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

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.

Seriously though, is it possible for mods to tell the number of users who have clicked SB? Because that would probably settle the issue whether it's just active users doing it or not.

sb statscock

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

― FCK R VWLS (jjjusten), Friday, October 9, 2009 6:06 PM (30 minutes ago)

I asked a simple question. Is it technically possible to answer it?

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.

There isn't a huge overlap, and 50 is high enough that even the most notorious people here can't get banned just for showing up. I think this particular case isn't a great one to generalise from, because the poster's behaviour changed so radically in the middle. If he keeps on like he is and still hits 200 I think that'd be a much more serious thing, but I really don't see that happening.

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

I've been worried about this from the get-go. It's why I was always so against the people saying "SBs should just be a temp ban" because that does make people click it more lightly than they otherwise would. It can't be a ban on the first time out either, because then you don't get any of the benefits of it sending people a message. Need to be clearer that it's a permanent ban, though mods are likely to let people back in the first couple of times, but it will eventually stick.

(Louis is, again, the exception, because of how he changed. I'd be amazed if anybody else got to 153, but if they did, I strongly suspect that'd be it for good for them.)

Tuomas: No.

itd be cool to be able to see what posts u got sbd for

Ok, thanks for answering.

(x-post)

Doesn't clicking "Suggest Ban" give you an explanation of "you've just suggested that this person permanently be banned" etc? (never clicked it, never will, but since the link is ON EVERY POST, you'd almost think it was something quite harmless)

Please be aware that by confirming this action, you are registering your wish to see this user removed from the site. Once the user has 51 such votes from individual users, they will automatically be banned from the site.

I can see how that would lead someone to think it was something quite harmless.

How easy is it to work out many of LJ's third 51 were also in his first and second?

i was thinking when i read this thread earlier - of the people who have been part of banning any poster, how likely are they to have been part of banning someone the other eight or nine times someone's been banned? i'm just asking rhetorically obv, it would be fairly a useless & pedantic waste of mod time to actually work out