ip bannings and the measures of Options

[*incoherent*]

so, if someone is ip banned, obviously they did something wrong and arent wanted around here for a while. so, if thats the case, why can they just get on another computer and keep posting? if you wanted them gone, then they shouldnt be here. so, what im trying to say is, shouldnt their account be suspended as well to ensure they dont come back until their time is up? there have been members that have been ip banned coming back because they can just get on another computer with a different ip and continue with their posting.

[pshaa.shauna]

...You mean they don't do that already? *totally clueless*

In that case, I say we should, because that is just common sense really...

[racoons > you]

proxy + new usernames whenever = easily bypassed

[*incoherent*]

...You mean they don't do that already?  *totally clueless*

In that case, I say we should, because that is just common sense really...

i mean all the people from dynasty that were banned are now coming back, even though they are still ip banned.

and james, i know what you are talking about...but usually you can tell if its someone. if they wanted to go through the much trouble, theyd come back, do the same thing and still get banned.

[racoons > you]

but even if you can tell it is someone... how does that help if they change IPs regularly?

[*incoherent*]

i guess its better than nothing...but i was talking about it with nicki and she some what agreed.

i bet theyll stop going through all the trouble to make new accounts after they get banned a couple of times.

[pshaa.shauna]

i mean all the people from dynasty that were banned are now coming back, even though they are still ip banned.

I know what you meant by it, but I thought than when they ip banned, they also suspended the account. I didn't know they didn't do that already. And why can't you just ip ban them again too? Oh wait...nevermind, that could cause problems with other members, like if I had someone who was ip banned at my house, and then they got me ip banned too. Did that make sense?

[*tweeak*]

Well, I thought his account was suspended too, and yet he's using it

[*incoherent*]

yes. the point is, all the people that were caught spamming the forums from dynasty were ip banned, but if they were on, say a school computer, they could get back on their account and post away.

their account does get suspended, just their ip.

[*tweeak*]

I see no reason why I shouldn't suspend Steven's account for like forever. All he's done is spam and cause trouble since he came back- which he shouldn't have been able to do to begin with

[racoons > you]

can you do sandy too? jus tbecause i've let my internet temper run away with me and she is repulsive?

[*mzkandi*]

^ I dont think she is deserving of an ip ban. Just because you have a problem with her doesnt mean she needs to get banned.

[*not_your_average*]

Which Sandy? takingbacksandy or sandy_lumpy_shore? Just because you don't like her, that doesn't mean you should ban her. I see no reason to, anyhow.

[*mona lisa*]

Sandy won't get an IP ban just because you had an argument with her. You know better, James.

Edit\\
Ahh, well. Looks like I'm a bit late. Sorry.

[OneOfTheseDayz]

Just delete their account and Ip and hope for the best for all we know there could be one "master" trouble maker who changes to be those people who mees up the site. If they are that passionate in causing crap then all the power to them
and remember if that dosnt work just tell them this and spam there pm with this message.

go to hell you sick bastards ands stop breaking this great site.

[*tweeak*]

He wasn't serious. I desperately want to warn her, though

[racoons > you]

deep breathe speople. i dont actually think sandy will be banned,

chillax

[pshaa.shauna]

Chillax, that's a funny word...and you guys didn't realize he was joking? [/late]

[*mzkandi*]

^ Nope, obviously......

[evanbunnell]

"That's the joke, Ted."

I think he was being sarcastic. (EDIT: Jeez, you guys are too quick for me.)

So when you give an IP ban, you are or aren't giving account bans as well? I didn't catch whether or not you were doing that. IP bans are good if the person has a definite IP address, but, for instance, dial-up users who change IP addresses every time they connect won't be effected too much if you don't ban their account as well.

Like racoons>you said though, people can always just make new accounts and get on different computers and continue to spam. I guess it's all just down to which group is more persistant than the other. Hopefully the violators don't ruin it for others who may be connecting from a community computer.

-Evan

[*mipadi*]

You didn't realize that they all were joking about not joking about taking him seriously?

[pshaa.shauna]

What?^

[racoons > you]

is that a joke?

[*mzkandi*]

^ Exactly...why we didnt know you whether you were joking or not. Nice Michael, nice......

[racoons > you]

kiera... i think you think i understand less than i actually do...

you've missed a joke again

[*mzkandi*]

^ I was referring to Michael's comment separetely from my first comment.

[racoons > you]

yes...?

[*mzkandi*]

Are we voting on something?

[*mipadi*]

Are we voting on something?

I don't know, but whatever it is, I'm opposed!

[racoons > you]

no. i think this turned into a complicated tangle involving the word joke.

[pshaa.shauna]

Yeah...I'm lost, really.


BACK TO THE TOPIC>>>

[Rachel]

So this topic is about if we should suspend accounts when IP suspension/bans are in place?

[*incoherent*]

okay, here's what's about.

people who have been ip banned are able to use their accounts on different computers meaning they could just go to a friends house everyday or use a different comp in their house and still be allowed to post. they are ip banned for a reason...so theyre not here, but ip banning doesnt seem to suspend their account. so i proposed their account be suspended to since they dont seem to be wanted for doing something wrong.

[demolished]

okay, here's what's about.

people who have been ip banned are able to use their accounts on different computers meaning they could just go to a friends house everyday or use a different comp in their house and still be allowed to post. they are ip banned for a reason...so theyre not here, but ip banning doesnt seem to suspend their account. so i proposed their account be suspended to since they dont seem to be wanted for doing something wrong.

Yep. I think that's the only way to get rid of them.
We cannot detect everything that well.

[racoons > you]

hmm. heres an idea that came out of the drama

if a banned or suspended member creates a new account to post (eg steven), why SHOULDNT a mod just delete their posts? i mean, obviously not hunt them down, but as and where they are seen.

the posts shouldnt be there anyway. so why leave them there?

[*mzkandi*]

Most mods arent willing to delete post unless in extreme cases, member bashing, excessive cursing, etc. We dont have time to follow a member around and delete every last one of their posts.

[racoons > you]

^
which i didnt suggest you should do, and so isnt relevant as a response

exactly... they wont delete posts unless rules are being broken. which is the case when a member creates a new account to circumvent a suspension

[*mzkandi*]

^ No need to be snappy James, that how I am interepted what you wrote, so calm down.

[*tweeak*]

I don't think that's what he was getting at. More that they an be deleted, since they're not legal anyway. If you happen to see a post that needs to be deleted for any reason, it's really not that hard to delete it

[*mzkandi*]

Then ban/suspend the newly created account as well.......

[racoons > you]

^

which steven has proven is ineffective and a waste of authority

and as i specifically SAID that you would hunt down their posts, i assumed it wouldnt be interpretted as exactly the opposite

[*mzkandi*]

^Oh ummm gee, my bad.....

Well we can only do so much, if a member wants to be persistent in making new accounts, mods will have to persistent in suspending them, I suppose.

[*tweeak*]

Well, I did suspend basick again. But look what that accomplished. He's still posting, causing trouble, and it caused me to do things I wouldn't normally do to avoid his drama (which completely and totally backfired).

Well, so, can we be persistant in suspending them? I'd be more than happy to, but everyone else seemed a bit wishy-washy and I didn't want to do anything that others would object to, yet everytime I tried to bring it up, no one really went for it and instsited second chances were deserved. I know my judgement isn't the most reliable right now, but honestly, it's pretty good. I was right all along on the whole Jorge affair, no? And everything that happens only shows me that I'm right on this one too.

[racoons > you]

but, if suspending is proven to be ineffective against removing them from the board, why shouldnt this measure be introduced as well?

[*mzkandi*]

Well, I did suspend basick again. But look what that accomplished. He's still posting, causing trouble, and it caused me to do things I wouldn't normally do to avoid his drama (which completely and totally backfired).

Well, so, can we be persistant in suspending them? I'd be more than happy to, but everyone else seemed a bit wishy-washy and I didn't want to do anything that others would object to, yet everytime I tried to bring it up, no one really went for it and instsited second chances were deserved. I know my judgement isn't the most reliable right now, but honestly, it's pretty good. I was right all along on the whole Jorge affair, no? And everything that happens only shows me that I'm right on this one too.

Who is everyone, Nicki? The admins? The mods? . If it really bother you that much you could have made a seperate thread (backstage) on the matter so we all could have given you feedback on the matter. If I was in your situation, that would have been the first thing I would have done. I mean how can work as a team and come to an agreement on something when someone wont bring forth the issue for serious dicussion amongst all of us. And I believe if we (all the mods) had known all the of the situation going on with Steven before "that drama" started we would have known how to deal with him and the situation before it esculated. But we had no dicussion on it until the drama exploded and by then the damage had been done.

[*tweeak*]

Actually, that's where my being a procrastinator comes in. I meant to start a topic,, I just never knew how to address it. However, there were multiple mini Steven discussions backstage, and the outcome of all of them was basically that he deserves a second chance and when I disagreed, I was being too judgemental.

[sadolakced acid]

why can't you IP ban his proxy?

[racoons > you]

kiera, i know for a fact (back in my snooping days, but lets move on from that swiftly) that that issue HAS been addressed backstage before. before you were modded... it didnt help.

and justin, please tell them how so they can just get rid of him

[*mzkandi*]

kiera, i know for a fact (back in my snooping days, but lets move on from that swiftly) that that issue HAS been addressed backstage before. before you were modded... it didnt help.

I never said the issue hasnt been addressed. But recently, well before "that drama", the problem with Steven wasnt seriously dicussed...just casually brought up and dismissed.

[racoons > you]

well then, the mods should have resolved it the first time. if it has been discussed since you became a mod as well, then thats twice it has just been left to fade.

sometimes, just acting is more effective than wasting tim ein a discussion which hostory suggests wont lead to a resolution

[sadolakced acid]

i dunno, but isn't a proxy just redirection through another IP?

therefore, he still should have an IP adress, just not his. block that and he's forced to find a new proxy.

and there are only so many free proxies.

[*mzkandi*]

x2 I agree. Which is why I said:

If it really bother you that much you could have made a seperate thread (backstage) on the matter so we all could have given you feedback on the matter.

Casually bringing things up lessens the issues importance unless its brought out to the forefront for serious dicussion. This issue with Steven should have been resolved a long time ago and believe me there is serious dicussion going on about that whole issue currently. I dont think this entire thread should be devoted to Steven and "that drama". Lets just handle the issue at hand, how to go about this ip banning and suspension situation and how to deal with those members that try to get around it. (no, not just Steven, because he isnt the only one who has done it)

[sadolakced acid]

ban thier new account and IP address.

[*mzkandi*]

^ Yup, something I mentioned earlier

Well we can only do so much, if a member wants to be persistent in making new accounts, mods will have to persistent in suspending them, I suppose.

[racoons > you]

*shrugs*

steven is the best example, so i used him. its nothing personal.

i still dont see why mods shouldnt delete the posts of those who are circumventing their suspensions, IF THEY COME ACROSS THEM IN THE COURSE OF OTHER DUTIES.

and yes, new accounts should be suspended/banned as a matter of principle

[*mzkandi*]

So delete spam convos that happen in threads as well? Theyre against the rules too, especially now that we have that topic in forum games.

I do see what you're saying, however, for mods unless a post warrants deletion (under extreme circumstances) they are best keep the way they are. If a member who has been suspended/banned decides he/she wants to make another account to post, instead deleting all the posts he/she makes, just resuspend/ban that persons new account, end of that. They wont be able to make many posts to begin with if they stopped as soon as they are detected. If that person wants to be persistant in keeping up the behavior all mods will have to agree in being persistent keeping these people off the forum.

[racoons > you]

i do agree that posts should only be deleted in very extreme cases... i jus thappen to view a person avoiding their suspension as just such an extreme case.

we're endanger of just going around in circles here...

all those who think that posts known to have been made by a person circumventing suspension should be deleted, when they are seen by a moderator, in addition to the suspension/banning of the account used to make the posts, say aye. all those opposed, say nay

[*incoherent*]

AYE

[*tweeak*]

AYE

[*mzkandi*]

Aye

On second that...nah

[*mipadi*]

Nay--I fully support banning the account, but I am against deleting the posts, because a) I don't like the idea of deleting posts, and b) it leaves no record of the user's infraction.

[*mzkandi*]

^true...true..

I think that may have been what I trying to get at earlier but didnt word it correctly...

Changing aye to nay.

I still support simply resuspending the suspended/banned member upon detection but against deletion of posts.

[racoons > you]

yeah, i forgot to vote.

aye

[*mona lisa*]

Forget the deletion of posts. How about their posts have to be viewd by a moderator first? Or their posting abilities are completely removed?
(For a certain given amount of time, that is.)

[*tweeak*]

Ok, forget deletion, but I don't think that's the best idea either. If you're going to do that, you may as well ban them

[Rachel]

Nay--I fully support banning the account, but I am against deleting the posts, because a) I don't like the idea of deleting posts, and b) it leaves no record of the user's infraction.

Agreed.

I fully agree with banning and what not but deleting posts is like erasing any proof of what caused the ban.

[sadolakced acid]

all in favor of simply banning the account and new IP adress of people previously IP banned, say "aye to justin's proposal" (or "nay to justin's proposal" if you want to say nay)

[*tweeak*]

AYE

[*incoherent*]

aye

[Rachel]

aye to justin's proposal ;]

[*mzkandi*]

I'm assuming this goes for resuspension of ones account as well, if so then

Aye....I like this proposal (Justin's) better =]

[Heathasm]

i like the idea of deleting someones post if they are IP banned and come back one way or another

[OneOfTheseDayz]

AYE

[*mzkandi*]

^ You can't vote if you're not on the committee, sorry.

[racoons > you]

what are we half way through voting for?

we started on justin's before a final decison had been made on the first option...

[*incoherent*]

james, just repropose your initial statement and well revote. im not going back through and seeing how everyone voted.

[sadolakced acid]

let's do this, it seems the easiest:


copy and paste the following list and put AYE or NAY besides each measure.



banning of IP banned user's account

banning of returned IP banned user's new account.

banning of returned IP banned user's new IP adress

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users.

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys.

remember, only committee members can vote. if you do not have mod powers in this forum, you are not a committee member.

[*mipadi*]

banning of IP banned user's account Aye

banning of returned IP banned user's new account. Aye

banning of returned IP banned user's new IP adress Aye

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely Nay

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. Nay

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. Nay

[Heathasm]

banning of IP banned user's account Aye

banning of returned IP banned user's new account. Aye

banning of returned IP banned user's new IP adress Aye

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely nay

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. aye

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. sure, why not

[*mzkandi*]

banning of IP banned user's account aye

banning of returned IP banned user's new account. aye

banning of returned IP banned user's new IP adress aye

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely nay
mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. nay

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. nay

[racoons > you]

banning of IP banned user's account Aye

banning of returned IP banned user's new account. Aye

banning of returned IP banned user's new IP adress Aye[b]

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely [b]Aye

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. Nay

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. lol. well, considering what else i could call 'em, and the repercussions, Aye

***********

if the banning of IP things do come into play, it needs to be followed. No more thousand chances for the stevens of the world. again, im NOT trying to make this personal, nor to get him banned now, after the drama is done, but he is the best example... if anyone else has abetter one, please, let me know, because i feel stupid to keep mentioning things, and it's making a bad impression

[*incoherent*]

banning of IP banned user's account AYE

banning of returned IP banned user's new account. AYE

banning of returned IP banned user's new IP adress AYE

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely AYE

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. NAY

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. AYYYYYYYYYYYE

[*tweeak*]

banning of IP banned user's account AYE

banning of returned IP banned user's new account. AYE

banning of returned IP banned user's new IP adress AYE

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely AYE

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. NAY

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. not officially, but mockingly, sure

[racoons > you]

OK... vote tallies... i think some issues can be removed:

******************

banning of IP banned user's account passed with 6 ayes to 0 nays

banning of returned IP banned user's new account. passed with 6 ayes to 0 nays

banning of returned IP banned user's new IP adress.passed with 6 ayes to 0 nays


allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely still open, with 3 ayes, and 3 nays

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. still open, wth 5 nays to 1 aye

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. still open, with 4 ayes to 2 nays (how amusing)

***************

that means that sammi, katie, stephen, and rachel need only vote on the last three issues

[*disco infiltrator*]

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely Aye

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. Aye, but if they're suspended right away instead of that, there would be no need...(This means new posts, right? They can keep their old ones..)

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. Aye to the max.

[racoons > you]

Aye, but if they're suspended right away instead of that, there would be no need...(This means new posts, right? They can keep their old ones..)

no, it would only apply to posts that had been made after tehy created an account to circumvent their suspension. previous posts would be left in place

and... you cant really vote aye for both of the first two things... they are kinda mutually exclusive... either you maddate mods to delete all the posts they see, or you give them the option to do it, based n their judgement.

it doesnt really bother me the way you voted, but it just seemed kinda silly

[Rachel]

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely: Aye-there was a reason they were banned, their posts should not be left in the forum. Most of them are spam or insults anyways.

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. Nay.

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. Of course Aye!

[racoons > you]

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely - still open, with 5 ayes to 3 nays

mandating mods to delete all posts of returned IP banned users. Rejected, with 6 nays to 2 ayes

calling IP banned users fuzzy monkeys. Passed, with 6 ayes to 2 nays. i love that. we're all so cool.

*****

stephen and katie need only vote on that first one.

and someone update passed bylaws, por favor

[*tweeak*]

Who is Stephen?

[*incoherent*]

james, i have updated the list

since the fuzzy monkey thing passed, did you want it on the list? i added it, but i wasnt sure.

[Rachel]

Who is Stephen?

spirited auora guy maybe?

[*Guest*]

call, not calling ( on the list)

[*disco infiltrator*]

But wait, why don't we just suspend the account off the bat?..

[racoons > you]

spencer, i dont think we really need to include teh fuzzy monkey thing. mind you... it did pass.

and nicki, stephen = spiritual winged aura. who needs to actually remeber he is on the committee, as i havent seen him in forever. someone pm please, asking him to be more active, or step down. roar.

and sammi, obviously the account will be suspended (i assume you're talking aout ones created to get around suspension), but if the posts they make before they are discovered to be someone who shouldn't be here are offensive, or spammy, or whatever (mods judgement here) they should be deleted. which we are still voting on

[*disco infiltrator*]

Ooooooh I see. Thank you.

[KissMe2408]

allowing mods to delete posts of returned IP banned users, to be used sparsely:

my vote is,

AYE

[*mipadi*]

I don't understand the reasoning of deleting posts of IP-banned users who have returned. Locking the thread is enough; generally, I do not like to encourage removal of posts. Leaving a record is often times a good thing.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Not all posts. Only those where they spam bomb the site or something.

Right? *pokes others*

[sadolakced acid]

but aren't those deleted regardless?

[*mipadi*]

We should have guidelines for "sparingly". Sure, if someone spams the site, delete the cruft, but if it's just a normal post, it shouldn't be deleted.