Moderation Enforced

I personally find this to be stupid and a bit overkill. I also think you're being a tad overzealous on trying to keep him absolutely off the website. If he posts and you know it's him, then ban him. I'd rather have to re ban someone every so often than have to check and "okay" every damn post that goes into those threads in order to prevent said person from making those few posts that do very little, if any, harm. You're blowing this out of proportion.

But I digress. Unless the mods have any objections, there's not much us normal users can say/do about it. And since you've made the announcement, I'm making the assumption that you've already brought this up with them, and they agreed.

He isn't posting anymore, really.

ddsushi said (Aug 11, 10:24pm)

lmao
A rule just to keep me away.
Tell him he doesnt need to bother though, im not coming back.
Only reason i even continued to post is because all the other ms forums are stupid as hell.

I just find it hard to believe that every person you ban has the patience to change devices, IP addresses and login info every time he gets banned just to post in a forum where he's obviously not welcomed.

#1) You can't determine the MAC address of a device connecting to you without actually running code on the machine doing the connecting. You can google the topic if you're interested, it's a very clear 'no'.
#2) IP Addresses are not social security numbers. They are not static. They do not identify people. They can change in a blink and on many ISPs and via many devices the IP can be one of thousands with no rhyme or reason or pattern. Cell phones in particular. Then you have to factor in proxies, which can let you appear to be anywhere in the world.
#3) Some banned people actually get the concept. The psychotic and idiotic do not. We have a long and nasty history of users who spend months on end just trying to prove that for every way we can remove them they can find three more to come back. Some to the extent of having created entire sleeper accounts just waiting to cycle them in. It's beyond ridiculous.

I personally find this to be stupid and a bit overkill. I also think you're being a tad overzealous on trying to keep him absolutely off the website.

Banned people have complete access to the site, just as unregistered people do. The only purpose in him recreating over and over is so he can post, and largely to post things that flaunt the reason he was banned in the first place and get himself some attention. His claims of wanting to be here for any reason beyond attention are proven complete BS by the manner in which he uses the posting privileges he keeps violating his ban to obtain. If all he wanted was to read us, he can do that just fine without an account, or even on any of the banned accounts.

He isn't posting anymore, really.

Because clearly he's an honest, trustworthy person who can be taken at the value of his word.

Because clearly he's an honest, trustworthy person who can be taken at the value of his word.

Well unlike you, I actually know the kid. So yes. Yes he is an honest, trustworthy person who I can take at the value of his word. Thank you for asking.

#1) You can't determine the MAC address of a device connecting to you without actually running code on the machine doing the connecting. You can google the topic if you're interested, it's a very clear 'no'.
#2) IP Addresses are not social security numbers. They are not static. They do not identify people. They can change in a blink and on many ISPs and via many devices the IP can be one of thousands with no rhyme or reason or pattern. Cell phones in particular. Then you have to factor in proxies, which can let you appear to be anywhere in the world.
#3) Some banned people actually get the concept. The psychotic and idiotic do not. We have a long and nasty history of users who spend months on end just trying to prove that for every way we can remove them they can find three more to come back. Some to the extent of having created entire sleeper accounts just waiting to cycle them in. It's beyond ridiculous.

Thank you for a legitimate response. If it's as bad as you say, maybe it really is easier filter through the posts individually. I just think it's unfortunate that such a large proportion of legitimate posts/posters need to be continually inconvenienced because of one or two persistent bad apples.

Well unlike you, I actually know the kid. So yes. Yes he is an honest, trustworthy person who I can take at the value of his word. Thank you for asking.

Unless you've become a mind reader in your spare time I doubt you know anything more than what he's shown you, which is the exact same situation we're in.

He may have shown you a decent side, but all he's shown us is immaturity, ego, and abuse. Since your viewpoint relies on the absence of everything we've actually seen demonstrated I'd say our perspective outweighs yours.

Unless you've become a mind reader in your spare time I doubt you know anything more than what he's shown you, which is the exact same situation we're in.

He may have shown you a decent side, but all he's shown us is immaturity, ego, and abuse. Since your viewpoint relies on the absence of everything we've actually seen demonstrated I'd say our perspective outweighs yours.

Very cute.

I've known him longer than you have and I'm sure my perspective of him outweighs yours. I actually talk to the guy daily and he doesn't dislike me because I'm not a complete pimento to him. Who are you even speaking about when you say "Our" perspective anyway? Are you speaking in behalf of Southperry's opinion of the guy or just the mod team of a few individuals? Because either way I think it's humourous.

Because either way I think it's humourous.

Being humorous doesn't make him trustworthy. Or a good person. or a decent person.
How pleasant you found him is irrelevant. He broke rules. He was removed. He continued to break rules trying to bypass his own removal. Your personal feelings have no bearing here.

There are no personal feelings in moderation.
I believe we've covered that.

Being humorous doesn't make him trustworthy. Or a good person. or a decent person.
How pleasant you found him is irrelevant. He broke rules. He was removed. He continued to break rules trying to bypass his own removal. Your personal feelings have no bearing here.

There are no personal feelings in moderation.
I believe we've covered that.

Then why is this rule in place?
If there are no personal feelings involved in this sudden move in moderation then what exactly is the core reason? What caused this? Who caused this? What broke the rules so severely that this extremist rule had to be put in place? Or is this completely not biased towards a single individual?

The main thing i dislike about this is that it discourages discussion in the threads and leaves it to solely for bragging which isn't why most people go to the threads. (Well at least not what i go to them for.) But oh well, what can you do lol.

Being humorous doesn't make him trustworthy. Or a good person. or a decent person.
How pleasant you found him is irrelevant. He broke rules. He was removed. He continued to break rules trying to bypass his own removal. Your personal feelings have no bearing here.

There are no personal feelings in moderation.
I believe we've covered that.

We kind of shifted to discussing his personality for its own merit at one point:

Because clearly he's an honest, trustworthy person who can be taken at the value of his word.

The argument at work here is that the rule, given that it was erected against an individual, is no longer necessary or even appropriate if said person is no longer going to commit the crime. The counterargument obviously would be that it is necessary on grounds that the person cannot be trusted for his words.

Locked is appealing to his anecdotal experience with the individual which, in all fairness, should not be taken for its justificatory merit. If we, however, grant him the benefit of the doubt, we can agree that the rule is now obsolete.

On the other hand, there is every reason to question the personality of the offender given what we have been shown, yes. The decision, therefore, is whether or not Locked's testimony for this person, supported by their daily communication, can be given confidence. In my opinion, the weight should be given to his side lest we be arguing from ignorance.

Then why is this rule in place?
If there are no personal feelings involved in this sudden move in moderation then what exactly is the core reason? What caused this? Who caused this? What broke the rules so severely that this extremist rule had to be put in place? Or is this completely not biased towards a single individual?

What part of 'Ban evasion' are you not grasping here?

If flaunting threads are encouraging people to continuously recreate so they can come show off their impressiveness there are two choices;

1) Remove the threads
2) Moderate the threads so that everyone else can still have them but there's no longer a lure for them.

As I've already pointed out. Southperry has a history of users who feel compelled to recreate when banned. If this is one more deterrent to add to the pile of already existing ways we try to reduce that from occurring and the rest of the moderation team agree it's the more practical approach than whack-a-mole it doesn't take a genius to see why it was enacted.

If the burden of moderating those threads becomes excessive we'll reconsider whether we go with option #1 instead, or whether we give it another chance unmoderated.

The argument at work here is that the rule, given that it was erected against an individual, is no longer necessary or even appropriate if said person is no longer going to commit the crime.

We do not create rules against individuals. We create rules against behavior, and no new rule was added here. All we did is surrender to manual policing of threads determined to be bait to a specific type of behavior in an effort to prevent and reduce future occurrences.

The main thing i dislike about this is that it discourages discussion in the threads and leaves it to solely for bragging which isn't why most people go to the threads. (Well at least not what i go to them for.) But oh well, what can you do lol.

I'd like to bring more attention to this point, because that's exactly what this implementation will do. There's a decent sprinkling throughout of braggers who contribute nothing to the topic itself, sure, but there are several users who have great discussions. My assessment of this is that it's really going to discourage those discussions from happening since it'll simply create a barrier to entry. I may not post frequently, but if I knew a post I made was going to require moderator approval, I'd probably just keep to reading--mostly 'cause I think keeping the conversation going and maintaining continuity would be more difficult.

I have no idea what's going on.

I think it's a little over the top, but whatever. I don't like the idea of this inconvenience to censor the "bad guys," but rules are rules. If the moderation warrants this necessary, then fine. I'll live with it. I'm not the boss around here.

As Sushi said, all the other ms forums are a joke. This site is doing something different, and the only major differences I can think of are the moderation and community.

I honestly think this is silly.

We do not create rules against individuals. We create rules against behavior, and no new rule was added here. All we did is surrender to manual policing of threads determined to be bait to a specific type of behavior in an effort to prevent and reduce future occurrences.

> "You shall not masturbate in shower."
> "I will watch you shower to prevent and reduce your chances of violating the already-existing rule."

I'm uncomfortable when you said that no new "rules" were made here.

> "You shall not masturbate in shower."
> "I will watch you shower to prevent and reduce your chances of violating the already-existing rule."

I'm uncomfortable when you said that no new "rules" were made here.

This analogy is idiotic at best and warrants an obscenity warning for it's choice of material.

We're talking about posting. To the public.
Not invading your privacy.

This isn't ripping open your private mail, reading it and deciding whether or not to reseal it and send it on to one person it was meant for.

This is no different from an editor reading an article intended to mass publication to be certain it doesn't contain anything inappropriate before it goes to press.

I have no idea what's going on.

b4h slipped and admitted to using hacks, he got himself banned.
he kept making accounts to evade the ban, which...
...always got him banned after he posted an SS of his DB on the achievement/Dojo thread.
now eos is fed up because in his opinion he's showing off the reason he got banned and ban-evading just to show off.
now any post in show off threads will be moderated before it can be posted, whoopee.

i think that's an accurate summary.

and as i've said before, i'm with locked, this is IMO, too much, yea, he used a hacking device, but geez. not even basil kicks you off so hard. (that said, i understand, he hacked, he's out, it just annoys me because he actually posts useful stuff before getting banned yet again)

This analogy is idiotic at best and warrants an obscenity warning for it's choice of material.

We're talking about posting. To the public.
Not invading your privacy.

This isn't ripping open your private mail, reading it and deciding whether or not to reseal it and send it on to one person it was meant for.

This is no different from an editor reading an article intended to mass publication to be certain it doesn't contain anything inappropriate before it goes to press.

The common point is that it makes the other users uncomfortable, they get judged before they get to say something.

The main thing i dislike about this is that it discourages discussion in the threads and leaves it to solely for bragging which isn't why most people go to the threads. (Well at least not what i go to them for.) But oh well, what can you do lol.

I'd like to bring more attention to this point, because that's exactly what this implementation will do. There's a decent sprinkling throughout of braggers who contribute nothing to the topic itself, sure, but there are several users who have great discussions. My assessment of this is that it's really going to discourage those discussions from happening since it'll simply create a barrier to entry. I may not post frequently, but if I knew a post I made was going to require moderator approval, I'd probably just keep to reading--mostly 'cause I think keeping the conversation going and maintaining continuity would be more difficult.

Is it worth it? I would agree it is. It's not the same as not creating any new rules, though.

It's honestly no different from the fact we could delete anything you say at any time.

It's just a guarantee that a moderator will read it and happen to be first. Any other perceptual baggage is just personal insecurities and we can't fix those.