Zherog;16693101 wrote:
How do we effectively go about convincing CS that canned responses aren't in their best interests?
-We're literally trying to convince them? Alright, well, those who break laws without facing any kind of punishment are statistically more likely to either (A) repeat the offense again, or (B) grow emboldened by their actions, and perform an offense that is of greater consequence. Thus, in order to stem the tide, those who break rules should be:
(A) Notified of the fact that a specific rule was broken.
(B) Explained how exactly the rule was broken.
(C) Warned that future offenses will not be tolerated.
-That said, I don't find the community needs to be "repaired", per se, as a few bad weeds need to be cut down.
I can try to talk with CS and see what pans out, but I can't make any promises.
Yeah, I've asked Solice to have Eric pop in. (Well, technically I suppose I asked her to have him pop into the other thread; but he seems like a bright enough dude to figure out to come here too)
I don't expect CS to make changes. I would like, however, if they truly listened to the feedback that's popping up and consider it. If they really think (for example) that canned responses are better, that's OK - as long as they gave consideration to loosening up a bit.
Moderation Confusion
SpearSpike tossed out that warnings often come without any sort of link to the offending post. I don't know if it's true, but I also have no reason to disbelieve him. So, working on the assumption that he's correct... That's really damn silly. Every communication between customer service and a member over conduct should include a link to the offending post(s).
What do we need to do to get this policy changed?
Well I suggest that every time someone gets a warning/ban without knowing why they e-mail customer service.
If true this is extremely poor moderation, and I to have no reason to disbelieve the claim. When I report a post I'm expected to show why that it should be moderated. If someone receives a warning should expect no less. If posters are not told why they where warned/banned then they cannot contest the charge, nor attempt not to modify that behavior as might have absolutely no idea what they got moderated on.
IP bans suck, because there's a good chance of getting somebody else wrapped up in the ban. What are the other options? How can Customer Service improve the process?
An e-mail based ban could work for some. It's less severe than am IP ban and will not get innocents in the net.
What else? What else can be done to repair this community?
I'm not really sure.
[edit]
I got one, official definitions of many of the terms that are used on the boards. Some people don't have a clear understand of some in words in the code of conduct. I for example started a thread a awhile back on what the defintion or scrolling was.
An e-mail based ban could work for some. It's less severe than am IP ban and will not get innocents in the net.
I'm pretty sure the first ban is already an e-mail ban.
*
On the first point, I've seen the e-mails some people have received. And there have been cases where there wasn't a link or quote. There've also been cases where the person didn't know why his/her post was considered trolling or baiting or whatever -- and e-mails went unanswered.
So it's definitely a problem. The good news is that it's probably not all that hard for CS to improve the situation. Simply making sure there's always a link and/or quote in any conduct-related communication is an easy step in the right direction.
I'm pretty sure the first ban is already an e-mail ban.
*
On the first point, I've seen the e-mails some people have received. And there have been cases where there wasn't a link or quote. There've also been cases where the person didn't know why his/her post was considered trolling or baiting or whatever -- and e-mails went unanswered.
So it's definitely a problem. The good news is that it's probably not all that hard for CS to improve the situation. Simply making sure there's always a link and/or quote in any conduct-related communication is an easy step in the right direction.
I also dislike the drive-by modding system's vagueness. For example, I was in a pretty heated discussion the other week and a WizO popped in to remind everyone to be nice. I PMed and asked if I was specifically doing anything wrong and if so what. No reply was forthcoming.
A general reminder to be nice doesn't seem to have a very strong effect. I'd rather see something specific, like what ENWorld does. Mods there actually edit someone's post with a warning. That makes things crystal clear. Or if many people are involved, they tell them all clearly right there in the thread that certain behaviors (name-calling or whatever) are not tolerated.
Publicly calling people out might seem a bit drastic, so maybe WizOs could just PM the people they are concerned about when they put out a general warning. I think publicly stating what is not acceptable is a good idea (how else will people learn? by guessing?) but I have a feeling that won't ever happen here.
An email ban backed by email verification ideally if we're going to play it that soft. Making up emails is easy, remembering which fake email you used for what board is hard.
That and making up new emails, while easy is still a hassle.
It is a nice thought that some of the offenders will either grow bored or actually become useful members of the forum society. The fact remains though that there are those members that will always seek to continue in their methods and it is here that an iron fisted approach needs to be taken.
It will drive home the point and the ripple effect will be that self control will be the rule since there is an actual reprecussion for undesired behavior. The 'oh I guess they are serious about it' effect will handle the rest.
While unfortunately the people who seem to take pleasure solely in being disruptive I would imagine will only laugh and make yet another account.
If the Holocaust Denial and Skeptics boards I frequent are any indication, most of them won't and those that do will usually moderate themselves afterwards.
If IP bans can work on antisemitic holocaust denying trolls, I'm pretty sure it can work on a guy upset about a role-playing game.
I totally missed your meaning on what the forum was for.
I totally missed your meaning on what the forum was for.
I also read that post in a way that left me very worried at first- "But he seemed like such a nice guy!" and all that.
If IP bans can work on antisemitic holocaust denying trolls, I'm pretty sure it can work on a guy upset about a role-playing game.
The problem is that IP bans only work if the offender is [forced to] using a static IP. Otherwise, can just disconnect his router/modem and get a new IP from his ISP, or he could anyway use a proxy to tunnel the connection.
An alternative would be certificate based authentification, but that would introduce the problem of not being able to access your account from another computer, as well as what happens when your computer catches a virus/its harddisk crashes/it is fried by a lightning and you lose your certificate.
Yes, you could do IP range bans, or an ISP ban, but that would introduce lots of "collateral damage" with those bans.
The problem is that IP bans only work if the offender is [forced to] using a static IP.
So use it when it works.
Otherwise, can just disconnect his router/modem and get a new IP from his ISP
Most trolls don't bother with that much effort.
or he could anyway use a proxy to tunnel the connection.
There are some very good and very inexpensive proxy detectors.
Yes, you could do IP range bans, or an ISP ban, but that would introduce lots of "collateral damage" with those bans.
I don't think that would be necessary. 99% of people have static IPs and would end up having to use detectable proxies. The remaining 1% we can handle by vigorously banning sockpuppets (ie, new ids created to get around a permaban).
So use it when it works.
But it doesn't work, that's the point. Most ISPs only give dynamic IPs to private customers and charge extra (beginning at 10⁈/month) for a static IP.
Most trolls don't bother with that much effort.
"Much effort"? It's unplugging a cable for 3 seconds, or hitting the "reset" button on the router. It's much less effort than e.g. creating a new email address.
There are some very good and very inexpensive proxy detectors. [...]
And then do what?
[...] 99% of people have static IPs
Link? Considering the limitations on IPv4, I seriously doubt your claim. Any ISP primarily giving out static IPs would rather sooner than later run out of free IPs in his allocated range and lose the ability to accept new customers.
and would end up having to use detectable proxies.
See above: and then do what? Ban all people using proxies? How about those that use proxies to get to the boards from work (of course, only in their breaks ;))? Or those that use proxies for security reasons? Using a proxy is nothing illegal or bad.
The remaining 1% we can handle by vigorously banning sockpuppets (ie, new ids created to get around a permaban).
That might be true.
Please don't string-quote. You respond to things I write with questions that I answer farther down in my posts.
Most ISPs only give dynamic IPs to private customers and charge extra (beginning at 10⁈/month) for a static IP.
That's not my experience in other boards. Maybe Europe operates differently.
Using a proxy is nothing illegal or bad.
So? We're not here to enforce the law. If proxies are facilitating (however innocently) bad behavior, I have no problem banning it. It's a question of measuring costs vs. benefits. Another benefit is that you don't even have to consider the measure until after lesser measures have been tried and failed.
Most people are not using proxy servers. Many websites already restrict proxies. If you're (that's a generic you) using a proxy, then you have probably already noticed there are many webistes you cannot access.
Entering a name and credit card number could be a good way to do this. However, it would require a secure connection. With the upcoming online content that you must pay for WotC would need to develop a system to do so anyway.
I've had a site or two do this to me because I use a hotmail account.
The remaining 1% we can handle by vigorously banning sockpuppets (ie, new ids created to get around a permaban).
Let's face it. There are only a few people who are creating new names and still trolling right now. It's not a wide spread epidemic. If they could deal with it by vigorously banning sockpuppets, then that would really be the best approach. Even if someone does have a static IP then all it takes is going to a coffee shop and creating a new account there. In a world that is so wireless there really needs to be a new way of banning people, but lacking that, I think dealing with the sockpuppets is our best bet.
I agree though that there's little reason not to try banning the IP. It won't take as much resources as banning all sockpuppets and is worth a shot at least.
Is there anyway of reporting someone you suspect is a banned poster? I've heard that actually posting "Don't respond to X. They're Y under a different name," will get you a warning for trolling.
Most trolls don't bother with that much effort.
All I'd need to do to change my IP is shut down my computer and router, and then reboot. Much less work than creating a new e-mail.
All I'd need to do to change my IP is shut down my computer and router, and then reboot. Much less work than creating a new e-mail.
Yes, bully for you. but most trolls don't know. DOn't care. They were ust looking for attention. An IP ban tells most of them the mods are serious about cleaning the place up. Trolls look for low-hanging fruit. There's plenty of other boards to troll.
Right now this board is the low-hanging fruit.
There is no cost for IP banning someone once you've used an email ban and you confirm they use a static IP. So why not do it?
The fact that they can get around it shouldn't prevent you from trying it. Every action a mod could take can conceivably be gotten around. Does that mean we shouldn't mod? No.
I really don't get the hostility to using an IP ban in appropriate circumstances. It's not like anybody's advocating it be done automatically in every instance.
If you try to only use a perfect solution, you will end up with no solution.
Therefor you should see if it is better than what we currently have, rather than seeing if it has any holes.
Every potential solution to the problem can be worded around by someone.
If you try to only use a perfect solution, you will end up with no solution.
Therefor you should see if it is better than what we currently have, rather than seeing if it has any holes.
+Infinity
Another alternative would be to verify who the person is when they make an account.
Entering a name and credit card number could be a good way to do this....
Enter a credit card to read a forum?
This is a joke, right? Please say you're not actually serious.
On the off-chance that you are, my honest opinion is that any community that needs to resort to such measures frankly deserves to be dissolved.
Enter a credit card to read a forum?
No, just to make an account. I an offering alternatives to an IP ban.
This is a joke, right? Please say you're not actually serious.
Yes, I am serious.
On the off-chance that you are, my honest opinion is that any community that needs to resort to such measures frankly deserves to be dissolved.
As above, that was put forth as an alternative to an IP ban.
[...] It's not like anybody's advocating it be done automatically in every instance.
But some people are advocating it as the perfect be-all-end-all solution...
[indent]
If the Holocaust Denial and Skeptics boards I frequent are any indication, most of them won't and those that do will usually moderate themselves afterwards.
[/indent]
... which it isn't.
If you want absolute security you'd have to introduce a client-side certificate based authentication. Users would have to register with WotC which would work as the Certificate Authority and issue certificates for each user. Writing access to the board would only be possible with the certificate, and "banning" a user would result in revoking his certificate.
However, this would complicate the usage of the boards and prevent anyone from posting from a internet cafe or something when they don't bring along their certificate (e.g. in an encrypted file).
All I said is that IP bans have been effective in other forums to which I belong, and so there is no reason to think they won't be effective here. I didn't say they were the only security measure used on those boards. I didn't even say they were the primary security measure. I said they were one security measure that has been shown to be effective, and they were (and are).
And how would IP bans for people who got repeated warns and whose posting history shows they have a static IP "complicate" things for internet cafe users?
I sometimes get the feeling people don't read what is written. They just have a blanket rule in their head ("IP bans raise concerns") and don't read to see if the issues make sense in this context.
And how would IP bans for people who got repeated warns and whose posting history shows they have a static IP "complicate" things for internet cafe users?
Ra said that certificates would be a far more effective solution, but they would complicate things for internet cafe users. He wasn’t talking about static IPs at all.
I sometimes get the feeling people don't read what is written.
Oh, irony.
I have no problems with using certificates. Let's do everything we can to stop trolls.
He said more than that. He also accused me of saying that IP bans were the "perfect be all-end all" and the quote he supplied as evidence didn't say that.
I have no problems with using certificates. Let's do everything we can to stop trolls.
Yes, please...
If that doesn't work then we can always revisit the issue.
I know mudbunny says IP bans suck, and I agree. However, with the severity of the trolling it may become needed. Also if we were to start with email banning then it could prevent it some of the time.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. In other words, the waspish exchanges going on between a few of the patrons on this thread need to stop.
I consider this an excessive level of security. But no more excessive than asking for credit card data.
(Hint: asking for credit card data will absolutely lock out a vast amount of the potential global reader-base. Widespread ownership of credit cards is not a standard concept around the world, or even around "western" societies).
(Hint: asking for credit card data will absolutely lock out a vast amount of the potential global reader-base. Widespread ownership of credit cards is not a standard concept around the world, or even around "western" societies).
Not to mention that many people are highly (and rightfully) protective of their credit card numbers, and I know I wouldn't give mine just to post here.
Sure, it would be an inconvenience at first for everyone who subscribes, but it would be a greater inconvenience for people who subscribe often: the repeat offenders.
"Expert" trolls would be able to bypass this hurdle by registering accounts in advance, but that is still work, and when this finite supply of sock-puppets is exhausted, they must start over.
The idea is simple: registering an account has to be more trouble (just not enough to turn away newbies) than banning one. This is the only way that repeat-banning of a troll can eventually work.
It's a battle of wills: you just have to ban the troll one time more than he is willing to register.
I've removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. In other words, the waspish exchanges going on between a few of the patrons on this thread need to stop.
KiRin,
With all due respect, name those patrons. Everyone's idea of who you're talking about might be different.
The idea is not to humiliate, but to clarify. Give names, and anyone concerned can police himself accordingly and everyone else will know he was within bounds.
Do not be concerned about publicly calling out bad behavior: we're on a web forum; we're already anonymous. Be open about it, and people who are frustrated (like me, I'll admit) by the mods' apparent inaction (or apparently ineffective action) will see that you are doing something.
If anyone is serious about turning things around here, the policy of touchy-feely, drive-by, cookie-cutter moderation has to be reconsidered too. I'd even say it is a necessary condition.
I think certificates are a little drastic having not tried anything else at this point. The best solution so far that has come up is an email ban followed by an IP ban. This would be a good place to start and see if that works.
If that doesn't work then we can always revisit the issue.
I know mudbunny says IP bans suck, and I agree. However, with the severity of the trolling it may become needed. Also if we were to start with email banning then it could prevent it some of the time.
WotC already does e-mail bans. I'm pretty sure every ban currently performed is an e-mail ban.
WotC already does e-mail bans. I'm pretty sure every ban currently performed is an e-mail ban.
Whoops my mistake then.
Well then i change my opinion to going straight to IP bans at this point or IP banning anyone who has created a number of sockpuppets. Again, I know it sucks to have to go to that, but if its the best option to help the community then its what has to happen.
However... I'd keep that re-registered account on an extremely short leash. One warning. That's it. And it'd be an IP ban at that point, rather than an e-mail ban.
I'd leave the first three warnings as-is. And I'd allow a banned account to re-register. As I said, I've seen people turn it around.
However... I'd keep that re-registered account on an extremely short leash. One warning. That's it. And it'd be an IP ban at that point, rather than an e-mail ban.
That seems like a fair way of doing it to me.
As some have pointed out, this may not be a solution that will cover every possible scenario. However, it is a good start and will allow us to see if it solves the problems.
I wanted to pull these questions out, as they seem to have gotten lost in the "Cleaning up General" thread. (I pulled the questions out of the quote tag to make it easier for people to reply.)
Slightly Renaming Forums to Clarify the Purpose
Clarifying is good, no doubt. If it decreases the contacts between the die-hards of both sides (editions). If not, well, it won't solve the main problem, but less confusion is always good.
Moderation Confusion
It's a given that moderation PMs from CS to members should give all the details of the case.
Furthermore, I think that when a moderator posts to issue a warning in a thread, he should mention who, exactly, the warning is given to. Not to publicly humiliate anyone, just to let the concerned parties know they should back off. It would also have some educational value.
Likewise, when a post is edited, the moderator should leave a note explaining why. Posts should not be entirely deleted: just their content, and a note be left in its place.
In real life, justice is public and transparent (well, it is here), and there is a good reason for that. The people must see it at work so they can trust it.
I fully realize that real life justice is far more serious than D&D forum moderation, but the lesson still applies. Look at the current situation: the members have lost faith and respect for the moderators, they see them as absent, ineffective, aloof and outside the community.
As an example, I was genuinely surprised when I learned how many times PsionX had been banned. (I can mention that screen name, right? Technically, he's no longer a member.) I had no idea the mods had put any effort in getting rid of him. If some of us had known, maybe we'd be cheering them up, encouraging them to "Do it one more time! He's gonna get bored before you do!". But instead, we're disgusted that his sock-puppets are still here and we blame it on the mods' ineptitude.
It's time to reconsider that policy of anonymity.
"Robotic" Moderation
Are the WizOs robotic because they're forced to be, because they just don't have time for more, or because they just don't give a damn?
I certainly miss the old friendly ways of the WizOs, before that CS/VCL split.
If it's policy that's forcing the lack of personality and the canned responses, then yeah, it's a no brainer that this policy needs to be trashed.
If they don't have time or don't care, then it's the split itself that needs to go. But is that even on the table?
How do we effectively go about convincing CS that canned responses aren't in their best interests?
I honnestly don't know. Haven't we told them already, in almost every good and bad way there is? What's left? Petitions? Protests? The forum equivalent of civil disobedience?
Banning Policy
It definitely needs to be more severe than it is now. In particular: when someone is banned, even temporarily, all his screen names should be banned. How is it punishment otherwise?
And bans should be e-mail bans. Just to add one more hassle for people who have trouble staying banned.
IP bans: they could still be used on a case by case basis. If they affect someone innocent, then just undo this particular IP ban. It's not a perfect tool, but I think we've established that there's no such thing here.
What else? What else can be done to repair this community?
Ok, just floating this around: What if there was a 1 or 2 days delay between the moment you register an account and the moment you could start posting?
It would be inconvenient for everyone new, I know, but only once. It would be most inconvenient for those who create lots of accounts, like recurring trolls. It would make it longer to register than to get banned. Trolls would get bored more quickly.
We can go on kvetching and moaning about this stuff. Or we can work with Community Management and Customer Service to try and repair things. Honestly, a good kvetch-fest can be a fun read; but after pages upon pages of them over the past few months, it's time for something different. Let's give the second option a try. I mean a good, honest try. Put aside whether you're a 4e fan or a 3.5 fan or a d20 Modern fan, and instead let's work together. This used to be a great community. Let's get back to that.
I, in turn, have some questions:
In the wake of the forum reorganization and Solice's assignment, what, exactly, is on the table here? What is considered for change, and what is out of the question?
The forum re-org is a given, but what about those:
The CoC?
The CS/VCL separation?
Who should have moderation (post editing and banning) powers?
Thanks.
The forum re-org is a given, but what about those:
The CoC?
The CS/VCL separation?
Who should have moderation (post editing and banning) powers?
Thanks.
CS policy is not up for debate. CS handles warnings and bannings. The CS/VCL separation has happened and it's been stated we're not "going back" to the old way of doing things.
All suggestions to CS policy should be submitted directly to CS via the link at the bottom of all the pages.
http://wizards.custhelp.com/ and click on the "email us" tab.
In the wake of the forum reorganization and Solice's assignment, what, exactly, is on the table here? What is considered for change, and what is out of the question?
In my opinion... anything is up for discussion. But that doesn't mean CS will implement, or even read, what we discuss here. I'm hoping they'll participate in the talks, but that's not a given.
That said, I think there are some very good ideas here.
Are the WizOs robotic because they're forced to be, because they just don't have time for more, or because they just don't give a damn?
I personally have to conclude it's policy. Too many folks who cared - Paradox, Chaos, a bunch of others - suddenly all started posting the same in-thread messages. If one WizO became robotic, I could see a claim about not caring making sense. But they all use the exact same text when telling people they've edited posts from a thread. That has to be policy.
It definitely needs to be more severe than it is now. In particular: when someone is banned, even temporarily, all his screen names should be banned. How is it punishment otherwise?
And bans should be e-mail bans.
All screen names attached to a given e-mail account are banned when it happens. For example, I have a couple other accounts on the same e-mail address as this account. If I go on a trolling rage with any of them, I'd lose this account.
And, I believe, warnings are cumulative across accounts. So, for example, if I get two warnings on one of my other accounts and then get a warning on this account, I'm gone.
But I could be misinterpreting the tea leaves...
Ok, just floating this around: What if there was a 1 or 2 days delay between the moment you register an account and the moment you could start posting?
This is, in my opinion, an excellent suggestion. Even a 24 hour period makes it less fun for a troll to continue their rampage.
Another possible way to limit recurring trolls is by limiting the amount of posts a new account can create in a day for the first week. I've seen this work effectivly on several other boards. Its pretty hard to be an effective troll when your limited to 10 or 15 posts a day.
This is also a decent suggestion.
CS policy is not up for debate. CS handles warnings and bannings. The CS/VCL separation has happened and it's been stated we're not "going back" to the old way of doing things.
Webs,
When you say "CS policy is not up for debate", I assume you mean only the part of it that assigns warning and banning powers? Otherwise, if all of CS policy is not debatable, then what, exactly, are we doing here?
And about the code of conduct: is it part of the CS policy, and also not up for debate?
All suggestions to CS policy should be submitted directly to CS via the link at the bottom of all the pages.
http://wizards.custhelp.com/ and click on the "email us" tab.
I thought the idea was to propose changes as a group, so CM could "coordinate" and interface with CS. It would have more weight this way.
I could write to CS on my own, but what impact would it have?
So I too am confused Sebby on the issue you mention directly above.
Solice is in CM. Therefore, the policies that are up for discussion are CM policies, not CS policies. Talking about moderation, CoC enforcement, banning and other things of that nature fall under the purview of CS (WizOs), not CM.
Thanks Mudb,
In the enthusiasm of the CM changes, this distinction was lost. I'm not the only one who made the mistake of getting my hopes up, though.
This certainly puts a damper on my hopes. I firmly beleive that the CoC and the byzantine layered management scheme are the root cause of all this brouhaha and laissez-faire.
If that's untouchable, and all we can do is reshuffle the boards, I don't expect much to come out of it.
Well, good luck with what follows. I admire your patience.
SpearSpike tossed out that warnings often come without any sort of link to the offending post. I don't know if it's true, but I also have no reason to disbelieve him. So, working on the assumption that he's correct...
He is right. I got a warning once, as well, and I honestly could not figure out what it was a warning for. It was incredibly vague.
They should include an original quote of the offending post, so the poster can realize what they did wrong. I would have loved to have learned from a mistake but as I cannot identify that mistake, I cannot learn from it.
Banning Policy
(thanks to Val's post, I remembered another point...)
Trolls get tons of warnings before they're banned (at least three, oftentimes more). And once they're banned they can just create a new account and get a fresh set of warnings with which to work.
This seemed to work out more or less OK in the past. I've seen people who got banned and returned under a new name and became productive members; and I've seen trolls who grew tired of the game and just stopped coming. But it seems to not work any more.
IP bans suck, because there's a good chance of getting somebody else wrapped up in the ban. What are the other options? How can Customer Service improve the process?
Myspace forces a 7-day waiting period for new accounts before they can start posting on the forums. It's not perfect, and it doesn't stop trolls completely, but it quells their activities somewhat.
It might help convince many of the posters to develop better posting and reporting habits.
[edit]
It also might help to post a link of this and a suggestion that poster read it when an editorial moderation occurs.
IP bans suck, because there's a good chance of getting somebody else wrapped up in the ban.
Also IP bans can be bypassed with proxies. Most people don't know how to use them, but trolls and such are usually the ones who either do know, or are willing to learn. It's a tricky thing, keeping people out of a forum.
Also IP bans can be bypassed with proxies. Most people don't know how to use them, but trolls and such are usually the ones who either do know, or are willing to learn. It's a tricky thing, keeping people out of a forum.
Practice in other forums around the internet has shown this to be untrue. An aggressive watchful moderation team can stop the people who try to avoid IP bans.
Trolls seeks low-hanging fruit. If they get IP banned form a forum, it's easier to go to a more poorly moderated forum than to have to continually find new ways to get IPs.
People who want to kill forums won't troll -- they will try to hack the system and cause it to crash. Trolls seek attention and if one forum makes it annoying to get the attention they'll seek it elsewhere.
Proposal: If a poster has been warned numerous times for trolling/baiting/whatnot, they are added to a generalized "block list." Any poster who is added to the "general block list," will have none of their posts visibly appear to any other logged-in forum members. The troller may well continue his posts (unaware that he's the only one who could actually read them), but would likely give up after nobody ever responds.
The Upside: Trolls will die by attrition.
The Downside: Those posts are still visible to anyone not logged-in.
It's not foolproof of course (logging in as a sockpuppet would indicate that the posts are not visible to the general forum), but what is foolproof? It would certainly be one more layer of deterrant though.
Just my
.[Edit] A further reinforcement to this would be to actually require login (for everyone) to even see the forums, but I don't know if that's too prohibitive.
It would only work if the poster is not informed of this action (or at least not informed when this action has occurred). That may be outside WotC policies on forum bans.
[Edit] A further reinforcement to this would be to actually require login (for everyone) to even see the forums, but I don't know if that's too prohibitive.
Your idea is quite good, but requiring people to be logged in to read the forums, with how often Gleemax logs people out, would be veeeery annoying.
Requiring a log-in to read the forums would drop the number of curious people that show up to cruise the board and haven't made up their minds yet.