I have at least three addresses that are no longer good. One for AOL, one for Earthlink, and one for the DSL company that went belly up. I registered at several sites using those addresses, and now the addresses are inactive. But I gave the addresses in good faith.
You might be amazed at how often trolls return, and post about their glee at finding their old threads/posts. We often disappear the posts and threads of trolls and spammers, and the regulars on this board are VERY good at reporting spam posts.
If you report spam, please make a note of it in the thread, such as “Spam thread-reported” so that others will know not to make another couple of dozen reports. The mods in charge of the forums get an email for EACH report. I remember that once I got over two dozen emails in about 10 minutes.
deleted.
Huh, so suddenly it went from something you preferred to something that’s a rule. Funny how that happens.
I for one think transparency in moderation is more important than the emotional need not to let a troll have the satisfaction of getting a thread about them. Why do we care about the emotions of people who aren’t even allowed to comment here? I would want something more logical–something bad you are actually preventing.
And, as I already mentioned, I think that telling people that a poster was actually the sock of PosterX, or even listing PosterX and all his socks would actually be a net benefit. That way everyone knows that this was the same person all this time, and thus subverts the duplicity the sock was trying to accomplish. At the very least, merging all their accounts would be useful.
Of course, if it was a troll sock, that would fall under the troll section, which I’m hoping has a more logical reason behind it.
You would be wrong. We’ve had over a decade of experience with trolls. Giving them ANY sort of recognition is a grave mistake with most of them. It greatly encourages them. We’ve tried reasoning with them, we’ve tried just locking the threads. These methods don’t work nearly as well as simply disappearing trolls and their posts. You can have all the theories that you want, but we have experience in what works and what doesn’t.
Also, we’ve explained our reasoning for preferring private communication about such issues. Sometimes it’s for the benefit of the board, sometimes it’s for a poster’s privacy. Apparently Guin either doesn’t remember or doesn’t care that we might have reasons for doing things, or not doing things, no matter how many times we tell her.
Okay, look I’ve got no dog in this hunt and I agree with your policy, but this is, by my count, the fourth post (second by you) that a mod has called out Guin for screwing up here. That’s out of 24 total posts. We get it that you’re unhappy with her, but this getting close to a pile-on.
It wouldn’t be a Guin thread if it didn’t backfire on her.
I appologize – I understood the rule was that it was for socks/trolls, not for long-time posters. I assumed it was an oversight.
My bad.
Amen. The “PM a mod” thing is a ridiculous rule that doesn’t accomplish anything and usually gets ignored anyway, and for good reason.
As I mentioned in my message, your rule makes sense if you are making threads/posts vanish. If the threads/posts are left intact and the poster banned then it still seems to me that a single locked thread with a single one line post about the bannee is not going to give the bannee a significant amount of additional attention.
Part of the issue is the issue keeps getting muddied over the years.
I would very much appreciate response to the following question:
Is the “Ask a mod, don’t post about it” thing an actual “RULE” (as in "Don’t create secondary sock-puppet accounts) or a “preference” (as in “We prefer you bold user names, but that’s just a custom here–you won’t get warned for not doing it”)?
EVERY time this comes up, the word “preference” is thrown around on a regular basis. Both Lynn and Twickster used it here, but it’s been used just about every time this comes up. Most of the time, there’s a implication that it’s what you guys like, but there’s no actual rule as such.
Occasionally the water is muddied by the word “policy”…which in the context of the board, I have no clue about. Simply put, is it a “preference” or a “rule”? If someone kept ignoring it would she be warned/banned, or would you just think “What a cretin”?
If it’s a rule, I’ll follow it as I do other board rules even ones that I disagree with… If it’s a “preference”, I’m going to ignore it as I think it’s a silly and counterproductive methodology and I don’t want to indulge it if I’m not required to.
Personally, I think that in this case starting the thread is a good thing. Some people just see an automated message, no matter what it says. Some people might see he or she is unable to log on, maybe check threads (which a banned user can do if not logged on) to see a mod warning, and assume he or she was banned for that warning – without reading an automated response with instructions to email. By having this thread, the poster in question might see it or find it in a search.
Is there some reason the mods can’t PM a poster they want to get in touch with instead of banning them and hoping they realize that a banning means you want them to change their email address? :dubious: Apparently this is the thing you guys do now, but frankly it’s fucking asinine.
And apparently you think this place is just terrible, so I don’t know why you keep coming around.
Because the mods keep doing insane shit like banning people and hoping the bannee realizes it means, “Lol jk, you’re not really banned, we were just trying to get your attention!” instead of sending them a PM that says, “Hey, we see you were in a mild altercation and blah blah moderation note. Also, we notice that you don’t have a valid email address - please rectify this ASAP.”
Such comically inept doings are irresistible. Sue me.
:smack: Why didn’t we think of that?
Answer: We did. PM was sent. Poster came onto board within 24 hours. Poster never responded.
Next attempt to get poster’s attention–ban them, with a message as to why and hoping they email.
So far–nada.
Thanks for the suggestion. That’s exactly what I did.
Third time I’ve explained that in this thread. What I haven’t mentioned before is that I actually noticed that Zhen’ka didn’t have a valid e-mail previously, sent a PM, and got no response. So this was the second PM that I’d sent to Zhen’ka about this issue. And the second PM that didn’t work.
Also, for the record, it wasn’t an altercation with another poster–Zhen’ka reported a post. I replied to the report, and my reply bounced back. When that happened, I sent a PM with a reply to the report and a request, similar to the one you’ve suggested, and got not response. Here’s a tip–if you don’t have a valid e-mail address registered with us, it’s probably a good idea not to report posts. :smack:
The mods are so inept, it distracted you from reading the thread! :rolleyes:
That’s rather rude. Does any criticism of the staff here inevitably result in people being subjected to this kind of thing?
looks at your sign-up date
Ah - there has been some epic wank against mods in the past, especially when the Pit was a more angry place. Trust me, the mods aren’t immune to criticism, quite the opposite.