"If you want to know why ____ was banned, PM or Email a mod." Why?

[Giraffe]

@Peaton_of_peat

All right, I can see your reasoning but I don’t agree with it. I think there’s an easy way to do the same things while satisfying people’s curiosity.

One-post spammers aren’t an issue, there’s no reason anyone would have to wonder why they were banned.

For trolls, socks, and long-term posters, have a locked thread in ATMB, sticky or not, that has a list of all posters (other than one-post spammers) banned in the current calender year. Have a list of trolls and a list of socks with associated accounts. When a long-time poster gets banned for other reasons, make the thread you normally would, then post the poster’s name and a link to that thread in the banlist thread. Might as well make all the names in the list link to their accounts so people can see for themselves.

Regarding trolls, I honestly don’t think it matters whether you “fall into their cunning trap” or not, so long as you stop them from disrupting the boards. In my opinion, causing speculation to spin out of control is a lot more disruptive than adding a name to a list and leaving it at that. If adding a name to a list gives the troll a lot of satisfaction, so be it, it doesn’t affect us any.

As for socks, the same reasoning applies as for trolls, plus the connection between the accounts is a lot harder to see for normal users. If we’re told the connection then it should be easy enough to go “yeah, he’s posting just like that banned guy” or “yeah, all of her posts are in agreement with this dumb gal as if that’d bolster her argument.”
Granted, this is a small issue in the big scheme of things, but it keeps coming up so it clearly is causing some problems.

I think this a very sensible suggestion, and I hope the mods consider implementing it.

[TubaDiva]

Even worse than being open for the maladjusted to get their 15 nanoseconds of time on the internets is to give them something to shoot for, a badge of dishonor.

It’s exactly counterpurpose to what we’re doing now and would only encourage more of this and not less.

[gracer]

I did PM a mod about Themis00, purely because I am a nosey busybody procrastinating from what I should be doing. I have a theory that when someone has been a long time member but hasn’t posted much, and they suddenly start posting a lot, that they always end up banned in short order. So yeah, procrastination. But I sent the PM 4 days ago and haven’t had a reply. Which is probably for very good reasons (Marley is probably not a terrible procrastinator, and is probably doing Productive and Important Things with his time), and very understandable considering the frivolous and nosy reason for my PM.

All I’m sayin’ is… PM-ing is not always a perfect solution to the curiosity either.

Anyway, I’ll just go and clean the kitchen instead. And then maybe organise candles by size and colour. The deadline is in an hour. Should be fiiiine.

[Chronos]

The most common form of sock-puppetry is someone who wants to be a part of this community, but we don’t want them to be a part of it. We can’t entirely stop them from creating new socks, but we can at least break up the continuity of them. If, every time the mods ban a new sock, they say “Oh, that was a sock of so-and-so”, it’s giving them that continuity back, and making it more like that person is a long-term member, which is something we don’t want.

[Guinastasia]

@TubaDiva

Even worse than being open for the maladjusted to get their 15 nanoseconds of time on the internets is to give them something to shoot for, a badge of dishonor.

It’s exactly counterpurpose to what we’re doing now and would only encourage more of this and not less.

You honestly think that people knowing who was banned for what socks is what trolls care about more than causing arguments like this? Seriously? Again, most trolls I know of don’t give a shit about people knowing who they were, or remembering them – they just want to cause disruption.

Seems counter productive. :dubious:

[Peaton_of_peat]

@TubaDiva

Even worse than being open for the maladjusted to get their 15 nanoseconds of time on the internets is to give them something to shoot for, a badge of dishonor.

It’s exactly counterpurpose to what we’re doing now and would only encourage more of this and not less.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess you were never a teenager on the Internet. Trust me, the trolls are playing a no-lose game, and playing your hand so that they lose is a sucker’s bet.

If you don’t pay attention to them, they haven’t lost, they’re still in the game and they get more obnoxious. If you try to ignore them, they win because they’re ruining your fun and they can keep ruining it indefinitely. If you start yelling at them, they win because they’ve made you mad. If you ban them, they win because haha what a bunch of tryhards you are, do you think this is my real account?

So just ignore what’s happening on their side of the screen, there’s nothing you can do about that except wait for them to grow up. What you do have control over is how they affect the community, and the only thing you can do is minimize the disruption. Banning people silently leads to speculation and a fruitless back-and-forth, which is a small disruption, but a bigger one than “oh so she was trolling, that’s why she was banned.”

[running_coach]

@Chronos

The most common form of sock-puppetry is someone who wants to be a part of this community, but we don’t want them to be a part of it. We can’t entirely stop them from creating new socks, but we can at least break up the continuity of them. ** If, every time the mods ban a new sock, they say “Oh, that was a sock of so-and-so”, it’s giving them that continuity back, and making it more like that person is a long-term member**, which is something we don’t want.

More like, “There’s that asshole again.”

[TBG]

@runner pat

TPTB have said they don’t want trolls/socks/previously banned any publicity as they feel it encourages them.

As if they need to be encouraged. :rolleyes:

Tis a silly rule, but a rule all the same, and if it ever changes I will be shocked.

[Steophan]

I’ve actually PM’d mods a couple of times about banned posters, both times when I’d been posting in the threads they were involved in, and once when the thread was removed. In both cases, I got prompt and informative answers.

I won’t say I fully agree with the policy, as it does seem to me that the burden on users in good standing is greater than the benefit, but in my experience the mods have done what they said they will, and it is still a pretty minor burden.

[srzss05]

@Red_Barchetta

Only when no thread currently exists. If the rules were changed as proposed, only 1 person would have to exert any effort in creating the thread, whereas anyone else who were curious would have to exert none.

So yes, effort would be saved

Plus, if I were so inclined (I wouldn’t be, but for sake of arguement say I am) to wonder why, a PM would involve me turning on PMs, and an email would involve me logging on to an email address I never use.

[Senegoid]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

If someone is banned who has posted for a while, we usually do provide public notice. We generally don’t want discussion, because the person is banned and can’t defend themselves, so we think that discussion would be unfair.

Thanks for the discussion. But the above-quoted paragraph is problematic.

In fact, there seem to be a fair number of bannings that either aren’t explained, or aren’t obviously explained. Themis00 appears, on the surface, to be a case in point: Recent posts not obviously spammish nor trollish, and no accumulation of mod notes/warnings/suspensions. This actually seems to happen a lot here. There also seem to be fairly frequent insta-bannings of one-time posters (often OP posters) whose posts don’t seem problematical. Are we to assume, by process of elimination, that these must always be socks?

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

@Senegoid

In fact, there seem to be a fair number of bannings that either aren’t explained, or aren’t obviously explained. Themis00 appears, on the surface, to be a case in point: Recent posts not obviously spammish nor trollish, and no accumulation of mod notes/warnings/suspensions. This actually seems to happen a lot here. There also seem to be fairly frequent insta-bannings of one-time posters (often OP posters) whose posts don’t seem problematical. Are we to assume, by process of elimination, that these must always be socks?

Yes, as stated several times by several moderators above, IF there is no announcement, you can assume either spammer, sock, or obvious troll.

[Chronos]

And having a lone post that seems innocuous doesn’t mean anything. I’ve seen moderators (I believe it was Coldfire, specifically) manage to snare a sock puppet before it made any posts at all. Sometimes, they’re just that good.