PDA

View Full Version : Yet another mod-banning-regulating idea



TheUnholyNightbringer
11-05-2005, 09:45 AM
Mod-Only forum. The mods check it every time they come on, preferably every day, and can propose users to ban. If a majority of more than 2/3rds (so 10 out of the 14) vote in favour, the user is banned by one of the mods. If there's a truly deadlocked split (ie 7 vs 7) the case is taken to the admin whose word is final.

the_GoDdEsS
11-05-2005, 10:43 AM
I think we do need a mod-only forum. If not here, we should create one somewhere else. Messengers alone just doesn't do it.

wheelchairman
11-05-2005, 10:56 AM
I agree. A mod-only forum is desperately needed. We need a place to do our laundry without hanging it out for the public to see, so to speak.

barangatang
11-05-2005, 10:58 AM
the case is taken to the admin whose word is final.
Sounds good, but I'm not so sure about this last part.

TheUnholyNightbringer
11-05-2005, 11:01 AM
I'm not really sure about it either but we need a third party in the case of a deadlock. Possibly a BBS-wide poll, instead.

The good thing about a forum as opposed to Messengers is the votes stay as evidence - ie nobody can say anyone was unfairly banned because the votes are there. On Messengers, you can't, unless you save your conversations. And then it's just awkward.

barangatang
11-05-2005, 12:02 PM
I'm not diggin the poll idea either. The people with the most troll accounts would get their way. Durecell alone would count as 10 votes.

TheUnholyNightbringer
11-05-2005, 12:06 PM
Then what would you suggest?

Vera
11-05-2005, 12:34 PM
Not that I disagree but let's review the facts

1) admin = not around.

2) admin not probably giving a hell on what should be done.

We can never establish these fantastic ideas of ours because we just don't have the tools for it.

TheUnholyNightbringer
11-05-2005, 12:36 PM
Admin emailed me yesterday about Wishomie and giving Mods more powers. And Hunter from LM told me to email him if ever the admin needs another kick.

T-6005
11-05-2005, 02:33 PM
I'm not really sure about it either but we need a third party in the case of a deadlock. Possibly a BBS-wide poll, instead.

The good thing about a forum as opposed to Messengers is the votes stay as evidence - ie nobody can say anyone was unfairly banned because the votes are there. On Messengers, you can't, unless you save your conversations. And then it's just awkward.
If you claim to need a 2/3 majority to do something, then a 50-50 split would just pretty much be a vote for doing nothing, wouldn't it?

Like congress passing a bill - if the 2/3 majority isn't reached, it just isn't passed.

Vera
11-05-2005, 02:41 PM
The problem, though, is that many, many, many accounts are not active at all.

Endymion
11-05-2005, 02:48 PM
If you claim to need a 2/3 majority to do something, then a 50-50 split would just pretty much be a vote for doing nothing, wouldn't it?

Like congress passing a bill - if the 2/3 majority isn't reached, it just isn't passed.
i fully agree with this.

memento
11-05-2005, 03:06 PM
I agree. A mod-only forum is desperately needed. We need a place to do our laundry without hanging it out for the public to see, so to speak.

I thought that's called transparency.

I'd propose you have one but it's read-only for everyone else. So as to ensure transparancy.

wheelchairman
11-05-2005, 03:12 PM
Yes Dush, except we should have a place to draft ideas, and criticize each other, where the public can't see it. Because this is not a democracy, but a place we need to keep clean from spam etc. And thus it's more important for us to have at least some authority, instead of running it like an anarchist nationstate.

memento
11-05-2005, 03:17 PM
I disagree. The problem is that people think the 1337 is taking over. The 1337 debating who should be banned in private will just lead to more accusations of 1337ism. I just don't see why there coudln't be an open debate on who gets banned. There is no reason it needs to be private because the authority comes in the banning, not the privacy.

wheelchairman
11-05-2005, 03:19 PM
Except debate is pointless. In very general terms, it's always divided between two groups. Those who are blatant suckups to the mods, and those who have an unreasonable bias towards the mods. It makes debate boring and pointless, and was never really relevant towards our decision-making anyways. The forum would mainly be so that we could discuss in private.

memento
11-05-2005, 03:21 PM
I don't mean we contribute to the debate. I mean we can see your reasons for banning in full. It doesn't effect your decision making if the public sees it. So why hide it?

wheelchairman
11-05-2005, 03:28 PM
I don't mean we contribute to the debate. I mean we can see your reasons for banning in full. It doesn't effect your decision making if the public sees it. So why hide it?
I would say it would be better to explain our reasoning after we ban, so that they can see. Like we did with Wishomie. Otherwise those people could make just spam before hand.

Tizzalicious
11-05-2005, 03:31 PM
I disagree. The problem is that people think the 1337 is taking over. The 1337 debating who should be banned in private will just lead to more accusations of 1337ism. I just don't see why there coudln't be an open debate on who gets banned. There is no reason it needs to be private because the authority comes in the banning, not the privacy.

it wouldn't be the 1337 discussing who should be banned, it would be the mods discussing mod-stuff.

memento
11-05-2005, 03:35 PM
I just *can't* see a reason why it shouldn't be read only. I mean what is the difference? It doesn't effect you. Reasoning after the ban or reasoning during the formluation of the ban? There's no difference to you. In the end you guys will do what you guys want. But I can't see a reason for it not to be open for all to see.

memento
11-05-2005, 03:36 PM
it wouldn't be the 1337 discussing who should be banned, it would be the mods discussing mod-stuff.

Of course, hence perception in my post. It's not hte reality. But the transprancy would resolve that.

the_GoDdEsS
11-05-2005, 03:40 PM
I think it should be private and not visible. Works like that in real life too. When you're in interviews or whatever, you don't know what they discuss about you before making a final decision. I think we can keep it invisible, draw a conclusion together and then sum up the most important points and reasons and post those in a coherent form for the posters to see. They don't need to follow the debate. It sounds a bit stupid.

What is essential is that most of you don't understand that the 1337 has no place in the mod area, even though most of the '1337' is there. This is what our duty and responsibility is. You can accuse us of 1337ism on a level as posters. But being a mod has nothing to do with it. People only lash out at us because they don't know what else to come up with so they rebel. We don't really have that much power.

Vera
11-05-2005, 03:43 PM
If we're discussing the possibility of some spammer-sort-of-user being banned, the reason why it's probably best they not read it is because they might get pissed and start flooding GC or something equally. Thus, it's better private.

the_GoDdEsS
11-05-2005, 03:45 PM
Agreed with Sanni completely.

memento
11-05-2005, 03:52 PM
If we're discussing the possibility of some spammer-sort-of-user being banned, the reason why it's probably best they not read it is because they might get pissed and start flooding GC or something equally. Thus, it's better private.

Ah I see, that's a good reason. You know what the best system is? Temp bans. There's this fitness forum I post at that do 2 week bans, offend again, month long offend again perm ban. Shame we can't do that here.

My point with the 1337ism was that's what people see it like, it doesn't matter if you keep saying it isn't. if they don't get to see the process they won't believe it. but oh well.

Rag Doll
11-05-2005, 03:55 PM
I think if there is such a forum, it should be private....otherwise, it's really no different than just having a topic on the board about it. Though, I can definitely see a LOT of problems arising if that happens. I am sure a LOT of people wouldn't be happy about the mods having a private forum and they wouldn't trust it and they'd complain and whine quite a bit. Because like RXP said, people are going to just see it as more of a 1337 conspiracy, no matter how much you guys (the mods) tell them it isn't. And I'm really getting annoyed by the amount of "omgz 1337 conspiracy" talk as it is. I think it'd just create more =\.

memento
11-05-2005, 03:56 PM
i.e. create more spam thus more work for the mods.

Endymion
11-05-2005, 04:02 PM
i'm not sure about the open thing. from the 'say whatever's on your mind' thing, it seems that users jump at any mod disagreement and draw lines in the sand and proclaim "mod vs mod" when that is not the case. if the mods debate something the last thing we need is people going "so and so mod is on my side!"

memento
11-05-2005, 04:04 PM
But from the say whatever's on your mind public esque debate we found out that some mods are in favour of just banning stuff they don't like citing it as spam and others aren't so quick to. A good thing!

But Sanni's problem still remains, they'd spam it up.

Endymion
11-05-2005, 04:06 PM
any way to have conversations sealed for, say, one week and then are opened for viewing?

Mota Boy
11-05-2005, 04:07 PM
Yeah, if it was open, the decisions would be tacitly influenced by the board at large. That may have a moderating effect, but it would also make the process much more chaotic, with people targeting mods that wish to ban them.

wheelchairman
11-05-2005, 04:09 PM
A lot of forums have a private mod forum. If we had one, we wouldn't talk about it. So people wouldn't need to know about it. That should be obvious enough.

The problem is, it's hard enough to make decisions, without spammers and idiots getting in the way in the first place. This would make OUR jobs easier. And there is nothing wrong with that.

memento
11-05-2005, 04:09 PM
any way to have conversations sealed for, say, one week and then are opened for viewing?

Perfect idea. It'd stop Sanni's thing from happening.

In all honesty I don't wanna seem to you guys that I'm the only one advocating this. I'm just trying to make the board better you guys can do what you want and disregard everything I say.

Tizzalicious
11-05-2005, 04:10 PM
A lot of boards have modforums, that the other members can't view, I think it's weird that ours doesn't. Just because the admin doesn't make us one, doesn't mean that we should make the one we would make ourselves open for everyone to read.

Not Ozymandias
11-05-2005, 04:28 PM
You fucking people are getting ban-fixated. Just delete all idiotic threads and the problem will take care of itself eventually.

Vera
11-05-2005, 04:39 PM
I agree with Ozy - the ban thing wouldn't really solve much anyway.

Kitten
11-05-2005, 05:39 PM
How about a stickied topic in Offspring.com talk listing bannings, and have the reasons for the said banning outlined. It could be a thread only mod's and admin's can post in. Explaining after the fact. That way, the mod's can discuss it in private, and then once everyone agrees, or at the very least, the majority, it can be added to.

memento
11-06-2005, 02:15 AM
Reduce your location name, it's fuckin up the formatting.

the_GoDdEsS
11-06-2005, 02:36 AM
Oh, it's the location? Didn't notice. I was just wondering why he kept stretching all pages.

memento
11-06-2005, 03:09 AM
Yeah I'm pretty sure it is, cause it all has to go on one line i'm guessing.

T-6005
11-06-2005, 03:31 AM
Yeah, I'm guessing that's it. It's really aggravating.

TheUnholyNightbringer
11-06-2005, 04:47 AM
For the record, I'm 100% against making it read-only for members. I know there'll be talk of "1337ism" but that'll come from having a Mod-Only forum anyway. And to the people who were worried about that - talks of "conspiracy" shouldn't stop us from doing our jobs.

And to whoever said bans wouldnt help anything - totally would. Look at wishomie, a lot of his posts were deleted and he's still here. If we could ban him, because of email registration, eventually he'd run out of accounts.

memento
11-06-2005, 05:01 AM
You doing your job behind closed curtains would create more spam!

Vera
11-06-2005, 05:03 AM
At this point, is there anything that doesn't create more spam?

TheUnholyNightbringer
11-06-2005, 05:04 AM
I don't think it would create actual spam. Just grumbling. But people grumble whatever happens on this board. I seem to remember that before moderators people were moaning that there were no mods.

Betty
11-06-2005, 05:41 PM
I think it's a fine idea.

Even with this "deleting all posts in lieu of banning" system we have now.

But I mean, all talk and no action is silly. Clearly the admin are not around. Sooo... if mods want to do this, they can just make their own forum somewhere to talk about that kinda thing. Mods wouldn't even have to make it public that this forum exists if they don't want to. Because with the system we just decided on, "apparently" all the mods agreed via MSN to do it, so it wouldn't be any different, just easier. It would also be nice because I know that when this other decision was made, I was only randomly asked after the fact "hey what do you think about the banning thing?" which I was fine with, but it would be nice to have a place to find out where things stand, which can then be transcribed to the BBS with the conclusions. Like, I've never been informed whether I'm suppose to delete Wishomie/HAU's posts or whether they are still in their probationary period.

Vera
11-06-2005, 11:18 PM
You can't be serious?
Well, most forums where the membership is paid, there probably aren't many spammers/trolls.

the_offsprings_monkey
11-07-2005, 02:54 AM
Just make the BBS only accessible to people who buy the next cd (include some key in every cd) this way you solve the spam and mod problem at once.
HAHAHA thats so stupid, it would just get leaked onto the net.

wheelchairman
11-07-2005, 04:09 AM
I agree with Jesus. I'd pay the money for a cd to get most of the peasants off the bbs.

the_offsprings_monkey
11-07-2005, 04:28 AM
I agree with Jesus. I'd pay the money for a cd to get most of the peasants off the bbs.
Ok that sounded funny. anyway, wouldn't people just put the key on the net? Also it's easy to make a keygen.

Endymion
11-07-2005, 09:10 AM
Ok that sounded funny. anyway, wouldn't people just put the key on the net? Also it's easy to make a keygen.
you seem to lack the understanding of how a key system should work: long strings, very few keys, very dilute hashing, uniqueness checked when you register and that key is placed on a blacklist. thus, everyone who buys the cd would get a key, you'd register an account and supply the key, and then the key would be invalidated. if a strong hashing function is used to generate the keys (something akin to a mersenne twister would work well), there would be no way to 'generate' keys unless the exact function and seeds were leaked from the manufacturer.

TheUnholyNightbringer
11-07-2005, 09:15 AM
I'm violently opposed to Jesus's idea. I will be driven to assassinations if it's considered.

memento
11-07-2005, 09:23 AM
On the MANU forums they apprantly promote vets to another forum to post after a while or if you post well.

the_GoDdEsS
11-07-2005, 12:58 PM
Only with the CD? Come on, like, NO.

Sin Studly
11-07-2005, 07:59 PM
I'm happy with the keygen idea, although I'd prefer a Pinochet-style caravan of death on the spammers.