Rob's Banning

For the first time ever, I'm on Rob's side. I find it hard to believe that a build-up of infractions led to that ban, so I'm assuming it was an insta-ban? Users have done far worse than a light-hearted jokey thread, it may be the first post Rob's ever made that didn't involve rampant profanity.

I could understand an infraction for making a thread that vaguely about another member? Or is the MacNN staff overcompensating now that real mod powers have been reinstated?

All I know is I've been robbed (pun unintended) of the predicted shitfit as they coincidentally moved his gun thread to the PL as well as banning him.

Incidentally, I asked for him not to be banned, and PMed Rob to calm down or he'd get into trouble. The impression I get is that he exists here on permanent double-secret probation, or something like that. He doesn't have that mechanism in his mind that tells him to stop, he; goes ape, loses his cool entirely, and then screams that he was treated unfairly... which leads to more loss of control and bigger sh*t-fit. AFAIK, this is just a week-long thing. I don't want him gone, he's a colorful character, he should just relax more.

It was a build-up of infractions that caused an automatic one-week vacation. The post that actually pushed it over the edge has been deleted, so if it looks strange now, that might be the reason.

Ah, thanks for the info!

It was Infractions - 2 personal attacks in different threads. And it's a 1-week tempban, not a permaban.

The first was in the "reverse image searching" thread. Post contained profanity and attack, it was deleted. I handed that one out.

The 2nd was the initial post in the Rich Talk lounge thread. Given out by another mod without any prior coordination.

I was going to do something, probably ask him to knock it off a bit. The tempban happened before I did anything further.

That was funny, damnit. :lol:

http://i.imgur.com/cihxz.jpg
IMMODERAAATE!!! IMMODERAAAAATE!!!

I'm a little bit surprised you'd jump to these conclusions, you've been here long enough. We have an infraction system, 20 active points give you a one-week vacation. It's automatic, so you issue an infraction and vB also temp-bans the user or you don't. He earned himself 2 10-point infractions for Personal Attacks. Other infractions will earn you less points.

The counter next to Rob's posts tells you he has not been perma-banned, but rather when he's no longer blocked from accessing the forums.
Yes, that was me. I wasn't involved in handing out the first infraction, though (not that I disagree, of course).

I understand the infraction system, I just didn't think he'd racked up that many as he's been on "good" behavior lately. Clearly I didn't see the deleted post.

You and reader are the only ones saying "perma-," I never said that.

How exactly does a ban work? Does it block his IP? Also, can we just ban him for life? He may be the only person on the entire internet that actually gets under my skin.

It means he can't log in, unless he creates another user. We can't block his IP without blocking other legit members.

No problem, I just wanted to say that you should give us the benefit of the doubt. We're not out to get members and very often there are things beneath the surface that aren't made public.
I reckon we took »instaban« to mean »permaban«, perhaps that explains it. (To me, instaban = ban on sight.) If you meant »temp-ban«, I misunderstood.

If he bothers you that much, put him on ignore. Problem solved.

Not really. He still derails threads, people still react to him, and he still has an effect on the culture of MacNN.

You can block his specific IP without blocking other members, but all he has to do is wait for his ISP to offer him a new one, use his phone, go to a coffee shop, steal his neighbor's wi-fi, or 1000 other ways to get past an IP ban. Even if the mods did ban the group of IPs his ISP provides, that still doesn't stop him from, again, going somewhere else, using a VPN or Tor exit, etc.

Admins could shut down member registration and verify that each person trying to create a username is legit, but that's a ton of work for moderators, discourages legit member signups, and nothing prevents him from lying about who he is. Another option is requiring moderator approval of a member's first few posts, but that causes the same problems.

I think the best solution for this type of problem is a "shadow-ban," where a user is allowing to continue posting, but that user is the only one that sees his/her own posts. Easy enough to verify by viewing the forums while logged in as a different user, but it's still more difficult for the offending poster to catch onto and gives the forum a bit more peace in between bannings.

vB has a feature "send to coventry" which adds a user to a master ignore list. It's the same as adding someone to *everyone's* ignore lists. We've never tried it to my knowledge. The member would not be banned, could surf and post normally. But few people would respond.

osiris says he's willing to be your guinea pig, but he'll pretend he didn't want it to add to accuracy of the situation.

I just want to tell you good luck, we're all counting on you.

wait a minute... that's me.

It was nice knowing you. (No it wasn't)

reported.

Trust me. Never be a guinea pig for any of reader50's little experiments...

The Final Dakar, thank you for volunteering. I'm rebuilding thread information as vB suggests after using that setting. So it may take an hour or three to fully happen.

Thorz is referring to when I IP-banned him on Huddler to see if the system worked. It did. However, IP-unbanning did not work due to a bug. Since they went home for the weekend, Thorz remained IP-banned for several days. I'm sure that won't happen here. (crosses fingers)

I like the little message that goes with it. "The administrator has decided that Bob should be quiet for a while. ." Can you edit that? Potential for fun, there.

It's editable in phrase manager, but only globally. Looks like effgee never fiddled with that template to make it compatible with the rest.

Can everyone view his posts by clicking on the right-hand links?

I'm not a fan of ostracising the awkward. Besides, he's more interesting than 85% of the people on here.

Ok, bad test result. Members sent to coventry have their posts made invisible to regular members. Except each other apparently. Staff can see the hidden post and view it, but members and guests can't.

Returning Dakar from Coventry.

Yes. But, there's no way to re-hide the post once you've clicked View Post.

Rob's not a dummy, he will figure that one out quickly and create a new user.

-t

If only that were a situation that I addressed with the majority of the text that you quoted.

Not to mention with a normal ban, all posts remain visible and some "mark" is left on the forums.

Will it be my sock puppet too?

You owe me an apology.

Yes, if only.

-t