I do think suggest bans should be temporary btw

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Nothing to do with recent events, I'm not even really sure what happened other than lots of locked threads. I just think suggest permabans are a bad idea.

:ᴥ: (Curt1s Stephens), Saturday, 17 January 2009 04:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

Ban #1: 50 votes to achieve, 7 days long
Ban #2: 25 votes to achieve, 14 days long
Ban #3: 12 votes to achieve, 1 month long
Ban #4: 6 votes to achieve, 2 months long
Ban #5: 3 votes to achieve, 6 months long
Ban #6: 2 votes to achieve, permanent

Carne Meshuggah (libcrypt), Saturday, 17 January 2009 04:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, sugbans should expire in 90 days.

Carne Meshuggah (libcrypt), Saturday, 17 January 2009 04:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

that might be harder to code^

:ᴥ: (Curt1s Stephens), Saturday, 17 January 2009 04:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, maybe if you sugban someone, you add a sugban to yrself. (xp)

No, this is totally easy coding.

Carne Meshuggah (libcrypt), Saturday, 17 January 2009 04:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

Is that a cute crying doggieface btw?

Carne Meshuggah (libcrypt), Saturday, 17 January 2009 04:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

Couldn't the mods just get rid of the whole suggest ban feature at this point? Because to me it looks like it's mostly just caused confusion and dispute among ILXors, people are misusing it for lols, and the only "positive" thing to come out of it is that Louis got banned. And he returned anyway, as can any other unpopular poster who gets banned this way. So wouldn't it be easier just to get rid of it?

Tuomas, Saturday, 17 January 2009 09:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

Couldn't the mods just get rid of the whole Tuomas feature at this point? Because to me it looks like it's mostly just caused confusion and dispute among ILXors, people are misusing it for lols

"Two Ears" Laybelle (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 17 January 2009 09:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

Also, I think it's bad form for mods to constantly lock threads where people are expressing critical views on ILX moderation or are suggesting changes to ILX moderation, like the suggest ban poll Grady started. If mods disagree with what people are saying, I think it's enough to just say it on those threads, and then just let them run out of steam, which will happen eventually. The mods still have the power, so they can choose whether to change or not change things based on what folks are saying. But locking threads with "wrong" opinions or started by "wrong" posters makes it feel like certain issues are above criticism and discussion, and I don't think that's a good message to send.

Tuomas, Saturday, 17 January 2009 09:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://i34.tinypic.com/2a4tp3m.jpg

jordy (J0rdan S.), Saturday, 17 January 2009 09:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

1. the usuals trash ilx
2. tombot goes nuts with thread locks & temp bans
3. tuomas gets involved
4. ilx users hang selves en masse

open wide, come inside, it's apple butter (Autumn Almanac), Saturday, 17 January 2009 10:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

Would have loved to seen Tuomas let loose on the Nazis in 1933.

Bring Back The West End South Australian Open (King Boy Pato), Saturday, 17 January 2009 15:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

I really like libcrypts' breakdown and I bet when JJ sees this he will agree. Still lol that he and I were the number one suggest ban haters when the idea was broached but whatever

Here's the thing, as we've said before, the code for nuILX is OS and if you want to help improve it you can totally e-mail stet or keith to get access to the CVS or whatever they're using at the moment. I would personally really like to see other brainios help work on improving it so all feature requests and fixes don't have to be routed strictly through one individual, nothing against keith, in fact just a worry of mine about single points of failure in a system and also frankly it's retarded that his spare time is the ultimate factor in making the software better.

TOMBOT, Sunday, 18 January 2009 07:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

Dude I just learned how to make an animated gif last month and you want me to recode a message board? Sorry but I'm just going to have to continue contributing to ILX via my A+ posting.

gr8080, Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

Can I just chip in that the idea of having suggest bans expire is retarded? I don't want to have to re-SB Geir Hongro every 3 months.

I'm in the building and I'm feeling myself (The Reverend), Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

Personally, I think the suggest ban system as it is is fine and there shouldn't be any changes to it.

I'm in the building and I'm feeling myself (The Reverend), Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

I concur.

"Two Ears" Laybelle (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

^^^
or maybe suggest ban an IP, not a username/email addy. of course the true winners will proxy or some shit but still. it's possible this is already the procedure in which case nvm

Socktor Duperman (k3vin k.), Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp Isn't the suggest ban system temporary as it is?

As in, you just register with another email address?

Gorgeous Preppy (G00blar), Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

ur v. pretty btw

゙(゚、 。 7 (cankles), Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

how did loujag come back? was that a one-time thing?

Simon Jartvik (special guest stars mark bronson), Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

xpost

Yeah, to me its function is to let posters know when they've pissed enough ilxors off, not to condemn somebody to eternal exile.

"Two Ears" Laybelle (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 18 January 2009 20:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

All IP bans eventually expire wether they are from a mid or a SB

gr8080, Sunday, 18 January 2009 21:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

mod*

gr8080, Sunday, 18 January 2009 21:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

http://www.wcaor.org/images/news_you_can_use.jpg

velko, Sunday, 18 January 2009 21:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

Can I just chip in that the idea of having suggest bans expire is retarded? I don't want to have to re-SB Geir Hongro every 3 months.

Why are you suggest banning Geir anyway? The guy is always polite and never brings any personal beef to the board. Is it because he has "wrong" opinions on music? I don't think the idea of suggest bans was to get people like that banned. Or at least I hope so.

Tuomas, Monday, 19 January 2009 11:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

the idea of suggest bans wasn't. but you can't blame the designers for that, that's really up to how dickish users want to be with the function.

Redknapp out (darraghmac), Monday, 19 January 2009 12:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well yeah, that's why I think the whole suggest ban function should be deleted.

Tuomas, Monday, 19 January 2009 12:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

the function isn't the problem, was the point tuomas.

Redknapp out (darraghmac), Monday, 19 January 2009 12:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

fix people or adjust/disable function. one of these is easier than the other.

caek, Monday, 19 January 2009 12:42 (nine years ago) Permalink

but in the long term, it doesn't solve the problem, maaaahn.

Redknapp out (darraghmac), Monday, 19 January 2009 12:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

did we have a banning problem before the new era? do the mods find the suggest ban stats useful? (serious questions)

caek, Monday, 19 January 2009 12:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wouldn't have nothing against the "suggest ban" function the way I remember it was originally introduced... I thought the idea of the function merely was to help notify the mods when someone is doing stuff that's against ILX guidelines. But then later on it was revealed that enough suggest bans leads to an automatic and permanent banning, whether or not the banning is based on some real bannable offense or merely people not liking some poster or his opinions, and this I think is quite problematic. If the problem is that fine tuning "suggest ban" would require extra coding that admins haven't got the time to do (which is perfectly understandable), then I'd suggest the whole function should be removed, at least until there is time to fine tune it. I'm not very knowledgeable with coding, but I assume that removing things from the code (as opposed to adding new things to it) shouldn't take much extra work.

Tuomas, Monday, 19 January 2009 13:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

suggest ban stats need to be public including the identities of the suggesters - if the system cant be useful it can at least be even more entertaining

ice cr?m, Monday, 19 January 2009 13:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

I wouldn't have nothing against the "Tuomas" function the way I remember it was originally introduced... I thought the idea of the function merely was to help notify the mods when someone is doing crazy Finnish stuff that's against ILX guidelines. But then later on it was revealed that enough Finnish stuff leads to automatic and permanent confusion, whether or not the Finn is based on some real person or someone merely posting from a phone booth while sitting in a shopping cart. And this I think is quite problematic. If the problem is that fine tuning "Tumoas" would require extra coding that admins haven't got the time to do (which is perfectly understandable), then I'd suggest the whole function should be removed, at least until there is time to fine tune it. I'm not very knowledgeable with coding, but I assume that removing things from the code (as opposed to adding new things to it) shouldn't take much extra work.

Mr. Que, Monday, 19 January 2009 13:58 (nine years ago) Permalink

Why are you suggest banning Geir anyway? The guy is always polite and never brings any personal beef to the board. Is it because he has "wrong" opinions on music? I don't think the idea of suggest bans was to get people like that banned. Or at least I hope so.

― Tuomas, Monday, January 19, 2009 3:42 AM Bookmark

Because I have no love for trolls, especially ones as persistent as him.

I'm in the building and I'm feeling myself (The Reverend), Monday, 19 January 2009 23:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

What's your definition of troll then? Someone who has odd opinions about music?

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 07:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

I hate the title of this thread, so I opened it, and your opinions/advice suck donkey dickles :)))

Lettuce C.U.P. (PappaWheelie V), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 08:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

What's your definition of troll then? Someone who has odd opinions about music?

― Tuomas, Monday, January 19, 2009 11:47 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

A troll is a fearsome member of a race of creatures from Norse mythology. Originally more or less the Nordic equivalents of giants, although often smaller in size, the different depictions have come to range from the fiendish giants – similar to the ogres of England (also called Trolls at times, see Troller's Gill) – to a devious, more human-like folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills, caves or mounds. In the Faroe islands, Orkney and Shetland tales, trolls are called trows, adopted from the Norse language when these islands were settled by Vikings.

Nordic literature, art and music from the romantic era and onwards has adapted trolls in various manners – often in the form of an aboriginal race, endowed with oversized ears and noses. From here, as well as from Scandinavian fairy tales such as Three Billy Goats Gruff, trolls have achieved international recognition, and in modern fantasy literature and role-playing games, trolls are featured to the extent of being stock characters.

Average Suggest Banned (The Reverend), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 08:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Norse Blorbius

Lettuce C.U.P. (PappaWheelie V), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 08:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

ilx has a longstanding policy of no trolls. giants and orcs yes. it may seem a little harsh but the I Love Trolls board died of neglect back in the greenspun days.

J0hn D., Tuesday, 20 January 2009 08:43 (nine years ago) Permalink

btw I don't think geir is a troll and I think it's kinda bullshit to sb him, but on the other hand, he is responsible for so many poll threads that surely some cruel and arbitrary punishment would be looked on with approval by Almighty God

J0hn D., Tuesday, 20 January 2009 08:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

I do think suggest bans should be temporary btw

gr8080, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 08:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think Geir can be irritating but he's ultimately harmless, and I don't think he really fits the profile of a troll. I do hope people aren't actively suggest banning posters with "wrong" (but harmless) opinions, because in the end there'd be just people with "right" opinions left, and that would be boring.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 08:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

Tuomas I'm pretty sure that every time you restate that opinion somebody SB's you

J0hn D., Tuesday, 20 January 2009 08:57 (nine years ago) Permalink

i don't SB people for having 'wrong' opinions, but because they express them in an irritating way

have never SB'd geir btw, but i don't really pay any attention to him

Cooking From A Stovetop (electricsound), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 09:02 (nine years ago) Permalink

People would be more careful about sugbanning if they suffered something negative each time they did one.

Carne Meshuggah (libcrypt), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 09:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

It's the ol' "this is going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me" principle.

Carne Meshuggah (libcrypt), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 09:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

i don't SB people for having 'wrong' opinions, but because they express them in an irritating way

And you really expressing opinions in an irritating way is something that should lead to banning?

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 10:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

it seems to me that if someone is in some way impacting your ability to enjoy ilx then i believe you are at complete liberty to suggest ban to your hearts content. if nobody else agrees then you're merely an ineffective voice in the wilderness. so your little personal beef will probably get nowhere. if someone gets to 50 sb's, they've done a bit more than disagree with people.

why don't you, tuomas, enlighten us all as to reasons you think someone should use the suggest ban button.

Cooking From A Stovetop (electricsound), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 10:51 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, preferably it shouldn't be used at all. We used to have guidelines on what sort of behaviour leads to yellow carding or banning. I thought those guidelines were pretty good, they included stuff like personal harassment, flooding the board, hate speech, and so on. They did not include "expressing ones opinions in an irritating way". If posters should be banned for being irritating or for "impacting your ability to enjoy ILX", then I think 90% of ILX would've been banned at some point. Even if in in practice few people have gotten enought suggest bans to get actually banned, in principle, everytime you suggest ban someone, what you're saying is, "This person should be permanently banned for doing this". And I do hope most of ILX is tolerant enough not to think that saying something irritating is a big enough reason for permanent banning. Because if we got rid of all those posters who may irritate some other posters, this board would be boring as hell.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 11:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

And I do hope most of ILX is tolerant enough not to think that saying something irritating is a big enough reason for permanent banning.

caek, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 11:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

not everyone uses SB for the same reason as me tuomas and i wouldn't expect them to - don't quote me as if they do

Cooking From A Stovetop (electricsound), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 12:09 (nine years ago) Permalink

Not everyone, yeah, but I've read enough comments in other threads to gather that some people are using SB for minor reasons that would've never lead to banning in old ILX.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 12:20 (nine years ago) Permalink

so basically, you don't think suggest bans should be used on posters who, for example, state the exact same opinion over and over and over and over again with no variation and no attempt to engage in a conversation?

congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 12:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

What do you mean "no attempt to engage in a conversation"? All of my posts in this thread have been responses to other posts. Or, when you say "engaging in a conversation" do you actually mean "changing ones opinion"? But you are right that I have probably repeated my opinion on this too many times, so I'll stop that now.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 13:14 (nine years ago) Permalink

Geir is worse than any troll. Ban ban ban.

Bondzilla vs Mechaholmes (blueski), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 15:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

dunno what tuomas is worried about.

Simon Jartvik (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 15:34 (nine years ago) Permalink

Geir is not a troll. I do not want Geir to be permabanned.

:ᴥ: (Curt1s Stephens), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 15:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

ILX is not yr "no girls allowed" clubhouse

:ᴥ: (Curt1s Stephens), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 15:47 (nine years ago) Permalink

not to disrupt this most recent storm in a teacup, but just for the sake of realism, id like to mention that a grand total of two people have been actually SB'ed since this went into effect, and one of them has been given a second chance. what people seem to be missing is that A) the only people who are managing to get SB'ed are people that are incapable (or more likely, unwilling) to recognize that they are, in fact, trolling. B) everyone that is high up on the SB list is fully aware that they infuriate other ILX posters on a regular basis, and has been given ample warning about the fact that they are getting SB'ed. truth is, they just dont care enough to try to make concessions to make other people not irate.

as tom noted above, he and i were both vocally opposed to SB's in the beginning (there was other dissent and worry within the mods as well, btw). the truth is that as far as i can see, nothing negative has actually occurred due to the SB system.

non-ironic safety helmet wearer (John Justen), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 16:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

Really, the only negative I see so far is that some people seem to be making their suggest-banning a self-fulfilling prophecy by endlessly worrying about suggest banning.

^likes black girls (HI DERE), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 16:26 (nine years ago) Permalink

this is pretty much beyond talking about at this point but as much as i find the suggest ban function a hilarious and welcome addition to ILX's code, its a completely backwards answer to something that a lot of ppl still think is an issue.

iirc it came out of the discussion here: moderation request: democratic bans

so thanks for adding it Keith but unfortunately as we saw on Friday some mods still like to play cowboy and go on banning sprees on ppl who NO ONE WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT AT ALL AND WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING

also I do think suggest bans should be temporary btw

gr8080, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 16:39 (nine years ago) Permalink

A lot of folks on this thread said that Louis (or anynone) shouldn't be permabanned due to SBs though. And the suggest ban function has been in work only a few months. The way the system seems to work now means that other posters will almost inevitably get banned in time. Should we wait until some people who are considered less irritating than Louis and Deeznuts get banned before some changes are made into the code?

(x-post)

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 16:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

Should we wait until some people who are considered less irritating than Louis and Deeznuts get banned something worth complaining about actually happens before some changes are made into the code?

hey just thought id help you out by clarifying a little there for you

non-ironic safety helmet wearer (John Justen), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 16:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

but you know hey it has been a whole couple of days since we had a many hundred post thread complaining about some terrible ilx crisis that hasnt really happened so good on you and keep it up.

non-ironic safety helmet wearer (John Justen), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 16:55 (nine years ago) Permalink

Well, the way I see it is like this: should ILX have some guidelines to avoid certain unwanted things from happening? Or should those guidelines be made up only after the thing has already happened?

Also, if you read the thread I linked to in the post above, "something worth complaining" already happened. LJ got banned due to SBs and many folks complained it shouldn't have happened. 13 people (against 12) voted to say that they find SBs useless.

(x-post)

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

tumoas your perseverance is both annoying and admirable but mostly annoying-- guess what i just sb'd you

gr8080, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:04 (nine years ago) Permalink

tuomas shld choose hope over fear

stet, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

13 people (against 12) voted to say that they find SBs useless

all 25 people on ilx have spoken, and a very slim majority are against suggest bans

congratulations (n/a), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

love this thread

caek, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

and yet double that number voted to permaban louis and deeznuts

Bondzilla vs Mechaholmes (blueski), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

ILX is not yr "no girls allowed" clubhouse

tbh in this era of invite-only sub-boards it's hard to know what is right

Bondzilla vs Mechaholmes (blueski), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:28 (nine years ago) Permalink

13 people (against 12) voted to say that they find SBs useless

all 25 people on ilx have spoken, and a very slim majority are against suggest bans

I think a bigger majority might be for temporary permabans instead of permanent ones, but apparently polling this is forbidden.

Tuomas, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:52 (nine years ago) Permalink

so hard x-post

matt p (Matt P), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

tbh in this era of invite-only sub-boards it's hard to know what is right

― Bondzilla vs Mechaholmes (blueski), Tuesday, January 20, 2009 6:28 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^ we don't have these any more

Simon Jartvik (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 17:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

What is a temporary permaban?

onimo, Thursday, 22 January 2009 14:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

it's better than my equivalent attempt at finnish would be, so i'm not going to call it.

Redknapp out (darraghmac), Thursday, 22 January 2009 14:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

ILX is not yr "no girls allowed" clubhouse

tbh in this era of invite-only sub-boards it's hard to know what is right

― Bondzilla vs Mechaholmes (blueski), Tuesday, January 20, 2009 12:28 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

everyone is invited~

my president is black, my skyhawk's blue (Curt1s Stephens), Thursday, 22 January 2009 15:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

i think in certain circumstances there are firm grounds for making them permanent

rip whiney g weingarten 03/11 never forget (history mayne), Sunday, 21 November 2010 22:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

please elaborate.

sarahel, Sunday, 21 November 2010 23:19 (eight years ago) Permalink

wtf?

you couldnt have started a new thread?

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 23:31 (eight years ago) Permalink

Working on some code

10 Print "SBd You for That"
20 Goto 10

a ticker tape of "must not fuck up" (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 21 November 2010 23:32 (eight years ago) Permalink

even ur code is old & tired man

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 23:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

Just offering to help.

a ticker tape of "must not fuck up" (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 21 November 2010 23:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

time was you'd have come back fighting from that. time was.

Goths in Home & Away in my lifetime (darraghmac), Sunday, 21 November 2010 23:37 (eight years ago) Permalink

two years pass...

^

dj hollingsworth vs dj perry (darraghmac), Friday, 28 June 2013 02:05 (five years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.