How would they not know, though? The only way this tool gets used is if you have been permabanned, and you're attempting to circumvent that permaban. The only thing I could really do, if that is a real concern (and I've no doubt that it is), is send an email notification that says "You are being Discouraged" and then explain how to resolve that issue. Would that help?
What code associated with rep? As for "clearly trolling now", go fuck yourself. Loathsome, pomposity. Warn me for that. Ban me for that if you want. I couldn't give a fuck. It won't take away from the fact of your fundamental error on this issue and the people who are against it.
Can you walk me through the ban/permaban process? Is it posted somewhere? This is how I see it: I start posting [objectionable material]. I get warned. I get warned again. I get warned n times (n being a set number of times?). I get banned. I am notified of said ban, why I am banned, for how long, and what I have to do to be unbanned (Somehow? I seem to remember this happens when you try to log in?). I either wait out my ban, write an email to someone (how do I know this email address?), or circumvent the ban. I get unbanned. Repeat a lot and I get permabanned. I am notified of said ban, why I am banned, and what I have to do to be unpermabanned (we all know it happens). I either go away and never come back, or I change my ways and write a series of convincing emails so I can become unpermabanned. This would seem the most straightforward sequence of events. Here is an alternative: I start posting [objectionable material]. I get warned. I get warned again. I get warned n times (n being a set number of times?). I get "discouraged." I now deal with board timeouts, flood control, errors, and all sorts of weird stuff. I don't know whether it's my computer, or my connection, or what. I try to contact staff, but I can't. I either get pissed off and go away and never come back, or I somehow get in touch with someone who knows what is going on. They either let me be undiscouraged, or sit and laugh.
I'm definitely not a fan of the second option. The Discourage tool is recommended for that one, though, but I don't like that style of administration, so I don't use it for that. Instead, Discourage is used as a secondary filter to an IP ban/permaban. Contacting the staff is quite simple. Clicking the "Contact Us" button sends an email directly to my primary inbox. From there, I can help resolve the issue.
I'm not clear on why people think we didn't ban Elim Ducat. Isn't he listed as banned on the user list? Yeah, he can come back, but only if the ban is lifted. I'm pretty sure, in fact, that the first post in the shelter thread establishes that he was banned. Yeah, we could use it in a way that doesn't involve a ban (something Ancalagon has described). And if we let him back in, we might leave some of the features active, such as flood control, image control, etc. But look him up: http://wordforge.net/index.php?members/elim-garak.51415/ He was banned.
Maybe this is the confusing part, I think Packard has pointed out the inconsistency already. If it were used in that way, would the offending poster be notified?
I've only issued one ban, which was a one week ban. When you ban somebody, you can input some text which will appear to the person when they try to log in. @Bickendan issued this ban, maybe he can tell us what he wrote.
We've gone beyond Skrain or whatever the hell his name is at this point. Trying to bring him back up is just muddying the waters further. And if he was banned it makes no sense then to have even brought up this whole "discouragement and you" thread. In fact in post number two you write: "One more thing to add: we have decided to use this on one individual, I'm sure you can all guess who that is." How can he both be banned and discouraged at the same time? Unless of course Ginger is making veiled threats against the members of this board which given the title of the thread sounds something like straight out of a communist handbook. "Discouragement and You." "In Mother Wordforge we don't ban you, you just go away. On your own."
Discourage and IP banning can be used together to provide a more effective method of keeping someone permabanned, and unable to continue disrupting the board proper. The reason I brought it all up is because I wanted you to know. It's in the Elim Garak thread in the Shelter Release, but in short, I don't hide things from the community unless it directly bears on security of the board, or the safety of an individual, or individuals, in general. The "Discouragement and You" title is a small joke based on the old educational health filmstrips people used to watch in school.
Still a stupid idea. Stupid on your part. Stupid on Gul's part. Stupid on the communist comrade leaders part. And a whole lot of the board agrees.
Because we've been told that he can still post, and that the administration wants him to be able to post, because they do not want to permaban him. This is true in Ancworld and partially so in Johnworld, but emphatically false in Gulworld.
This is not true in Ancworld or Johnworld. He is banned. If he manages to circumvent that ban, then he will likely find himself under Discouragement.
Then Ancworld is lying to us. And Johnworld is as well. Since both worlds have said if he behaves he will be less discouraged over time. He can't show new good behavior if he is banned. And if he circumvents the ban he's not showing good behavior. Hence more banning.
So to summarize, this is an alternative to banning him because we don't like bans, but he's banned; and it will make it impossible for him to post but give him the opportunity to prove himself through contributing positively to the board.
He is banned. If he manages to bypass the IP ban, he will still encounter the Discourage system. His ability to post will be severely curtailed. This is to prevent him from simply continuing what he did before. If he has decided that he doesn't want to pull the same stuff he did before, he can contact any of us, and we can work it out. Otherwise, he remains banned.
Wait, has this board moved to the E-ring of the Pentagon? Because I haven't heard this kind of he is/he isn't, it's an event/it's a non-event mumbo jumbo outside of a Rumsfield press briefing.
What I just posted above is what I have been saying this whole time. A blast from the past: http://www.wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2622923/
That's all very well and good John, except that you, gul, and Anc, are saying totally different things which are at odds with each other. If you guys can't be on the same page, and say contradictory things about this, how can you expect the members to divine some sort of coherent policy from all of it? The fact remains, it's a bad policy, implemented badly, and presented just as bad.
We're not totally at odds, that's the thing. What Anc and Gul have been saying is still consistent with what I've been saying. Of course, keeping things straight after page upon page upon page of question after question asking the same thing over and over again can cause what seems like inconsistencies, and things can get a bit out of order, but the message is the same.
Firstly, keep in mind that the other members are only guessing about how Discourage works, and that includes people like Tamar. She has not seen it, has not used it. Filter all of that out. Quit listening to all of the noise around you, and focus on what I'm saying, okay? Here it is: Discourage was a software module designed by Xenforo, and integrated into the 1.2 version of the software (this is our current version). Its original purpose was to "discourage" unwanted members into leaving, by causing random technical issues to occur. It was designed to give the member a "hint" that they were unwanted. This is not how I use it. I don't like those methods, and refuse to use them. If I kick you out, you will know it. What I discovered, when exploring the options I had to help improve board security, was that when used in conjunction with the standard IP ban, the Discourage tool offered an extra layer of security, without affecting any users that were not explicitly targeted. In short, it bulked up the security of the board, while also leaving regular users completely unaffected. I then tested it on a number of dummy accounts, and found that it did a solid job of picking out spambots, as well as making it more difficult for permabanned users to get around the system. Not long thereafter, Elim Garak was permabanned for the umpteenth time. I felt this was a good chance to test the Discourage system out, because it was clear this guy wasn't going to take "no" for an answer. His account was banned, and I applied the Discourage system. If he were to get around the IP ban, and the Discourage system susses him out, this is what he will experience: * Random load times of anywhere from 25 seconds up to 4 minutes per page load. * Flood control of 10 minutes per post. * Disabled Search * Disabled Newsfeed * 25% Chance of Redirection to an Admin contact page This is for an important reason: That member has been permabanned, and has attempted to break through that ban. That means they are not welcome here if they are going to do what they did before, and I have to assume that is what they will do, until they take the time to talk to an Administrator who is willing to give them another chance. IP bans alone are not enough. They have been circumvented many times before. Discourage, while not flawless, is a step up from an IP ban, and requires more effort to circumvent. If you are not a permabanned member who is trying to break back into the board to cause trouble, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The Discourage tool does not affect you in any way. If you are not a spambot coming at the board from a thousand different sites, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The Discourage tool does not affect you in any way. In short, the Discourage tool does not affect you in any way. I can't make it any clearer than that.
They have no choice but to guess because you're keeping part of it as a secret punishment. Ok, I asked this days ago but don't think I got an answer. How does "discouragement" target said user if he uses a VPN and comes back with a different IP? How does "discouragement" determine who is the former member if they are using a different IP?
They'll never find the secret in this completely open and public forum, where the guy who knows how it works started the thread and is answering questions. Why would I tell you that? Why would I tell you that?
Why do you put the "you" in italics? Way to ram home the fact that you think I am inferior to you. Well done. You should tell us because you expect us to live with the discouragement axe hanging over us. You are making the case that it improves security. To my mind, if it only applies to a particular IP address then it follows that all Lesbians Shoes needs to do is create a dual using a new account with a VPN and he's through......and that's what he's being doing anyway. So in reality discouragement can only be applied once he's back and once you've actually worked out who he is by waiting for him to behave badly. So I see only two possibilities:- 1) I am right and that's why you refuse to answer the IP question; or 2) I am wrong and discouragement works by using a particular set of algorithms to target people it only suspects are returning banned members - in which case there is the potential for it to target other, innocent, people and possibly new people who have just signed up. So, if there is no secret and you are fully open about this, which is the correct nature of discouragement, 1 or 2?
I put you in italics, because why the hell would I tell you, yes, you, something like that? It's not because you're inferior, that's all in your head, instead, it's because you have no right to that information. It would be like demanding a bank teller give you the mechanisms behind how the vault works. You do not need that information. I'm fully open about what can be stated and explained, not about the mechanism behind how the system works, and you should know better.
You ran that bank vault bullshit before. It's a stupid analogy. This is not a bank and you aren't protecting money. This is a message board filled up by people of a long standing community. The board survives on it's community. When you begin to treat that community with disrespect and talk to them like second class citizens who aren't worthy of knowing how punishments might be operated against them then you are going down a very questionable path. As it is the board is much slower and less busy than it once was. Generating opposition from the membership with secret police style measures is the very last thing you should be doing - and that is why transparency is so important. Oh, and for what it's worth, how bank vaults work are not a secret. The technology of how it works is fully public. Only the combinations to locks are confidential. Why "should I know better"? Fact is that you are telling us there is a new punishment and refuse to explain how we might be affected by it. That means you are not fully open and there is a level of deceitfulness at play, which in turn means you aren't going to convince anyone you are being upfront about this. Frankly I think the only reason that you refuse to answer which one of the two scenarios I put to you is the truth is because one of them is spot on, in which case we either have a situation where there is no added security, but you're just adding what in effect is a state sponsored troll mechanism, or alternately you have a system that innocent people can get caught up in through no fault of their own. The second of these scenarios is neither fair nor acceptable in my opinion, and the first is pointless. At the very least, if you are going down the road of having them then punishments should be detailed in the board rules or FAQs, just as all other penalties always have...and not just here but on every message board I have been to for nearly 20 years. This secret squirrel stuff is just not on - and it's ironic that you say to me of all people "you should know better", when it is me of all people that believes in the transparency of laws and penalties above all else. I do know better, and that is the point. If you analogise the recipient of discouragement to a person on trial in a criminal court you wouldn't expect the penalty for a conviction to be secret would you? Of course you wouldn't. How would you know the state is behaving acceptably? How would you know there is no abuse of power or unacceptable levels of punishment? The comparison may seem hyperbolic, but it is equally valid.
I am not giving you information about the inner mechanisms of the security system, @El Chup. You are not entitled to it, and I am not parting with it. That is final.
Ok. Thank you for the effort; I do appreciate it. Now, let me restate in your terms the questions this raises for me: * If the member is permabanned, why allow them to post with longer loading times, stronger flood control, disabled search and newsfeed, and random redirection, rather than not allowing them to post at all? * Your description differs from gul's description, which answered the first question by saying that you had used Discouragement at its highest setting, which did not allow the affected members to post at all. This seems strange. * Your description also differs from Anc's description, which answered the first question by saying that affected members were invited to keep posting so they could prove their worth and be rehabilitated. Your description rightly emphasizes that your strategy only makes sense if you're firmly expecting that they have no interest in doing this. This, again, seems strange. * My concern throughout the three points above is that a member who has already shown themselves to be disruptive will now be able to post again; and at the same time be confronted with malfunctions which will make them more likely to want to be disruptive. In gul's world, that problem doesn't arise, because they can't post -- but you're saying that's not really true. In Anc's world, this problem might not arise, because they're able and motivated to contribute productively -- but you're saying Discouragement makes this very difficult, and sends them the opposite signal.
