Those people probably think that the people receiving the most and longest temp-bans are the ones most guilty of bad posting. One complaint about 2p2 Politics was that Mat and Mason handcuffed the mods and made it harder to prune bad posters, so some people want this place to allow a greater ability to do so.
Categories can be restricted by trust level. I’m surprised people haven’t made more use of the lounge.
Every vote on perma banning posters has shown a firm majority against, including yours.
I think there are people with incompatible desires for what this place should be. I believe the people who have a different idea for the forum are doing so from a place of good intentions.
And if being repeatedly temp-banned tends to worsen someone’s posting?
Those people seem to favor arguing for permanent bans.
I’m not arguing for this point of view, but it’s important to understand that these people believe they are acting in the best interests of the forum. They think bad posters need to be stopped from making bad posts. The history of high-volume bad posters who never change makes them skeptical about the effort of reforming bad posters being worth it.
I happen to believe in being permissive towards bad posting, but I also believe in allowing people to be unkind towards bad posters and to dogpile on them.
Maybe we should do more to encourage good posting?
Like. You can get out of a ban if you post a high content OP thread starter…
Seems like a way to earn a free shot at someone you don’t like every time you think of a topic to start.
If a post gets ten likes or more, you get to call the poster of your choice a Nazi.
I’ve thought about the idea of a tl;dr subforum where the OP has to be a certain length.
Following the recent vote, I created a pinned post with current moderators and their terms here:
If anyone thinks that thread is inconsistent with the vote or the thread could be improved, let me know in this thread - I’m keeping that one locked.
If it’s the post I’m thinking of, I think I was one of the people who flagged it, and if you all can’t tell by now I’m not part of any conspiracy or cadre here. I thought it was, as you (Chad) described, an obvious attempt to respond to a sincere post with “fuck you” without saying the exact words “fuck you,” and I thought we should discourage that sort of thing.
@anon10387340 asked this question, which I thought was reasonable:
I thought the answer was no, but I wanted to make sure. So I’m going to use my not-really-an-admin powers to do the following:
I think what happens is that I’ll see an automated notice for the second new user, but not the first.
I was assuming a mod noticed a new account and just decided to IP check, and was wondering if that is standard practice.
Just asking questions…
I know it’s hard for you to handle anybody questioning authority in the slightest, but trust me, it’s going to be alright.
Ok, my experiment is over. Unless I did something wrong, I didn’t see an automated alert after either the first new user (spider2, prior to my main account being suspended) or after the second new user (spider3, when my main account was suspended).
When I manually looked up the IP address of new user spider3, I found the following unsurprising result:
The thing is, I’m absolutely convinced that at one point when I first got the backup admin account and was logged into it, there was an orange notification that indicated a new user had registered with a duplicate IP. (That constant notification was the reason why I didn’t want my main account to be an admin.)
So my guess is that a moderator manually looked up the IP address of the new account. I can’t imagine that this would be a common practice. This turned out to be less conclusive than I expected, and I should probably just delete all these posts.
The check wasn’t automatic, I noticed a “welcome so and so to the community!” banner above a post referencing something from last April and checked the IP because there was a 0.000001% chance that it was a lurker who finally decided to register.
There was an IP match so I banned the new account, which as far as I know is the standard procedure in this case.
I think it should be.
Should IP checks be logged?
