Missin U <3 - lamentations for those felled by the SB

shittiest thread derail ever, even if the thread badly needed derailing

re: the message from lj via grady up there - part of this is due to the fact that i went through several times and policed sockpuppet and dupe user bans on all of the high sb dudes, so all of them shed quite a few in the last few months (and then accrued more). that being said, as i mentioned above, there are some concerns about the accuracy of the early sb timestamps, which is why lj is prob only getting a month off - in most situations, getting 153ed would have to carry a way harsher penalty.

Why? I'm not alone in finding it hard to believe that LJ has done anything recently to merit SBing. Who is doing the banning and for what kind of posts? Mods constantly say that ilx is not a democracy and I'm fine with that, so why act like 51 = fucking game over man! no questions asked?

you all know that it's actually the anti-SB crew that's continually suggest-banning LJ (possibly in collaboration with him) in order to create "controversy" around the whole plan and build opposition to what is, in reality, a flawless and fair system, right?

well-played mock outrage btw, ledge

I don't think anyone's saying it's game over, if anything we're saying the opposite.

that's where i'm stuck, n/a- i've been arguing for sb this whole thread, but if the same 51 people are sb'ing lj regardless of what he posts then i think maybe there should be mod consideration, and not just to limit the ban to a month but to consider whether it's in any way valid given what the system is meant to achieve.

i can't put it any better than that, am sure it doesn't help, just wanted to say it.

mr moderator, tear down this ban

you all know that it's actually the anti-SB crew that's continually suggest-banning LJ (possibly in collaboration with him) in order to create "controversy" around the whole plan and build opposition to what is, in reality, a flawless and fair system, right?

http://i35.tinypic.com/314p3pk.jpg

Just dropping in here to register that this is crazy. I was anti-SB, but thought that the time limit on SBs plus assurance they were checked for socks rendered my misgivings void, but I guess I was very wrong on that front.

"you're talking about the sb system like it's a force of nature rather rather than something someone coded up and turned on, with parameters that can be altered by mods -- and an off switch."

^^^ very much this.

Also, this is not a personal snipe as I like Whiney, but if some people are hitting SB on everything that even vaguely displeases them maybe some kind of disincentive should be wired into the system, e.g. SBing someone else could count as, say, half an SB against yrself too
(way to post a half-formed idea that will result in ten fresh SBs for me for absolutely no gain)

new poll thread: "why did you SB l0u1s jagg3r?"

Here's a complicated solution that would be easy to implement via code: if a person is a serial SB'er, then their later SBs could count for less, like

your 1st - 5th sb are full strength
your 5th - 10th count for 90% of an sb
your 10th - 15th count for 80% of an sb
...

or something like that.

yes, i'm sure that's easy to implement via code.

You'd just have to keep a counter for each user that records how many sb's that user has given, and then use that counter to generate the multiple as you determine the sb counter of the person who received the sb. This is pretty straightforward code-wise.

personally i think your subsequent SBs should be worth exponentially more:

your 1st is worth 1
your 2nd is worth 2
your 3rd is worth 4
your 4th is worth 8

and so forth. the advantage of this system is that from seven onwards you actually have the power to instantly ban people you dislike, which will make ilx far more democratic.

maybe you should be limited to giving 51 sb's in any 6 month period?

Part of the problem is that Louis came back after his second banning and carried on with business as usual, and racked himself up another ton of SBs. Once he'd reformed he had such a high SB count and still made people mad from time to time so it was inevitable that he was going to hit a ban again.

I'm not sure what's the right thing to do about it; there's pretty good arguments on both sides: one is that he earned this ban and should have to take it anyway (the SBs he got wasn't just the usual BAN LOUIS types clicking on them, btw); the other is that he's obviously reformed and should be given leeway. I sympathise with both.

Regardless of his situ, it's not the case that 51 people can just keep banning the same person again and again.

maybe you should be limited to giving 51 sb's in any 6 month period?

I CAN'T LIVE LIKE THAT DUDE

I think Euler's idea of diminishing SBs is pretty good - it certainly would stop folks who SB left and right for lols.

SB'd you for that.

It's your luck I believe in passive resistance, so I don't SB you back.

and look where that attitude got Mr Gandhi

I'm sure Gandhi is a million times more respected these days than the guy who invented Suggest Ban.

Suggest Ban: The Movie will be a million times more interesting than that Richard Attenborough pantomime.

xp the tuomas line of the year to be sure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpNB2SoNfyg

Un-SB'd you for that

Regardless of his situ, it's not the case that 51 people can just keep banning the same person again and again.

Sorry to harp on but how is that so? If there really are 51 users who repeatedly, constantly and consistently find poster x unbearable how do you decide they're not allowed to ban that poster? Do we say to these 51 people "I know you all really hate this fucker but you've banned him 4 times already so now you don't count!" Is this like the diminishing SB power mentioned above but with mod judgement rather than hard coding?
How easy is it to work out many of LJ's third 51 were also in his first and second? If there are 30-40 people who SB him on sight he's never getting a fresh start.

If there really are 51 users who repeatedly, constantly and consistently find poster x unbearable how do you decide they're not allowed to ban that poster?

Because 51 posters is something like 0,5% of all posters, and the other 99,5% find that person perfectly tolerable. So why should such a small percentage get to decide who is a worthy poster?

protip for tuomas: it would save you valuable typing time if you just c&ped your posts from upthread every time this comes up

also I srsly, srsly doubt there are 51 posters who actually want LJ banned forever - I'd bet at least half of those 51 don't even want that! there's a big gap between what a sb (theoretically) does and how people use it

(those 51 = LJ's current 51)

and the other 99,5% find that person perfectly tolerable haven't realised there's an SB button yet

to more seriously address the question, having looked at the sb votes this time around, very few people that sbed louis the first times were the ones who did it this time (again, prob due to him really working at not driving people nuts with some of his less uh accessible qualities).

xpost iatee, lj isnt getting banned forever, ive made that clear from the get go on this thread

sorry, to clarify, that first part was meant to answer onimos question.

yeah I know, that's why I wrote '(theoretically) does' - in *theory* people should be pressing the sb button because they want to ban this person forever

(but in reality that's not always going to be the outcome, even when they are 51d)

Tuomas I said "how do you decide" because I want to know how that decision is made, what the mechanism is that overrides the DING DING 51 PERMABAN AGAIN switch.

Also "51 posters is something like 0,5% of all posters" might well be true but how often do you actually see more than 100 active users online?

What does have to with anything? The SBs can come from any possible user, not just the ones who are online at the same time.

Thanks for checking JJJ, looks like he really is in three figures o_O

"what does that"

I just think the figures regularly trotted out about how many thousands of ILXors there are shouldn't hold that much sway over a decision made by 51 active users when most of those thousands are dormant accounts or known socks.

This is true every time somebody has to say it.

id be curious to know how many ilxor.com registered users have ever clicked the sb button

I think a running "You have SB'd x People / You have been SB'd by x People" somewhere up page top would be good.

xxxp to myself

I guess what I'm trying to say is there's some sorta moral hazard going - people are aware that SBs aren't always permanent, esp for someone like LJ, which makes people more likely to use them jokingly instead of how they were meant to be used, which makes someone like LJ even more likely to get SBd , which makes the system even harder to take seriously -> etc. etc. loop

shouldn't hold that much sway over a decision made by 51 active users when most of those thousands are dormant accounts or known socks.

But any user can click on SB. How would you know it's just "active users" doing that?

so yr saying the perverse incentive is lolz xp

And anyway, even the amoung of active users is clearly bigger than 100, so SB is not democratic in any sense.

If only somebody had pointed this out sooner.