True, she didn't start it. She started the troll in the Shelter in a thread created by Bickendan as an FYI regarding Skrain's latest dual. There is some Blue Room info in that thread which we need to clean up and then we'll release it. John started this thread in order to open the discussion to everybody. You can appreciate why he might not like being accused of secretive behavior when the thread itself is proof otherwise.
Then say so. Don't pretend you want to give us information if you don't. I started off with a lot of trust for you in this thread, but this is the best way for you to erode it.
I have been open this whole time, and I have dealt with your questions as simply as I can. That you don't like my explanations is not something I can control.
The only thing I'm not talking about is the mechanism itself. Everything else is already on the floor.
Yeah, well, that you don't like my saying so isn't something I can control. That helped both of us, didn't it?
Everything else revolves around a glaring logical contradiction that is supposedly solved by the secret mechanism.
I'm sorry, but this really bothers me. In essence, you are saying "don't try to be honest with us, because we will pick apart the one bit you choose not to discus, and lose trust in you despite the 90% you brought to out attention." Do you realize that next time John won't want to discuss the part for which he can be transparent? He will, because he is a good and honest person, but I find the idea that his effort at honesty erodes trust quite illogical and disrespectful.
I've told you all about the Discourage tool, and IP bans, but I cannot tell you how I make it all work. I realize that's what you want to know, but I cannot tell you, because I cannot give away how the tool works, and in what combination that it does so.
No, I'm saying you're not being honest with us. You're pretending that you have explained what you're going to do, but your supposed explanation is ostenatiously self-contradictory. Supposedly, the secret you're keeping removes that contradiction, but without it, this is no explanation. Being honest would mean either saying you want to give an explanation and giving an explanation, or refusing to explain and admitting you're refusing to explain.
About how it functions? Absolutely. I value the fact that he won't explain to everybody reading this thread how to violate the discouragement function. That would make the function no longer exist.
So you're now judge and jury in the Help Desk over who is and is not a troll, to the extent that you can make baseless accusations? There is more than enough disagreement over this proposal for it to clearly to be a legitimate debate. This is not the Red Room and your accusations of trolling are offensive. Trolling is not permitted in here, remember? Well, not permitted for members anyhow. Allowed for you when you choose it seems (and this is not the first time you have stooped low enough to accuse me of trolling in outside the Red Room). Why even have a discussion about this proposal if you are going to accuse anyone who questions it of trolling? This proposal is a fundamental wrong. It is secret and it will, it seems, catch innocent people in the process. You aren't giving people reason to trust this at all. The opening post ever makes clear this is one that caused disagreement among the mods. The should be sufficient for you to be the bigger man and not stoop to weak lows of personal insults in the Help Desk instead of fulfilling your role here as someone who purports who want to discuss this proposal. I really don't understand the approach here. I've barely posted here for the best part of a year and in that time it seems the board has died even more. Yet one of the first things that a returning member gets is insults, abuse and dismissal.
I guess I'm not clear on the contradiction, perhaps you can explain that. This has been a fast moving thread, I probably just missed that post, but let's get it out in the open.
That tag isn't showing up for me in the alerts at all. Also, and I swear I'm not kidding here, there is now a short delay between hitting "reply" and being moved to the window with the quoted post. If this is a demonstration of discouragement and someone finds this hilarious, I guess it is, but it doesn't make me want to be better poster.
There are multiple methods for identification, IP address is only one of them. All are imperfect, but taken together, it is generally not possible to circumvent all. Discouragement uses all the methods. So, regarding your paradox, it isn't. Just translate in your mind the word discouragement to mean banned by a variety of identifying techniques. Or, to be most accurate of all, it means restricted by a variety of identifying techniques. It is better than a singular banning tool because it uses multiple identification methods. It is better than a singular banning tool because it allows for multiple levels of restriction, up to and including banning. Does that answer the question?
The tool is only available to high level Administrators who have access to the options control panel. There is an Admin log where I can see who accesses what, so I would know if someone had modified your account. I checked it to make certain your account wasn't being discouraged, and it's not. As for the user tag system, it seems the Tapatalk upgrade is causing interference, so I'm wrist deep in that at the moment.
It does, but it doesn't fit well with what John has been saying, which is much more complicated in the parts that happen after identification, and directly contradicts what Anc has been saying, which is that posters targeted by this can still post and aren't effectively banned. (It also kind of opens the question why there isn't a plug-in that simply uses the same superior identification as discouragement to keep banned members truly banned, and why the description of the tool is so different from what it apparently does, but those are just nice to know and might eb questions for less excited times.)
John's a tech guy, by nature he'll get overly complicated in trying to make something clear. and I disagree that it contradicts what Ancalagon has said. Note the use of the word restriction. Ancalagon is talking about a level of restriction that is less than a ban. The tool allows that. The tool does that exactly. Or less if we want it to do less. Why build a redundant tool that is only 0 and 1 for settings, when we have one that is 0 to 11, with everything in between?
