Group Banning.

[TH155]

After the recent feronat surge, i suggest a major change in the way banning works, well... not really much of a change for the admins. I suggest a group banning system. We know that mods/admins are not around 100% of the time (and seriously, who is?) and i was wondering if you maby could allow that there is a new button, "Ban user". This button will go into a group vote kind of thing and if ~10 people vote to ban the user, that user is banned until the admins look at it, where it appears as a PM saying "The user ××××× has been group banned."

Then a link under it unbanns the person.

Also, admins can ban with the touch of a button, just like they can now.


EDIT: This is a VERRY efective way to do it, maby if enough people add someone to the ignore list, they get banned?

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6274/feronat.jpg

[mayur]

ya i agree with u but the limit should be increased because the person whom u ban may also ban u by creating fake accounts...and u r gone.. or if "Ban user" function should be available to only those who have more than 100 posts...

[endgame]

good intentions. bad idea.

[Samail]

Yeah, I guess ignored my own suggestion of strict ostracism. (Which I made the last time he was here.) Didn't predict a spam and flood spree, and some of the comments were too good/bad to pass up replying to. :rolleyes:

On topic, I don't know if vBulliten works that way.
It couldn't hurt at any rate, but it's not nearly as efficient pushing the ban button.

[prateek.singla]

Whatever we intend to do, we must do it fast...

[Samail]

We cannot do anything. Just have to wait...

[ekoz]

this wont work. he would just make multiple users and ban everyone. he's come back 3 times now. what we need are actual mods. i've sent a PM to mike pressing the matter of making some users mods. did not specify any names, so don't get riled up.

[Everlast]

I don't think this will work either. One responsible person should be made a mod.

[TH155]

One that's on when the mods are asleep...


Also, yes, VBulliton doesn't work that way. But who says that you can't change the codeing:rolleyes:

[The Pryomaniac]

We need like 2 mods in America and 2 in the UK, that way at night the site will still be moderated.

[blissturd]

ya i agree with u but the limit should be increased because the person whom u ban may also ban u by creating fake accounts...and u r gone.. or if "Ban user" function should be available to only those who have more than 100 posts...
Not sure if anyone else saw this but, I think it would solve the problem of someone creating a bunch of accounts to ban regulars.
It sounds like a good idea to me.

I don't trust any of you with the Ban Cannon.

It should be a Democracy.

[prateek.singla]

We need like 2 mods in America and 2 in the UK, that way at night the site will still be moderated.

We need mods in opposite time zones.....something like USA and India ;)

[flankattack]

Samail for Mod!!!

[die2u2]

wow I never knew I could miss so much in one day!

[Bert]

this wont work. he would just make multiple users and ban everyone. he's come back 3 times now. what we need are actual mods. i've sent a PM to mike pressing the matter of making some users mods. did not specify any names, so don't get riled up.
I did the same and did mention names. The current moderators aren't active enough to stop a spammer from posting 100 times in one day, so how could they possibly know who to trust with moderation powers? I think if enough active members suggest possible moderators to them, then they will learn who they and the community can trust.

[prateek.singla]

Why has die2u2 been banned?

[Samail]

See post #15 here (http://forums.blitwise.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4428).

[ben]

Group banning systems are too easily abused, and often require more oversight than traditional moderation. I do appreciate the suggestion, but n this case it wouldn't work very well.

Don't forget that there is a report button on every post. I always check reported posts, and try to do so as promptly as possible.

[Nonnag]

Samail for Mod!!!
Agreed there...

On another note, Its not like you're all not doing your jobs Ben (Or other Admins for that matter), its that it can take an entire day of some of this stuff being here before anyone has a chance to DO anything about it. Were all just trying to find a fair way to stop these things from happening, and hopefully prevent Feronats apocolypse from happening.

[dmac208]

lol we went over this before samail for mod then ekoz lol and for the time zone problem im started to wonder if mayur or sklgdfhdfhhs can be trusted... hmmmm

[prateek.singla]

lol we went over this before samail for mod then ekoz lol and for the time zone problem im started to wonder if mayur or sklgdfhdfhhs can be trusted... hmmmm

I'm from India too, remember? ;)

[dmac208]

thats new information to me... remember i joined this year (i thought you were from Antarctica with the penguins just kidding)

[flankattack]

I'm from India too, remember? ;)

You have been banned once, though, so that might count against you.

[Samail]

That was an error; Either in the system or Brian/ben pressing the wrong button.

[flankattack]

Oh, ok. I thought it was because he downloaded a pirated version of PT by mistake.

[The Pryomaniac]

I don't know if anyone has suggested this yet but...

If we did do the group banning, you should only be able to group ban after posting an amount of times. Like have 50 posts or something.


EDIT: Sorry I was too lazy to check and now I saw someone already did, therefore can someone please delete my post.

[flankattack]

Or if thier rep goes into a negative number.

[Samail]

He has the honor of being the first to achieve a red http://forums.blitwise.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif.
And you can delete your own posts, by the way. See Edit.

[AWP]

It is sad how, because of the one idiot we have to think of the way to make forum improvement such as this.

I mean this thread started because of Feronat. I think we are spending our time here giving a discipline lessons to someone who is not disciplined well by his parents.

[ekoz]

it's a problem we really can't fix. ip bans can be bypassed just by changing your ip or by joining and posting on a different compy. and regular bans are just an invitation for revenge phases.

idiots like Fero are like AIDS: you can't get rid of it, but with proper medication (modding) we can make it stop showing its hideous face, even though it's still there.

[dmac208]

lol or using a proxy...

[Val81]

I agree with group banning, but it could be better: only Super Star or Blit Wisest can ban, and it takes 3 votes for 3 different Super Stars or Blit Wisests. I trust everyone with >999 posts here. ;)

[ekoz]

orly? once again, posts count doesn't count. you can be a complete moron and rack up 100 posts in a day (AJ...), and everyone MAY love you (AJ...) but would you really want to trust a person like that (AJ...)?

[Val81]

But someone like Feronat wouldn't get 1000 before he got banned.

[ekoz]

thats not the problem. the problem is, you trust those with quantity, not quality (lol, i criticized your siggeh!). an idiot can have 5000 dumb posts. an intillectual could have a total of 1 post with quality information. who do you trust more?

[Samail]

But someone like Feronat wouldn't get 1000 before he got banned.

That doesn't change what ekoz just said.

[Val81]

I see. It's not like Blitwise suffers from frequent abuse and spam, so we should probably leave it alone.

[Everlast]

Agreed, the only problem is when an actual human does spamming, which doesn't happen often.

[blissturd]

Actually, I agree with the 1000 post minimum for voting a ban.

I don't see how anyone can get 1000 posts quickly in a practically dead forum anyway. Besides, if we saw someone just spamming to get posts so he can only vote to ban someone, the higher ups that already have the 1000 posts can simply ban him.

I honestly can't see it not working.

Seriously, you guys are saying it won't work based on what? Nothing really. You give an excuse as such that someone would give 1000 stupid posts. What person have you seen on these forums actually has a 1000 stupid posts that all happened within a day. Because a day is really all it would take for the people who actually have over 1000 posts to ban him.

I'd like another reason rather than "someone stupid can have 1000 posts" because it's not even remotely practical to see that kind of situation even come about. And even if for some far out reason it was able to happen, it would have to happen 3 times for the person to even be able to actually ban someone because only happening once just gets one vote. It takes 3 votes as Val81 said and that's from different users.

You could even go as far as adding on a join date to enable voting privileges. Had to have been a member for at least a year maybe.

So we have -

1 year membership
1000+ posts

And again, that only equals one (1) vote.

If we find that somehow 3 different users happen to abuse this power, that's where the real mods come in and ban them.

This seems like nothing less than a perfect way of doing this.

I may have missed something so, if you can, enlighten me.

Thoughts?

[The Pryomaniac]

We'll someone could get on other peoples good side, ya know be a trusted member posting good stuff, just to rack up posts and BAM!

Not so innocent.


Or another thing is just elect (<- wrong word?) truly trusted people to be moderator, then if someone wants to group ban, they discuss it with a mod, by actually having a reason of course.

[blissturd]

We'll someone could get on other peoples good side, ya know be a trusted member posting good stuff, just to rack up posts and BAM!

Not so innocent.
BAM, WOW, 1 vote. Accomplishes nothing. Remember, it takes three votes to do anything. Besides, I highly doubt someone would go through all the trouble just for a vote to ban someone else. 1 year later, 1000 posts later, getting on everyone's good side to gain trust later. "Finally, I can vote to ban someone." Good try though.


Or another thing is just elect (<- wrong word?) truly trusted people to be moderator, then if someone wants to group ban, they discuss it with a mod, by actually having a reason of course.
This is actually more susceptible to what you wrote above it. Besides, who decides who is the "truly trusted" people?
I wouldn't really trust any one person with this power but, I'm quite confident that any regular on these boards can handle the responsibility.
It's not difficult. But, who's to say that they would handle it well?

The voting thing still has my vote :)

[Everlast]

Like I said earlier, how often does someone spam the forums like crazy? Rarely. Which means there is really no reason to have this system. Also if everyone was able to ban, what's to say they don't ban someone because they don't like them? (not saying someone would)

With the mods right now, they are a third party and wouldn't be affected by any taunting or what-knot to help sway their decision.

Bottom line is that, unruly members don't come around often enough to need a system like this. The mods can handle it right now.

[dmac208]

we are going back and forth with this but i agree with blissturd... even though for the time being we dont need a method of group banning but in the future this could became a real problem

[The Pryomaniac]

OH why do we even bother?!

Everyone here knows feronat is the only problem that comes every month or so, until there's something else like hundreds of spamming bots, no one should even care.

[blue_moon]

I'm not quite sure what I missed, but I'm certain on one thing.

The banning of a user shouldn't be left in the hands of regular users. Do you know how easily that will be abused? There's no way to prevent it. If you give fire to the people, some make explosives.

You guys treat spam like it's detrimental to your health. It's a meaningless post. Just report it, don't post any smart comments trying to be funny, and walk away. A moderator will take care of it.

So far, the moderators have done a great job. The spam filter catches the malignant spam, while moderators delete the completely benign spam when they can.

[Samail]

+7


Just report it, don't post any smart comments trying to be funny, and walk away.
What are you implying, blue? :rolleyes:

[blissturd]

Like I said earlier, how often does someone spam the forums like crazy? Rarely. Which means there is really no reason to have this system.
This makes perfect since but, I don't think it's relevant to that situation. At least, not my situation. I'm just looking at the big picture. Maybe there is not reason for it now. I'm just discussing the idea in general. Forget whether we need it or not. Just whether it would work or not in case we do need it.

Also if everyone was able to ban, what's to say they don't ban someone because they don't like them? (not saying someone would)
I don't even remotely recall anyone mentioning that anyone can ban someone. Are you even paying attention? Because no one would disagree with this and it's not even up for discussion.


The banning of a user shouldn't be left in the hands of regular users. Do you know how easily that will be abused? There's no way to prevent it. If you give fire to the people, some make explosives.
No, I can't see how easily it can be abused. Not with 1000 posts and a year of membership being in the way. Explain it to me.


ekoz, would you vote to ban someone you just don't like?
samail, would you?

Anyone else with 1000 plus posts and over a year of membership here, would you vote to ban someone for no real reason, risking your own account when a real mod actually comes on to check the ban list?

It's like putting the elder's all together as a high counsel. Not anyone can vote. And if 3 regular long standing members happen to vote all at ounce to ban someone for no reason, the person that is banned only has to email the actual mod and complain about it. The 3 that voted poorly will then be banned for abusing their power.

Would you risk that?

I know for sure that none of you would. You like your post count and long standing with the forums. The above situation would never happen.

I'm still convinced, even though we don't really need it on these near death forums, that this is a pretty balanced way of keeping the peace when the actual mod is not available.

And people, make sure you know what you are talking about before you post a reply. You look el tardo when youz ignant.

[Everlast]

I don't even remotely recall anyone mentioning that anyone can ban someone.

It is what you have been saying the entire time. Three people can vote to ban someone. ANY three people. (And yes I know about the requirements you want) If three people dislike someone and ban them just for that reason, they would be abusing the system as blue_moon mentioned.

And who is saying that people wouldn't do that? People have been known to do more stupid things than that before.

Only a third party should be able to ban, and that third party is Ben and Mike right now. Regular users are IMHO not a third party.

There is no reason to talk about this. It will never happen. Period.

The only reason this would ever come to be is if a thousand people joined, and started posting wildly.

[blissturd]

There is no reason to talk about this. It will never happen. Period.

The only reason this would ever come to be is if a thousand people joined, and started posting wildly.
We all know this and that's not the point, so it's pointless saying it.


It is what you have been saying the entire time. Three people can vote to ban someone.
How is it what I've been saying the whole time? I've never said that just "ANY" person can vote.



ANY three people. (And yes I know about the requirements you want)
How are people with requirements just "ANY" people? I sure wouldn't be able to vote. I'm sure I count as just "ANY"one.
It's not just "ANY" person that can vote. You should get that clearly in your head because it still seems like you don't know what you are talking about and that makes your whole reply unaccredited and basically worthless.


If three people dislike someone and ban them just for that reason, they would be abusing the system as blue_moon mentioned.
Like I said earlier, I can't ever see this actually happening and if it did, those three people would be banned instead by the actual moderator if the person that was banned by them sends out an email to him.
It's not like the actual mod can't un-ban someone.

Three people losing their account just because they wanted to abuse their power is a situation that would never occur. When the person that was innocent gets his account un-banned then all the work for those three that voted to ban him in the first place was pointless.
I highly doubt that anyone would think that it's worth it. And I highly doubt that anyone would do something like that.



If it came to it, it wouldn't hurt to have a test run on it because what gets done can get undone.

If it works out, keep it, if it doesn't, lose it and go back to the original way. No loss of anything, except the stupid 3 people that voted get banned. And if they were stupid enough to do something like that, then they need not be alive. People need to be evolving for the better and those 3 people are hurting the human race. We need to be disassociated with them.



Please, please, say something smart, someone. Something that makes sense and is relevant to the point I'm making.

[Samail]

We all know this and that's not the point, so it's pointless saying it.

And it's pointless saying that because not everyone knows, otherwise we wouldn't be having most of this conversation. (If at all.)

[Everlast]

What I see from this long post Blissturd is that you only read and interpret what would make you right.

Anyone can see that by "ANY" person means that "ANY" person can acquire 1 year of membership and 1000 post.

And you seem to fail to understand what the word "ANY" even means. So before you post something think about what the person might mean by what they are saying.

Yes, and it is very unlikely that 3 people would do that, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. You can't just say it wouldn't happen because it is highly unlikely. As long as there is a percent chance, it means it could happen. Of course it would be stupid, but that isn't the point. If it would come to be and happens to happen it could have been avoided.

And nothing would happen in a "test" run, because as far as I can tell human spammers don't happen but once in a blue moon.

And say something smart because so far your just going in a circle. <- quote this when you reply


EDIT: Anyway isn't there something better we can argue about? Because we can't really do anything about anything with this issue, even if we all agree to something. >_>

[blissturd]

And it's pointless saying that because not everyone knows, otherwise we wouldn't be having most of this conversation. (If at all.)
It's not pointless, because I don't care if everyone knows or not. He apparently didn't know so I'm telling him that it's pointless so he doesn't say it again. If he does anyway, well then he only makes himself look bad.
And if someone else says it later, I will tell them the same thing. This way, the next post they say is relevant to what I'm now talking about.
It's not like I took just that one statement he said only replied to that. I just mentioned something about it and the majority and main point of my post had really nothing else to do with it.

I should pop your Rep for one :). Not just because it's basically wrong what you said but, because it's not even really on topic. That should be something you just mention in your post if you are confused or disagree but, then get back to making the majority or at least some part of the post about what the thread is actually about. It's about trying a new system of banning. Not about the pointlessness of a single comment in a single post.
But, I won't. You are just confused. And now, enlightened.



What I see from this long post Blissturd is that you only read and interpret what would make you right.
So, you are saying I'm right? :)

Seriously, though, Everlast, I'm not supposed to go around interpreting the thoughts that are in your head based on what you say in writing. I base my responses on what you actually write. Not what you meant.

If you want to make sense and you want good responses then say what you mean. Don't expect anyone to read your mind or your body language, or your tone of voice, or your anything else. It's all writing. You have to be clear in what you write, otherwise, you might as well be writing/talking to yourself.

You just said "ANY". That's it. That's what I took it as. Here it is quoted.

It is what you have been saying the entire time. Three people can vote to ban someone. ANY three people. (And yes I know about the requirements you want) If three people dislike someone and ban them just for that reason, they would be abusing the system as blue_moon mentioned.
That little parenthesized comment in the middle actually contradicts what you said if it's implied to be associated with it. It's like you are saying you know them yet, you just ignored them with what words you used.

any - One, some, every, or all without specification: Take any book you want. Are there any messages for me? Any child would love that. Give me any food you don't want.

Sorry but, there were specifications(1000 posts, 1 year membership). So, it's not really just "ANY", like you wrote.

All I'm saying is that I cannot even fathom the thought of someone joining the forums for a whole year, posting up to a thousand posts just to vote one time on banning someone just because. Seriously, they'd have to have a serious motive, like, doing it just because no one has ever done it. They'd have to have no life whatsoever to put the efficient time and energy into caring about something like this that can easily be undone with the actual mods one click of a button.
Imagine it. One year and 1000 posts later. A single vote. Nothing accomplished.
If they did it with three accounts, that's three times the work in posts. That's 3000 posts later, 1000 for each account, and one year of signing on and off of the three different accounts. If this actually ever happened, it only takes a email request from the innocent user that was wrongfully banned. Then a click of a button to un-ban if it's true. Then the mode can delete the accounts that were responsible. That's the only work the actual mod would ever really have to do when it comes to banning people which is petty close to nothing considering how far out and impossible it looks that something like this would actually happen.

It's just a thought for additional control on the boards if it were ever needed or even if it's not needed.

It's like Samail said in his first post,
It couldn't hurt at any rate,...
It really wouldn't hurt to try it.

Besides, on these small forums, like mentioned already, no one really even gets banned. If ferronat or whatever were to go about his stupidity or attention seeking rampage again, having another alternative rather than waiting for a mod to do something could help out.


Sorry but, I'm trying to look at the negative factor in this discussion and it just keeps evading my grasps do to it's outrageous chance of possibility.

The good in this highly outweighs the bad simply because it working is likely to occur while it not working basically stands without argument of practically never occurring.

It's like adding cheese or pickles or something to a burger. Doesn't change it that much but, does make a difference.
The chances of you choking on that addition, ridiculous. Would you even consider that possibility when ordering your burger?

Hope that makes some sort of sense to you folks.

[Everlast]

Sorry but, there were specifications(1000 posts, 1 year membership). So, it's not really just "ANY", like you wrote. / Seriously, though, Everlast, I'm not supposed to go around interpreting the thoughts that are in your head based on what you say in writing. I base my responses on what you actually write. Not what you meant.

I said "requirements" which was 1,000 post and 1 year membership. What did you think I meant by "requirements"?

And by "ANY" I mean, "ANY" person can get 1000 post and be a member for 1 year.

It's not pointless, because I don't care if everyone knows or not. He apparently didn't know so I'm telling him that it's pointless so he doesn't say it again. If he does anyway, well then he only makes himself look bad.

I felt like it needed to be said again, duh.

All I'm saying is that I cannot even fathom the thought of someone joining the forums for a whole year, posting up to a thousand posts just to vote one time on banning someone

Neither can I, but it could happen, and honestly if it did, I would applaud the guy who did it, because I have never seen someone that devoted to eeeeeeeeeeeevil. :eek:

It's like adding cheese or pickles or something to a burger. Doesn't change it that much but, does make a difference.

Unless your allergic to cheese or pickles.....

So, you are saying I'm right? :)

Now why would I say that? It would end this lovely debate we are having. :)

[Bert]

Yes, and it is very unlikely that 3 people would do that, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. You can't just say it wouldn't happen because it is highly unlikely. As long as there is a percent chance, it means it could happen. Of course it would be stupid, but that isn't the point. If it would come to be and happens to happen it could have been avoided.

I am with the turd here.

I think this sort of system would work very well. The chances of ben randomly banning someone are far greater than three 1 year members with 1000 posts all randomly banning one person. Even if a temporary ban did happen for no reason at all, it would be no biggie because a moderator would just reverse and penalize the people who temporarily banned the person in the first place.

Basically, the less people in power, the more likely they will make a mistake. So if we had a bunch of people with power, the chances of all of them messing up are slim. There is no perfect way to do this on forums, but I think a small democracy would be the best solution.

Maybe a sort of council of the most trusted members, appointed by administrators, could be given the power to temporarily ban members.

[Samail]

It's not pointless, because I don't care if everyone knows or not. He apparently didn't know so I'm telling him that it's pointless so he doesn't say it again. If he does anyway, well then he only makes himself look bad.
And if someone else says it later, I will tell them the same thing. This way, the next post they say is relevant to what I'm now talking about.
It's not like I took just that one statement he said only replied to that. I just mentioned something about it and the majority and main point of my post had really nothing else to do with it.


<does not compute>

[blissturd]

I think this sort of system would work very well. The chances of ben randomly banning someone are far greater than three 1 year members with 1000 posts all randomly banning one person. Even if a temporary ban did happen for no reason at all, it would be no biggie because a moderator would just reverse and penalize the people who temporarily banned the person in the first place.
How come I couldn't think of saying it like this? That "...ben randomly banning someone..." part.<-- lol. So true.




Wow, Everlast, you are the most confused person I have ever met. No matter what, you continue to be confused. <--- I'm sure that's not true so allow me to explain some more.

And by "ANY" I mean, "ANY" person can get 1000 post and be a member for 1 year.
You've mentioned that already. But, it's not what you had originally wrote. It should have been, then we wouldn't be here. We'd be somewhere else, like, "Neither can I, but it could happen, and honestly if it did, I would applaud the guy who did it, because I have never seen someone that devoted to eeeeeeeeeeeevil. " bypassing all this confusion you created with inaccurate wording according to your thoughts.

Here is what you wrote, once again, in order to make clear why this misunderstanding happened in the first place.

It is what you have been saying the entire time. Three people can vote to ban someone. ANY three people. (And yes I know about the requirements you want) If three people dislike someone and ban them just for that reason, they would be abusing the system as blue_moon mentioned.
Notice the pretty colors. You know there are requirements which are specifications for certain people(as stated in parentheses) yet you only say "ANY three people.(notice the period)". The period ends the statement. You don't specify the requirements you say you know of to counter or modify the basic meaning of the word "any" based on it's usage, which is , "any - One, some, every, or all without specification". This technically makes your statement limited to it's most literal sense. This is why I understood it at it's most literal sense instead of what you actually meant by it. That's why I say that you have to type/write down exactly what you are trying to say or mean in order to get an understanding response because I cannot read your mind. I can only go off what I'm reading which is what you actually typed in.


I said "requirements" which was 1,000 post and 1 year membership. What did you think I meant by "requirements"?
Yes, I know that the requirements are the specifications and I know that you know them that's why I just explained why what you typed in earlier was contradictory to what you meant.



I felt like it needed to be said again, duh.
Okay. Don't know why this was said. Not important.


Unless your allergic to cheese or pickles.....
YES! I knew you or someone would say something like this. If you understood the analogy then this comment basically tells me you agree that this whole thing would work PERFECTLY!

Allow me to explain this one, would you?

Burger = Forums
Extras = Rules, mods, other safety and control.
Taste = Chaos and order.
Choking = Negative effect of rules, mods, other safety and control.
Allergies = Dislike for rules, mods, other safety and control.

So, we have the forums, which is the burger in the analogy. And of course you as yourself or a member of the forums.
All the extras would be the rules and such that allow for better taste over a worse taste or more order and organization over chaos and confusion.
Then we have the choking hazard which is the likeliness of the rules and such to cause harm to ones self or even bad taste in the burger (Upsetting members or Chaos and confusion from rules, mods, other safety and control methods).
Allergies are the disliking or the uncontrollable breaking of the rules, mods, and other safety and control methods.

Most of us don't have allergies because we like the rules and tend to follow them keeping order on the forums. Ferronat, on the other hand, is an example of someone who has allergies. He, for some reason, can't help but be a dummy when it comes to the peace keeping methods. Maybe because he doesn't like pickles, cheese (rules, regulations) or he just likes to go against them (try to remove from burger). Fortunately, the burger comes with these extras (forum with rules) and he can't change it. Only thing that can be done is go away which is what we want from ferronat. He can always come back and try to take them off but, if we add more instead, that would make it even harder for him.

Now, if we add an extra (in this case, mod council) this would help deter people with allergies (ferronat and others that disregard rules for whatever purpose).
And now, Everlast, you say that just the smallest percent of choking hazard (when you said quote, "As long as there is a percent chance, it means it could happen.") could happen. Agreeable. No one doubts that. The fact of the matter is, in question form, would you not put an extra on your burger even though it may be healthier and make the burger taste better and also help get rid of the people around your burger that you don't want around your burger, just because of the minuscule and almost non-existent chance of you choking on that extra?

[Everlast]

That's why I say that you have to type/write down exactly what you are trying to say or mean in order to get an understanding response because I cannot read your mind. I can only go off what I'm reading which is what you actually typed in.

Well then that is what this is all about. I just have an odd way of explaining myself.

Ok well what I meant by that post was "any three people with the requirements".

Maybe I just write it oddly the first time. Probably because I am always watching TV or playing on Xbox Live when I'm on the forums, and I just write down what I say real fast.

And what is with the "the forum is a hamburger" thing? Are you going to eat us?

Anyway, I don't think I ever said it wouldn't work. (blissturd is looking through all my post in this thread now :D) I'm just simply saying it will never happen, and talking about the one setback.

Sure it probably would work, but I don't see the point. Not much would change at all, it would seem the same as it is now. And we can't make the system anyway even if everyone wanted it, because we are not Ben or Mike.

Let me attempt to explain in a way you would understand.

Your ban system is like tofu. You can add it to the "hamburger" but it won't make the hamburger taste any different.................................:)

[ekoz]

now I'm typing via itouch now, so I'll keep this short.

bliss is right, in the sense that on these forums, it would work. however, what happens when the forums grow, if they grow? More useless posts that account for nothing but the fact that many user have slot of time to spare. So yes, this system would work for a limited time only. After that, I wouldn't trust it.

[Everlast]

So yes, this system would work for a limited time only. After that, I wouldn't trust it.

Exactly. I mean it would only be a problem if the forums grew the size of like Gaia Online or the IGN message boards.

But I don't see it happening so it doesn't matter if it would work.

[blissturd]

Your ban system is like tofu. You can add it to the "hamburger" but it won't make the hamburger taste any different.................................
Well put. I don't doubt this much. Even though it's thought that it may end up like this, we haven't tried it. That tofu may end up creating an all new value meal, for all we really know.
Besides, even if it won't change the system drastically, as mentioned, it shouldn't hurt it. It's like the saying, "Something is better than nothing."
If it helps just that much, it still helps. So, why not?



bliss is right, in the sense that on these forums, it would work. however, what happens when the forums grow, if they grow? More useless posts that account for nothing but the fact that many user have slot of time to spare. So yes, this system would work for a limited time only. After that, I wouldn't trust it.
Honestly, I can still see it working rather well, if not better with a much larger group.
The reason being, people join these boards for a reason. They want to be here. None of them would risk being banned themselves, in my opinion, after being a part of the community for so long.

Come on now, you all know which "members" need to be banned. Bots, Spammers, flammers, etc. It's a no-brainer.

Would you vote to ban someone for saying something stupid? Would you vote to ban someone for disagreeing with you? Would you vote for someone that has been a member himself for over a year or has his own 1000 posts aka a "regular" for making a mistake?

If you are on the fence about any of these, then isn't it just better to report the incident rather than risk yourself being banned over an error?

Those kind of judgment calls would be left up to the real mods. What this little system would be for is strictly for the bots, flammers, spammers, etc. Just something to hasten the elimination of those forum threats.

It'll be in the rules and everything. Even a quick automatic PM could be sent out to the members that meet the criteria about the rules and such for voting.

This way, they know what's going on and they know how to use it.


I can see it happening! It's always a possibility. Especially if Pocket Tanks goes online and more members start to join here. That may end up provoking more spambots and such. The mods might not be here to handle it quickly enough and implementing this method may be a good addition for testing at that point. I'd say try it now just so we know now whether or not it works when there is little that can be messed up. It's best to try a new idea on small scale first. If the forums were to grow larger and then you try something like this, if bad things were to happen(which, again, is highly unlikely), damage would be greater at that point and probably harder to fix(even though with this idea damage would be pretty easy to fix no matter the size - let's be reasonable, guys. you know what I mean). Now is the perfect time, IMHO.


But, enough about it happening or not. I was only stating the goods amongst the bads about it and whether it is a plausible idea or not. I believe it to be so without doubt. The only real question is, would it be something the forum masters would be willing to initially do work for in order to try and test it? <-- This, according to the post by mod on this thread, doesn't seem likely. Although, more likely than choking on an extra :).




EDIT: On a side note because of ekoz, is the only real difference between iTouch and iPhone the ability to make phone calls? That's all I'm getting from it minus the size in memory and plan, of course.

[Everlast]

Does anyone know if it is even possible to add a system like this to the forum with vBulletin?

[ekoz]

yes, with strict coding. it's not built in, so it'd be tricky, but possible.

@iphone/itouch differences, i don't know, it was my freind's itouch, but iphone can call numbers, comes with it's own built in wireless connected to an at&t satallite, and has more space and privilages.

itouch has less space, and can connect via existing wireless networks, and can't call. however, you can jailbreak them, allowing you to gain acess to many more privilages.

[Everlast]

Are they the same size?

[ekoz]

no. one is the size of an elephant. i will give you three tries to guess, then i will flush you children down the toilet to please ormana, god of all things green that come out of the anal cavaties of man.

[blue_moon]

No, I can't see how easily it can be abused. Not with 1000 posts and a year of membership being in the way. Explain it to me.
I must have misread the 1000 as only 100, but still...

We have 22 members that qualify as incredibly talkative. Half of them aren't even here. I know I wouldn't use my 'community banning' privileges because I always seem to miss all the good spam threads. I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining eleven or so wouldn't use their mod powers either, because by the time 3 of the get online after getting out of school or work, Brian or Ben (or Mike) probably already brought down the ban hammer on the poor, rather unintelligent spam bot.

1000 posts is a very high number... And really only grants power to the forum's chatterboxes. It's not possible to abuse granted that group is very small, but now it seems like such a limited power that it wouldn't be effective. Perhaps we should just elect one of us to be a moderator.

[Nonnag]

I would use it... Just to ban the stuinkin spam bots and Feronat...

[Everlast]

Perhaps we should just elect one of us to be a moderator.

That would be better, and I think most of us agree if that happens who it should be.

[ekoz]

samail, i would assume?

[The Pryomaniac]

Yeah samail! Hes perfect for a mod, in every way.

[Rex Nex]

I doubt one of us is going to go moderator anyway, but regardless, dont jump to conclusions. Samail is great, but so is Blue, both would make extremely good mods.

[ekoz]

many would be suitable mods. but it's active members you want. blue isn't very active, altough i'm certain he'd be more active if he was modified.

not gloating, but the most active, suitable people here would be sam or me.

[Rex Nex]

Tee hee, Ekomodz

[dmac208]

didnt we go over this plenty of times

[blissturd]

I must have misread the 1000 as only 100, but still...

We have 22 members that qualify as incredibly talkative. Half of them aren't even here. I know I wouldn't use my 'community banning' privileges because I always seem to miss all the good spam threads. I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining eleven or so wouldn't use their mod powers either, because by the time 3 of the get online after getting out of school or work, Brian or Ben (or Mike) probably already brought down the ban hammer on the poor, rather unintelligent spam bot.

1000 posts is a very high number... And really only grants power to the forum's chatterboxes. It's not possible to abuse granted that group is very small, but now it seems like such a limited power that it wouldn't be effective. Perhaps we should just elect one of us to be a moderator.
Well, blue. I think you are getting the just of it but, there may be one thing that you seem to have overlooked.

What we mentioned as the requirements for someone to vote are not necessarily going to be the requirements if the ban tool was put to test.

1000 posts, 1 year member, and if you want to narrow it down a little, you can add requirements like, member has to sign on at least 5 times a week or, member has to have at least 5 posts a week or, anything to narrow it down if it helps weed out intruders and whatnot. And if it's too strict, lighten it up. That's mainly what the test run is for.

It's not perfect, which is why it would need to be tested first. And if it was established and we come to find that it doesn't really help as much as we would like it to, there really is no reason not to keep it around just in case. Just like the burger analogy.

The main point is not whether it's worth using. I'm sure we can all agree that it may not even do anything.
The point is that it could do something and that it most likely will work if a time called for it. Like if the real mods were all sleeping or something. Or maybe on vacation or whatever.

I really don't care if we use it or not, I'm just saying that it really won't hurt anything, as Samail said, I believe.

[ekoz]

i have an idea. make a special group, called something like 'congress'. members of it have the oppertunity to vote ban. however, to become a member, you have to given the privalige by mods. also, for the mods to make you a congress member, users have to vote you in when a new election is held by the mods, but you can only run if you have the following stats:
-over 1000 posts.
-over 20 rep

it'd be a working, complete model of the US government system, which i purely despise. lolwut?

[Samail]

lolwut indeed.

I'm indifferent on this thing.
I don't see any disasters ocurring with either the group banning or the "counsel" concept, but at the same time, after going to all the trouble to put everything together, it would almost never be used. (If at all.)

Fero-phase numero quatro, so far, is the only example of any need for such a system. It has never happened on this scale before, and it's unlikely to occur again. Should it occur again, there's an alright chance it would be halted quickly.

...But of course, there's a chance that no one will be around at that time, and the attack in question could certainly be a lot worse than insults, π, and swimsuits.
So, yeah. On the fence.

Though I don't see either happening. That's just my take.

[flankattack]

i have an idea. make a special group, called something like 'congress'. members of it have the oppertunity to vote ban. however, to become a member, you have to given the privalige by mods. also, for the mods to make you a congress member, users have to vote you in when a new election is held by the mods, but you can only run if you have the following stats:
-over 1000 posts.
-over 20 rep

it'd be a working, complete model of the US government system, which i purely despise. lolwut?

Nice idea.

[sgvaibhav]

Nice idea.

congress
lol
i think congress won the elections of India