Discouraged Users

[JadedHeart]

I love it!!! Is it for real?

Edit: I meant "Discouraged", my "a" sticks sometimes.

 

[anotheralias]

If the individual is that bad that you don't want them around any longer, issue the necessary infraction pts to ban them outright. How is that not better?

What if the individual is a freaking psycho who scares the crap out of people ... am I still obligated to issue an infraction? "-10 points for pretending that you tried to commit suicide because you were on Moderated Posts, -10 points for sending me an email pretending you were your shrink and asking me to let you back on the board as a form of therapy, -10 points for pretending to be your Japanese female neighbor and PMing all the women on the board asking them if they hate being alone at night..." etc.?

And by the way, I don't use it to taunt people - I don't bother with the "stun" setting, it's on full 100%.

 

[BirdOPrey5]

What if the individual is a freaking psycho who scares the crap out of people ... am I still obligated to issue an infraction? "-10 points for pretending that you tried to commit suicide because you were on Moderated Posts, -10 points for sending me an email pretending you were your shrink and asking me to let you back on the board as a form of therapy, -10 points for pretending to be your Japanese female neighbor and PMing all the women on the board asking them if they hate being alone at night..." etc.?

And by the way, I don't use it to taunt people - I don't bother with the "stun" setting, it's on full 100%.

Will use some of those.

 

[Apokalupsis]

What if the individual is a freaking psycho who scares the crap out of people ... am I still obligated to issue an infraction? "-10 points for pretending that you tried to commit suicide because you were on Moderated Posts, -10 points for sending me an email pretending you were your shrink and asking me to let you back on the board as a form of therapy, -10 points for pretending to be your Japanese female neighbor and PMing all the women on the board asking them if they hate being alone at night..." etc.?

And by the way, I don't use it to taunt people - I don't bother with the "stun" setting, it's on full 100%.

No. You ban them.

Our infraction system is a 10 point system. We have about 20 different infractions of varying values. Rack up 10 and you are suspended for 30 days. Some violations are perma bans (threatening other members for example). I ban their account, then ban their IP.

No one said to continue issuing infractions in hopes they change their ways. Use the infraction system as a tool to mold the community.

 

[whitetigergrowl]

No. You ban them.

Our infraction system is a 10 point system. We have about 20 different infractions of varying values. Rack up 10 and you are suspended for 30 days. Some violations are perma bans (threatening other members for example). I ban their account, then ban their IP.

No one said to continue issuing infractions in hopes they change their ways. Use the infraction system as a tool to mold the community.

Sometimes thats easier said than done. Each community is different. I have had people (not bots, but people) that once you ban them, five seconds later are creating another account and trying to flame the forum. Thats great if the IP ban holds, but if they use a proxy banning them is dang near impossible. So you ban, they come back, you ban, they come back. Its a vicious cycle.

This helps discourage them from constantly posting without having to ban them and can in some cases be more effective. Since most aren't aware its you causing them the grief, most are non the wiser. They get frustrated with the problems and leave, without having to be banned or running the risk of them just creating a new account and starting over.

 

[Apokalupsis]

I don't see how they won't realize that it is a "trick" that messes w/ their account. All they have to do is logout. They'll be able to browse normally w/o any sort of discouragement. Once they figure that out, it's a matter of time before they register under a new account. Only this time....you may not be aware of it as an admin.

Eventually, outright banning them will work. It takes only a moment to do so. It takes a minutes to re-register, even longer to use a proxy. Time is on the admin's side, not the troll's.

I'm not suggesting that it not be an included feature, I'm merely saying I don't see the value in it given the fact that banning is far more effective from an administrative pov. The Mis User/Disc. Visitor is just a toy for admins to play with IMO.

 

[anotheralias]

No. You ban them.

I thought I mentioned this already, but he was banned, he just kept coming back. So, the last time he showed up again I put him in MU: problem solved.

Having a board is just a hobby for me, not some kind of a life commitment to serve the masses with a free place to be psychotic. I spend enough time coping with nutjobs in real life - I don't want to spend my online time humoring them as well.

 

[Apokalupsis]

Why didn't banning his IP work? I've had only 1 instance that I can think of over the years where someone wen through the trouble of using a proxy (but they were found out and banned again and never came back).

 

[Dean]

For those of you who need, and can appreciate, the times when this feature is needed - nothing works as well as this feature. I could type until my keyboard wore out, but it really comes down to managing some finer details of human behavior.

Personally I find it most useful on extremely rare occasions, for a short time, for very specific types of people.

 

[anotheralias]

Why didn't banning his IP work? I've had only 1 instance that I can think of over the years where someone wen through the trouble of using a proxy (but they were found out and banned again and never came back).

I really don't remember why, it's been a long time. He kept managing to sneak back in, and I was tired of dealing with him. We are just going to have to agree to disagree here, I think.

 

[Apokalupsis]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree here, I think.

I agree. But I win.

j/k

 

[anotheralias]

I agree. But I win.

j/k

Ah, you can win. All I are about is, someone else has to get the phony emails from the shrink etc.

Cute kid.

 

[Apokalupsis]

Thanks. That's my boy with his pseudo-smile-because-if-he-doesn't-Dad-gives-him-an-uber-wedgie-in-front-of-all-the-customers-at-the-restaurant.

 

[anotheralias]

Thanks. That's my boy with his pseudo-smile....

Awww... his real smile must be spectacular then.

 

[whitetigergrowl]

I don't see how they won't realize that it is a "trick" that messes w/ their account. All they have to do is logout. They'll be able to browse normally w/o any sort of discouragement. Once they figure that out, it's a matter of time before they register under a new account. Only this time....you may not be aware of it as an admin.

Eventually, outright banning them will work. It takes only a moment to do so. It takes a minutes to re-register, even longer to use a proxy. Time is on the admin's side, not the troll's.

I'm not suggesting that it not be an included feature, I'm merely saying I don't see the value in it given the fact that banning is far more effective from an administrative pov. The Mis User/Disc. Visitor is just a toy for admins to play with IMO.

The good thing is, many members have no clue how the forums themselves are run and what they are capable of. This works at an advantage. Many won't think of just logging out or creating another account to fix the problem. I have 20+ bannings on my forum, ALL of them were the same person in a matter of a few days but using a proxy. And every IP they used was banned. All they did was create an account and start flaming and griefing.

As for it being longer to register with a proxy, from my experience, not much. A matter of seconds at most.

The nice thing is if they are using a proxy and get 'discouraged', a good many will blame it on the proxy, browser, or something else.

And as much as I love sitting there banning and IP banning the same person over and over and over in a matter of minutes and even a few days, discouraging them with them being none the wiser is much nicer.

 

[Tanax]

Where was this mentioned? Other than here xD

 

[Nick]

I was actually surprised to see this included as a default feature. I'd think of it as being an add-on, as it's more of a toy for admins to annoy users than it is an effective punitive tool. At least in my opinion, that is.

 

[Shelby]

I was actually surprised to see this included as a default feature. I'd think of it as being an add-on, as it's more of a toy for admins to annoy users than it is an effective punitive tool. At least in my opinion, that is.

The funny thing is, I bet you are right. I'm willing to hypothesize that if you did actual testing and collected metrics, you'd find this tool is only to abuse people with, rather than an effective tool to discourage or prevent unwanted behaviors and in many ways may increase the undesired behaviors.

I guess what rubs me the wrong way about this is perhaps a small unrealistic ideal I have for XenForo. I'd like to think that Xenforo will be a step above. Different in it's approach to development, design, and even the way people manage forums. This feature reeks of the 1990's and frankly has no place in professional community management.

Is XenForo software new software by experianced developers whom are dedicated to finding the best ways to do things. Or is it new software by old developers set in their ways about how things should be? Kind of a strange question when I think about it and XenForo, especially regarding this feature.

 

[Nick]

Different in it's approach to development, design, and even the way people manage forums. This feature reeks of the 1990's and frankly has no place in professional community management.

I agreed with a lot of what you said in your earlier post, but I didn't know how to put into words exactly how I felt. But this quote sums it up. It's an unprofessional feature, and I wouldn't have ever expected that XenForo would include it by default.

 

[Shelley]

There's nothing unprofessional about the feature being included into the core. This would be saying the banned usergroup feature (group) is unprofessional, block IP setting is unprofessional, banned e-mail addresses are unprofessional. It's primarily a feature that a majority of people like and will use for troublesome members as much as other people will use the ban feature. It's a feature none the less and xenforo cannot be held responsible for the mis-use of such feature or any other feature for that matter.

 

[Paul B]

As far as I understand, the similar add-on created for other forum software solutions is extremely popular so all Mike & Kier have done is remove the need for a) someone to code it and b) forum owners to install it.

If you don't like the feature, don't use it.