First time of reading this thread and I have to say I really don't understand this idea at all. Someone is going to have to explain this to me like I am an idiot. How does this tool accomplish what an outright ban does not? Can it get around IP avoidance tools like VPNs? If it cannot, then what is the point? If someone behaves in a certain manner than just treat them as normal. Trying to second guess them as prior members is pointless. Amend the rules if necessary to make it clear what are immediate bannable offences, such as posting obscene material, racism, personal info and so on. If these rules are breached, immediate ban. End of. Whether said person is an old member under a new account is irrelevant. This whole comes across as a I strange attempt to be fair by not giving outright bans, but in reality, as @Tamar Garish says, it seems nothing but an attempt to alienate by trolling. That seems a rocky road to be going down to me.
Okay, guys, I will make this as simple as I can. 1) Member Gets Banned. 2) Banned Member tries to create dual, and sneak around ban, but the Discourage tool recognizes the IP, and a number of other telltales, that identifies the poster. 3) Banned Member's access is severely restricted until they contact an Admin, who reviews their account. Let me repeat something I've said before as it's very important: There is no trolling toward the banned member. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Tamar's assumption is completely unfounded, and has been from the very moment she made it. I am not trolling, as an Admin I do not troll people, and while I joke around outside my duties, I take what I do very seriously. Feel free to form your own theories on what you think is really going on, but I will have no part of it. I have explained myself quite clearly, and have tried to be as open and honest as possible. That's all I can do. The rest is up to you.
So for the 15th time, if step 2 identifies the account as a dual of a banned member, why isn't step 3 a ban? Also, and I positively hate that you're making me take Tamar's side, faking board malfunctions is clearly trolling. In Ancalagon's description, this is also intended.
I think there is a general misunderstanding about what is meant by "fake board malfunctions." My understanding is that it essentially makes the board cease to exist for the person in question. I've asked a few times before, I'll ask again, how is that trolling? We do not want the board to exist for people who have egregiously violated the community. I am completely mystified as to why people think that's a bad goal. As such, since I trust and respect most of the people here, I will just assume that we are reading different meaning from the same words. That happens, and unfortunately, it can prove divisive. But there is no trolling, that is about as bizarre a charge as I can think of regarding this. Tamar effectively planted that thought, yet nobody is in fact trolling Skrain. He simply has no access to the board. I'll add one more thing. This thread exists because there was a discussion in the Shelter. We'd rather have that discussion in the open, which I would think should at least demonstrate there are good intentions behind using this tool.
It isn't unfounded at all. The tool is to make a the member's experience as unpleasant as possible, with the purpose being to ellicit a certain response. That is the very definition of trolling. Like I said, I don't see how this accomplishes anything. If the board policy is what @Ancalagon suggests, namely that people will be given a chance to improve themselves, whether they do that by way of their old account or a dual account is either here nor there. In fact, for some it me help them make a fresh start with a fresh dual account, rather than being second guessed by some manipulative software. Plus, as Tamar suggests, is this really fool proof? What if more than one member accesses through a single IP, or a shared location, such as a town or office? This stuff if foolproof is it? What if someone who has done nothing starts being afflicted by this by accident? If that's not messing with someone's experience then what is? At the end of the day this achieves nothing greater than outright banning and makes for more of an ambiguous and miserable experience for the person being subjected to it, whatever their previous behaviour. Wordforge has always been a place where people will be given a second chance - but it doesn't have to be if people don't change their behaviour. Ban the person and be done with it, new account or dual account. It really doesn't matter. If you decide to let someone in that you know was a previous member and they act up again then ban again. If you think someone may be a dual but have no rpoof then just treat as a new member and ban when they cross the line. Simple stuff. You lot really need to stop trying to be the internet's intelligentsia over this and just accept that when there is someone who crosses the line big time, just ban them, irrespective of new or old member. End of.
An automatic IP ban is not enough. It is possible to circumvent it if one knows what to do. The Discouragement tool employs a variety of methods that helps prevent that, and one of them is that automatic IP ban is not on the table as a restrictive measure. What you're suggesting is that when an IP ban fails, follow it up with an IP ban. Discourage has a lot of options of which you are unaware, and those I will not reveal here. I have spent a significant amount of time with it, and know it quite well. It is more effective than an IP ban. @El Chup - Nothing is fool proof, but this software is more efficient, and more manageable, than older, more traditional methods.
How is it trolling? This method you undermine people. So Lesbian shoes knows this time, but will that always be the case? If so, and everyone subjected to this knows in advance, then what does this achieve that a temporary or permanent ban does not? That's really the bottom line. It seems to me that those of you in favour of this are operating on the basis that is "may" be more of a deterrent, so what the hell, let's give it a go. But that isn't properly thinking it through in my opinion as I don't think that you, or particularly John, has given any real explanation of where the added benefit is.
People seem to want somebody like Skrain or Ted to have ways to post here even if they've been banned. That pretty much voids the point, though. Skrain was banned repeatedly, it didn't work. As I've said multiple times, nobody has demonstrated how this is mean or trollish, but to be honest, why should that even matter? If he repeatedly violates community standards, and repeatedly flouts bans, why should he have the option of an enjoyable experience? Are we serious about saying no to his behavior? Then this is how it's done.
Yeah, an IP ban followed up by another IP ban if necessary is exactly what is being said. It's the most straightforward and transparent way to police the board. This comment of yours has me deeply concerned....."options that you are unaware of that I won't reveal here". What does that mean? What what you're saying is that we now have the WF equivalent of secret police powers? The punishment arising from breaches of the rules have always been explicitly set out on the board FAQs. Now you're saying you'll employ tools against people without telling them? That's extremely worrying.
No, I'm not. You're the one saying you can positively identify someone as a banned member. How you do that, you haven't told us, and I'm accepting that. I'm just asking that once you have that identification, and you know this is a member you've already decided should be banned, why not ban them?
Actually, it has been demonstrated. You just don't like the answer. As for "people want Skrain to be here", what utter straw man nonsense. People aren't making that case at all. People are saying that while the banning process is not fool proof, it is more transparent and equally as effective as what you are proposing as you aren't making any case whatsoever for how this is proven to be a more effective deterrent. All I see is an argument that swapping secret algorithims for IP bans will somehow install a faultless deterrent, without actually telling us how.
I've said this a number of times in this very thread, but an IP ban can be circumvented. It has been repeatedly circumvented by the aforementioned banned poster. Discouragement employs a number of utilities that makes it far, far more difficult to bypass, while still effectively tying the hands of the poster who has managed to create a dual. It is not 100% fool proof, nothing is. No software can make up for a sentient person keeping watch, but a sentient person cannot keep watch 100% of the time, all of the time. Even so, the software is still more effective than a simple ban. The software is designed to do a hard reject, which makes it extremely difficult for the banned member to continue whatever got them banned in the first place. If an IP ban were a brick wall, and a banned member jumped the wall somehow, behind the brick wall is a pool of molasses. Sure, they're over the wall, but now they're stuck, and the only way out is to get help. @Packard - They have been banned, but if they've got around the ban once, they'll do it again. They're human, so they'll eventually get ahead of the IP ban. By having the Discourage option in conjunction with the IP ban, it makes it possible to tie their hands as much as possible. The end goal is for them to realize that until they shape up and stop doing whatever it was that got them banned, they're going to continue finding it difficult to accomplish those goals. Hence why it's called Discourage. It's designed to demotivate, not troll, and yes, there is a difference. I'll say it again, there is no trolling, I do not troll users, and I do not have the intent to troll users. What I want is for banned members to shape the fuck up, come back, and be a part of the community again, but they're going to do it the right way, and not by sneaking in through other methods. @El Chup - Point out where I said the method was faultless.
No, I take that from the various suggestions that we shouldn't use the tool that can prevent him from posting. Which is why I said, If the answer is no, we're not, then that's a different discussion. But if the answer is yes, we are, then we have to use the tools that can actually achieve this aim. We've already used the tools people are recommending, they didn't work. So when people say no to the one that does work, I conclude maybe they actually want Skrain here. As I said, that's a different discussion, but one I'd be fine with having.
All the discussion of identifying banned members, IP addresses, etc., is pretty much irrelevant. There's no question of whether the latest dual is Skrain; he announces himself with his themed usernames, presumably because he wants us to know it's him. The only question really at play is whether this tool should be used on his current account. All the talk of IPs, etc., seems pretty irrelevant.
It is a punishment, a punishment by way of trolling....and one that you refuse to divulge. If you are now making the case that it isn't fool proof (drawing the inference from your question to me) please tell us what the risks are as well as the rewards, especially if this is going to be kept partially secret from the membership (a very disturbing notion). So what are the chances of innocents getting caught in this "molasses"? If you refuse to tell us the scope of these powers and whether or not it is foolproof, how can we trust that these powers won't be (1) abused and (2) catch innocent people up in it? If a person repeatedly comes back to break the rules of the board, irrespective of previous bans, what on earth do you think a few days of misdirected links is going to do?
Agreed, Tafkats, which is why I've tried not to get in to technical aspects (also, I don't understand enough about that). As I said above, this is about restricting behavior to which the community has said no. This discussion was hijacked from the very beginning by somebody who doesn't even post here, and we lost track of the tool's purpose. It isn't about techno-babble, it isn't about trolling users. It's about finding an effective way to prevent a user who isn't supposed to be here from posting.
What am I refusing to divulge? The chances of an innocent new member being caught in it (because this tool isn't used on current registered valid members) is practically nil, but even should that happen, it can be remedied quickly. I have explained this already, and I have done so numerous times in this thread. You'll have to look at my previous posts on the subject.
I'm going both off of Xenforo's description and your statement in other thread that it randomly creates errors. While Tamar can speak for herself, I imagine her choice of the word "trolling" had at least a little bit to do with seeing it described as "funny."
Seriously? You can't see the answer to this question? If nothing else, it keeps him from posting, which, by the way, is the point.
Um...... But an old member can be screwed up by it through no fault of their own and they board activity will be restricted until one of you responds to an email. That's just not fair. I have read your previous posts. I see no case for how this deterrent is greater. All I see is an explanation of how it hinders people .
What tool is that? The way discouragement has been described, it is specifically designed so that it does not prevent him from posting.
Yeah, I said it would be funny for all involved. It's like watching an intruder grab an electrified fence, get zapped, and then goes right back to grabbing the fence again expecting something different.
You do see that this doesn't make any sense as stated, right? If they can circumvent identification, discouragement won't identify them and can't target them. If they can't circumvent identification, we can keep them banned. There is apparently some secret additional information that makes this make sense, and apparently you have a reason to keep it secret. But repeating the part that doesn't make any sense over and over again won't help.
