Also, would people like a list of all the spammers we've banned? It is misleading to the point of dishonesty to imply that this or any other tool would be used against regular or contributing members.
TBBS had other ways of discouraging posters, such as changing the rules constantly (see "Enterpriser") or a loose definition of "trolling" and "spamming" that made it possible to give warnings simply because the staff wanted to give warnings. I know, because I was instructed to do it, by Lisa herself, when I was a mod.
Utter BS. There's nothing unique about this situation and both tafkats and I have pointed out there are better ways to control him. All he has to do is make a new account with a new IP and he cirumvents this as easily as any ban. There is nothing especially useful about it aside from clicking a couple less boxes which has to be the ultimate in laziness if that's the reason why it's being kept.
I still haven't heard anything that shows why this is better than just letting him come back, but not letting him post any pictures of any kind. Is it that the software doesn't allow that?
John will have to answer on what the software can do, but I don't really yet see why we should substitute one function that accomplishes X with some other function(s) that accomplish X. Nobody has clearly explained to me how so-called discouragement as a function is worse than discouragement as a series of functions.
Can't agree with you on the "suited" part. In fact, I can't think of any situation at all where faking board malfunctions with the goal of frustrating somebody into leaving would be appropriate.
Because it's NOT the same functions. Nobody is saying "we'd be OK with the exact same things if you just did them separately." What I and various others have said we would be absolutely fine with are: -- Removing the ability to post images for someone who has abused that ability in the past. -- Limiting frequency of posts for someone who has caused problems in the past so that if they try it again, it'll be easier to clean up. NOT all the "we'll make the board run slower for you and randomly generate fake malfunctions in the hopes of pissing you off" crap.
Well, that's just, like, you're opinion man. In my opinion it is the perfect tool for limiting the damage of Skrain, letting him know we do not approve of his trolling and rule breaking (unlike keep letting him back again and again, bus closing whatever software loophole he exploited) , while at the same time allowing him to change and eventually come off discourage (unlike a permaban). John knows this software better than anyone, so when he tells me it's the best tool I'm going to believe him.
Keep in mind that this software works for spammers as well. Few people are aware of just how many spammers, and bots, hit this board every day, and what has to be done to keep 99.999% of them out. This tool isn't being used out of laziness, it's being used for its flexibility, and efficiency. It makes keeping the board running smoothly a more manageable job. Tafkats, what you're reading is the description of the Discourage tool, but once you use it firsthand, you find out really quickly that it is so much more, and far more capable than that description lets on. I've made it my business to know this software inside and out, and while I'm still learning, these tools make it possible for me to manage the needs of a community that far exceeds what one person could normally do. I don't discount The Exception, but he is busy much of the time, so keeping things running like a well oiled machine does fall to me, and when I can use a flexible, powerful piece of software that keeps things in check so that I can address other needs, mainly by the members of this community, I'm going to use it.
One thing is for sure: The staff isn't just doing things to be popular. Otherwise, with the pretty much unanimous disapproval of the non-staff posters in this thread, they would have at least thought about whether or not the other options being suggested might have some value. I suppose that that, at least, is something positive...
@John, is there some kind of slider in the control panel (one of the descriptions I saw said there was) that would allow you to keep the common-sense protection measures and ditch the fucking-with-people measures? Also, I doubt anyone has a problem with you using it on spambots. I just don't think members should be treated the same way.
Response to Async: We have thought about these other things. Our conclusion is that they are inadequate to the task. I recognize this opinion is not universally held, but as John said, if we find a particular tool works better than others, that's where we are going to go. I'm hesitant to say too much more about technical specifics for two reasons. 1) I'm not as versed as John, and I might mangle it; 2) I don't want to tip off Skrain regarding ways to get around barricades we erect. This second point is important. People have suggested IP banning, for example, but he knows how to get around it, so such a tool is not useful. This one still is. To put this in perspective, we as a board decided long ago that Ted would not be welcome here. If he demonstrated Skrain's ability go get around normal banning tools, I wouldn't hesitate to use discourage. And I suspect some of the detractors in this thread would be pleased by the decision. Now I'm not sure that Skrain is somebody who can't ever come back. But at the moment, we'd like him to take a longer break, we think we've achieved a way to make that happen.
They're not sliders, but they do allow for adjustment. As of this moment, I have them maxed out. In short, there's no pretend fucking, there's outright "if you can register, you're still going to hit a brick wall as soon as you get in, until you contact someone." I'm not stringing people along, they'll know right away that their dual account has been recognized.
It's more than a ban, since a simple IP ban isn't enough to work most of the time. In this day and age, IP bans are damned near useless for anything, and that includes spammers. This goes beyond a simple IP ban, though what it does entail, I won't say, since I don't wish to create a roadmap by which one can circumvent the system.
I understand not wanting to provide a roadmap, but I'm confused as hell. Are there measures being applied to the most recent transparent dual of Skrain Dukat, which was pretty much outed from the moment he rejoined, without need for IP tracking or anything else?
Let's see if I can clear this all up for you, and anyone else who is still confused: Discourage prevents previously identified spammers, spambots, and banned members from gaining access to, and posting on the board. The measures in place aren't designed to troll them, but are instead designed to make it extremely difficult to accomplish any task until they have contacted an Administrator, who will review their situation. Obviously, spammers and spambots are denied outright, should they contact an Admin (none have as of yet), a banned member, however, will get a fair evaluation. This system isn't a direct IP ban, but it uses some of the same technology. The rest is what makes Discourage work, as it's more flexible than an IP ban. I used a similar method on my own board, but unlike this tool, I had to do everything manually there, and it took a great deal of time to make it work properly, and the community traffic there was 1/5 the size of Wordforge.
All of which makes sense when dealing with new registrants who are unknown. But we're talking about it being applied to someone who IS known.
No, and if that's what you got out of it, you didn't read anything I just posted. Once more, from that very same post:
As has been explained to you MULTIPLE times, a software tool is being used to both help contain Skrain while simultaneously express the admin's displeasure with his porn spamming and other rule violating shenanigans. John says this is most effective way to deal with him. I trust John's read.
Containing him by removing the specific privileges he abused is something I don't think anyone would object to. "Expressing displeasure," on the other hand, has never been an administrative function here, outside of the minimum necessary to keep things functioning. Obstructing a person's use of the board in ways not related to their offense is what leads to objections.
It can in some cases. A warning for using Blue Room info, for example, could result in rescinding access to the Blue Room. It's a feature, not a bug.
@John, if you look at your own posts here and imagine you don't have your privileged information, I think you'll understand why nobody understands you. What you're describing is an algorithm that has the ability to recognise dual accounts from previously registered entities, magically even if there is no technical trace of their identity; but which is only able to do so if the humans using it intend to slow down the board for that entity. If they intend to ban that entity or just disable some functions such as posting pictures, this magically leads the magical algorithm to lose its magical powers. You're telling us that this all makes sense if you have an additional bit of information that you can't tell us without giving the game away, and that tafkats can't glean from reading the description of this algorithm. If that's the case, I'm afraid that missing bit of information is so central to your argument that you can't expect anyone to understand your position without it. It doesn't help that Anc seems to be claiming different functions and reasons for using the algorithm. In short, you're sounding exactly like the Bush admin before invading Iraq: "Here are the reasons, only they don't make any sense because we can't tell you the main reason, and here's my colleague who will claim totally different reasons for agreeing with me and call you stupid for not understanding the reasons." Given all that, how did you expect this thread to go?
