Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tiresias · Dec 19, 2007, 04:39 PM

I missed that.

Dakar the Fourth · Dec 19, 2007, 04:48 PM

How should I phrase this... We learned that young japanese women's carpet match the drapes?

Laminar · Dec 19, 2007, 04:51 PM

Tacky?

Dakar the Fourth · Dec 19, 2007, 04:53 PM

Unoriginal.

Laminar · Dec 19, 2007, 04:55 PM

The carpet or the joke?

Dakar the Fourth · Dec 19, 2007, 04:55 PM

...both?

subego · Dec 19, 2007, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth

All I'll say is it may give leave to the vocal minority to be more vocal. Its very easy to be a nuisance on the internet. See: cash
(And with regards to cash what happens? He's given second chances, and sometimes he's given some rope before a ban,much to the chagrin of many)

Rob is more difficult to deal with than spammers?

I do think the mods do a good job around here, but let's call a spade a spade. Rob is a problem because he is allowed to be a problem.

Every third post in this thread has been a reminder of the users' lack of power. Rob isn't somehow in a different boat.

Rumor · Dec 19, 2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

One of the other things to realize is that there are a lot of people who change their nicks without getting banned (i.e. gorickey, Cody Dawg, Dakar, and others).

The ones that do change their nicks usually make it very obvious that they have done so. They also aren't doing it to skirt a ban.

MacosNerd · Dec 19, 2007, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

A perm-ban for Kevin is way harsh.

Without knowing the details its difficult to know for sure

subego · Dec 19, 2007, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth

No kidding. Sounds like it dwarfs PacHead's contribution a few weeks ago.

This is what I was saying about leaving it to the imagination.

I actually read what Kevin wrote, and reader50's post still made me think he posted a picture of a dead baby or something.

reader50 PMed me though, and said (s)he was speaking for (her)himself in this regard, and not as a general directive or answer to my question.

So, what happened in essence is, as a response to the RR thread (or now that I think about it, because of RR's banning), Kevin pledged to turn himself into a Rob like nuisance.

That's more or less it. It's an obviously bannable offense. Kevin stated as such in the post. He was angry, but no expletives or pictures.

FWIW, I only know about this because I have nothing better to do than trawl the Feedback forum at 3AM. I'm talking Loser City, people. As soon as I went for my animated popcorn gif, it, and the new nick he used to make the post (rob2000 IIRC), had been deleted.

Timo · Dec 19, 2007, 05:33 PM

The only trouble with banning is that when they come back I have to add a new nickname to my ignore list.

Somehow, I get by.

Captain Big Trousers · Dec 20, 2007, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Rumor

The ones that do change their nicks usually make it very obvious that they have done so. They also aren't doing it to skirt a ban.

Arr. That be true, matey.

badidea · Dec 20, 2007, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Big Trousers

Arr. That be true, matey.

You got quite a lot to say for not posting for more than a year!

How come?
^read: who are you?

OreoCookie · 06:23 AM

@subego regarding Rob:
Yes, Rob is more difficult to deal with than spammers. We have discussed methods how to deal with him more effectively several times, including getting feedback from you guys here.

The difference is the following: a spammer typically registers a few nicks and then uses one or two to post typically 3 messages, advertising whatever it is they scam, I mean sell. The posts are usually easily recognizable as spam, although there has been more subtle spam lately.
Rob (and Rob-style attacks) on the other hand are genuine posts. Banning on sight is easier said than done as we have to be sure it's Ca$h. Some innocent noobs have been banned this way on more than one occasion, because one of us made the honest mistake of thinking it's Rob. Then, Rob posts more replies than a spammer if it happens to be that he either hasn't been positively IDed or we (= us mods) are sleeping (in the literal sense). Also, spammers usually don't use their backup accounts on the same day, Rob has done so in the past.

We're doing our best and I'm sure fresh blood will help to improve the situation (as you all know we're working on this).

besson3c · Dec 20, 2007, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

@subego regarding Rob:
Yes, Rob is more difficult to deal with than spammers. We have discussed methods how to deal with him more effectively several times, including getting feedback from you guys here.

The difference is the following: a spammer typically registers a few nicks and then uses one or two to post typically 3 messages, advertising whatever it is they scam, I mean sell. The posts are usually easily recognizable as spam, although there has been more subtle spam lately.
Rob (and Rob-style attacks) on the other hand are genuine posts. Banning on sight is easier said than done as we have to be sure it's Ca$h. Some innocent noobs have been banned this way on more than one occasion, because one of us made the honest mistake of thinking it's Rob. Then, Rob posts more replies than a spammer if it happens to be that he either hasn't been positively IDed or we (= us mods) are sleeping (in the literal sense). Also, spammers usually don't use their backup accounts on the same day, Rob has done so in the past.

We're doing our best and I'm sure fresh blood will help to improve the situation (as you all know we're working on this).

Are Rob's IPs all within the same subnet? How about flagging new registrations from Rob's subnet?

Cold Warrior · Dec 20, 2007, 12:00 PM

I think I remember that discussion from years ago -- Rob was using AOL as his ISP and a dynamic IP. He'd just sign off then back on, and there was no way to IP-ban him without wiping out several states in the process.

However, I don't know if he's moved to a broadband provider. I wouldn't be surprised if he still uses a dial-up ISP and a separate Mac just for MacNN, and a broadband line on another computer for the rest of his web life.

Tiresias · Dec 20, 2007, 12:15 PM

Who is this Rob character? Who does he work for? What does he want?

besson3c · Dec 20, 2007, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

I think I remember that discussion from years ago -- Rob was using AOL as his ISP and a dynamic IP. He'd just sign off then back on, and there was no way to IP-ban him without wiping out several states in the process.

However, I don't know if he's moved to a broadband provider. I wouldn't be surprised if he still uses a dial-up ISP and a separate Mac just for MacNN, and a broadband line on another computer for the rest of his web life.

That would be funny... dialup just to annoy us

I still think that whether MacNN were to block or flag IPs, this would help. We've talked about this in the past and it was pointed out that blocking IPs can have a destructive effect on other users, but simply flagging IPs would not. Analyzing these for patterns would likely help MacNN keep a beat on some spam as well, as well as security related issues. It would be a few lines of code to syslog IP addresses and simple syslog configuration change to designate a local0-9 facility for MacNN forum logging.

I get the sense that the admins are relying too much on what the vBulletin application provides, although I could be wrong.

OreoCookie · Dec 20, 2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Are Rob's IPs all within the same subnet? How about flagging new registrations from Rob's subnet?

No, they're not.
Plus, we have (legit) members who use the same subnet, so we'd ban them, as well.
I think you've participated in the discussion we've had a while ago to improve our strategies in this respect. Unfortunately, there are none without collateral damage and right now, the situation is alright, we don't have significant problems with him for the moment.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, they're not.
Plus, we have (legit) members who use the same subnet, so we'd ban them, as well.
I think you've participated in the discussion we've had a while ago to improve our strategies in this respect. Unfortunately, there are none without collateral damage and right now, the situation is alright, we don't have significant problems with him for the moment.

Yeah... See my last post to Cold Warrior. It looks like we were writing our responses at the same time

Dork. · Dec 20, 2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I get the sense that the admins are relying too much on what the vBulletin application provides, although I could be wrong.

They may have to, if they don't have access to things like syslog.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2007, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

They may have to, if they don't have access to things like syslog.

Well, they could be provided access, but yes, this is all predicated around the notion that they have a sysadmin that could facilitate this sort of thing.

Mrjinglesusa · Dec 20, 2007, 01:21 PM

I think it's funny that as much as people don't like having Rob around because of his destructive nature, even when he's gone they can't stop talking about him.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

I think it's funny that as much as people don't like having Rob around because of his destructive nature, even when he's gone they can't stop talking about him.

I personally don't care whether or not he is around, I just enjoy designing systems and conceptualizing them at a technical level...

MacosNerd · Dec 20, 2007, 02:20 PM

Can I ask a stupid questioni?

We're all talking about how best to ban ca$h, but has shown up lately?

I've gotten busy at work so my interaction is taking a nose dive but I don't recall seeing him in the lounge lately? That's not to say that won't re-appear.

I'm just asking since there's a lot of energy going on about someone who may not even be avoiding the ban

Dork. · Dec 20, 2007, 02:26 PM

I think Cash is just being used as an example here we're all familiar with. Go back to the OP for the main question begin asked:

Originally Posted by wallinbl

So, my question is, if a ban on a regular member is really only a temp ban because they're going to register again with a new nick, why effect a permanent ban against a regular? Perm banning a spammer is one thing, but if we all know (and some seem to want) the person will continue posting, then why do a perm ban?

My answer is that a permaban is Official Notice that the MacNN Admins and Mods want you to get off the MacNN lawn. In real life, if I tell you to get off my lawn and you don't, I can call the cops. But MacNN just has to deal with it, and hope that the people who keep doing this eventually get bored and go away.

sek929 · Dec 20, 2007, 03:17 PM

Kevin should really know better than to act like Rob, whom he always said had "problems."

I think RR wouldn't have acted that way if it wasn't for Kevin, and I look forward to his return.

I'd also like to take this chance to publicly show my disappointment in Kevin. As someone who took it upon himself to point out others' foibles it's a shame he couldn't stay away from the behavior he himself would rally against.

paul w · Dec 20, 2007, 03:59 PM

An interesting approach for the Lounge would be locking individual members out of a specific topic once they've reached a certain *percentage of posts limit* or something (which could vary depending on a variety of factors, namely whether they are the OP). Thus no one or two members could overwhelm a topic with a back and forth derail and indeed folks would be forced to weigh their posts if they were limited to doing so.

It may not even be a set percentage but a flexible formula that would depend on the number of current participants, time between posts, views etc.

Just thinking out loud. Point being, rather than worrying about banning members who upset the system, why not rethink the system itself a bit to not be so vulnerable to such imbalances?

Laminar · Dec 20, 2007, 04:03 PM

Often the problem isn't a huge derail, but a steady theme of bad posts throughout many threads. Maybe capping the daily post limit would help.

paul w · Dec 20, 2007, 04:06 PM

true but those are of the type that a simple ignore user will work if they have no bearing on the overall discussion.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2007, 04:11 PM

It will be interesting to see how peaceful MacNN becomes in the absence of Kevin and RR.

sek929 · Dec 20, 2007, 04:29 PM

I've never seen RR as a disturber of the peace.

Also Besson, I think it would do you good to stop gloating about how your enemies are now gone...maybe take this time to reflect on your own actions at the NN.

imitchellg5 · Dec 20, 2007, 04:46 PM

Oh yeah, his useless posts in the railroad thread weren't disturbing the peace at all.

sek929 · Dec 20, 2007, 04:49 PM

If you are looking for useless posts look no further than the poster above my last reply.

besson3c · Dec 20, 2007, 04:54 PM

I'm not gloating about anything. Like I've said several times, I don't care if they're here or not. I've also said earlier in this thread that I'm against banning in general, in case you missed that post.

I should have rephrased my post to say "I wonder what the net effect of them being gone will be" (be it positive or negative).

sek929 · Dec 20, 2007, 05:10 PM

Fair enough.

ReggieX · Dec 20, 2007, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Who is this Rob character? Who does he work for? What does he want?

He's Ca$h.
He works for Dodge.
He wants attention.

Atomic Rooster · Dec 21, 2007, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by sek929

I've never seen RR as a disturber of the peace.

He's a whiny little ********.

I'm surprised he only got a month.

Atomic Rooster · Dec 21, 2007, 02:59 AM

Oh, and Rob is k00L. KilbeyRR is always 90% the instigator 50% of the time.

MacosNerd · Dec 21, 2007, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by sek929

I've never seen RR as a disturber of the peace.

Also Besson, I think it would do you good to stop gloating about how your enemies are now gone...maybe take this time to reflect on your own actions at the NN.

Agreed,
I've not seen RR go out and attack people or instigate anything. I've seen too many threads where he asked, Rob to stop baiting him but not him trying to pick a fight with anyone.

I also see some gloating/smuggness going on with Besson now that Kevin got perma-banned.

The thing about perma-bans though they not.
I'm not talking about ban avoidance. Correct me if I'm wrong but Kevin was banned before wasn't he. Rob was let in countless times on the threat that's his last chance only to be allowed again. then there's been other members who have been perma-banned and are back..

I'm sure if Kevin comes back and works to straighten some things out with DH, he'll be given another chance.

Of course we all would want that too, if we had a melt down and found ourselves on the other side of a perma-ban.

subego · 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

Of course we all would want that too, if we had a melt down and found ourselves on the other side of a perma-ban.

I'm guessing the severity of the ban was chosen to match the behavior he promised, rather than the meltdown itself, which was probably only worth a temp.

If he fails to carry thorough on this promise, I think it would be silly not to consider downgrading it.

subego · Dec 21, 2007, 10:31 AM

Never mind.

Chilluns be forced to poke out their eyes after that one.

Mastrap · Dec 21, 2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

Agreed,
I've not seen RR go out and attack people or instigate anything.

I could find you many, many instances where he did just that. He followed Rob to another board I am a member of with the express goal of harassing and annoying him.

sek929 · Dec 21, 2007, 12:48 PM

I guess that's the side of RR I never knew.

Of course we disagreed on just about everything (cept woodworking) so I didn't really pay much attention to him. I like to avoid conflict so I guess that's why I've never been banned from an internet forum.

Oisín · Dec 21, 2007, 11:19 PM

I like to avoid conflict so I guess that's why I've never been banned from an internet forum.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the Holy Grail of Internet foruming.

Tiresias · Dec 23, 2007, 12:23 PM

I say that mods should be bannable. It's simple. Each user has an option to blackball a mod. They may only blackball a mod once. Once a mod receives a certain number of blackballs (say, 10, from 10 different users) that mod gets banned.

Laminar · Dec 24, 2007, 01:47 AM

Watch someone make 10 accounts and get a mod banned.

Kerrigan · Dec 24, 2007, 02:46 AM

'Twould be Chaos

Oisín · Dec 24, 2007, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Laminar

Watch someone make 10 accounts and get a mod banned.

Watch every single mod banned in about 24 hours.

voodoo · Dec 26, 2007, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I could find you many, many instances where he did just that. He followed Rob to another board I am a member of with the express goal of harassing and annoying him.

I second that, kilbey/railroader frequently went out of his way to antagonize and cause trouble. I'm certain there will be no change of that behavior when he returns :/

V