Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 9, 2014 at 7:17 pm)Waratah Wrote: I still disagree with the investigation of someone who has broken no rules, as I believe it could create a bias. I believe judgement should be totally based on this forum only. A confirmed poe's (from outside the forum) posts will be treated differently compared to others. I do not think it is fair.
Without an investigation, sometimes we don't know if a user is breaking the rules or not. For example, if a spammer comes along and posts a lengthy post that looks copy / pasted, how can we know that they are spamming unless we take part of the post and Google for it on other forums? Sometimes posts that look copy / pasted are actually written specifically for these forums by the member.
So you are saying that you could be banned or warned for acts outside this forum.
I may have missed it in the rules for spamming, could you please point out where it is wrong to have the same 'large chunks' text from other places on the internet.
Quote:Likewise in this case, the suspicion that Jacob was a poe was the reason for Rayaan's initial investigation. The investigation showed that the suspicion was wrong, so nothing happened.
My point is that nothing would have happened if he was found to be a poe outside of this forum anyway, so why investigate in the first place? I understand your reason is because they usually turn out to be trolls. Can you show some proof that this is what happens with poes. It would be interesting to know how long does it take for a poe to turn into a troll.
Quote:
Quote:If I understand what you have written above correctly, I think this is ok(privacy wise). Just to confirm I am understanding correctly.
You will only use publicly accessible information to confirm suspicions about a user's intent.
Yes, that is correct.
I think that if someone is investigated, they should be notified. I think this would create a bit of transparency and more trust. Ever since this has happened I have had a little sickly feeling about my privacy and also whether I have been investigated. If I have been investigated, I would like to be pm'ed with all relevant details. I would be quite shocked if I have ever been, because I have tried to act within the rules.
(January 9, 2014 at 4:33 am)Waratah Wrote: I have never known anyone being banned for trolling, spamming or flaming outside the forums, always from within.
I have. I provided one situation below where we have done this.
As Tiberius just said, sometimes we have searched for information externally as well - by using public information - and then we used that information "internally" (in this forum) only when necessary. Thus we may decide to search for external contents of suspicious members, but we won't "use" them against you in any ay until you start breaking the rules in this forum. That is my understanding of the rule "Your information is used internally only when necessary" as written in the privacy policy. Tiberius will correct me if I am wrong about this.
The policy doesn't say, "Your internal information is used internally only when necessary." It says, "Your information ..." so it could be both internal and external.
So how to you know it is their information when you do not control other websites.
Quote:To prove this, here is one example where outside investigation was used against a member:
(August 1, 2012 at 7:17 pm)cato123 Wrote:
How soon can we dump this creotard? He has plastered this same shit all over the internet, albeit most of it was a year ago. Notice the first two links are the same site with the same exact thread started a year apart. The non-christian sites dutifully pick apart his crap.
Upon seeing those links, the mods poked around in other sites to gather more knowledge about that poster, and later banned him:
Moderator Wrote:
Given that he is exhibiting the same spammish behavior here that he's been observed doing elsewhere, I support FNM's motion to ban.
I did some poking around on other sites (starting with the list of links cato123 posted here).
On all of the sites I checked, the pattern was the same - post the exact same thing (multiple times in some instances) and never participating in discussion. His one reply here to Tiberius was the exception.
I see no reason to treat him any differently from any other spammer, and have banned him as such. I'll take the spanking if this action was premature.
But, again, an action was taken against that member (or we used the information internally) only because it was verified from our investigation that he was a spammer (i.e. he was copy-pasting a lot of stuff across different forums and not participating in discussions), which is against the rules of this forum.
Please point out the rule about the actions in other forums. I am confused.
Quote:As Tiberius told you already, the only way you will get warned or banned is by breaking the rules of this forum, on this forum. We won't ever punish you unless you start breaking the rules in this forum.
This post to me is very confusing. You start off by stating there has been a situation where someone was banned for their activities outside the forum. From what I understand, the poster reposted the same text in another thread(unsure because post was redacted) and that was the reason for his banning.
January 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm (This post was last modified: January 12, 2014 at 4:43 pm by Cyberman.)
(January 11, 2014 at 5:05 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Just a suggestion, would there be any legs to this? So if a mod has a suspicion regarding a thread they are involved in, they hand it off to a mod who ISN'T involved? That way there is no question that an investigation is undertaken out of pique, or to gain an edge in a debate?
Or is that just going too far.
That's why we have quorum criteria for higher level decisions, ie actions that go beyond simple routine forum maintenance. A user cannot be banned solely on the opinion of a single staff member, for instance, and all such situations undergo serious discussion with input from (ideally) all staff before any action is taken. It's also general practice for any member of staff with a vested interest in the situation to stand back from the decision-making process and let other staff not so invested to take appropriate action.
Edited for clarification: By "A user cannot be banned solely on the opinion of a single staff member", I should have said "A regular member". Socks of previously-banned accounts and other notorious serial trolls are shot on sight, as are shitspammers.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(January 11, 2014 at 8:42 am)Waratah Wrote: So how to you know it is their information when you do not control other websites.
Whether we know or not (and how sure we are about that) depends on things like the username matches, profile information matches, and the similarity of the contents that they posted in other forums/websites, amongst other things that we may across. We don't need to be able to control those other websites in order to be able to make those connections.
(January 11, 2014 at 8:42 am)Waratah Wrote: Please point out the rule about the actions in other forums. I am confused.
There is no rule about actions in other forums, but there is a rule about copy-pasting chunks of information from other websites as I quoted below:
Rules Wrote:Pasting From Other Web Sites
This is a common forum problem and can be quite annoying for other members. By all means copy and paste the odd piece of text or small paragraph if it adds weight to your post, but for anything larger, please provide a link to the material instead by using the url tag:
(January 11, 2014 at 8:42 am)Waratah Wrote: This post to me is very confusing. You start off by stating there has been a situation where someone was banned for their activities outside the forum.
I didn't say he was banned because of his activities outside the forum only; we've never done such a thing. To clarify my point once again, he was banned because of his activities *here* AND in the other forums, for copy and pasting large chunks of text, which is against the rules of this forum. If he did that in other forums but not in this forum, then we wouldn't have had a reason to punish him since he didn't break any rules here.
(January 11, 2014 at 8:42 am)Waratah Wrote: From what I understand, the poster reposted the same text in another thread(unsure because post was redacted) and that was the reason for his banning.
Yes, he reposted the same text in another thread, which is known as copy-pasting. But he was banned for doing that many more times, not just for that one time alone. We didn't ban him based on that single violation as you (wrongly) understood. He copy-pasted things from different forums multiple times, which makes him a spammer, and that is the reason we banned him.
See this post in the Staff Log, which reports the actual reason for his banning.
(January 11, 2014 at 8:42 am)Waratah Wrote: So how to you know it is their information when you do not control other websites.
Whether we know or not (and how sure we are about that) depends on things like the username matches, profile information matches, and the similarity of the contents that they posted in other forums/websites, amongst other things that we may across. We need to be able to control those other websites in order to be able to make those connections.
So you would agree thatthe "your information ..." external part is based on an assumption?
Quote:
(January 11, 2014 at 8:42 am)Waratah Wrote: Please point out the rule about the actions in other forums. I am confused.
There is no rule about actions in other forums, but there is a rule about copy-pasting chunks of information from other websites as I quoted below:
Rules Wrote:Pasting From Other Web Sites
This is a common forum problem and can be quite annoying for other members. By all means copy and paste the odd piece of text or small paragraph if it adds weight to your post, but for anything larger, please provide a link to the material instead by using the url tag:
That 'rule' is a guideline and has nothing to do with 'spamming', which is what was being discussed.
Quote:
(January 11, 2014 at 8:42 am)Waratah Wrote: This post to me is very confusing. You start off by stating there has been a situation where someone was banned for their activities outside the forum.
I didn't say he was banned because of his activities outside the forum only; we've never done such a thing. To clarify my point once again, he was banned because of his activities *here* AND in the other forums, for copy and pasting large chunks of text, which is against the rules of this forum. If he did that in other forums but not in this forum, then we wouldn't have had a reason to punish him since he didn't break any rules here.
Where did I use the word only. I posted this:
"I have never known anyone being banned for trolling, spamming or flaming outside the forums, always from within."
My communication here may be missing something ,but the above to me is talking about being banned from activities outside the forum.
and your reply first off is:
"I have. I provided one situation below where we have done this."
Here to me you are saying you have seen where someone was banned for outside activities, hence my confusion.
Quote:
(January 11, 2014 at 8:42 am)Waratah Wrote: From what I understand, the poster reposted the same text in another thread(unsure because post was redacted) and that was the reason for his banning.
Yes, he reposted the same text in another thread, which is known as copy-pasting. But he was banned for doing that many more times, not just for that one time alone. We didn't ban him based on that single violation as you (wrongly) understood. He copy-pasted things from different forums multiple times, which makes him a spammer, and that is the reason we banned him.
As far as I am aware the person posted three times. First one was the one with the large amount of text. Second one was a reply to Tiberius and the third post was the redacted one for this reason "You posted this test verbatim yesterday. Stop spamming. In addition, this post (as well as the other) contained a commercial link in violation of the rules.You posted this test verbatim yesterday. Stop spamming. In addition, this post (as well as the other) contained a commercial link in violation of the rules."
Where was the multiple posts of large text that I have missed?
Quote:See this post in the Staff Log, which reports the actual reason for his banning.
He was banned 38 minutes after his 3rd and last post as far as I know.
So do I understand this correctly is that according to you he was banned for breaking a guideline and posting 3 times?
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: So you would agree thatthe "your information ..." external part is based on an assumption?
Not asumptions, but based on our investigations. We can never take action against members based merely on assumptions.
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: That 'rule' is a guideline and has nothing to do with 'spamming', which is what was being discussed.
Yes, that's a guideline, but it is also related to the no spamming rule (rule # 2) because when a member goes around copy-and-pasting things on this board at an excessive rate, then he is clearly not making an attempt at discussion, which then falls under spamming. Read what the "No Spamming" rule says (emphasis mine):
No Spamming
"This not only refers to blatant attempts to advertise but to any post that is not an attempt at discussion."
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: Where did I use the word only. I posted this:
"I have never known anyone being banned for trolling, spamming or flaming outside the forums, always from within."
My communication here may be missing something ,but the above to me is talking about being banned from activities outside the forum.
and your reply first off is:
"I have. I provided one situation below where we have done this."
Here to me you are saying you have seen where someone was banned for outside activities, hence my confusion.
Well, now I understand the reason for your confusion. But again, the point is that no one gets banned from here simply based on their off-site activities.
The guy was banned based on his outside activities and inside activities, not just because of what he did outside the forum.
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: As far as I am aware the person posted three times. First one was the one with the large amount of text. Second one was a reply to Tiberius and the third post was the redacted one for this reason "You posted this test verbatim yesterday. Stop spamming. In addition, this post (as well as the other) contained a commercial link in violation of the rules.You posted this test verbatim yesterday. Stop spamming. In addition, this post (as well as the other) contained a commercial link in violation of the rules."
Where was the multiple posts of large text that I have missed?
He made only 3 posts apparently, which I overlooked before when I said that he copy and pasted "multiple" times. Two of them were copy-pasted, and the third post was a reply with some copy-paste in it as well.
However, the thing is that whether or not 3 posts makes a sufficient number of posts to take an action, he still qualified as a spammer according to staff consensus because he plastered the same thing in several other forums without showing an interesting in discussion. In other words, the majority of staff members at that time agreed that he is more of a spammer as opposed to someone who came here for having discussions. And that was the reason for his banning. (I hope I've made it clearer now).
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: He was banned 38 minutes after his 3rd and last post as far as I know.
That seems correct.
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: So do I understand this correctly is that according to you he was banned for breaking a guideline and posting 3 times?
No, not exactly.
He was banned for breaking a rule (Rule # 2: No spamming), but not for posting 3 times.
January 14, 2014 at 6:24 am (This post was last modified: January 14, 2014 at 6:24 am by LastPoet.)
I once banned a guy for spamming nostradamus stuff while viciously attacking atheists, for spamming. Turned out afterwards that it was Dennis. It is of a great joy to be a moderator of an atheist forum that had the honor of banning the infamous 'David Mabus'. This was the one I took pleasure of.
Contrary to popular belief, mods don't usually take pleasure in banning and the decision to ban is not taken lightly.
We had the dubious honour of Dennis Markuze over at the old JesusNeverExisted forum. It's sort of a seal of approval to invoke the Mabus, a sign that your forum/blog is worth spamming. I only wish I'd been around for the nuking here.
I agree with m'colleague LP that the decision to ban isn't, or shouldn't, to be taken lightly. As I see it, it's the closest equivalent we have to a death sentence; we have to be damn sure of our evidence before we get to pull the trigger.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: So you would agree thatthe "your information ..." external part is based on an assumption?
Not asumptions, but based on our investigations. We can never take action against members based merely on assumptions.
Your investigations results in assumptions due to the fact you do not control other websites. The information you use is accessible publicly, therefore however unlikely it is, it is possible that someone else created some of those users. Your reply is confusing because your second sentence suggests that there is assumptions used to take action. Since internally I would assume there are no assumptions, that would mean externally there are assumptions. I will ask again, Do you agree that the "your information ..." external part is based on an assumption that it is their external information? The bolded bit is new to the question to make clear the assumption I am talking about.
Quote:
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: That 'rule' is a guideline and has nothing to do with 'spamming', which is what was being discussed.
Yes, that's a guideline, but it is also related to the no spamming rule (rule # 2) because when a member goes around copy-and-pasting things on this board at an excessive rate, then he is clearly not making an attempt at discussion, which then falls under spamming. Read what the "No Spamming" rule says (emphasis mine):
No Spamming
"This not only refers to blatant attempts to advertise but to any post that is not an attempt at discussion."
I call bullshit.
1st Post: Opening post to a thread. No one can add to a discussion from a first post.
2nd Post: Reply to Tiberius. Added to discussion. I know he did copy/paste in part with this post, but it was relevant and included a link to the copy/paste.
3rd post: Another opening post to a thread.
Quote:
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: Where did I use the word only. I posted this:
"I have never known anyone being banned for trolling, spamming or flaming outside the forums, always from within."
My communication here may be missing something ,but the above to me is talking about being banned from activities outside the forum.
and your reply first off is:
"I have. I provided one situation below where we have done this."
Here to me you are saying you have seen where someone was banned for outside activities, hence my confusion.
Well, now I understand the reason for your confusion. But again, the point is that no one gets banned from here simply based on their off-site activities.
The guy was banned based on his outside activities and inside activities, not just because of what he did outside the forum.
Let me state quite clearly that I have never suggested that anyone gets banned based only on outside activities.
Quote:
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: As far as I am aware the person posted three times. First one was the one with the large amount of text. Second one was a reply to Tiberius and the third post was the redacted one for this reason "You posted this test verbatim yesterday. Stop spamming. In addition, this post (as well as the other) contained a commercial link in violation of the rules.You posted this test verbatim yesterday. Stop spamming. In addition, this post (as well as the other) contained a commercial link in violation of the rules."
Where was the multiple posts of large text that I have missed?
He made only 3 posts apparently, which I overlooked before when I said that he copy and pasted "multiple" times. Two of them were copy-pasted, and the third post was a reply with some copy-paste in it as well.
However, the thing is that whether or not 3 posts makes a sufficient number of posts to take an action, he still qualified as a spammer according to staff consensus because he plastered the same thing in several other forums without showing an interesting in discussion. In other words, the majority of staff members at that time agreed that he is more of a spammer as opposed to someone who came here for having discussions. And that was the reason for his banning. (I hope I've made it clearer now).
Could you please show where in the spamming rules it talks about copy/pasting in other forums?
User did add to discussion with his second post.
The activity on other forums is based on an assumption that it is their posts.
Quote:
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: He was banned 38 minutes after his 3rd and last post as far as I know.
That seems correct.
(January 14, 2014 at 1:44 am)Waratah Wrote: So do I understand this correctly is that according to you he was banned for breaking a guideline and posting 3 times?
No, not exactly.
He was banned for breaking a rule (Rule # 2: No spamming), but not for posting 3 times.
This scenario actually highlights my issue with the use of outside activities influencing decisions.
Would you agree that the user would not have been banned based on internal activities only?
Would you agree that a users outside activities can not break rules of this forum, especially since we cannot say for sure if it is the users outside activities, it can only be assumed?
January 14, 2014 at 7:28 pm (This post was last modified: January 14, 2014 at 7:30 pm by Jackalope.)
(January 14, 2014 at 7:11 pm)Waratah Wrote: I call bullshit.
1st Post: Opening post to a thread. No one can add to a discussion from a first post.
2nd Post: Reply to Tiberius. Added to discussion. I know he did copy/paste in part with this post, but it was relevant and included a link to the copy/paste.
3rd post: Another opening post to a thread.
Let me clear up your confusion, as I am the mod who moderated two of his posts and who banned him.
His first post was pushing a book, and contained a link to where the book could be purchased. This *can be enough to justify a ban*.
His third post was a duplicate of the first, clearly a second violation of our spam/advertising policy, and *this alone* is enough to get someone instabanned (two identical violations of the same rule in 3 posts).
The outside posts only confirmed what we already knew, and in any case a ban was justified with or without it.
