Seems a bit much. Riverman would be IP banned under this policy.
1 Like
I whole heartedly agree. Regular band goes 100 percent without saying.
Self bans shouldnât exist if they are just circumvented. Otherwise we are just jaqing off and wasting everyoneâs time.
This is one of those issues where we need more adult behavior and less child behavior. Itâs absurd this community tolerates this nonsense. Again this is not a 20;something degenerate poker forum.
1 Like
Self-bans should be able to post on a gimmick. Infraction bans should be able to create a reading account, but if they post that account is deleted and the ban increased.
Although if self-bans posting on gimmicks becomes a problem I can see forcing them to create reading accounts too. Like everything else around here none of this would be remotely controversial or even worth debating if we didnât already have so much rancor.
2 Likes
Have you seen how many banned people we have posting here? Itâs ridiculous.
Mods should be able to Instaban alt accounts of banned people and it should bump any punishment to the next level. So if we have stages to a permaban, any circumvention should put them one step closer. If itâs a self ban it should be converted into a first step regular ban (or whatever level plus one based on their history).
If people do not want that risk they can just not post instead of going through the shenanigans of a self ban.
I get self control is a big problem for some who utilize the self ban. Allowing easy circumvention only hurts them. Clear and permanent punishment should help deter those individuals from trying to circumvent something intended for their own good. If someone canât stop posting on their own it seems silly to accept their judgment when it is okay. Let the self ban wear off.
I would add perhaps no self bans over a certain length of time, say 3 months. Permanent self bans should not exist.
Then why have self bans at all?
The only legitimate reason I have ever seen are people who are having it effect their mental well being. Letting them evade their own chosen time frame isnât helping them with that.
Otherwise self bans should not even be a thing. People can ban themselves at just not log in.
They can just create a new password with a randomizer and not look it up.
If the reason for a self ban is to assist someone who is struggling, letting them circumvent the ban doesnât help them.
As I mentioned previously self bans should have a limited maximum duration.
1 Like
If we insist on maintaining this self ban farce I think itâs reasonable that self banned gimmicks only be allowed to post in about unstuck and be informed of such at the time of the self ban.
Anything else would be considered a regular circumvention.
I have not.
As a mod,
- Who am I to judge that their mental issues are or are not resolved when theyâre posting on an alt account? No one wants that burden.
- If someone who does feel better and does want to come back a little early, theyâd have to create an alt account to PM me or another mod to get unbanned. Itâs not like itâs terribly hard to unban them when they ask, but Iâm not inclined to begrudge someone who doesnât want to pester me to do so either. They can use the alt, and then switch back at their convenience.
2 Likes
We should aim to have an odd number of mods and let them vote on it.
I think that temp-banned posters should be silenced rather suspended so that they can still log in, read the forum, and respond to PMs. Creating a gimmick to get around the ban should lead to the gimmick being banned. If they use the gimmick to engage in ban-worthy behavior, then the temp-ban should be lengthened accordingly.
Permanently banned posters should not be allowed to come back under a gimmick and resume the behavior that got them banned. It should be tolerated if they come back under a new name after a decent period of time has elapsed, keep their head down, and donât cause anymore trouble. Posters should only be permanently banned via community vote.
I donât care about self-banned posters. I generally concur with goofyballerâs âah well, we triedâ attitude.
Maybe obvious gimmick accounts should have their trust level locked at zero and all binding community votes should be restricted to trust level 1 or higher.
1 Like
Uh oh. In the Civil War of 2021 this doesnât seem a good idea.
Going to extend this until the votes for new mods is done.
Meanwhile, since no one has proposed any new language, Iâll go ahead and amend it to the following based on feedback from the thread so far:
Proposed rule: If a poster is banned via moderator action, either temporarily or permanently, any account made by that poster in order to circumvent the ban will be immediately be removed.
Posters who have requested a self-ban can use a second account to read posts and PMs, but if they post publicly on the second account, that account will be silenced until their main accountâs self-ban expires.
(Silencing an account will allow it to read, heart, and PM, but not post)
Literally everywhere in About Unstuck is where we need more adult behavior and less child behavior.
4 Likes
amen brother
1 Like
Hardly anyone has ever been permaed. How do you square that with alleging that this is a ban obsessed forum?
I most definitely did not go apeshit wanting more bans and have always been against bans except in the most extreme circumstances.
I personally want everyone who can act remotely civilized to be here.
The fact you are reducing everything I have been saying to that is disappointing because it isnât based in reality.
1 Like
I sent you a PM earlier today. Guess you missed it,
2 Likes
imagine being so ban-obsessed you all prove me right over and over and over
1 Like
You must be illiterate(as you like to always call your enemies) as chesspainâs post was referring to a âlongerâ ban which implies that it isnât permanent. But keep on keeping on.
Obviously circumventing temp bans to continue petty squabbles should have consequences. What the fuck happened to you man?