it and he'll get bored.
And it's not like you'll never have this come up ever again. This jerk or the next, it's happened before, it will happen again. The trick is not to lose your head over it.
Every time he has to make an account, that's more hoops he has to jump through. Sure, it's easy to get another account, but getting an account again and again and again? Meanwhile attempts to upset the community fail and doesn't get him what he wants as his posts get removed as if they never existed.
People always ask to instantly ban someone they don't agree with, or say is a troll. We've never instantly banned someone unless it was in an extreme case. I'd classify this under those rare cases.
Upsetting people is the goal. Not getting upset by reporting it and moving on means he loses. It really is that simple.
I wasn't upset by this at all. That being said, this was something that had no business on the boards and serves to make these forums a more unpleasant place. I don't need to be upset for this to have been wrong.
Putting a band-aid on things and hoping they go away really isn't an answer. People get discouraged when they see the same people do this repeatedly without any apparent punishment.
Putting a band-aid on things and hoping they go away really isn't an answer. People get discouraged when they see the same people do this repeatedly without any apparent punishment.
either that or they get ****** off, start posting in anger and with suspicion and it drags the whole place down.. all of that when we could get rid of the guy on a permanent basis (or at least force him to go to an internet cafe or friends place to troll)
Every time he has to make an account, that's more hoops he has to jump through. Sure, it's easy to get another account, but getting an account again and again and again? Meanwhile attempts to upset the community fail and doesn't get him what he wants as his posts get removed as if they never existed.
Banning his IP makes an extra hoop and making it all the more annoying to have to get in here, because he would have to ask his ISP to reset his IP address.. or force him to go to internet cafe's etc.. maybe that would be a big enough pain for him to give it up.
either that or they get ****** off, start posting in anger and with suspicion and it drags the whole place down.. all of that when we could get rid of the guy on a permanent basis (or at least force him to go to an internet cafe or friends place to troll)
This is the real problem, more than anything else. If we're constantly expecting the people with a join date that looks suspiciously like today's date to suddenly lash out, we're not being very welcoming to new posters. We're also not fostering much of a community if we're constantly viewing each other with those same thoughts.
A failure to deal effectively with the trolls is a failure to create an open, enjoyable forum environment. That's kind of where we sit right now. I'm honestly curious if anyone with any authority is willing to take steps to change that.
The posts are gone, are they not? Just keep at it and he'll get bored.
And it's not like you'll never have this come up ever again. This jerk or the next, it's happened before, it will happen again. The trick is not to lose your head over it.
Every time he has to make an account, that's more hoops he has to jump through. Sure, it's easy to get another account, but getting an account again and again and again? Meanwhile attempts to upset the community fail and doesn't get him what he wants as his posts get removed as if they never existed.
People always ask to instantly ban someone they don't agree with, or say is a troll. We've never instantly banned someone unless it was in an extreme case. I'd classify this under those rare cases.
Upsetting people is the goal. Not getting upset by reporting it and moving on means he loses. It really is that simple.
It is kind of discouraging when he has posted pornography and images of aborted fetuses (previously) with screen names that were still active tonight. He hasn't even needed to bother making new accounts.
Banning his IP makes an extra hoop and making it all the more annoying to have to get in here, because he would have to ask his ISP to reset his IP address.. or force him to go to internet cafe's etc.. maybe that would be a big enough pain for him to give it up.
We can start by actually banning the accounts he has now. I've been told that reporting his sockpuppets won't do any good, even if he cops to them, since it's only against the CoC for banned posters to have sockpuppets, and then only if they announce their existence as sockpuppets.
Since he's got accounts that are basically oscillating in and out of temp banning, nothing ever comes of it.
We can talk about how hard it is to make bans stick after we try them the first time.
I'll talk with CS and CM to see what can be done, though.
It would be up to CS to determine if the offender's claim to be another screen name is true or not. I've seen troll claim to be other names before to get THOSE names banned.
I'll talk with CS and CM to see what can be done, though.
Funny.. this same guy tried that one on in a public thread not long ago.. he named some of his real sockpuppets as well as some of the people he didn't like (such as members of the avengers..)
It would be up to CS to determine if the offender's claim to be another screen name is true or not. I've seen troll claim to be other names before to get THOSE names banned.
I'll talk with CS and CM to see what can be done, though.
Thanks, that is all you can do.
Funny.. this same game guy tried that one on in a public thread not long ago.. he named some of his real sockpuppets as well as some of the people he didn't like (such as members of the avengers..)
Yeah. He tried that trick once. Luckily the powers that be were smart enough to check IPs and eliminate the ones who weren't directly tied to the original. Given that he displayed that sort of behavior at all, though, and has since made subsequent appearances with the same account, it would seem that the people he named weren't really in danger of being removed anymore than he was, even if association with the troll in question was odious in and of itself.
I'd be a lot more worried about it if the three names in particular that I'm thinking of didn't have identical posting habits and styles (all the way down to the blow ups and near begging for a ban at the end), frequent the same areas (usually even the same threads) and target the same posters with the same baiting rhetoric.
Even if they aren't the same poster, they're all actively trolling. That means they need banned.
2 cp says I see SpearSpike on the boards again.
I wish I could take that bet, but I don't like my odds. Even with pretend money.
I wish I could take that bet, but I don't like my odds. Even with pretend money.
Yup.. i wouldn't take that bet either.. so my monopoly money is safe :D
Although.. i wonder if he is ever going to run out of names.. (I can think of one or two of his i never see on here any more.. i am assuming banned..)..
Let's not name names, eh?
We can't say that [poster X] is the one who started the aborted fetus thread? It's just a statement of fact, for pete's sake.
But okay, I'll self-censor.
In fairness though several posters said the link had a virus, so they may have done so unintentionally.
The posts are gone, are they not? Just keep at it and he'll get bored.
I think this is missing the true perception of such people and their mindset.
People like this have the mindset of stalkers. They do not care about hoops, etc. Their particular obsession consumes their life.
WOTC ignores this at their peril. Due diligence in these cases requires much more than "Hoping the poster gets bored."
Here's hoping that there are people available 24/7 to "take appropriate action."
Here's hoping that there are people available 24/7 to "take appropriate action."
There are.
:D
Let's not name names, eh?
He should be Ip Banned. With the amount of trouble he's caused there's no redeeming him in any way shape or form. I can't actually think of -one- time he has contributed to the community in any positive fashion.
Especially if he's posting pictures of aborted fetuses. On what amounts to supposedly an "E" rated forum.
One of his incarnations seems to be active already, posting in this forum.
He was actually two posts above yours, but looks to have gotten deleted.
He was actually two posts above yours, but looks to have gotten deleted.
I'm almost sorry I missed that. Its funny hearing him trying to portray himself as a victim in the cleaning up the general forum thread.
I'm almost sorry I missed that. Its funny hearing him trying to portray himself as a victim in the cleaning up the general forum thread.
It's like a scratched Abba record; the same bad music on loop.
It's like a scratched Abba record; the same bad music on loop.
Hey!
That is insulting to Abba!
*Goes to find Momma Mia soundtrack*
Would this guy complaining about himself and people who hold similar opinions being mistreated after the stuff he's pulled be considered baiting?
Personally I would consider it trolling instead.
I think this is missing the true perception of such people and their mindset.
People like this have the mindset of stalkers. They do not care about hoops, etc. Their particular obsession consumes their life.
WOTC ignores this at their peril. Due diligence in these cases requires much more than "Hoping the poster gets bored."
Here's hoping that there are people available 24/7 to "take appropriate action."
QFT.
The moderation here is a joke, and not even a funny one. “Dear Mr. Troll. Please stop posting pictures of aborted fetuses. There are kids watching these boards, and we fear they might get uncomfortable if it happens a third (fourth?) time. If this continues, we will be forced to punish you, by sending you yet another useless message like this one. Otherwise, feel free to continue enjoying our boards. We have sent moderators and VCLs to blame the posters who've reacted negatively to being called murderers, so we hope you will be less bothered in the future. We look forward to seeing a lot more from you on the boards, preferably right after we have told the community how seriously we take the problem of trolling. Your friends, the WotC staff.”
QFT.
The moderation here is a joke, and not even a funny one. “Dear Mr. Troll. Please stop posting pictures of aborted fetuses. There are kids watching these boards, and we fear they might get uncomfortable if it happens a third (fourth?) time. If this continues, we will be forced to punish you, by sending you yet another useless message like this one. Otherwise, feel free to continue enjoying our boards. We have sent moderators and VCLs to blame the posters who've reacted negatively to being called murderers, so we hope you will be less bothered in the future. We look forward to seeing a lot more from you on the boards, preferably right after we have told the community how seriously we take the problem of trolling. Your friends, the WotC staff.”
The sad thing is, I could see it being handled this very way.
QFT.
The moderation here is a joke, and not even a funny one. “Dear Mr. Troll. Please stop posting pictures of aborted fetuses. There are kids watching these boards, and we fear they might get uncomfortable if it happens a third (fourth?) time. If this continues, we will be forced to punish you, by sending you yet another useless message like this one. Otherwise, feel free to continue enjoying our boards. We have sent moderators and VCLs to blame the posters who've reacted negatively to being called murderers, so we hope you will be less bothered in the future. We look forward to seeing a lot more from you on the boards, preferably right after we have told the community how seriously we take the problem of trolling. Your friends, the WotC staff.”
A joke gets its humor from the grains of truth existing within it.
One of his incarnations seems to be active already, posting in this forum.
He was actually two posts above yours, but looks to have gotten deleted.
Wow, so posting stuff like that for the nth time gets you what, a 12-hour ban? Or maybe he was just asleep? That's sending a strong message*.
*"Keep trolling- we don't mind."
so this joke should be The Perfect Joke?
Well technically the perfect joke would be to say this forum has any form of real moderation going on.
Me managed to kill that noise in two weeks with bans and locks AND grow the community. WotC can't tell me that they can't do the same or better here in nine months.
Between the invisible moderation (everything is cloak and dagger via PM and email) not letting anyone actually know where the line is, the consequence system being a joke of the highest order (You are sentenced to making a new name!), and what exists of a temp ban system being even more invisible and meaningless, It's pretty clear WotC needs to tear down it's entire forum administration structure and put something that WORKS in place of it.
There is no reason a forum run by volunteer webcomic creators (the laziest people in existence) should be running circles around WotC in terms of maintaining the community.
Then again, as web-heads, I guess we're more in tune with how the internet actually works and know how to get messages across to netizens.
Since some time there are a few posters (most banned) that do post pictures and threads BEYOND inappropirate.
Where is the line? When is the IP-Ban hammer needed?
Just a few moments ago someone posted a picutre of a dead fetus in the general boards. Is that person IP-Banned? I want to know that, because if not, the moderation and administration of this forum should go and bash their heads against a wall. Maybe that would rattle them up enough to get a grip here, because people who do things like what I said, should not be welcome here and be banned forever, as long as possible.
So tell me, Moderation: Where is the line? When does it become too much? Does someone first have to post a videolink to even more serious stuff?
That's the kind of person that shouldn't be allowed NEAR a computer. I hope he's banned
This case was extreme. So extreme in fact that I am coming out and saying we have done the first IP banning on our forums since CS has taken over moderation.
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread but I want to point out a few things about inappropriate content and how to get it removed.
Tier 1 CS Reps do not patrol the forums. VCLs are not on 24 hours a day. We need your help in getting these things reported. We do have people on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week waiting for forum conduct reports. They are a #1 priority. Cases like the one in question are exactly why that is.
As someone posted, it was removed very shortly after being reported. We just need your help in reporting these issues to us. All you have to do is click on the red triangle icon
, enter a short message and send it off. We try to make it very easy to let us know about inappropriate content.This is your community. We have the tools to clean it up but we really need your eyes to show us where to go. Thank you.
As you all know we rarely comment on conduct issues. We've found in the past that the more we say the more loopholes people find. That's the short of why we don't say much.
This case was extreme. So extreme in fact that I am coming out and saying we have done the first IP banning on our forums since CS has taken over moderation.
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread but I want to point out a few things about inappropriate content and how to get it removed.
Tier 1 CS Reps do not patrol the forums. VCLs are not on 24 hours a day. We need your help in getting these things reported. We do have people on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week waiting for forum conduct reports. They are a #1 priority. Cases like the one in question are exactly why that is.
As someone posted, it was removed very shortly after being reported. We just need your help in reporting these issues to us. All you have to do is click on the red triangle icon
This is your community. We have the tools to clean it up but we really need your eyes to show us where to go. Thank you.
Thanks for the response. It is good to know that something was done about him.
As you all know we rarely comment on conduct issues. We've found in the past that the more we say the more loopholes people find. That's the short of why we don't say much.
This case was extreme. So extreme in fact that I am coming out and saying we have done the first IP banning on our forums since CS has taken over moderation.
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread but I want to point out a few things about inappropriate content and how to get it removed.
Tier 1 CS Reps do not patrol the forums. VCLs are not on 24 hours a day. We need your help in getting these things reported. We do have people on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week waiting for forum conduct reports. They are a #1 priority. Cases like the one in question are exactly why that is.
As someone posted, it was removed very shortly after being reported. We just need your help in reporting these issues to us. All you have to do is click on the red triangle icon
This is your community. We have the tools to clean it up but we really need your eyes to show us where to go. Thank you.
Thanks for taking some strong action. I would like to see more of it on a more regular basis, but I'm glad that something was done in this case. Still, there are more ways to prove yourself unable to get along with people than fetus pics. I'm glad we've got this guy out of the picture (hopefully) but the trolling shouldn't have to go that far to be severely punished.
The trolling shouldn't have to go that far to be severely punished.
Agreed. I think the line should be well short of aborted fetuses.
The point being that if you don't make the line well short of aborted fetuses, you're going to end up with aborted fetuses, since posters like that are going to test to the limits and beyond.
Abortion really is the killing of a defenseless, unborn child. Not that i agree with posting photos of dead babies. But it really is worse than murder.
Three pages of bawling about it really equals a huge win for any forum troll......stop reacting so extremely as i am sure you are giving the guy his jollies.
Abortion really is the killing of a defenseless, unborn child. Not that i agree with posting photos of dead babies. But it really is worse than murder.
This thread was only peripherally about that troll. This thread had more to do with the moderation policies of CS than it did about that idiot.
Abortion really is the killing of a defenseless, unborn child. Not that i agree with posting photos of dead babies. But it really is worse than murder.
That's neither here nor there. This discussion has no bearing to abortion rights.
I'd like to inquire (if someone from the CS/CM is still reading), if it would be possible to institute perma bans for people who send insulting PM's, because I received one not long ago from a certain poster.
Thats the equivalent of going straight to some person and spitting him bile in the face. That should be one of the absolute "no-go" things.
I believe I received one form the same person.. because it refers to Leichenreiter and myself in derogative terms..
If you have never filled out a support ticket before, you will need to register. It is a different database from the WotC forums database.
Does the name begin with "Strand" and ends in a number?
I screenshotted it and reported it via the custserv website including said screenshot. One screenname lost I hope. One does hope it hurts a little, as said account is from 2007 still.
If I might inquire: Could you post said PM? I am interested, although more in another laugh as it probably will turn out to be.
his name sure does... and yep, i will forward it to you.
I have reported as suggested by Mudbunny
Someone comes into your house and begins shouting at you. Do you ignore him or call the cops? You call the cops (if not, you should re-evaluate your standpoint) and want them to take care of him.
Someone comes to your house to yell at you and you let them in?
If you KNOW someone is out to bother you, why allow them to send you PMs?
The ignore list is just one tool available.
Someone comes to your house to yell at you and you let them in?
If you KNOW someone is out to bother you, why allow them to send you PMs?
The ignore list is just one tool available.
I used to be a big advocate of adding people to the Ignore List; now, with all the sockpuppets and whatnot, I don't even bother with it any more.
Never mind the fact that the trolls and sockpuppets have begun to take on multiple personalities, so that you can never count on a single account being consistently trollish in every post.
But who knows, maybe I'll go back to it. I still have a fair number of folks on Ignore.
Customer Service and Moderation is the police on this board. Essentially you say "ignore the problem, let others suffer from it if he keeps it on".
"Don't feed the trolls." is what I'm saying.
Someone comes to your house to yell at you and you let them in?
If you KNOW someone is out to bother you, why allow them to send you PMs?
The ignore list is just one tool available.
A more apt analogy is that this is WotC's house and it's their responsibility to get rid of crashers. Now, you got rid of the guy who took a dump in the punch bowl, and that's a good thing. Can you now do something about the guy pressing ham on the porch window other than tell us to pretend he doesn't exist?
The ignore list is just one tool available.
That is pure fail. Honestly the moderation on here is really bad.
Personally, I suggest adding them to your ignore list.
I think that's a horrible suggestion. I mean an actively bad suggestion that, if adopted, will only cause further deterioration of the forums.
The Ignore List should not be based on other people's behavior, but one's own. If someone sees trolling, you don't ignore them; you report them. The Ignore List is antithetical to the process WotC_Eric describes above, which requires an active and perceptive community reprting bad posts.
The Ignore List is merely a substitute for self-control. If a poster believes another poster makes him so upset that he knows his responses are going to get himself (rather than the other poster) in trouble, he should put the person on Ignore in order to prevent himself from violating the CoC.
That is pure fail. Honestly the moderation on here is really bad.
Actually, the moderation is very good.
Getting rid of people that don't agree with you isn't what the moderators are here for. Forcing people to your point of view isn't what the moderators are here for. Removing people you don't like isn't what the moderators are here for.
Thinking the report button is some sort of "I Win" button to win an argument is wrong. Disagreeing is not baiting. Saying something you don't like isn't baiting. Nor are these instances always trolling.
Disciplinary procedures are outlined in the Code of Conduct. That is the way things have ALWAYS worked around here.
I think that my (and people with similarly controversial) views do not merit an IP ban. Much to the ire of some who want an echo chamber, but they are not the moderators and administrators (except Vaalingrade Ashland on that one forum of his that I had fun on, god that was fun while it lasted).
Now let's look at "the other side" of this. The goal of the boards is for everyone's enjoyment. Everyone's. Not a select few, and most certainly NOT by causing others to be upset. THAT is right in the Code of Conduct. Intentionally going out of your way to cause problems isn't conductive of the community's health. Nobody has the right to go around poking people with sharp sticks because they want to or think it's fun.
Having a differing opinion is okay. Being a jerk about it is not. Jumping in everyone's face when you KNOW it is causing grief is not okay.
The Ignore List should not be based on other people's behavior, but one's own. If someone sees trolling, you don't ignore them; you report them. The Ignore List is antithetical to the process WotC_Eric describes above, which requires an active and perceptive community reprting bad posts.
The Ignore List is merely a substitute for self-control. If a poster believes another poster makes him so upset that he knows his responses are going to get himself (rather than the other poster) in trouble, he should put the person on Ignore in order to prevent himself from violating the CoC.
True enough, but my suggestion was for how to ignore someone's PM, not a post. (Which doesn't have a report button.)
Also, in the past PMs weren't moderated. It slipped my mind that now we are accepting screenshots.
If you don't report an abusive PM, you are giving the troll license to do that to other people. Don't ignore it; report it. That doesn't mean you should respond to it, though.
If you don't report an abusive PM, you are giving the troll license to do that to other people. Don't ignore it; report it. That doesn't mean you should respond to it, though.
Good point.
Still
"Ignore him"
seems to occupy a special programmable key on your keyboard, because I hear it over and over and over and over again. And it is not a solution to trolling. And you sure as hell do know there are some very real and very green trolls around. Ignoring them is NOT the solution to the problem.
You can't solve problems by ignoring them. You only make them worse by this.
So.... what should be done when someone says "Don't feed the trolls?"
That's basically what I'm saying here. So I'll modify my statement by saying "Take a screenshot and send to CS, and then add them to your ignore list."
That's basically what I'm saying here. So I'll modify my statement by saying "Take a screenshot and send to CS, and then add them to your ignore list."
Can you set your ignore list only for PMs from that member, or does that mean you will no longer see regular posts?
If the latter, then I still don't think you should put anybody on your ignore list for as long as CS is relying on users to report trolls. CS has deputized us all to be moderators by using the report button. CS and CM should not be encouraging these deputies to ignore crime (being a violation of the CoC). Ignore should only be a tool to prevent a deputy from becoming a criminal (because of an inability to resist baiting), at least until CS ceases to rely exclusively on the general forum membership for identifying violations.
So my answer is: Stop telling people to ignore the trolls unless they have a self-control issue. It's bad advice.
Personally, I suggest adding them to your ignore list.
This would be a great answer (well not really, but for rhetorical purposes) if we could depend on the fact that the poster in question wasn't setting up other accounts on a regular basis to continue the disruption.
Given that this is in no way the case, it's not really an answer at all. To paraphrase one of our fellow posters on the GD board (about a different subject), it's like "putting a bandaid over a sucking chest wound." It's not really an answer, but it's a token gesture that can potentially make you feel better while the situation deteriorates.
If we're not going to get actual medical attention, why should we even bother with the bandaid?
Nevermind that with the "community watch" style of moderation we've got, ignoring the problem won't make it go away. If we don't report it, it doesn't get removed. "See no evil, mod no evil" is a hell of a way to run a forum.
As you all know we rarely comment on conduct issues. We've found in the past that the more we say the more loopholes people find. That's the short of why we don't say much.
This case was extreme. So extreme in fact that I am coming out and saying we have done the first IP banning on our forums since CS has taken over moderation.
I apologize for not reading all of the posts in this thread but I want to point out a few things about inappropriate content and how to get it removed.
Tier 1 CS Reps do not patrol the forums. VCLs are not on 24 hours a day. We need your help in getting these things reported. We do have people on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week waiting for forum conduct reports. They are a #1 priority. Cases like the one in question are exactly why that is.
As someone posted, it was removed very shortly after being reported. We just need your help in reporting these issues to us. All you have to do is click on the red triangle icon
This is your community. We have the tools to clean it up but we really need your eyes to show us where to go. Thank you.
Thank you very much for posting this. It is reassuring to know.
However, I do have one question. Why did it take until the second time he posted pictures of aborted fetuses before he was banned? (I don't mean the two threads in one night)
Several weeks ago the same poster posted pictures of aborted fetuses and I know the post was reported and the pictures were removed. He has also posted pictures of topless women including nipples which would seem to fall under the "do not post pornographic content" part of the second paragraph of the CoC.
Thank you very much for posting this. It is reassuring to know.
However, I do have one question. Why did it take until the second time he posted pictures of aborted fetuses before he was banned? (I don't mean the two threads in one night)
Several weeks ago the same poster posted pictures of aborted fetuses and I know the post was reported and the pictures were removed. He has also posted pictures of topless women including nipples which would seem to fall under the "do not post pornographic content" part of the second paragraph of the CoC.
Agreed totally on the first part. The second part I don't see nudity as necessarily being out right pornographic. It depends entirely in the manner of which something is portrayed whether it's pornographic or not. A statue or painting of Venus for example is hardly porn.
Given the poster's lack of taste in general though and having not seen the pictures it's probably safe to say it was pornographic.
I'm glad he is gone. But I feel that this kind of behavior was still allowed to go on too long. The moment someone -physically threatens- another poster they should be Ip banned in my opinion. All the same. Good Job Mods for doing something. I'm glad we won't have to resort to Vigilantism to fix these forums. Not yet at least.
Agreed totally on the first part. The second part I don't see nudity as necessarily being out right pornographic. It depends entirely in the manner of which something is portrayed whether it's pornographic or not. A statue or painting of Venus for example is hardly porn.
I agree that not all nudity is pornographic. However, the picture in question was a porn star and a poster of herself.
Its like owning a dog that messes on the floor. CS is simply cleaning up the messes. The dog is still messing on the floor every day, and the house is unpleasant to be in. Simply cleaning up the messes teaches the dog nothing and does nothing to prevent or discourage future bad behavior.
When you report somebody for the same offense for the 5th or 10th time, you start getting very frustrated with the moderation. You start losing faith in the report button.
I agree that not all nudity is pornographic. However, the picture in question was a porn star and a poster of herself.
Ah. Yeah I figured it would be something tasteless.
I'd like to inquire (if someone from the CS/CM is still reading), if it would be possible to institute perma bans for people who send insulting PM's, because I received one not long ago from a certain poster.
-That would be nice, but nothing comes from reporting things. At a point, I was receiving PMs from individuals on almost daily basis, and reporting them on almost a daily basis, and to this day, the individual(s) still have their posting privileges.
-That would be nice, but nothing comes from reporting things. At a point, I was receiving PMs from individuals on almost daily basis, and reporting them on almost a daily basis, and to this day, the individual(s) still have their posting privileges.
Ditto, the only reasons I've stopped reviving PM's from jerks is because the jerk who was sending me the PM's was the same jerk who posted the fetus pictures.
-That would be nice, but nothing comes from reporting things. At a point, I was receiving PMs from individuals on almost daily basis, and reporting them on almost a daily basis, and to this day, the individual(s) still have their posting privileges.
Ditto, the only reasons I've stopped reviving PM's from jerks is because the jerk who was sending me the PM's was the same jerk who posted the fetus pictures.
I've never (knock on wood) been harassed via PM, but I find it disturbing that even a few people report this. Can someone in an official role comment on why rude/threatening PMs are not grounds for severe punishment?
I totally understand why we can't and shouldn't cast someone out for getting into heated disagreements or even being a jerk sometimes in threads, but repeated harassment via PM is a whole different thing. It's very personal and deliberate and intimidating. Why isn't this sort of behavior worthy of prompt action?
I get the feeling that CS and/or CM are a little too optimistic about people. Some people really are not interested in the positive aspects of community. They delight in causing others various degrees of unhappiness or discomfort. The guy who got IP-banned is not the only person like this.
I've never (knock on wood) been harassed via PM, but I find it disturbing that even a few people report this. Can someone in an official role comment on why rude/threatening PMs are not grounds for severe punishment?
-One of the individuals noted as much in a PM that he received a temporary, 24-hour ban on an account, when the individual PMed me using one of their "spare" accounts. So...Yeah...
There finally needs to be a dialog with the ones behind the scenes who do have the power...
Good luck with that.
So.... what should be done when someone says "Don't feed the trolls?"
1). Don't respond publicly.
2). Report them with a detailed explanation of why you think it violates the code of conduct.
That's basically what I'm saying here. So I'll modify my statement by saying "Take a screenshot and send to CS, and then add them to your ignore list."
We need a better way of reporting PMs. A proceeder to report them could copy the info in the PM and send it to customer service with needing to download a program to take screen shots. It also could make it less of a hassle and making it easier would make people more likely to report them.
btw, just got yet another insult via PM... someone can lend me a trollbane flaming sword?
Hmm.... Do you think here's a chance we could get permission to post those PMs (not with names on, of course) on a thread here? I haven't received any myself, but I have heard about one which was really ugly (an “I hope you die”-vein), and I think it even got the poster banned (together with his many, many posts that got deleted for trolling and baiting, as well as it being his fifth account
). Of course, a few days later, a suspiciously similar poster showed up.Anyway, I'd like to know what I can expect WotC to not do anything about. I know there are good reasons for why we can't discuss trolls by name, can't refer to anyone's earlier username, and shouldn't discuss the specifics of PMs, but it has the unintentional (or not?) side-effect of making it hard for the rest of us to form coherent complaints and strategies, and let other people know they're not alone.
I am sure a lot of us that where on here for the height of the the edition war received some.. i know i did.
I don't think we are allowed to post that sort of thing on here, mainly because if you find it offensive it shouldn't be made public on the board, we just report it, ignore it (or tell the clown that sent it to us to grow up)and move on..
Nothing in the CoC precludes posting the text of PMs specifically. You're right that it's probably not ok to be posting offensive material from PMs, but if it's just a laundry list or act of self-incrimination I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I've done it several times, and have yet to have one deleted, at least while the poster who sent it wasn't banned.
Nothing in the CoC precludes posting the text of PMs specifically. You're right that it's probably not ok to be posting offensive material from PMs, but if it's just a laundry list or act of self-incrimination I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I've done it several times, and have yet to have one deleted, at least while the poster who sent it wasn't banned.
Maybe if they were "censored" 1st? Like, I think everyone is an a#$!".
Maybe if they were "censored" 1st? Like, I think everyone is an a#$!".
Actually, masking curse words like that is against the CoC!
Actually, masking curse words like that is against the CoC!
Yes, technically. The reason is so that you don't curse at other posters. I don't think that is the reason someone would show a PM?
Oh, I forgot. !!!! (no post is complete without exclams)
Someone comes to your house to yell at you and you let them in?
If you KNOW someone is out to bother you, why allow them to send you PMs?
The ignore list is just one tool available.
I'm sorry, I really feel I have to answer this one. You're using a house analogy, however that, sir is a false one.
Do you guys realise that the true analogy is that someone is coming in, every single day, all day, standing outside your shop ("your" being WotC's) and spewing lies about your product being totally unlike what it really is. If I ran an electrical goods company, and someone turned up at the front door every day, from opening to closing, and lied about my TVs melting down three weeks after purchase, or somehow turning series 3 of heroes into days of our lives, I would call the cops (and probably sue the (insert swear words here) for slander and lost business) rather than tell passers by to just pretend he doesn't exist, don't you think?
The fact that there are people here that care enough about the product to correct him so these passers by actually see the truth rather than the lies and propaganda of the haters (that is to say, the green bridge dwelling ones) says a lot in favour of the community in general, and quite bluntly, you should give them a bloody medal, because these guys are preventing losses to your bottom line due to misinformation.
It wasn't even my analogy.I did modify my post to say send a screenshot to CS and then add them to your ignore list.
Using the ignore list to block a troll after reporting them isn't ignoring the problem. The troll is reported, CS is aware, and you get them out of your life by not looking at any remaining posts they have.
Simple. Reasonable. Doable.
Actually, the moderation is very good.
No, it really, really isn't.
You and others keep trying to frame this as an us vs them thing and it isn't. This is about people who troll and glorify thier trolling time and time again and get NO consequences. None.
Disciplinary procedures are outlined in the Code of Conduct. That is the way things have ALWAYS worked around here.
And they have failed.
Only this time they've failed on a massive level.
No, it really, really isn't.
-Untrue.
-Things that are blatantly against the CoC are regularly removed. WizOs are constantly editing others' posts, and/or deleting them outright. Every time you hit the 'Report Post' button, a WizO reviews the post in question, referencing the guidelines that they were trained on, to see if a post violates the CoC. If a WizO does nothing, this doesn't mean that they are ignoring you. It means that they have reviewed the post in question, and don't feel that it violates the CoC, which they have all been trained to interpret and such.
-That me, you, or anyone else feel that a post violates the CoC doesn't matter. WizO's are the final arbiters, not us. Hence, however, why explaining to the WizO in as much depth as possible why you consider a post to be violating the CoC is what you need to do. If a specific poster, let's say, has a history of harassing you, reporting his/her thread and simply saying, "Baiting" might not cut it. Saying, "This poster has a history of baiting me, and has multiple posts deleted/edited in the past that specifically target me" is more likely to.
Someone posts a picture of a dead fetus.
The post is deleted.
-Thus, moderation is working. The offensive post was reported, and the WizOs removed the offending content.
Why not in the first round? Why is it deemed "not offensive enough" the first time? Can you tell me it is "not offensive enough" with a straight face?
-As far as I know, there isn't a "one and you're done" policy. Should such a policy be put in place, everyone would suffer.* If the first "strike" for a CoC violation is a temporary ban, then that's what the poster in question should have received, minor violation, major violation, whatever form it takes.
-Rather than complain, however, do you have any constructive and feasible ideas on what can be done to curb the problem, that can be relayed to CM/CS/Whoever the hell it is? On that point, as I've said, a "one and you're done" policy is not a good idea, nor is a IP-ban as the first action, either.
*Being as this would create a very acerbic posting environment, where people would be continually looking over their shoulders, and poking and probing every post of those individuals they don't like for actual/perceived CoC violations, in order to get that individual removed from the boards forevermore.
-Things that are less extreme are the most common. That is, low key baiting, flaming, bickering, etc. What do you think, would be the best way to deal with this? A blanket clause, "three strikes, and you're out", no matter the circumstances of the CoC violations? Something quicker? Something more prolonged?
-Untrue.
No. Just removing the symptoms is NOT good moderation. Removing the vectors, the people who constantly make posts and content that needs to be removed and actively discouraging this behavior is good moderation.
Editorial moderation is not enough. Editorial moderation is giving pain medication for a ruptured appendix; sure the pain is dulled, but a much more serious problem underlies it.
The fact is that the moderation this board needs has no teeth. The CoC is just a joke. You can do whatever the hell you want all the the time and face no real consequences.
According to the CoC, even fetus-boy can come back as long as he makes up a new name and that's complete BS. We need a CoC and a disciplinary system that actually have consequences and moderation that doesn't let you off with just a new sock-puppet and WotC isn't doing that. They're sitting on their thumbs and letting the trash run roughshod.
Of the major gaming boards, WotC's is indisputably THE worst moderated. You don't see this crap on Paizo or Enworld or even rpg.net. It's only here because the trolls and chan-spawn all know that this is the place where you can do quality, long term trolling and the mods will tell you to just pretend they don't exist.
-Thus, moderation is working.
That is not a definition of "working" that I or anybody should ever accept.
-Rather than complain, however, do you have any constructive and feasible ideas on what can be done to curb the problem, that can be relayed to CM/CS/Whoever the hell it is?
Yes. Make a clear process for people to be banned. I'm not talking a one-strike you're out policy, but a one-strike/warning, two-strike/suspension, three-strike name ban, four-strike IP-ban policy.
Make it a violation of the CoC to make a new account after you have been banned, which will result in an immediate IP ban.
Amend the CoC to make clear what it means to bait, and troll. And then enforce that policy!
Don't tell us that the enforcement process works when we can see with our own eyes how people troll and bait the forums, and other people flame in response to the trolling and baiting, and no repercussions.
No. Just removing the symptoms is NOT good moderation. Removing the vectors, the people who constantly make posts and content that needs to be removed and actively discouraging this behavior is good moderation.
-Does this not happen? Have not certain screen names been permanently banned? I can think of at least four screen names that have been permanently banned from these boards, for repeated CoC violations.
According to the CoC, even fetus-boy can come back as long as he makes up a new name and that's complete BS. We need a CoC and a disciplinary system that actually have consequences and moderation that doesn't let you off with just a new sock-puppet and WotC isn't doing that. They're sitting on their thumbs and letting the trash run roughshod.
-And, honestly, how is this a bad thing? Let's say that a policy in which someone who is banned is not allowed to create a new account. You do something that someone else perceives as against the CoC, the WizOs agree, and your account is suspended, and you are never allowed to create an account here again. Still think it's a good idea?
-As has been said in the past, only a small minority are "abusing" things. There have been many more posters who have had accounts banned, and they come back, under new guises, and are much changed (for the better) posters. Offhand, I can think of two, both of whom I would consider "elite" community members, in terms of how helpful they are, and such and such.
-To want permanent IP bans and such, is much too reactionary.
That is not a definition of "working" that I or anybody should ever accept.
-I see people who violate the CoC have their posts reported, and either edited by WizOs (who determine there is a CoC violation), or not edited by WizOs (who determine there is not a CoC violation). What more do you want to see?
Make it a violation of the CoC to make a new account after you have been banned, which will result in an immediate IP ban.
-See above.
Amend the CoC to make clear what it means to bait, and troll. And then enforce that policy!
-The policy is enforced, obviously, as people have their posts edited and/or deleted. What constitutes 'baiting' and 'trolling' can never be defined 100% and be made absolutely clear, either it is or it isn't. Say, in a discussion, I reply in a belligerent tone to a point you raise, and use sarcasm and such. When does this become baiting/flaming? You can't define such a line.
Don't tell us that the enforcement process works when we can see with our own eyes how people troll and bait the forums, and other people flame in response to the trolling and baiting, and no repercussions.
-Again, I see the enforcement process in action all of the time, with people having posts edited/deleted/et al. The underlying problem is the issue of how much is enough, which I agree, is too lenient. But, at the same time, I wouldn't want to see it too harsh, either. Remember, I've been personally harassed by the same individual since at least January now, but I'm not being all reactionary here.
-Does this not happen? Have not certain screen names been permanently banned? I can think of at least four screen names that have been permanently banned from these boards, for repeated CoC violations.
Screenname =! poster. When you've got one person with a half dozen names (and more that can be created without any inherent CoC violation), all you're doing is making them re-login. We're back to the bandaid on a chestwound situation.
-And, honestly, how is this a bad thing? Let's say that a policy in which someone who is banned is not allowed to create a new account. You do something that someone else perceives as against the CoC, the WizOs agree, and your account is suspended, and you are never allowed to create an account here again. Still think it's a good idea?
Someone who does something egregious enough to warrant an actual, honest-to-Bahumut ban (not a temp ban or a suspension) shouldn't get to come back. Period. They've forfeited their right to post here.
-As has been said in the past, only a small minority are "abusing" things. There have been many more posters who have had accounts banned, and they come back, under new guises, and are much changed (for the better) posters. Offhand, I can think of two, both of whom I would consider "elite" community members, in terms of how helpful they are, and such and such.
Practically every law or policy in existence is there to deal with a "small minority." The fact that it's only a few posters just means that we've only got to IP ban those few people to get the job done.
As for the ones who "came back," here's the deal. If they're not doing anything to violate CoC, nobody should be suspecting them of being a former troll anyway. Just like anyone else, they've got to work around an IP ban if that's what they get, but if they're not actively trolling they're not going to get reported as a troll. Does that mean they've got to walk a tighter line than the rest of us? Yeah, it does. If that means they're actively avoiding going back to trolling to avoid being reported and subsequently banned, more the better.
-To want permanent IP bans and such, is much too reactionary.
To not want them is overly permissive and too soft handed to ever fix this place.
That's what it really comes down to; are the moderation team ever planning on actually addressing the root of the problem? Editorial moderation, temp bans and an implied license for sockpuppetry aren't doing the job. If that's where the policy is going to stay, someone should just come out and say it, and we'll put together some sort of community enforcement posse for real this time. If it's not, if the powers that be actually realize that there's a problem and are willing to take steps to fix it, let's hear the plan.
-Does this not happen? Have not certain screen names been permanently banned? I can think of at least four screen names that have been permanently banned from these boards, for repeated CoC violations.
A screenname is just an alias. Banning the name means jack. You need to ban the person behind the name That would be his IP. Banning a name and letting the person who's doing crap make another name to do crap under is like letting someone out of jail as long as he wears a mask.
-And, honestly, how is this a bad thing?
Because it means that the rules and discipline system are meaningless?
Let's say that a policy in which someone who is banned is not allowed to create a new account. You do something that someone else perceives as against the CoC, the WizOs agree, and your account is suspended, and you are never allowed to create an account here again. Still think it's a good idea?
Let's say that we use the current system and I make it a point to harass you continually. The only thing WotC is going to do is make me choose new names to harass you with periodically (coincidentally allowing me to circumvent the ignore list, btw). Still think letting trolls and harassers instantly respawn is a good thing?
-As has been said in the past, only a small minority are "abusing" things. There have been many more posters who have had accounts banned, and they come back, under new guises, and are much changed (for the better) posters. Offhand, I can think of two, both of whom I would consider "elite" community members, in terms of how helpful they are, and such and such.
I can only think of one and the situation was VERY different when it came to him. He wasn't harassing and trolling, he was sarcastic and blunt.
-To want permanent IP bans and such, is much too reactionary.
No, it isn't. And it doesn't even have to be perm as such. Even a month IP ban would at least show *some* measure of consequence, as opposed to those 12 hour 'is he banned or was he asleep' heaps of pathetic some guys here have gotten DOZENS of.
-Does this not happen? Have not certain screen names been permanently banned?
As others have said, banning a screenname is not a ban. I'd accept it as an admonition, but it should not be the most severe punishment available.
You do something that someone else perceives as against the CoC, the WizOs agree, and your account is suspended, and you are never allowed to create an account here again. Still think it's a good idea?
Yes, I think that's a good idea. If I repeatedly get warned by CS, I should expect to eventually be banned form the forums.
-As has been said in the past, only a small minority are "abusing" things.
That minority tyrannizes the majority if they are allowed to proceed unpunished.
-I see people who violate the CoC have their posts reported, and either edited by WizOs (who determine there is a CoC violation), or not edited by WizOs (who determine there is not a CoC violation). What more do you want to see?
Consequences to the poster, not merely the post.
What constitutes 'baiting' and 'trolling' can never be defined 100% and be made absolutely clear, either it is or it isn't.
I don't need it to be absolutely clear. I need to to be categorized better than it is now, which is to say, not at all.
Maybe you're unaware of this but other forums are indeed better moderated than this one. Vaal himself has been a moderator of such forums. EnWorld and rpg.net are both better moderated.
I've been personally harassed by the same individual since at least January now, but I'm not being all reactionary here.
Maybe, if you were a bit more "reactionary" you wouldn't feel the need ot endure inappropriate harrassment. I'm not sure your willingness to tolerate abuse is a persuasive argument against IP bans.
-Does this not happen? Have not certain screen names been permanently banned? I can think of at least four screen names that have been permanently banned from these boards, for repeated CoC violations.
I can think of one person with that many permanently banned screen names and they are still on the boards doing the same thing that got them banned so many times in the first place.
I know of at least one that made it blatantly obvious and returned in less that one day doing the same thing and even admitted to it.
[thread=1050989]Here's the proof.[/thread]
-And, honestly, how is this a bad thing? Let's say that a policy in which someone who is banned is not allowed to create a new account. You do something that someone else perceives as against the CoC, the WizOs agree, and your account is suspended, and you are never allowed to create an account here again. Still think it's a good idea?
Not in and off itself. Allowing poster to create a new account is fine if they act responsibly after it happens. The problem is some use the ability to create new accounts to get around moderation and keep doing the same thing that they where banned for.
-As has been said in the past, only a small minority are "abusing" things. There have been many more posters who have had accounts banned, and they come back, under new guises, and are much changed (for the better) posters. Offhand, I can think of two, both of whom I would consider "elite" community members, in terms of how helpful they are, and such and such.
Lets make a distinction here. If they come back and act within the code of conduct that if fine. However, after repeated permanent bans, if they still do the same thing that got them those bans something different is needed.
-To want permanent IP bans and such, is much too reactionary.
Not really. If some has repeated shown that they cannot or will not act within the code of conduct despite repeated permanent bans then you need a different way of keeping them out.
As temp bans are part of the discipline system why cannot a temp IP ban be included. I and a few others have suggested other methods other than a IP ban.
-I see people who violate the CoC have their posts reported, and either edited by WizOs (who determine there is a CoC violation), or not edited by WizOs (who determine there is not a CoC violation). What more do you want to see?
I've seen the same person moderated three time in one thread in the same day for the same violation. At that point a temp ban would be a good idea.
After repeated temp bans or for more serve infractions a permanent ban should be the next step.
After several permanent bans or the most severe infractions a IP ban should be used.
-See above.
Well I would go quite as far as the other poster, but at some point of more severe punishment is needed just to get the poster to behave or keep them from
in everyones punch.-The policy is enforced, obviously, as people have their posts edited and/or deleted. What constitutes 'baiting' and 'trolling' can never be defined 100% and be made absolutely clear, either it is or it isn't. Say, in a discussion, I reply in a belligerent tone to a point you raise, and use sarcasm and such. When does this become baiting/flaming? You can't define such a line.
Because you cannot find the line doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot at least give a general idea of what the violations are. That might help some try to stay within the lines.
-Again, I see the enforcement process in action all of the time, with people having posts edited/deleted/et al. The underlying problem is the issue of how much is enough, which I agree, is too lenient
Well I'll agree on this part. I know at least one person that openly stated that they customer service refused to permanently ban them. Of course they flamed out real good and fixed that.
. But, at the same time, I wouldn't want to see it too harsh, either. Remember, I've been personally harassed by the same individual since at least January now, but I'm not being all reactionary here.
I wouldn't want to be too harsh either. However, this need not be a all or nothing thing.
-The majority seems to support harsher and..."quicker" moderation. Is this correct?
Not in and off itself. Allowing poster to create a new account is fine if they act responsibly after it happens. The problem is some use the ability to create new accounts to get around moderation and keep doing the same thing that they where banned for.
Lets make a distinction here. If they come back and act within the code of conduct that if fine. However, after repeated permanent bans, if they still do the same thing that got them those bans something different is needed.
Not really. If some has repeated shown that they cannot or will not act within the code of conduct despite repeated permanent bans then you need a different way of keeping them out.
-Right. Being heavy-handed in the issuing permanent bans, coupled with IP bans prevents this from happening. Those who receive these IP bans, for whatever reason- theoretical examples can have any situation unfold- lose the ability to "resurrect" themselves as posters, and go from "bad/borderline" to "good". As I said before, there are a bunch of posters who have received permanent bans, made new accounts, and are excellent posters.
As temp bans are part of the discipline system why cannot a temp IP ban be included. I and a few others have suggested other methods other than a IP ban.
After several permanent bans or the most severe infractions a IP ban should be us
-The above, I agree with, and would personally like to see put into effect. The by-and-large consensus here, seems to want to skip the earlier parts, and go straight to the later parts, which I don't think is a good idea at all.
I wouldn't want to be too harsh either. However, this need not be a all or nothing thing.
-This, I agree with.
-It seems extremely clear to me. Posters do things that are against the CoC, and the WizOs moderate the posts. When the posts are more than minor infractions, account suspensions are handed out. When there are repeated violations, or extreme violations, more extreme suspensions are handed out.
What "more extreme"? According to Customer Service, they never IP-banned anybody before. So what more extreme measures do you think CS has dished out to people after account suspensions?
And I take issue with your description that "When the posts are more than minor infractions, account suspensions are handed out." That is not a standard I ever heard being applied, and it's not anything I have observed. I have no idea what it takes to get accounts suspended and I suspect you have no idea either.
And I take issue with your description that "When the posts are more than minor infractions, account suspensions are handed out." That is not a standard I ever heard being applied, and it's not anything I have observed. I have no idea what it takes to get accounts suspended and I suspect you have no idea either.
-First hand experience:
-When a poster makes a minor infraction- calling someone a name, that someone reports- a WizO may edit the post, or delete the post. Nothing else is done 99.9% of the time. This is why I called it "a minor infraction".
-When a poster does something that is more severe- sending a harassing PM in which the individual threatens physical violence, and promises that, say, a certain organization will return to a position of power, and continue the genocidal policies against a specific religious groups that it espoused- WizOs do more than just edit/delete the PM (as, of course, they can't do anything with PMs). Screen names have been given temporary bans because of such things. Hence why I called it a "more than minor infractions".
-Thus, when differing degrees of punishment are handed out for differing degrees of CoC offenses.
Can I just ask, why on earth are people even allowed multiple accounts? There's few legitimate uses for them* and they seem to be the major tool for trolls around here. Surely if it's possible to ban an IP and so on, then stopping someone from making another account should be easy, right?
I know www.rpol.net is ruthless in hunting down and exterminating multiple accounts, even those made as spares or by accident.
* Well, there's some Handbooks. (Like the one where the poster gave out the password so anyone could edit and add to it - only to have some rat change the password.)
Effort by decent posters + CS/CM >>>>>>>>> effort by trolls.
Trolling is easy. I can make some realistic sounding troll posts that equal anything written by our finest, most heavily banned trolls. It takes no thought or effort or knowledge. Obnoxious, elitist, inflammatory drivel is really simple to churn out. Some subtlety makes it even easier to not get banned with. for example, prefacing things with fake politeness or "In my opinion" or whatever makes it even harder to determine that the troll is a troll.
Reports, however, are often very detailed. The advice of the moderators and VCLs and such on this thread and others is always to write very detailed reports every time a troll posts. Some VCLs, like mudbunny and LK, have detailed offline records of people's trolling histories that they include in reports (I read this on the VCL open forum). I know that I and several others have written to CS with detailed reports on the multiple accounts of a few trolls.
I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but this is really dumb. When someone with a months-long history of trolling across 3 or 4 or 7 accounts writes his 500th troll post, several (3?5?10?) people write freaking essays to CS asking for its removal. Then a WizO *might* remove the post if he judges it to be bad enough. This may not happen if he's a new kid and he doesn't know the context. Every time the troll effortlessly tosses off some inflammatory post, this is repeated, with conscientious members writing several reports and WizOs reading them. A huge amount of time and effort is expended for the simple goal of treading water, that is, of keeping the forums from not getting worse.
And even this isn't achievable in the current paradigm. All the members here who don't want to see 4e and/or WotC consumed by the fires of divine vengeance have shorter and shorter tempers. Anytime someone who may be new or may be a sock-puppet posts something a little anti-4e, 6 people kick him in the teeth. The patience of the community gets shorter everyday. [smallcaps]Writing more reports and more detailed reports isn't the answer.[/smallcaps]
Seriously, could CS/CM/Zeus/Moradin/Anyone please give a little more help to those of us who don't want to poop on WotC's grave? We're not asking for an echo chamber or a 4e orgy or anything. Just get rid of the obvious jerks. Webster and mudbunny and the other VCLs know who they are. The WizOs who have edited or deleted dozens or hundreds of posts by the same users know who they are.
I really enjoy having conversations and debates here. But some people take it too far and polarize the forums with constant edition-war trolling. It shouldn't take a dozen temp bans on different accounts to be shown the door. There shouldn't be hundreds of pages of reports on one user. No one should have to commit multiple "forum suicides" before we hand out an IP ban. The problem is bigger than individual posts. Get rid of bad people, please!
Just a correction- CS under the current system never had to IP ban someone.
Until the other day, right?
EDIT: And really, the answer doesn't matter. My point is that anti-trolling effort consumes vastly more time than trolling effort. Further, deleting some posts and ignoring some PMs doesn't undo the bad attitudes that spring up all around the community. Eventually closing hostile threads doesn't create an atmosphere in which posting is easier for the people who currently lurk to avoid conflict. These are the real problems, not the individual bad posts or the particular user-names that created them.
Just a correction- CS under the current system never had to IP ban someone.
What they should do and what they can do are very different things. Under the new system they did do and IP ban in response to the behavior that spawned this thread.
If I Recall Correctly, Lord Karsus complained in this thread about being harassed by private massage by the same person sense the beginning of the year.
They DO need to do something about that poster and an IP ban might be the only working solution.
-The majority seems to support harsher and..."quicker" moderation. Is this correct?
"Harsher" is a relative term. I mean, in terms of harshness, this forum's moderation and discipline is along the same lines of 'being swaddled loosely in silk sheets'.
What I want to see? Here's what I'd like to see here, what should have been here from the start:
1) Active, transparent moderation
When you screw up mildly, enough to be edited now, the mod doesn't just edit and *maybe* send you a petulant, copy paste email. They post on the thread and say PosterX, that was over the line. We don't say x or do y here. Cut it out"
This not only makes it very clear to the offender what they did, but it makes the rest of the community aware of where the line is.
2) Moderation with memory
You screw up once or twice, lose your cool a couple times, not big. You run into #1 and you learn to keep a lid on it.
But if you make a habit of it, the mods take note and discuss this with each other. (I was informed in no uncertain terms that it's technically against the CoC for at least the leads to discuss other members even via PM.) And once you've proven that being told to cut it out doesn't work, it's time to move to #3
3) A ban system that works
Okay, here's the plot: bans only matter if it's a) in the least bit difficult to circumvent and b) if people know that crossing the line ends in a ban.
You foul up enough that you've established a pattern of being a putz, or post tweaked crap like fetus-guy did and you get a ban. Not cloak and dagger crap, not one of those adorable, invisible, and very, very short 'bans', a ban. Meaning you account is listed as banned (maybe tagged in the custom text field), and you can't make a new account using your IP.
Depending on severity, this doens't have to be a perm at first, but anything less than a week is a joke. And if you keep acting a fool after being banned multiple times, you get permed. And to make it stick, we have #4:
4) No more free sock puppet loophole
Simple: if you're banned, you can't make another account to circumvent a ban. If you're not banned, you can make other accounts for other reasons, but if one gets banned, you are banned. Not your names, you and you can't make any more accounts until you're unbanned.
And if the mods catch you back from the banned with another, fake account, that one gets banned too. Before you get a chance to break the rules with it.
Also, institute email confirmation at the very least on registration. most of the trolls are using fake emails they can't access to get through or communal emails used by troll communities online to affect their activities.
"Also, institute email confirmation at the very least on registration. most of the trolls are using fake emails they can't access to get through or communal emails used by troll communities online to affect their activities.
It's been quite awhile sense I signed up, but I thought they did that. It's easy enough, just have to send you a link to the e-mail account that you must click on to activate the account.
"Harsher" is a relative term. I mean, in terms of harshness, this forum's moderation and discipline is along the same lines of 'being swaddled loosely in silk sheets'.
I have to agree with this. Compared to virtually every other internet forum I've ever joined, the moderation here is extremely forgiving, and has been even more so lately.
There are policies and procedures in place that makes the system work. Not seeing someone get banned when you report them doesn't mean nothing wasn't done. As I've said, it's not an "I Win" button. If they've violated the Code of Conduct, they may get a warning and/or ban. And as pointed out, it's up to the CS department to decide if a CoC violation has taken place. People aren't usually removed for a getting a warning.
Now, there's confusion about my suggestion of the ignore button.
If we don't report it, it doesn't get removed.
I was talking about PMs. The idea of re-posting it... eh, that's not against the CoC but- YOU become responsible for any CoC violations that are in the post if you repost it publicly.
We need a better way of reporting PMs.
Currently, there's only the screenshot/send to CS. How did people deal with this problem before the CM/CS split? IIRC, it was putting people on ignore.
That me, you, or anyone else feel that a post violates the CoC doesn't matter. WizO's are the final arbiters, not us. Hence, however, why explaining to the WizO in as much depth as possible why you consider a post to be violating the CoC is what you need to do. If a specific poster, let's say, has a history of harassing you, reporting his/her thread and simply saying, "Baiting" might not cut it. Saying, "This poster has a history of baiting me, and has multiple posts deleted/edited in the past that specifically target me" is more likely to.
QFT.
If that's where the policy is going to stay, someone should just come out and say it, and we'll put together some sort of community enforcement posse for real this time.
This right here is a serious problem. Doing that will cross the line into harassment territory. I've stated before that there's no conspiracy of pro 4e people against anti 4e people, and this is showing me perhaps I was wrong.
If you think that sort of action is okay, then you might one day find yourself on the other end of a group of people trying to get rid of YOU.
And yes, someone WILL try to use the system to get rid of YOU.
Anytime someone who may be new or may be a sock-puppet posts something a little anti-4e, 6 people kick him in the teeth. The patience of the community gets shorter everyday. Writing more reports and more detailed reports isn't the answer.
There's the other problem. Members do not know for a fact if someone is a sock puppet or someone who is just new.
Just get rid of the obvious jerks. Webster and mudbunny and the other VCLs know who they are. The WizOs who have edited or deleted dozens or hundreds of posts by the same users know who they are.
Again, that would be targeting people. But, having said that as VCL I represent the interests of the community. So, I'm going to see what I can do about the situation.
As for reporting PM's better: How about a simple "Report PM"-button? Other forums have those IIRC. FAR less hassle than screenshotting, inserting in pain, greying out stuff others should not see (I do not want some random CS folks seeing my bookmarks and similar things), uploading them with a message to CS for which you have to register to a secondary page and then send all that.
That would be easier, but I don't know if there is a hack available.
I think the manifestation of the problems is exactly what you quoted, though. Someone posts things that are critical of 4E and a bunch of other forum members go off to bash said person, even if he was misinformed, not a troll, not a sockpuppet and a nice person.
Someone was actually shocked that I didn't agree with him, but didn't rip his head off either.
I think correct information can be distributed without being confrontational to someone who is trolling and/or doesn't understand. It can be done in a positive and polite way.
It's not always easy to distinguish the two. And sometimes a topic really isn't trolling. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1087480
You'd think by the title the thread would have crashed and burned quickly if thought of as a troll. But it's a legit topic. (And an interesting one at that.)
Just a correction- CS under the current system never had to IP ban someone.
This is directly contradicted by a Wizo post earlier in this thread;
This case was extreme. So extreme in fact that I am coming out and saying we have done the first IP banning on our forums since CS has taken over moderation.
Sigh, looks like I'll have to put the Subtle Stick aside, because it's clear things are still unclear.
I don't think there's as much confusion as you're assuming here.
There are policies and procedures in place that makes the system work. Not seeing someone get banned when you report them doesn't mean nothing wasn't done. As I've said, it's not an "I Win" button. If they've violated the Code of Conduct, they may get a warning and/or ban. And as pointed out, it's up to the CS department to decide if a CoC violation has taken place. People aren't usually removed for a getting a warning.
I don't honestly think anyone (accept maybe the trolls) views the Report button as an "I win" situation. It's a way of alerting the moderation team to potential problem posts. As someone who isn't a member of that cadre, I have to assume that it performs that function admirably.
Where the problem comes in is in the number of warnings that it obviously takes to be removed as a poster. That's what people are up in arms against at this point; the enforcement, not the methodology.
I was talking about PMs. The idea of re-posting it... eh, that's not against the CoC but- YOU become responsible for any CoC violations that are in the post if you repost it publicly.
Currently, there's only the screenshot/send to CS. How did people deal with this problem before the CM/CS split? IIRC, it was putting people on ignore.
I know I've posted this in practically every thread in which the subject of sending PMs to CS has come up, but here goes again;
[Y]es I've had a few accounts, but no I've not lost count. I'll prove it:
PsionX (permanently banned)->PsionX_1 (permanently banned)->Leshracnuker (permanently banned)->Mortred (permanently banned)->Clinkzdps (temporarily banned 12 times)->Gondarcarry (currently unbanned, permanently banned)->Juggyslash (currently unbanned, temporarily banned 6 times).
I sent this directly to CS via screencap when I received it, and nothing has been done. How many strikes are we giving out, exactly?
This right here is a serious problem. Doing that will cross the line into harassment territory. I've stated before that there's no conspiracy of pro 4e people against anti 4e people, and this is showing me perhaps I was wrong.
There is not now, nor has there ever been to my knowledge a conspiracy of 4E supporters to get those who don't like the system banned. If such a thing did exist, I'd have no part in it; I don't care what system you play, I'm just sick and tired of trolls. I definitely don't feel like this is the way we should approach it as a forum, but we need to be able to trust in the moderation around here. Right now, that's just not possible.
If you think that sort of action is okay, then you might one day find yourself on the other end of a group of people trying to get rid of YOU.
And yes, someone WILL try to use the system to get rid of YOU.
If the epithet laden PMs I got from a couple dedicated trolls and their sockpuppets, and the harassment I endured in public threads from the same were any indication, someone did try to get rid of me in this fashion. In fact, a case could be made that it was an ongoing attempt over the course of several months.
Here's the thing, though. Even if they reported each of my posts with every sockpuppet (I don't know if they actually did this) and turned up in every thread I posted in calling me a troll and publically calling on the mods to ban me (I know they did this), nothing they did mattered; I wasn't violating the CoC or harassing anyone, so I didn't get banned. Basically, they could yell and scream all they wanted about me but I wasn't trolling so I'm still here. That's the thing about mob justice on the internet; it's either got to prove the case to the legitimate authorities or it has zero effect.
There's the other problem. Members do not know for a fact if someone is a sock puppet or someone who is just new.
Then we need moderation policies that make us more comfortable engaging new posters. As it stands, everyone with a join date of the current month gets looked at sideways around here. Stronger policies towards the removal of repeat trolls would go a long way towards making these boards more hospitable for newbs.
Again, that would be targeting people. But, having said that as VCL I represent the interests of the community. So, I'm going to see what I can do about the situation.
By that definition, moderating problem posters at all is "targeting people." There comes a point when you have to put your foot down and actually moderate. The whole Keystone Kops act is cute on an intellectual level, but it's obviously not getting the job done.
If they've violated the Code of Conduct, they may get a warning and/or ban. And as pointed out, it's up to the CS department to decide if a CoC violation has taken place. People aren't usually removed for a getting a warning.
And nobody's suggesting anybody be banned for getting "a" warning. But when somebody gets repeated warnings and doesn't get banned (and we can see this is the case because we can see a single user have multiple posts over many days or weeks edited by WizOs), when we can see users bragging about prior accounts, about warnings they received and yet they continue posting, then it's pretty clear to the rest of us that the threshold for actual repercussions from violative conduct is so high that it fails to discourage violators from committing violations.
Currently, there's only the screenshot/send to CS. How did people deal with this problem before the CM/CS split? IIRC, it was putting people on ignore.
Nobody's asking to go backwards. But I've been on vbulletin-based forums where you can report a PM. So there is a hack available. i don't know who CS can speak with abotu getting it, but I have to think it would make everybody's lives (except the trolls') easier.
This right here is a serious problem. Doing that will cross the line into harassment territory. I've stated before that there's no conspiracy of pro 4e people against anti 4e people, and this is showing me perhaps I was wrong.
He's saying he would try to organize one if CS isn't going to improve its ability to stop trolls. He isn't saying one exists. Sheesh, Webster, you're fanning the conspiracy theory flames unnecessarily.
And for the record, I think organizing a vigilante group would be a monumentally bad idea. The only people who can improve the tenor of the forums is CS.
you might one day find yourself on the other end of a group of people trying to get rid of YOU.
Given CS' reticence to ban people, I don't know why the quoted threat should cause anybody any concern that they might get banned.
And yes, someone WILL try to use the system to get rid of YOU.
And, until CS changes the way it operates, the people trying to get rid of vigilantes will fail as miserably as the people currently trying to get rid of the trolls.
Members do not know for a fact if someone is a sock puppet or someone who is just new.
Right. And since CS apparrently doesn't care if someone is a sockpuppet, and won't even bother to check someone's IPs (because they've only ever IP-banned someone once since the CS/CM split), all we have is speculation.
I'm going to see what I can do about the situation.
Thank you. Please keep us apprised.
And for the record, I think organizing a vigilante group would be a monumentally bad idea. The only people who can improve the tenor of the forums is CS.
I do as well. It was honestly a bit of melodramatic hyperbole on my part. The fact remains, though, that without effective enforcement the public tends to start trying to take justice into their own hands. It happened in the old west and there are shades of it around here at times. If steps aren't taken to restore public trust in the effectiveness of the moderation, it's only going to get worse. Torches and pitchforks worse.
If the moderation keeps on, the path that it previously has been (Ie demonstrating a lack of a spine and willingness to put it's foot down on a troll's face once and for all) Vigilantism is going to occur regardless. And quite frankly, it's not like -that- would matter much either given that it's almost impossible to get permanently banned anyway. Just avoid posting baby fetuses, and porn and you're good to go! Sockpuppetry ahoy!.. Do you see the problem here yet?
If the law enforcement capability of a government sucks, law enforcement will inevitably be taken into it's citizenry's own hands. Old West anyone?
Just admit it guys, your moderation sucks. It's too willing to bend over for the trolls, which screws the -real- part of the community away and often scares them off from ever posting here.
"But you are just saying that because you are pro" NO I am saying this as a forum owner, a room owner and moderator of both. I am saying this as a forum goer (Just ask anyone on this forum that knows me from other boards. I'm a community***** on the internet) I don't stick around boards (generally) that are filled with trolls. I go to boards that have actual discussions going on and taking place. Pro and anti edition discussions even (40k though not D&D) We don't want an echo chamber. We want troll be gone.
This board's current saving grace has everything to do with non Genital Discussion, (House rules, adventure workshop, Dm and Player advice)
Sigh, looks like I'll have to put the Subtle Stick aside, because it's clear things are still unclear.
No, you've been very clear, it's just that some of your assumptions are faulty. No one here thinks or has thought the report button is an 'I Win' button except one of the aforementioned trolls back in the CoC days where he demonstrated he could kill threads that way due to the 'oh god, there's a lot of reports, locking it is easier' attitude the Wizos had then.
There are policies and procedures in place that makes the system work.
That's the thing. I've seen the policy and I know from experience that it doesn't work. It's the kind of touchy feely 'everyone hug!' policy a newbie admin puts on his ezboard after getting upset at getting banned over something elsewhere.
Not seeing someone get banned when you report them doesn't mean nothing wasn't done.
This is an example of bad policy. The (pathetically minimal) consequences are invisible and thus entirely useless to the cause of forum administration. IF you want to give people a reason to behave, you don't hide the consequences of bad behavior from them; that makes it look like nothing is happening (as opposed to next to nothing, like now)
If they've violated the Code of Conduct, they may get a warning and/or ban.
An invisible one that lasts, in general, no more than 48 hours, during which time they break out their perfectly legal smurf account and continue thier bad behavior.
And as pointed out, it's up to the CS department to decide if a CoC violation has taken place. People aren't usually removed for a getting a warning.
Or from getting a dozen warnings. Or a Dozen bans for that matter. Really, why should they follow the rules? There's no consequence for not doing it here.
This right here is a serious problem. Doing that will cross the line into harassment territory. I've stated before that there's no conspiracy of pro 4e people against anti 4e people, and this is showing me perhaps I was wrong.
No, it's showing that unless CS starts doing their jobs, you will become wrong. We don't organize and conspire right now, but CS is maintaining a lawless, wild west atmosphere and telling us they really don't have any interest in tightening their policies.
If rules aren't properly enforced by the legitimate authorities, then posse justice is the final option.
If you think that sort of action is okay, then you might one day find yourself on the other end of a group of people trying to get rid of YOU.
And yes, someone WILL try to use the system to get rid of YOU.
And thankfully, the system doens't work, so that's not a problem is it?
Hell, PsionX tried that back on C&C, taking out threads with report spam. Nothing happened to the people he was attacking and the only thing that happened to him was that he has to use a new name.
I've got plenty of names if it comes to that. The system you keep saying works allows it, after all, doesn't it?
There's the other problem. Members do not know for a fact if someone is a sock puppet or someone who is just new.
Except with the sock puppet constantly pointing it out and copy pasting everything his previous incarnations said before.
I mean come on, the latest guy more or less got revealed because he PMed pretty much everyone and told them who he was.
Again, that would be targeting people.
THIS IS WHAT MODS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO! You find the people being a disruption to the community -- preferably before the community decides that their only option left is a witch hunt because the moderation uses crappy policy -- and theytarget those people with a ban. And then they keep those guys out for an appreciable amount of time until they've learned their lesson or cooled off.
--------------------
Here's the bottom line. The system doesn't work. It never worked, but now it's flaws are being probed and exploited.
What this board needs is a policy change to something at least approaching professional and effective. It's out of the community's hands save for abusing the system's failures just like the trolls are.
-As I've said, we aren't the final arbiters of possible CoC violations. WizOs are. I think a lot of people get angry and think the system isn't working, though, when things they think are CoC offenses are not edited by WizOs, after they report them.
1) Active, transparent moderation
2) Moderation with memory
3) A ban system that works
4) No more free sock puppet loophole
-Very good. Constructive stuff, as opposed to "This sucks, this sucks, this sucks".
-Point 1, I am a big proponent of. It certainly is possible, with the generic "[Insert COC Violation] is a violation of the CoC" edits that WizOs make, that people don't realize what they said is [Insert CoC Violation]. I personally feel that this is the majority of those who get edited know exactly what they are doing, but we shouldn't have a police state here, and everyone should get the benefit of the doubt.
-Point 2, I am a very big proponent of. Too many times, it seems that posters have posts edited daily. And, while it can be minor CoC violations, every instance seems unrelated. I very much support a system in which violations build up. Minor baiting every day for a week, that adds up to seven "Bad Points", instead of seven instances of one "Bad Point".
-Point 3 and 4 are the sticky points, as I've said before. Being both too lenient and too harsh are counterproductive. On one hand, being a lot more free with bans eliminates a great deal of the problems that exist, but then, everyone is looking over their backs, making sure they don't do anything that could possibly get themselves banned, and people with agendas actively go after others, in the hopes of getting them banned. People often do have legitimate reasons for creating multiple accounts (such as the RPG games that go on, where people have multiple characters), so changing policy so that people can only have 1 account per e-mail address/IP number isn't going to be a good idea. However, I am in favor of a policy change in which you have a limit. Five is an arbitrarily good number. Every e-mail address/IP number should have a maximum of five possible screen names. Banned screen names, suspended screen names, all count towards that total number.
-On the topic of the 'Report Post' button being an 'I Win' button...I am going to have to agree. I have personal knowledge that a group of posters uses (perhaps they do not do this any longer, I am unsure) the...program, the policy, whatever you want to call it, as a way to stifle discussion that they do not like, picking the theoretical posts in question apart for any theoretical CoC violation, actual or perceived (and exaggerated) and reporting it multiple times, as to prompt WizOs to remove/edit the post (and, no this has nothing to do with 'Avengers', so don't worry there, conspiracy theorists ;)).
I hope CS, CM, whoever deals with that stuff has kept a list of the posters who were trying to abuse the Reporting system. That sort of behavior causes a deterioration on moderation effectiveness and response time, and does more to help the trolls than anyone else in the forum. It also sounds like these folks were trying to shape the forum environment to their liking by getting the people they disagreed with banned just because they disagreed with them. That kind of behavior is a pretty obvious example of harassment and should result in sanctions of some sort.
-As I've said, we aren't the final arbiters of possible CoC violations. WizOs are. I think a lot of people get angry and think the system isn't working, though, when things they think are CoC offenses are not edited by WizOs, after they report them.
I think the real problem is that, too often, there's no outward sign of anything being done at all. We get a driveby "play nice kids" post by the WizO on duty and nothing about the tenor of the thread changes. Regular forumgoers have pretty much figured out which WizOs are more likely to step up and actively change/remove posts or posters to try and make the situation better, and which aren't. When we see one of the aforementioned posts by the ones who aren't, we know that it's pretty much open season until they go off duty. That creates a horrible environment, especially when you consider that career trolls are definitionally "regular forumgoers"; they know when they can play the moderation.
Knowing more about what goes on behind the scenes would let the community feel safer in the knowledge that something was happening at the very least. It would also make it pretty apparent who was and who wasn't stepping up and taking care of the problems when they arose.
-Very good. Constructive stuff, as opposed to "This sucks, this sucks, this sucks".
Those same points have been put forward dozens of times in these discussions by various posters, myself included. I agree that it's a good list, but I disagree with you on some of your appraisal.
-Point 1, I am a big proponent of. It certainly is possible, with the generic "[Insert COC Violation] is a violation of the CoC" edits that WizOs make, that people don't realize what they said is [Insert CoC Violation]. I personally feel that this is the majority of those who get edited know exactly what they are doing, but we shouldn't have a police state here, and everyone should get the benefit of the doubt.
-Point 2, I am a very big proponent of. Too many times, it seems that posters have posts edited daily. And, while it can be minor CoC violations, every instance seems unrelated. I very much support a system in which violations build up. Minor baiting every day for a week, that adds up to seven "Bad Points", instead of seven instances of one "Bad Point".
100% agreement.
On Point 2 particularly, it doesn't make any sense to tell posters who are trying to "build a case" (i.e., help the moderation team do it's job) that they need to provide examples of multiple occasions of the poster in question violating the CoC when, if the moderation is doing it's job, all that stuff should be deleted/hidden. It should be the moderation team's job to keep an eye on that stuff and keep a checklist for problem posters, not the community at large.
-Point 3 and 4 are the sticky points, as I've said before. Being both too lenient and too harsh are counterproductive. On one hand, being a lot more free with bans eliminates a great deal of the problems that exist, but then, everyone is looking over their backs, making sure they don't do anything that could possibly get themselves banned, and people with agendas actively go after others, in the hopes of getting them banned. People often do have legitimate reasons for creating multiple accounts (such as the RPG games that go on, where people have multiple characters), so changing policy so that people can only have 1 account per e-mail address/IP number isn't going to be a good idea. However, I am in favor of a policy change in which you have a limit. Five is an arbitrarily good number. Every e-mail address/IP number should have a maximum of five possible screen names. Banned screen names, suspended screen names, all count towards that total number.
If you want to clear multiple accounts for play by post games (which as someone who is in two games with just the one screenname I find to be a little pretentious, but I'll go with it), how about this;
A max of 5 names (as per your suggestion), banned names count against that, all of a poster's screennames are listed in the sig of each of their accounts and a number (if not specific names) of previously banned names is also included. It's kind of a Scarlet Letter situation, but that's almost what it's come to. Bear in mind that this is a compromise from my "one poster, one screenname" position.
I mean I understand wanting to enter a chat-room "in character" with the character name displayed. But is there a good reason to want it for message-based games? I can't think of any.
I hope CS, CM, whoever deals with that stuff has kept a list of the posters who were trying to abuse the Reporting system. That sort of behavior causes a deterioration on moderation effectiveness and response time, and does more to help the trolls than anyone else in the forum. It also sounds like these folks were trying to shape the forum environment to their liking by getting the people they disagreed with banned just because they disagreed with them. That kind of behavior is a pretty obvious example of harassment and should result in sanctions of some sort.
-The only worry that I have, is that regardless if people 'abuse' the system, that WizOs don't look the other way, when those people do report things. I mean, I'll use myself as an example. Being FL, I report a lot of posts that I see in my sections that I consider violating the CoC. Sometimes things are done about them, and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes, if nothing is done about it, I'll report the post again, just for good measure, being more specific than the first time. I'd hope that, just because I take it upon myself to report a lot of posts that the WizOs don't say, "Well, just this week alone, LK has reported twenty posts! This one is probably a dud, who cares.". I mean, I'm being pretty facetious there, as I'm pretty sure the WizOs aren't that callous, but the general point remains. In the end, the boy who cried wolf was ignored, when there really was a wolf. This is why I favor anonymous post reporting, but, at the same time, for the reasons highlighted, I don't.
I think the real problem is that, too often, there's no outward sign of anything being done at all.
Knowing more about what goes on behind the scenes would let the community feel safer in the knowledge that something was happening at the very least. It would also make it pretty apparent who was and who wasn't stepping up and taking care of the problems when they arose.
-This, I like. Perhaps, a new system can be put in place in which, even if a WizO does not edit a post that is reported, the WizO acknowledges that the post was reviewed. In the edit line on the bottom, perhaps it could say something like, "WizO X approved", or something like that.
On Point 2 particularly, it doesn't make any sense to tell posters who are trying to "build a case" (i.e., help the moderation team do it's job) that they need to provide examples of multiple occasions of the poster in question violating the CoC when, if the moderation is doing it's job, all that stuff should be deleted/hidden. It should be the moderation team's job to keep an eye on that stuff and keep a checklist for problem posters, not the community at large.
-I didn't mean that in that this was up to the community to follow. I meant it that it should be up to CS/CM/Whoever to follow. When a WizO edits a person's account once everyday, for something minor, that should be considered a total of seven "bad points", not seven instances of one "bad point". Having a total of seven "bad points" is likely to get you into more trouble than having seven instances of one "bad point".
A max of 5 names (as per your suggestion), banned names count against that, all of a poster's screennames are listed in the sig of each of their accounts and a number (if not specific names) of previously banned names is also included. It's kind of a Scarlet Letter situation, but that's almost what it's come to. Bear in mind that this is a compromise from my "one poster, one screenname" position.
-I don't necessarily agree in fully, but I also don't see a reason why someone who is involved in the community in a positive way would want to "hide" their other account(s) to begin with, so that really isn't asking too much.
Given that chat is down and unlikely to get back up, is there a good reason to continue to allow multiple names?
I mean I understand wanting to enter a chat-room "in character" with the character name displayed. But is there a good reason to want it for message-based games? I can't think of any.
-Maximum "in-character"ness, so that the signature can be particular to the character? Personally, I don't know, but some people are particular.
You can see exactly what came of it and why I'm pretty angry.
-Maximum "in-character"ness, so that the signature can be particular to the character? Personally, I don't know, but some people are particular.
That doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to continue to allow it when it can obviously be used for abuse.
In the message-based games I've worked on, most people open their posts with the character name and that works just fine.
You can see exactly what came of it and why I'm pretty angry.
-Understood, but at the end of the day, we aren't the ones that make up policy, so...And, as I understand it, things regarding policy have become very schmutzed up since the various transitions and boards changes in the past year.
That doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to continue to allow it when it can obviously be used for abuse.
-Because something has the potential to be abused doesn't mean that whatever it is should be disallowed. To use an example, just because firearms have the ability to kill people, and be abused by a minority doesn't mean that they should be disallowed to be used by the majority, who use them in the proper, recreational manner.
-The only worry that I have, is that regardless if people 'abuse' the system, that WizOs don't look the other way, when those people do report things. I mean, I'll use myself as an example. Being FL, I report a lot of posts that I see in my sections that I consider violating the CoC. Sometimes things are done about them, and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes, if nothing is done about it, I'll report the post again, just for good measure, being more specific than the first time. I'd hope that, just because I take it upon myself to report a lot of posts that the WizOs don't say, "Well, just this week alone, LK has reported twenty posts! This one is probably a dud, who cares.". I mean, I'm being pretty facetious there, as I'm pretty sure the WizOs aren't that callous, but the general point remains. In the end, the boy who cried wolf was ignored, when there really was a wolf. This is why I favor anonymous post reporting, but, at the same time, for the reasons highlighted, I don't.
But the mods have got to be able to tell the difference between dozens of reports of actual violations and potential hotspots (like those that come from you and other forum leads) and what is effectively a spam reporting of people a particular group disagrees with. They're thinking, tool using creatures, these "mods"; I'm sure they've got the ability to differentiate between "pertinent" and "crap."
It really comes down to the motivation behind and veracity of the reports. If it's obviously an attempt to get rules-following posters banned because they're not agreeing with the reporter, then that should be taken into account. If they are actual, honest-to-Vecna problem posts, they should be deleted. Sure, mods are going to take your reports less seriously if you abuse the system, that's human nature. That shouldn't negatively effect their ability to respond to actual problems when they get reported by people who haven't been crying wolf. I would imagine that truly disruptive posts generate a deluge of reports very quickly, and could be differentiated from the mock outrage-driven reporting in that way.
-This, I like. Perhaps, a new system can be put in place in which, even if a WizO does not edit a post that is reported, the WizO acknowledges that the post was reviewed. In the edit line on the bottom, perhaps it could say something like, "WizO X approved", or something like that.
Even if it's just a line in the edit bar that says "This post has been reviewed by moderation." I don't think we need to be name-stamping it to particular WizOs, particularly with the word "approved" in the typeset.
-I didn't mean that in that this was up to the community to follow. I meant it that it should be up to CS/CM/Whoever to follow. When a WizO edits a person's account once everyday, for something minor, that should be considered a total of seven "bad points", not seven instances of one "bad point". Having a total of seven "bad points" is likely to get you into more trouble than having seven instances of one "bad point".
I understood your meaning, I was elaborating on the situation as it currently stands. It seems like the moderation team either doesn't communicate about problem posters, or willfully forgets a poster's past bad behavior in dealing with them time after time. As such, it's been said by somewhat official voices around here that if "you" feel a particular poster has a pattern of causing problems, you should send a PM or Email to someone in charge with links and quotes to build a case. Since the truly incriminating stuff is supposed to be hidden or deleted anyway, that style of case-building is nearly impossible if the moderation around here is doing anything approaching it's job.
Thus, it falls to the mod team itself, which doesn't seem to have any system in place to handle such an undertaking.
-I don't necessarily agree in fully, but I also don't see a reason why someone who is involved in the community in a positive way would want to "hide" their other account(s) to begin with, so that really isn't asking too much.
Like I said, I'd personally prefer "one poster, one screenname." If we're going to continue sanctioning (encouraging, even) sockpuppetry there should be public accountability, though. Having every name, including banned ones, in your sig lets others know what they're getting into when they engage you in conversation around here.
With this system in place, anyone with multiple accounts that doesn't have all of them listed should be banned immediately and permanently. You get 5 slots for whatever you're going to use them for. Any attempt to circumvent that system is obviously meant to be disruptive and dishonest, and should be met swiftly with an IP ban.
Because something has the potential to be abused doesn't mean that whatever it is should be disallowed.
It's not "potential". It's an actuality. People have used alternate names to continue posting while one name has been suspended (or temp-banned, whichever term you prefer).
Second, you didn't even respond to my point. My point was not we should ban it because it has the potential to be abused but we should ban it because the actuality of its abuse outweighs the insignificant benefit you identified for keeping the feature active.
So I did not say that anything that could be abused should be banned. Only that things that have been abused should be banned when the abuse outweighs the benefit.
-Because something has the potential to be abused doesn't mean that whatever it is should be disallowed. To use an example, just because firearms have the ability to kill people, and be abused by a minority doesn't mean that they should be disallowed to be used by the majority, who use them in the proper, recreational manner.
Really bad and touchy example.
If peoples can't be trusted with X, or X allow too much abuse - disallow it. Simple.
The forum's atmosphere and everyone's mood would be better.
-Point 3 and 4 are the sticky points, as I've said before. Being both too lenient and too harsh are counterproductive. On one hand, being a lot more free with bans eliminates a great deal of the problems that exist, but then, everyone is looking over their backs, making sure they don't do anything that could possibly get themselves banned, and people with agendas actively go after others, in the hopes of getting them banned. People often do have legitimate reasons for creating multiple accounts (such as the RPG games that go on, where people have multiple characters), so changing policy so that people can only have 1 account per e-mail address/IP number isn't going to be a good idea. However, I am in favor of a policy change in which you have a limit. Five is an arbitrarily good number. Every e-mail address/IP number should have a maximum of five possible screen names. Banned screen names, suspended screen names, all count towards that total number.
What about an individual can have as many accounts as they want as long as they are all linked to a single email address? Same thing where bans, warnings and suspensions all add up among the different accounts. That way there would be no arguing about what the 'magic' number should be, but WotC can still easily keep track of what accounts each person has. If someone is found to be using two different accounts on two different screen names then they would be in violation of the CoC.
I think accounts per IP address could get sticky. What about families or roommates who share internet? In an IP based set up it would also be perfectly fine for a troll to get banned and start a new sock puppet at work and then at a public library, and then at starbucks...
I also like the idea of your points system. Make the CoC more clear about what happens. Are there some offenses that are worse than others (worth more points)? If someone only posts 'warnable' offenses but does so every single day for a month does something happen more than a warning? If you get a temp ban every other week for a month does something happen other than another temp ban?
But the mods have got to be able to tell the difference between dozens of reports of actual violations and potential hotspots (like those that come from you and other forum leads) and what is effectively a spam reporting of people a particular group disagrees with. They're thinking, tool using creatures, these "mods"; I'm sure they've got the ability to differentiate between "pertinent" and "crap."
-I'd hope so.
Sure, mods are going to take your reports less seriously if you abuse the system, that's human nature. That shouldn't negatively effect their ability to respond to actual problems when they get reported by people who haven't been crying wolf.
-Honestly, it shouldn't effect what they do for people who do cry wolf. I mean, let's be honest, I dislike a lot of the people who take such matters "into their own hand", but when there is a valid flame/bait/whatever, it shouldn't not be moderated because of who the person is. Let's take the most famous troll here, for example. 95% of everyone here doesn't like him, but that doesn't mean that people should be able to post insults left and right (however warranted they are), without moderators removing the insulting content. It's gotta be fair.
Even if it's just a line in the edit bar that says "This post has been reviewed by moderation." I don't think we need to be name-stamping it to particular WizOs, particularly with the word "approved" in the typeset.
-Excellent.
As such, it's been said by somewhat official voices around here that if "you" feel a particular poster has a pattern of causing problems, you should send a PM or Email to someone in charge with links and quotes to build a case. Since the truly incriminating stuff is supposed to be hidden or deleted anyway, that style of case-building is nearly impossible if the moderation around here is doing anything approaching it's job.
Thus, it falls to the mod team itself, which doesn't seem to have any system in place to handle such an undertaking.
-That much, I did not know.
It's not "potential". It's an actuality. People have used alternate names to continue posting while one name has been suspended (or temp-banned, whichever term you prefer).
Second, you didn't even respond to my point. My point was not we should ban it because it has the potential to be abused but we should ban it because the actuality of its abuse outweighs the insignificant benefit you identified for keeping the feature active.
So I did not say that anything that could be abused should be banned. Only that things that have been abused should be banned when the abuse outweighs the benefit.
-The uses for it are only the ones that I can think of. Those are, by no means, not the only uses for having multiple accounts. Regardless, the point that I made still stands and applies: Because a small minority shoots people with guns, the silent majority that uses their guns in the proper recreational manner should be penalized? The majority should never be punished for a minority. The minority should be dealt with, and the majority should be allowed to be on their way.
Really bad and touchy example.
If peoples can't be trusted with X, or X allow too much abuse - disallow it. Simple.
The forum's atmosphere and everyone's mood would be better.
-Not particularly, no. It's a quite spot on example.
What about an individual can have as many accounts as they want as long as they are all linked to a single email address? Same thing where bans, warnings and suspensions all add up among the different accounts. That way there would be no arguing about what the 'magic' number should be, but WotC can still easily keep track of what accounts each person has. If someone is found to be using two different accounts on two different screen names then they would be in violation of the CoC.
This is still a situation where there are multiple names (and thus multiple voices to start an argument with) without the forum at large knowing it.
Smurfing your way around a ban is a big problem, no doubt. Reinforcing arguments with raw numbers via sockpuppet, or using them to intimidate other posters into agreeing with you, is another big one, though.
Multiple accounts require full disclosure on the surface, or they don't exist. Any other system invites abuse and paranoia.
Edit:
-Honestly, it shouldn't effect what they do for people who do cry wolf. I mean, let's be honest, I dislike a lot of the people who take such matters "into their own hand", but when there is a valid flame/bait/whatever, it shouldn't not be moderated because of who the person is. Let's take the most famous troll here, for example. 95% of everyone here doesn't like him, but that doesn't mean that people should be able to post insults left and right (however warranted they are), without moderators removing the insulting content. It's gotta be fair.
There's a difference between "fair" and "gullible." I'm not saying people should have free reign to swear at the posters who have cried wolf one too many times, but I don't think prioritizing policing those posts over posts like the one that may or may not have resulted in an IP ban a few days ago really makes any sense.
If I see someone posting insulting things or violations of the CoC when it comes to another poster, I report it regardless of what I think about the poster being defamed. I'm sure there are plenty of other folks out there who do the same. They're not going to stick around forever, they're going to get moded or deleted. It's just going to take longer than the 3 minute window in which this last set of filth was deleted in.
What about an individual can have as many accounts as they want as long as they are all linked to a single email address?
-That's already how it works, now, I believe. I know I have a single account, and it's hooked up to my e-mail account, but if I wanted to make another, I could, and it'd still be hooked up to my e-mail account.
I also like the idea of your points system. Make the CoC more clear about what happens. Are there some offenses that are worse than others (worth more points)? If someone only posts 'warnable' offenses but does so every single day for a month does something happen more than a warning? If you get a temp ban every other week for a month does something happen other than another temp ban?
-I was, at first, using the idea in jest, but it does have some merit to it, yes. The problem, however, lies in determining what things are worse than others. Like I said earlier in this discussion, what is worse: Posting an inappropriate image, or spreading lies about another poster? With the former, X amount of people see it before it's removed, and when it is removed, it's done with. With the latter, it perpetuates itself, and cannot be removed, per se. If someone could come up with good criteria for "points" or whatever, that would definitely be a good thing, though.
-That's already how it works, now, I believe. I know I have a single account, and it's hooked up to my e-mail account, but if I wanted to make another, I could, and it'd still be hooked up to my e-mail account.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean it would be against the CoC to have accounts under different email addresses. That way a troll couldn't get around a ban by starting up a new junk email address. I would suggest that if someone was found to have accounts under multiple email addresses they were immediately suspended until CS got in contact with them via email.
-I was, at first, using the idea in jest, but it does have some merit to it, yes. The problem, however, lies in determining what things are worse than others. Like I said earlier in this discussion, what is worse: Posting an inappropriate image, or spreading lies about another poster? With the former, X amount of people see it before it's removed, and when it is removed, it's done with. With the latter, it perpetuates itself, and cannot be removed, per se. If someone could come up with good criteria for "points" or whatever, that would definitely be a good thing, though.
I think WotC would have to determine this.
My bet is that posting porn, pics of violence and making physical threats against other specific posters will be considered 'worse' because they could affect WotCs image. They want this to be a family friendly board. Also those things are all clear cut. Giving fewer points to something that isn't as clear cut means that you are unlikely to ban someone for a misunderstanding.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean it would be against the CoC to have accounts under different email addresses. That way a troll couldn't get around a ban by starting up a new junk email address.
Unless the person in question admitted it, there's no way to determine if this has happened.
Unless the person in question admitted it, there's no way to determine if this has happened.
Checking IPs catches a lot more sockpuppets than you might imagine.
Unless the person in question admitted it, there's no way to determine if this has happened.
Checking IPs catches a lot more sockpuppets than you might imagine.
Pretty much what I was going to suggest. Checking Ip addresses for a mod is not the least bit difficult. (At least not on the boards I am used to or the chat rooms)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean it would be against the CoC to have accounts under different email addresses. That way a troll couldn't get around a ban by starting up a new junk email address. I would suggest that if someone was found to have accounts under multiple email addresses they were immediately suspended until CS got in contact with them via email.
-How would it be determined that two different e-mail addresses are linked? I mean, [email]JoeSchmoe@Gmail.com[/email] and [email]LeaveItToBeaverFan123@Yahoo.com[/email] are nothing alike, and could be used by the same person.
Checking IPs catches a lot more sockpuppets than you might imagine.
-Then you get into the territory of Troll uses this e-mail account, and has a screen name here, but Troll's sister, uses the other e-mail account, and also has a screen name here, where she isn't disruptive. Moderators wouldn't be able to tell that Troll and Troll's sister are two different people. Now what?
Pretty much what I was going to suggest. Checking Ip addresses for a mod is not the least bit difficult. (At least not on the boards I am used to or the chat rooms)
This could work but only if a static IP & no one else on that system uses an account. Also, proxies are easy to use and are in common use for any but a Luddite.
The problem, however, lies in determining what things are worse than others.
Well, for most people, there is a simple answer to this: What the others do is worse than what I do.
The CoC is pretty clear about what's totally prohibited and what not. And I really can't comprehend the outrage about a post being online for a couple of minutes.
There is some reaction time required on a discussion board. And in this case it was basically someone expressing his opinion in an inappropirate way, something which is very very common in almost every internet forum I know, with the differences being rather in quantity than in quality.
And if you cry out lout that somebody should be banned and he deserves IP ban because what he did is totally evil and bad, this is a personal attack, which is also against the CoC, so you should be banned... (recognize the recursion? ;) )
So just an advice: If you judge, you will be judged. So stop judging, please. If there is anything offending the CoC or you, or both, report it to the powers in charge, preferrably after personally requesting the poster to remove the offending content - please.
Well, for most people, there is a simple answer to this: What the others do is worse than what I do.
-That was meant as in what CoC violations are worse than others, as the rest of the paragraph went on to elaborate, not specific posters.
Remember also, that our trolls aren't the brightest in the world and they love, love, love telling everyone when they come back. It'd be a fun game of whack a mole at worst. As for genning new IPs, the only guy I've seen here saying he does it is lying.
This could work but only if a static IP & no one else on that system uses an account. Also, proxies are easy to use and are in common use for any but a Luddite.
And most proxies will fall flat on their face up against quite a few Ip detection programs. There are plenty of ways (That I have been told) about getting around Proxies which I've also been told are fairly easy to implement.
Quite frankly if someone else is using that Ip address along with the offending troll, too bad. Maybe the troll should have thought about the other person at their home/what have you rather than it's own jollies.
People act like it's impossible to lock trolls out, but I'm a member of plenty of forums that only ban on IP (from week bans to perms) and they rarely have any trouble keeping things on lock.
Remember also, that our trolls aren't the brightest in the world and they love, love, love telling everyone when they come back. It'd be a fun game of whack a mole at worst. As for genning new IPs, the only guy I've seen here saying he does it is lying.
Yeah, I guess if you're going to brag about your crime you are going to get caught.
So just an advice: If you judge, you will be judged. So stop judging, please. If there is anything offending the CoC or you, or both, report it to the powers in charge, preferrably after personally requesting the poster to remove the offending content - please.
This advise fails to take into account everything this thread has been about.
-Then you get into the territory of Troll uses this e-mail account, and has a screen name here, but Troll's sister, uses the other e-mail account, and also has a screen name here, where she isn't disruptive. Moderators wouldn't be able to tell that Troll and Troll's sister are two different people. Now what?
Then she got caught in the blastback from her brother's trolling and should try making a case to the moderation to get her access back. Once she tries that (successful or not), she should slap her brother for a) being a troll and b) costing her access through his shenanigans.
Accessing these forums is a privilege, not a right. If her brother was doing things that could have gotten her IP banned, she should have been dealing with both him and the mods to try and get him stopped before she was hit with the banhammer.
-In the end, "innocents" should not be "hurt" because of specific people who violate the CoC, that's all. That's why I think that's not the best of ideas.
-Such logic- especially the she should be dealing with him and working with the mods to make him stop- is faulty, I think. Nothing in the ToS I remember seeing when I signed up said anything about it being my duty to work with the moderators to make CoC violators stop. There are plenty of users who really don't care about all of the "political stuff" going on here, and just want to ask questions and get answers, minding their own business.
-In the end, "innocents" should not be "hurt" because of specific people who violate the CoC, that's all. That's why I think that's not the best of ideas.
If IP bans are a possibility than it is implied that an individual could end up affected by the actions of their family and roommates. If my husband was posting things that were liable to get him IP banned you can be quite sure I would be talking to him about it and doing everything I could to make him stop.
This isn't a case where random innocents would be affected. It is going to be family and roommates. People who share internet access already have some sort of written/verbal/implied contract between them about who pays. Why shouldn't they have to agree not to get each other banned from websites?
EDIT: IP banning is a very real possibility on many other forums. This means that most families and roommates should have some ideas about what happens if one person gets an IP ban affecting others.
-Such logic- especially the she should be dealing with him and working with the mods to make him stop- is faulty, I think. Nothing in the ToS I remember seeing when I signed up said anything about it being my duty to work with the moderators to make CoC violators stop. There are plenty of users who really don't care about all of the "political stuff" going on here, and just want to ask questions and get answers, minding their own business.
-In the end, "innocents" should not be "hurt" because of specific people who violate the CoC, that's all. That's why I think that's not the best of ideas.
This isn't a terms of service thing. This is a "your brother is a douchebag and is going to get you banned from the forums" thing. The onus is on her to avoid having that happen, just like it's on her to log out of her account if she thinks he's going to use it to troll.
Would you have the same position if she knowingly let her brother sell drugs out of their place and got taken in with him when the cops showed up?
The risk of locking out a troll's relative is tiny vs the reward or not having the troll around disrupting the boards.
Would you have the same position if she knowingly let her brother sell drugs out of their place and got taken in with him when the cops showed up?
-No, because in this example, selling drugs, is a crime, and she is aiding and abetting him in dealing drugs, in which she becomes an accomplice, and is guilty of a crime herself. Like I said, there is nothing in the WotC ToC, or CoC that says that members have to work with moderators to stop CoC violators. Were there, then I'd be of similar mind here.
L_K, here's the thing; If you're going to let the moderation become paralysed for fear of the very, very small chance of locking out another user, nothing's going to be done and the forum turns to crap like it is now.
The risk of locking out a troll's relative is tiny vs the reward or not having the troll around disrupting the boards.
-Firstly, please stop with the underscore. That annoys me to no great end.
-Anyway, I am not advocating that nothing be done. I am advocating discussion about a system in which something is done, but people who are at no fault are not penalized.
-No, because in this example, selling drugs, is a crime, and she is aiding and abetting him in dealing drugs, in which she becomes an accomplice, and is guilty of a crime herself. Like I said, there is nothing in the WotC ToC, or CoC that says that members have to work with moderators to stop CoC violators. Were there, then I'd be of similar mind here.
Again, this has nothing to do with the CoC (other than her brother's violation of it), the ToS or whatever. If she wants to keep posting on the Wizard's forums, she has to take it upon herself to stop her brother from trolling. If she doesn't do that, then she loses the privilege of posting here. It's not about WotC's moderation policy at this point, it's about standing up and telling your family member to knock off the bad behavior before it gets you in trouble too.
There are policies and procedures in place that makes the system work. Not seeing someone get banned when you report them doesn't mean nothing wasn't done. As I've said, it's not an "I Win" button. If they've violated the Code of Conduct, they may get a warning and/or ban. And as pointed out, it's up to the CS department to decide if a CoC violation has taken place. People aren't usually removed for a getting a warning.
I agree. Even if you take the suggestions of CS/CM and write a lot of detailed reports, you might end up with no results.
The problem I see (and Vaal's ideas would fix this) is that responsible members who want to see a healthy forum are handed a lot of work. We all like to write a lot of stuff (that's why we hang out here!), but sometimes it gets tiring to write report after report on a particular troll.
People with lots of warnings and deletions and bans should just be gone. What is all this work for anyway? Are we hoping they turn things around and start being nice? I would have to say the benefit, one more member, is greatly outweighed by the cost: dozens, possibly hundreds, of reports written, read, and acted upon.
Let's say fetus guy hadn't gone out the way he did. How long would we wait for him to stop being a jerk? Months? Years? How much time would that waste? He'd already generated a LOT of work for regular members and VCLs and WizOs. On one of his accounts, his first day was a "forum suicide." He spammed the 4e General board with "3e sucks 4e rules i'm an avenger!" threads and similar posts in other threads. And he was back in a day or two! What would we have lost by IP-banning him months ago?
There's the other problem. Members do not know for a fact if
someone is a sock puppet or someone who is just new.
I agree. The problem is that when someone's forum debut is in the form of an angry rant about 4e, someone will make that accusation in our current environment. There certainly are a few people with very distinctive posting styles who have been through a few accounts, but the overwhelming majority of these accusations are false.
Tightening up on the real offenders is a good way to make regular members behave better. If the serial trolls can't make new accounts everyday, people won't accuse as many new members of being serial trolls. And anyone who still goes around spouting accusations would be more flagrantly out of line.
Again, that would be targeting people. But, having said that as VCL I represent the interests of the community. So, I'm going to see what I can do about the situation.
I'm really glad to hear that. It may seem like some of us just like to complain, but we're honestly just tired of writing report after report only to see the same trolls reappear day after day. I can't even imagine the work for VCLs and WizOs!
As much as I complain, I have noticed some progress. Some of the worst ones have at least been forced to tone down their trolling. I'm not sure I like the subtlety (reports are easier when the troll is obvious;)) but I'm at least glad to see they're becoming cautious. I'm sure that CS and CM have had a lot to do with that.
It's not always easy to distinguish the two. And sometimes a topic really isn't trolling. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1087480
You'd think by the title the thread would have crashed and burned quickly if thought of as a troll. But it's a legit topic. (And an interesting one at that.)
It is a good topic and I'm glad to see it drew such a positive response from the pro-4e crowd. Things like this should be more common. I actually reported a post on the first page because I didn't want someone to derail things with his "4e isn't D&D" comment. The WizO posted a generic reminder to be polite, on-topic, etc. The post in question (luckily) didn't draw any responses. But that thread is an unfortunate example of the moderation we don't need. What's the point of making a reminder that isn't directed toward any particular post? Tell people what's wrong! Who knows if my report was even the one that generated a WizO response?
*****Webster, please don't take my tone in all this as critical of you.*****
I appreciate the time you spend talking to the community and passing our concerns up the food chain. A lot of us feel strongly about what we want to see and are frustrated with how things are working, but that doesn't mean we're ungrateful for your efforts.
People act like it's impossible to lock trolls out, but I'm a member of plenty of forums that only ban on IP (from week bans to perms) and they rarely have any trouble keeping things on lock.
Remember also, that our trolls aren't the brightest in the world and they love, love, love telling everyone when they come back. It'd be a fun game of whack a mole at worst. As for genning new IPs, the only guy I've seen here saying he does it is lying.
Depending on your ISP, it can actually be very easy to regenerate your IP. I'm not going to say how, however simple it is, because one less dumb troll who doesn't know how is that much gained.
As an anecdote, I too moderated a forum a while ago, and had such a game of wack-a-mole. We had a troll who did this (he got around IP bans with new IPs). I warned him twice for the trolling, it did no good, so I gave him a 2 weeks IP & e-mail ban, telling him that everytime he came back with a new account and was found out, he would get re-banned, no questions asked, and the 2 weeks would reset, no matter how well behaved he was with his new account.
I spent 2 weeks banning him 2-3 times a day, but eventually, he got bored of creating e-mail accounts, getting a new IP and re-registering a forum account and stopped. When I finally unbanned him, he did not come back.
At this point, I had banned about 30 IPs and that many e-mails, just to get rid of him.
The point is, even if IP bans are not bulletproof, at worst it is one more hassle for the troll, and eventually, a moderator can win a banning/re-registering contest with a troll, because banning is easier than getting around a ban.
But the moderation has to be Johnny-on-the-spot with the ban-hammer once a ban has been handed out. No buts, no ifs: you get banned, you do your full time. You get perma-banned, you don't get to come back in any way, shape or form.
And as for IP banning doing "colateral damage", the chances of that happening are so small that we don't need to worry about it but on a case-by-case basis.
Again, this has nothing to do with the CoC (other than her brother's violation of it), the ToS or whatever. If she wants to keep posting on the Wizard's forums, she has to take it upon herself to stop her brother from trolling. If she doesn't do that, then she loses the privilege of posting here. It's not about WotC's moderation policy at this point, it's about standing up and telling your family member to knock off the bad behavior before it gets you in trouble too.
-And again, she is under no impetus to make him "behave". As such, why should she be punished, when there is no reason for her to get involved.
-My sister has an account here, and posts from time to time. When she does, and what she asks, I am usually not aware. She, obviously, cannot be on the computer at the same time that I am. In theory, she could say something so grievous to someone to get herself banned. In a situation where the entire IP is banned, suddenly I am banned. What did I do wrong, here?
Even if it's just a line in the edit bar that says "This post has been reviewed by moderation." I don't think we need to be name-stamping it to particular WizOs, particularly with the word "approved" in the typeset.
This is an interesting idea that folks are tossing around, but I think the "reviewed and approved" stamp isn't so great. It protects the guilty as well as the innocent.
I've reported a post more than once before it got deleted (e.g. A post from guy pretending to be Bill Slaviscek took at least 3 reports from me to get rid of and I doubt I was the only one who said something). I've also reported posts that had been edited at least once already. Since a second WizO went back and deleted more stuff, it looks like I made a good call.
Sometimes the WizO just doesn't see everything. Or maybe the first report the WizO sees focuses on only one of several CoC violations. Or maybe the first report is total garbage but there still is something wrong that wasn't specified or looked for. Stamping "WizO approved" on a post might deter legitimate reports. We don't want someone saying, "Wow, that guy is calling everyone who still plays AD&D a fatty. I guess that's OK," just because a WizO removed 9 baiting remarks but missed #10.
-Anyway, I am not advocating that nothing be done. I am advocating discussion about a system in which something is done, but people who are at no fault are not penalized.
Actually, given your criteria, you ARE advocating nothing be done.
Computers don't have fingerprint locks and there's no accounting for who uses a given computer, email address, or anything else usable for identifying an internet user.
If you want a 100% percent certain way to make sure these so called innocents aren't penalized, it doesn't exist. IP bans are THE method of banning if you don't want a ban system that's a joke to circumvent.
IP and the connected whois lookup is good enough for the FBI, I don't see why an internet forum needs to be held to a higher standard.
This is an interesting idea that folks are tossing around, but I think the "reviewed and approved" stamp isn't so great. It protects the guilty as well as the innocent.
-The intent is something to demonstrate that reported threads are just not ignored.
If you want a 100% percent certain way to make sure these so called innocents aren't penalized, it doesn't exist. IP bans are THE method of banning if you don't want a ban system that's a joke to circumvent.
-Then we're back to square one, where people are aren't doing anything wrong are getting punished for no reason.
-The intent is something to demonstrate that reported threads are just not ignored.
I understand the intent. I'm just pointing out some unintended results. The idea has merit, but I don't see how to do something like that without dissuading people from a second report when one is needed. WizOs are not infallible.
If we had a more open moderation system as Vaal suggests, that would go a long way toward making members feel like moderation works. Currently, offensive posts sometimes receive nothing more than the generic "play nice" reminder a page later. This does nothing. If people were warned more directly and the community could see it, we probably wouldn't be so worried about reassuring people.
-And again, she is under no impetus to make him "behave". As such, why should she be punished, when there is no reason for her to get involved.
If she wants to maintain the privilege of posting here, it's up to her to deal with her brother. If she doesn't, then that privilege gets revoked along with his. Again, if she left her account open and he used it to troll, she stands a chance (a good one if the system of moderation is actually working) of being punished for his actions, this is no different.
-My sister has an account here, and posts from time to time. When she does, and what she asks, I am usually not aware. She, obviously, cannot be on the computer at the same time that I am. In theory, she could say something so grievous to someone to get herself banned. In a situation where the entire IP is banned, suddenly I am banned. What did I do wrong, here?
Then you got your privilege revoked. If I were you and this happened, I would first admonish your sister for her posting habits and then make a case to the powers that be at Wizards regarding your posting history and contributions to the community. Either way, Wizards isn't in the wrong for removing a blight from the community. You just lost a privilege because of your sister. Blame her.
-Then we're back to square one, where people are aren't doing anything wrong are getting punished for no reason.
LK, I think you are creating an improper and unfair standard. Every method of punishment has a potential of hurting an innocent. Every one, even the ones we have now.
Let's take fetus guy, since he's prominently in our minds. What if he had a responsible sister? They've both been IP banned. The sister wants back on, but her brother swears he's going to continue to post pictures of dead fetuses if the IP ban is lifted. Let's even go farther and say the sister has talked to him and the brother doesn't listen to her. He doesn't care they've both been IP banned. He thinks posting the pictures -- and watching the reaction -- is fun. If allowed back on, he will continue to make new IDs from different free-email services and post the pictures over and over again for as long as he can. His sister just wants to be be able to post on the MapleStory forums where all her friends hang out.
(Let's say we know all this because CS went to the extraordinary effort of speaking to the siblings by telephone in an effort to resolve this and the brother was completely honest about how much joy he gets from trolling and how he couldn't care less about his sister's desires. Let's further assume the parents have no intention of reigning their son in -- they think it's funny too.)
What do you think should be done? Should the IP ban be lifted, knowing it will unleash the troll, perhaps irrevocably? Or should our innocent MapleStory fan be forever barred?
Me? I'm okay with (though saddened by) the Maplestory fan being barred to keep fetus guy away. I wish fetus guy had more respect for his sister, but since he doesn't I think the needs of the many many innocent members who would be subject to fetus guy's attacks outweigh our poor innocent MapleStory fan.
In short, we cannot sit on our hands until we find a solution for the good/evil sibling dilemma, because there is no solution to that dilemma.
-Then we're back to square one, where people are aren't doing anything wrong are getting punished for no reason.
This square one has been the primary concern with every legal system man kind has ever devised. None of them have come up with a 100% way of ensuring no innocents are inconvenienced in the process, but no one scraps them because they realize that a very small number of perturbed people is better than letting hoodlums run roughshod over everyone.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
LK, I think you are creating an improper and unfair standard. Every method of punishment has a potential of hurting an innocent. Every one, even the ones we have now.
Let's take fetus guy, since he's prominently in our minds. What if he had a responsible sister?
In short, we cannot sit on our hands until we find a solution for the good/evil sibling dilemma, because there is no solution to that dilemma.
Let's go with wife, since fetus guy repeatedly said he was married. He and his wife have several contracts between them ranging from written to verbal to implied. You don't think that one of them is that he should respect her enough to not get IP banned from a forum that she uses as well?
My point still stands that you aren't going to ban random strangers if you IP ban. You are going to (possibly) ban people who already have a legal relationship with the poster who got banned. Other forums IP ban. If people are sharing internet they already have some sort of agreement that covers who pays and they should also have agreements about conduct on forums that they both frequent.
So we know there was trolling going on, but we sure as hell don't know what it was and there's no way for us to know where that line is drawn until:
"SURPRISE! GOTCHA! But we won't explain any of it >_>"
That's not so much moderation as a guessing game. Good thing there's no consequences!
I doubt that the person who wrote that post will see any futher disciplinary action, and I would be surprised if that were to appear in any sort of file related to that person.
FWIW, the person is not someone I've previously noted acting in any way trollish. It's not one of the "usual suspects" and so I will not violate that person's privacy by supplying a name.
FWIW, the person is not someone I've previously noted acting in any way trollish. It's not one of the "usual suspects" and so I will not violate that person's privacy by supplying a name.
He's not one of the more aggressive ones, that's for sure. He's fired off his share of salvos in the stupidity that gets referred to as the "Edition War," though.
Not that he necessarily engages in active trolling, but he's definitely not an innocent bystander in all this.
Everyone starts with 0, once you hit X(10?) you get an IP ban, no more shennanigans. The demerit score would be shown on all of your posts, so there is a public record/ramification for poor behaviour.
Minor violation (swearing, baiting, trolling) would be 1 point, recieve warning
More serious violations (offensive content:racism, other derogatory remarks) would be 3 points.
Threats of harm/violence would be 5 points.
Very Offensive/Disgusting things (porn/dead fetus pictures, things of that nature) are instant IP bans.
All accounts are IP tracked so the same user will have a cumulative score(total of all the demerits from each account) If the user uses multiple IPs to log in then all will be banned if the user is banned. In the "signature" field all of a users accounts (past & present) would be listed as well as the status of each.
accumulate 3 points = Temporary Ban (48 hour minimum)
accumulate 5 points = Receive account ban (all current accounts)
accumulate 10 points = IP ban
Moderation should be publicly announced when it's performed. A list at the bottom of each forum of the hour/day's events would be nice.
Every three months if a poster has not had a violation, 3 demerits are removed from their accounts (So bad posters can be "rehabilitated" potentially).
It's reasonably flexible and allows for a system wher everyone knows what they are signing up for. The system is currently too leniant, the victims should have more rights than the perpetrators but that's not the case.
He's not one of the more aggressive ones, that's for sure. He's fired off his share of salvos in the stupidity that gets referred to as the "Edition War," though.
Not that he necessarily engages in active trolling, but he's definitely not an innocent bystander in all this.
I figured out who it was. It's nothing about the Edition War (he's been on both sides), it's about me and a vendetta that's several years old. We don't need to discuss it any further on this thread.
A demerits system similar to what is used in many countries with driver's licenses would be fair and equitable.
All accounts are IP tracked so the same user will have a cumulative score(total of all the demerits from each account) If the user uses multiple IPs to log in then all will be banned if the user is banned. In the "signature" field all of a users accounts (past & present) would be listed as well as the status of each.
If you define a poster by their IP what is the difference between banning all their accounts and an IP ban? In both cases you would get spouses, siblings and roommates.
-In the end, "innocents" should not be "hurt" because of specific people who violate the CoC, that's all. That's why I think that's not the best of ideas.
I would say, at the moment, "innocents" are "hurt" by specific people violating the CoC.
Let's face it, some portions of the forums are, at the moment, just hostile places to be, because of people on all sides violating (or skirting the edge of) the CoC as if it weren't even there.
There are few forums that I've considered leaving out of disgust (as opposed to boredom) - the 4th Edition General Discussion forum is currently on that short list (another great example being the Starcraft II forums *shudder*).
A demerit system, or any graduated system, would work nicely, so long as there was a real, permanent ban at the end of the rainbow (of bile).
*****Webster, please don't take my tone in all this as critical of you.*****
I appreciate the time you spend talking to the community and passing our concerns up the food chain. A lot of us feel strongly about what we want to see and are frustrated with how things are working, but that doesn't mean we're ungrateful for your efforts.
No worries, and thanks. ;) I never take it personal. I sort of see myself as between a rock an a hard place since I don't discuss CS policy/issues.
At the same time, while I can't comment I CAN pass info up in both directions, to both CM and CS. So even though it can be tough sometimes, it's a good place to be.
-In the end, "innocents" should not be "hurt" because of specific people who violate the CoC, that's all. That's why I think that's not the best of ideas.
No system is perfect. If you are willing only to implement a perfect system you will get no system. Instead we need to way the positives and negatives of the suggestions being offered and see if they are better than what we have now.
At this point only a few have been offered, if you have something that you think will work better feel free to offer it up.
1). Quickly rebanning trolls that regenerate. This is labor intensive, so a doubt that it will be implemented. However, for each hurdle added the chances of a troll not jumping through all those hoops. Needing to follow a link to activate an account will help. Giving Mod's easy access to all the accounts on an e-mail address and a list of those that share an IP address with a quick way to the see the previous moderation on all this should make nailing regeneraters easier.
2). IP bans for those that manage multiple permanent bans or the most extreme offensives. It takes quite allot to get one permanent ban, so I don't really see a big problem with this.
3). IP bans for the first offense after a permanent ban. I think this is a bit harsh, but as above it is hard to get a permanent ban. If on the board two different people do share a IP you could ban new accounts from being made with that IP and thus reduce the risk innocents to a minimum.
A demerit system, or any graduated system, would work nicely, so long as there was a real, permanent ban at the end of the rainbow (of bile).
I would rather see a "condition track" of sorts, to borrow a term from one of the games that gets discussed around here, with "cooldown times" (insert baiting WoW reference here) to move back up the track after knocking yourself down.
The track goes something like this;
Warning
Warning
Warning
Temp Ban
Perma Ban
IP Ban
Each infraction of a certain severity pushes you one step down the track, and every month or so you "recover" and move one step up. Some things (posting fetus pictures, threatening violence, sockpuppetry) push you straight to the end of the track, no questions asked or quarter given.
Combine this with a no sockpuppetry policy and a solid set of definitions for what results in track movement, and you've got a good, working moderation system.
I would rather see a "condition track" of sorts, to borrow a term from one of the games that gets discussed around here, with "cooldown times" (insert baiting WoW reference here) to move back up the track after knocking yourself down.
The track goes something like this;
Warning
Warning
Warning
Temp Ban
Perma Ban
IP Ban
Each infraction of a certain severity pushes you one step down the track, and every month or so you "recover" and move one step up. Some things (posting fetus pictures, threatening violence, sockpuppetry) push you straight to the end of the track, no questions asked or quarter given.
Combine this with a no sockpuppetry policy and a solid set of definitions for what results in track movement, and you've got a good, working moderation system.
This sounds fairly solid.
To clarify, within one month's time, the progression would be 3 warnings, then each level of ban, correct? Barring something like the aforementioned pictures.
This sounds fairly solid.
To clarify, within one month's time, the progression would be 3 warnings, then each level of ban, correct? Barring something like the aforementioned pictures.
Yep. In my head, the cooldown starts following the latest infraction, though.
So if you get Warning, Warning, Warning, Temp Ban, you've got to watch yourself for a month to get back into Temp Ban range rather than getting Banned outright.
It should also be noted that the last step (IP Ban) would only be necessary for returning trolls who had previously been banned, and who were thus violating the sockpuppetry policy. (It would also be applicable to other massive infractions, but for this example that's the only way it would be enforced.) I put it on there more as an illustration than anything else.
I imagine that posting more serious violations(like fetuses) will speed up your progression on the track?
That example specifically would fall under the "go directly to IP Ban, do not pass go, do not collect $200" clause.
That example specifically would fall under the "go directly to IP Ban, do not pass go, do not collect $200" clause.
I like your chart... excellent Idea.
i think Bats is one to something here too.. and referring to it as a condition track is genius :D
Now if this forum -really- functioned like how some paranoid troll posters think it does. Suddenly this would become policy since the "Avengers" approve of it.
Please please let the paranoid individual be right just this once!
I just want to point out that 'IP ban' isn't some extra long ban. It's a high level restriction on the ban that bans a given computer. There's not reason to put it at the top tier. A temp ban can be an IP ban and a perm should CERTAINLY be an IP ban.
I guess in this context I'm using the term as more of a "this is final, we're blocking all your access, good luck with the therapy" style ban.
I understand that you can temp ban an IP, and I think that's probably a good call in a lot of cases. In this setup, though, it's more there as a placeholder for "block all known internet connections used by the guy who screwed up bad enough to get to this point."
I just want to point out that 'IP ban' isn't some extra long ban. It's a high level restriction on the ban that bans a given computer. There's not reason to put it at the top tier. A temp ban can be an IP ban and a perm should CERTAINLY be an IP ban.
It isn't always just one computer. I think it is reasonable for the temp and permanent bans to be email bans so that other family members or roommates of the poster can still use the forums.
Once a member reaches the Temp Ban level, they should need a reset level of longer than one month. They do already, of course, to get back to the start of the scale. I feel, though, that three warnings and a temp ban is pretty heavy. Maybe allow the temp banned member to return and post, but do not lower their level to "last warning before temp ban" until they go three months without a new offense. How's this look?
- First Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting.
- Second Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed into the First Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings.
- Third Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed into the Second Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings.
- Temp Ban: Removed after three months of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed onto the Third Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings. (After one month the member can begin posting again. The status of the member will still be Temp Ban, however, for two more months.)
- Perma Ban: This cannot be removed.
This may seem a bit harsh, but I feel that if you can't control yourself for one month then maybe these boards aren't the best place for you to frequent. And if you keep offending you need to be banned. This keeps frequent offenders in the "danger zone" longer. And that, hopefully, will mean that they either improve their behavior (for at least the length of the time it takes to slide down the scale) or they slip up and get banned.
A suggestion for the scale (I do like it):
Once a member reaches the Temp Ban level, they should need a reset level of longer than one month. They do already, of course, to get back to the start of the scale. I feel, though, that three warnings and a temp ban is pretty heavy. Maybe allow the temp banned member to return and post, but do not lower their level to "last warning before temp ban" until they go three months without a new offense. How's this look?
- First Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting.
- Second Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed into the First Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings.
- Third Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed into the Second Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings.
- Temp Ban: Removed after three months of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed onto the Third Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings. (After one month the member can begin posting again. The status of the member will still be Temp Ban, however, for two more months.)
- Perma Ban: This cannot be removed.
This may seem a bit harsh, but I feel that if you can't control yourself for one month then maybe these boards aren't the best place for you to frequent. And if you keep offending you need to be banned. This keeps frequent offenders in the "danger zone" longer. And that, hopefully, will mean that they either improve their behavior (for at least the length of the time it takes to slide down the scale) or they slip up and get banned.
Even better.
A suggestion for the scale (I do like it):
Once a member reaches the Temp Ban level, they should need a reset level of longer than one month. They do already, of course, to get back to the start of the scale. I feel, though, that three warnings and a temp ban is pretty heavy. Maybe allow the temp banned member to return and post, but do not lower their level to "last warning before temp ban" until they go three months without a new offense. How's this look?
- First Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting.
- Second Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed into the First Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings.
- Third Warning: Removed after one month of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed into the Second Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings.
- Temp Ban: Removed after three months of non-moderated posting. Once removed, the member is placed onto the Third Warning category and must follow it's progression to drop back to no warnings. (After one month the member can begin posting again. The status of the member will still be Temp Ban, however, for two more months.)
- Perma Ban: This cannot be removed.
This may seem a bit harsh, but I feel that if you can't control yourself for one month then maybe these boards aren't the best place for you to frequent. And if you keep offending you need to be banned. This keeps frequent offenders in the "danger zone" longer. And that, hopefully, will mean that they either improve their behavior (for at least the length of the time it takes to slide down the scale) or they slip up and get banned.
I've certainly got no problem with this setup. The month I specified was pretty arbitrary, it's not something I'm stuck on. I'd certainly rather see it increase rather than decrease, but your outline does just that.
I've certainly got no problem with this setup. The month I specified was pretty arbitrary, it's not something I'm stuck on. I'd certainly rather see it increase rather than decrease, but your outline does just that.
Right-o. I actually assigned the time limits fairly arbitrarily myself. There's room for adjustment but I'd rather keep it tough.. I think that this method is certainly strict, but that it also allows plenty of time to correct the behavior or to overcome a hypothetical "unfair" hit from the mods. I like keepin' offenders on probation for a good while, too. Oh well. We'll see what happens, I guess.
Just to add in my two coppers (or I suppose invest in someone else's), I agree 250% with Vaalingrade's four rules, especially the parts about "Active, transparent moderation" and "no more free sock puppet loophole".
Coming from the World of Warcraft forums, people do a LOT of crap through alt characters on those forums. They're perhaps the worst moderated forums I've ever visited. People create trolling alts all the time to go and spam up recruitment threads and whatnot. Then a level 1 alt character gets banned, the troll giggles about it and creates another.
Moving back to the transparent moderation bit, that's hugely important for new & returning posters. What's legit on other forums might not be legit here (posting ASCII art?), so it's important that the community as a whole gets a sense that there is a line and of what it is. It's especially important that the community sees that there IS a line; a tiny italic message "Edited by WizO Schwarzenegger: CoC violation" won't even be noticed by most of the posters, and the rest have no idea what happened. If trolls see WizOs out and about, even if it's just warnings, they'll be less likely to troll.
The one thing I disagree with is IP banning at the same time as an account ban, for the first ban only. Allow me to clarify: let's pretend I was a jerk on my first account here. I trolled people who liked 4e, and while I didn't do something crazy like posting nudity or an aborted fetus (IP ban that no question, no discussion), I was a bit of a jerk. So they banned the account.
A month later, what if I decide that I like 4e, or at least realize what a jerk I was and want to make things right? You should be allowed a second account/name on the IP. Now if I make even one CoC violation on the second account IP ban me right away (the second chance should be akin to parole or probation), but some people do change. This also helps with the multiple poster with one IP problem.
Regarding the whole "good sister, troll brother" debate, I figure that if two people are sharing the same IP and one of them screws up really bad, nail the IP first. It's the same on Xbox Live; if my little brother goes on and starts screaming racial slurs at people and gets me banned, I'm screwed. Now if both of the siblings have separate accounts the "good sister" should be able to at least petition the WizOs to see what sort of options she has, but on the whole a situation where somebody in a family with multiple posters, one of which is a bad enough troll to get an IP ban, is such a rare situation that it shouldn't hamstring a WizO's ability to mete out justice.
I also agree with Batshido's "condition track" of ban policy (I personally would prefer it shorter; warning, temporary ban, ban, IP). It's a good compromise between allowing the occasional violation but stopping repeat offenders, although I would argue that perhaps it would take three months to drop from being "you're about to be perma-banned" (or even longer). You have to intentionally break the CoC at least twice badly enough to get that far. I also do believe that temporary bans should be IP bans,
Now one technical question: I understand mostly how IP bans work, but what about posters at Universities or sharing large networks? I got IP banned at IGN once because some guy did some sort of trolling (I have no idea what) whilst I was on Carleton University's internet. Because I guess we were both at Carleton, I got nailed in the IP ban as well. I petitioned and got my account unbanned, but I was just curious what could happen here.
Coming from the World of Warcraft forums, people do a LOT of crap through alt characters on those forums. They're perhaps the worst moderated forums I've ever visited. People create trolling alts all the time to go and spam up recruitment threads and whatnot. Then a level 1 alt character gets banned, the troll giggles about it and creates another.
I was unaware that the WoW forums had even that much moderation. The WoW-Europe boards that I use for my specific servers are not visibly moderated at all. People frequently post links to pornography. One sicko even started a thread "hey check these hot naked pictures of my wife", then starts posting links to said pictures. I'm glad that the forums you frequent have the bare minimum, even if its pathethic, of moderation.
On topic (slightly); I am a bit surprised that so many folks think that the forums are some kind of trolling wasteland. To be honest I have seen more people talking about trolling than people actually trolling. I myself only know of about three dedicated trolls here. Anyhow, I'm not saying that everyone else is exaggerating. I'm just genuinely surprised that it seems to be such a big issue. In my own personal experience, however, the moderation here is fine and functional. I do think the CoC could be a bit more clear so as to lessen baiting and such but thats not really an issue of trolling. Maybe its just because I am forced to frequent certain abysmal boards (like WoW), that this place seems dandy in comparisson. Ah well. nevermind me.
If I can just venture one more observation; the suggestions about improving moderation are all fairly constructive and meaningfull. But I don't think anyone is served by shouting louder and louder things to the effect of; "ZOMG THE MODERATION SUCKS WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP?!!". Thats just a tad over reactionary and more than a little sensationalism. Same goes for threating to form "bad boy" vigilante posse-justice anti-troll leagues or whatever.
/end
This advise fails to take into account everything this thread has been about.
Ah... ok.
Well...
this thread has been started by someone who demanded that someone should be tared and feathered (ok IP-Banned), and that a 15 minute decision span to decide if anybody should be executed (ok his post removed) is far too long.
The tone of this thread reminds me a little of an angry lynch mob.
Sorry, but that was my impression.
The one thing I disagree with is IP banning at the same time as an account ban, for the first ban only. Allow me to clarify: let's pretend I was a jerk on my first account here. I trolled people who liked 4e, and while I didn't do something crazy like posting nudity or an aborted fetus (IP ban that no question, no discussion), I was a bit of a jerk. So they banned the account.
A month later, what if I decide that I like 4e, or at least realize what a jerk I was and want to make things right? You should be allowed a second account/name on the IP. Now if I make even one CoC violation on the second account IP ban me right away (the second chance should be akin to parole or probation), but some people do change. This also helps with the multiple poster with one IP problem.
Like I said before, IP != perm. You get a temp ban for 1 week on your IP and then you can come back first time under my conception. The IP ban is just to keep you from using another alt emails, et al to bring in a smurf.
this thread has been started by someone who demanded that someone should be tared and feathered (ok IP-Banned)
And that person was IP-banned, which indicates his complaint was not a lynch mob, but a legitimate gripe about a poster who far exceeded the appropriate standards of this forum.
a 15 minute decision span to decide if anybody should be executed (ok his post removed) is far too long.
When did someone say a 15-minute wait for CM was "too long"?
If anybody is using hyperbole, it appears to be you.
The tone of this thread reminds me a little of an angry lynch mob.
Have you ever seen an angry lynch mob? I can assure you this thread has very little resemblance to one.
The tone of this thread reminds me a little of an angry lynch mob.
For good reasons. Peoples have enough of the laxism. Ya basta.
EDIT: I personally think the moderation system is good as is.
I gotta agree, a lot of generalizations are being thrown around and people are being defined as "those guys" to dehumanize them. I personally think IP banning is only to be used in the most extreme cases like the one it was used in recently. Oh and I've been pretty good about not getting banned so far, so take that into consideration before saying I break the CoC frequently.
EDIT: I personally think the moderation system is good as is.
Without the moderation being what it is, your existence here would be impossible in its current state. What other opinion of the moderation could you have?
...
Strange.
Am I feeling like my nose is being rubbed into something?
Yep, I think it is!
I gotta agree, a lot of generalizations are being thrown around and people are being defined as "those guys" to dehumanize them. I personally think IP banning is only to be used in the most extreme cases like the one it was used in recently. Oh and I've been pretty good about not getting banned so far, so take that into consideration before saying I break the CoC frequently.
1) They're being referred to as "those guys" because specifically naming names is against CoC. Some of us actually care about that sort of thing, believe it or not.
2)
[Y]es I've had a few accounts, but no I've not lost count. I'll prove it:
PsionX (permanently banned)->PsionX_1 (permanently banned)->Leshracnuker (permanently banned)->Mortred (permanently banned)->Clinkzdps (temporarily banned 12 times)->Gondarcarry (currently unbanned, permanently banned)->Juggyslash (currently unbanned, temporarily banned 6 times).
As you can see, I have most definitely not lost count.
EDIT: I personally think the moderation system is good as is.
Given that the insanely lax state of moderation is the only reason you're still allowed to post here, I find this to be rather unsurprising.
Hypothetically speaking, how long would that behavior have lasted at ENWorld?
Without the moderation being what it is, your existence here would be impossible in its current state. What other opinion of the moderation could you have?
Any really, like I said somewhere, there are other computers. I just personally think that this moderation is working fine. You guys seem to want an echo chamber for some reason. I should also remind you: Once 4.5 or 5e comes out, I'll be done criticizing D&D altogether (whether it's good or bad I don't care). For some reason you guys think that my criticisms are against the CoC, but I have news for you: the CS and CM guys don't. That's because it isn't. So really, as long as I continue my rational debates and criticisms, I have nothing to fear from any fair system of moderation.
So, I ask you, can we be civil? Please?
Any really, like I said somewhere, there are other computers. I just personally think that this moderation is working fine. You guys seem to want an echo chamber for some reason. I should also remind you: Once 4.5 or 5e comes out, I'll be done criticizing D&D altogether (whether it's good or bad I don't care). For some reason you guys think that my criticisms are against the CoC, but I have news for you: the CS and CM guys don't. That's because it isn't. So really, as long as I continue my rational debates and criticisms, I have nothing to fear from any fair system of moderation.
So, I ask you, can we be civil? Please?
Never said your criticism of 4E was the problem. You have crossed the line, drawn by the CoC, more often than most people I've seen here. You have been given more second chances than most forums would give anybody.
Never said your criticism of 4E was the problem. You have crossed the line, drawn by the CoC, more often than most people I've seen here. You have been given more second chances than most forums would give anybody.
But I haven't been crossing the line recently... and that PM that Batshido keeps posting is the past. I thought you pro-4e guys didn't like to dwell in the past.
EDIT: By the way, that isn't true. Vaalingrade Ashland (Vaal on his own hosted forums), gave me lots of chances on the forums he hosts for his webcomics. He's willing to give me many more by his system. He's actually a pretty decent guy in that respect. So yeah, even though he's in favor of the new edition, he was pretty friendly to me on his forums.
But I haven't been crossing the line recently... and that PM that Batshido keeps posting is the past. I thought you pro-4e guys didn't like to dwell in the past.
EDIT: By the way, that isn't true. Vaalingrade Ashland (Vaal on his own hosted forums), gave me lots of chances on the forums he hosts for his webcomics. He's willing to give me many more by his system. He's actually a pretty decent guy in that respect. So yeah, even though he's in favor of the new edition, he was pretty friendly to me on his forums.
One can play games without crossing the CoC line in the sand. Can you honestly say you aren't playing games(trying to get me or somebody else to respond in a manner that crosses that line, or simply make fools of ourselves) right now?
One can play games without crossing the CoC line in the sand. Can you honestly say you aren't playing games(trying to get me or somebody else to respond in a manner that crosses that line, or simply make fools of ourselves) right now?
I can honestly say, that if you try to get mad at anything, you can. Except penguins for some reason...
... never really understood why.
I guess I'll take that as a non-answer.
Well, see the problem is that you're trying to get me to say that I'm baiting (even if I'm not) so you can report me out of whatever grudge you have.
[Y]es I've had a few accounts, but no I've not lost count. I'll prove it:
PsionX (permanently banned)->PsionX_1 (permanently banned)->Leshracnuker (permanently banned)->Mortred (permanently banned)->Clinkzdps (temporarily banned 12 times)->Gondarcarry (currently unbanned, permanently banned)->Juggyslash (currently unbanned, temporarily banned 6 times).
As you can see, I have most definitely not lost count.
Wait... clinkz, are you really all of those posters? That's pretty sad... and I can only imagine that those numbers have gone up since then...
Well, see the problem is that you're trying to get me to say that I'm baiting (even if I'm not) so you can report me out of whatever grudge you have.
If you aren't baiting, then say so.
Wait... clinkz, are you really all of those posters? That's pretty sad... and I can only imagine that those numbers have gone up since then...
No, not really. I've been very good about posting now. I still manage to get my message across though and get people to understand what I'm trying to say.
If you aren't baiting, then say so.
I don't think I'm baiting. Do you? It really depends on whose reading my posts in my opinion.
I don't think I'm baiting. Do you? It really depends on whose reading my posts in my opinion.
An interesting dodge.
An interesting dodge.
An interesting dodge.
Not really.
"Oh, you think I'm trolling? Can you explain why you think that while I sit here and bask in my own effectiveness?"
It's like the third thing covered in the Usenet Guide to Successful Trolling.
Not really.
"Oh, you think I'm trolling? Can you explain why you think that while I sit here and bask in my own effectiveness?"
It's like the third thing covered in the Usenet Guide to Successful Trolling.
You've actually read it?
You've actually read it?
"Know thy enemy.."
EDIT: By the way, that isn't true. Vaalingrade Ashland (Vaal on his own hosted forums), gave me lots of chances on the forums he hosts for his webcomics. He's willing to give me many more by his system. He's actually a pretty decent guy in that respect. So yeah, even though he's in favor of the new edition, he was pretty friendly to me on his forums.
Okay, this right here? It's a bald faced lie.
You, in your PsionX guise came to my and opened up with a post filled with vulgarity and inexplicably homophobia. You were banned six minutes after you posted.
You then reregistered with a fake email address and did it again. You were banned that morning when I woke up, reminding me to turn on confirmation.
You then jumped computers twice more, prompting my to block the entire hostname at the University of Nevada to lock your vulgarity out of my place of business.
I did not give you any more chances other than the month ban you got initially. You circumvented it and got permed. Then you tried your level best to try everything else, until you were reduced to stalking me via PM here.
clinkzdps, I am actually not trying to get you to admit to behavior that violates the CoC. You said you were reformed and possessing of a newfound innocence. I'd just like you to come right out and directly say that you aren't misbehaving. If you can.
I said that Melan's article gave me a lot to think about and changed how I view the problem of 4e to one where people will need "patches" just to have "fun". I don't know about the rest of what you said. Regardless, when 4.5 or 5e comes out (no matter how good or bad they are), I will stop criticizing the negative points of 4e. The reason my statements are not against the CoC, is because through previous statements of mine, your views have been altered sufficiently to find most of what I say offensive even if it isn't against the CoC. This suits my designs perfectly
, but it is hardly justification to call what I say against the CoC. You can only get upset at it if try.Okay, this right here? It's a bald faced lie.
You, in your PsionX guise came to my and opened up with a post filled with vulgarity and inexplicably homophobia. You were banned six minutes after you posted.
You then reregistered with a fake email address and did it again. You were banned that morning when I woke up, reminding me to turn on confirmation.
You then jumped computers twice more, prompting my to block the entire hostname at the University of Nevada to lock your vulgarity out of my place of business.
I did not give you any more chances other than the month ban you got initially. You circumvented it and got permed. Then you tried your level best to try everything else, until you were reduced to stalking me via PM here.
Actually, each lab has a separate thingy... and I haven't even used my home PC yet... It just got boring so fast though. Re-registering emails is not fun and takes too long even if IP's can be changed.
EDIT: Personally, I'd much rather be playing online games than harassing you Vaal (which is another of the reasons I stopped), but I had to do a little housewarming for you. On these forums however, you'll find that I'm much more reasonable and I don't flame people, I merely ridicule the edition. Which is perfectly acceptable according to numerous mods.
I said that Melan's article gave me a lot to think about and changed how I view the problem of 4e to one where people will need "patches" just to have "fun". I don't know about the rest of what you said. Regardless, when 4.5 or 5e comes out (no matter how good or bad they are), I will stop criticizing the negative points of 4e. The reason my statements are not against the CoC, is because through previous statements of mine, your views have been altered sufficiently to find most of what I say offensive even if it isn't against the CoC. This suits my designs perfectly
Emphasis mine
Never said anything you are doing is against the CoC. I just asked you to simply say that you aren't playing games. You don't seem to be able to.
Actually, each lab has a separate thingy... and I haven't even used my home PC yet... It just got boring so fast though. Re-registering emails is not fun and takes too long even if IP's can be changed.
EDIT: Personally, I'd much rather be playing online games than harassing you Vaal (which is another of the reasons I stopped), but I had to do a little housewarming for you. On these forums however, you'll find that I'm much more reasonable and I don't flame people, I merely ridicule the edition. Which is perfectly acceptable according to numerous mods.
1. We have here an example of somebody who has admitted trolling on a different forum and how proper moderation(which does not exist here) works, and works well. Vaal, you need to keep this for posterity and use it in every discussion we have with Community Management on how to deal with disruptive people.
2. Ridiculing this or any edition is not against the CoC. Ridiculing an edition with the intention of upsetting people on the forum and attempting to provoke responses that are against the CoC is baiting. Which are you?
1. We have here an example of somebody who has admitted trolling on a different forum and how proper moderation(which does not exist here) works, and works well. Vaal, you need to keep this for posterity and use it in every discussion we have with Community Management on how to deal with disruptive people.
2. Ridiculing this or any edition is not against the CoC. Ridiculing an edition with the intention of upsetting people on the forum and attempting to provoke responses that are against the CoC is baiting. Which are you?
I plead the fifth ammendment.
EDIT: You guys don't seem to get it. As long as I don't troll, there isn't a problem to ban me for. If you troll for me or tell of my exploits, you're doing it for me. This hurts my reputation I'll admit, but salvation is a few clicks away and time heals all wounds.
You do know that I can't just come out and say it right? Even if I PM my answer you could just screenshot it. Though I will say something to help:
Batshido: Each time you reference that PM, you are trolling for me. I am not posting it, and I can reference it and since the mods have no problem with you posting it, I can reference former usernames through it without violating the CoC. It practically baits for me without any risk on my behalf. Not that I condone such awful and distasteful behavior *monocle falls out from eye*.
1. Saying that you aren't baiting is most certainly not against the CoC. You tried to say that you were a good boy and behaving. I asked you to say in plain language that you were not baiting. You cannot, proving my point that you saying that you are being a good boy and behaving is fallacious.
2. *monocle falls out from eye* ?
I plead the fifth ammendment.
EDIT: You guys don't seem to get it. As long as I don't troll, there isn't a problem to ban me for. If you troll for me or tell of my exploits, you're doing it for me. This hurts my reputation I'll admit, but salvation is a few clicks away and time heals all wounds.
Hurting your reputation is enough for me, or more specifically, shining the light of truth on your assertion that you are blameless or a victim of circumstances.
1. Saying that you aren't baiting is most certainly not against the CoC. You tried to say that you were a good boy and behaving. I asked you to say in plain language that you were not baiting. You cannot, proving my point that you saying that you are being a good boy and behaving is fallacious.
2. *monocle falls out from eye* ?
Gentlemen stereotypically wear monocles. When they get really shocked, their monocle falls out from their eye, some attach it to a string so that it doesn't hit the ground and break.
Also, with respect to your wishes for an echo chamber through harsh moderation: He who cannot adapt shall perish. Or be banned in this case.
*, or more specifically, shining the light of truth on your assertion that you are blameless or a victim of circumstances.
But I am a victim of circumstances. If 4e was not like it is, I'd have left it alone. Before 4e, I had never gotten banned even once, not even a warning. I also advise you to edit out the first part of your statement, it's a risky thing to say on these forums.
EDIT: Not even a deleted or moderated post
EDIT2: Not even a harsh PM from another forumgoer
EDIT3: Not even a harsh post from another forumgoer
I think I'll go play runescape now...
As for the former troll, the thing you keep saying that sticks out to me is that anyone mention your actions is "trolling on you", that's not how it works. Your actions are your actions, and someone reporting you for it, that is not trolling. Citing an example of someone's argument is also not trolling, if the subject chooses to out themselves as the subject, they are responsible for that. But someone saying they have a PM and discussing their options for reporting and discussing those actions are not trolling. Don't try to spin here.
But I am a victim of circumstances. If 4e was not like it is, I'd have left it alone. Before 4e, I had never gotten banned even once, not even a warning. I also advise you to edit out the first part of your statement, it's a risky thing to say on these forums.
EDIT: Not even a deleted or moderated post
EDIT2: Not even a harsh PM from another forumgoer
EDIT3: Not even a harsh post from another forumgoer
Emphasis mine
People don't get banned or moderated for criticizing 4E. People get banned or moderated for being jerks. Same goes for harsh posts and PMs.
*sigh*, I think I'm late to the party here. There's been a lot of stuff in here that's frustrated me to read, and it's sad that this stuff is going on. I'm surprised by Webster's posts, and I agree with many of the suggestions that people have come up with on how to moderate the board. I'm a bit perturbed by the speculation of "vigilantes" on the board over a proposition of reporting, but I consider that a misunderstanding.
As for the former troll, the thing you keep saying that sticks out to me is that anyone mention your actions is "trolling on you", that's not how it works. Your actions are your actions, and someone reporting you for it, that is not trolling. Citing an example of someone's argument is also not trolling, if the subject chooses to out themselves as the subject, they are responsible for that. But someone saying they have a PM and discussing their options for reporting and discussing those actions are not trolling. Don't try to spin here.
You know, the one problem I may run into is that I like to brag too much...
Now, when he posts that list. It shows my previous actions (which I have already been punished for). It serves as something to infuriate the pro 4e who already hate me. It baits for me. It links all my usernames together in a big happy parcel, without any blame to me. So yes, he trolls for me whether he wants to or not. With each passing moment, he becomes even more my servant.
Emphasis mine
People don't get banned or moderated for criticizing 4E. People get banned or moderated for being jerks. Same goes for harsh posts and PMs.
meh
so addictive... these forums... like webcomics... with insane update times... must resist...
*drags self away from forums to play runescape*