Topic: [Interest Check] - Analyzing modlog for permabans (Read 1946 times)

I don't know about hilarious, but I was banned twice (maybe in 2014). The 'Banned' rank and this suggestion would only display permanent bans, thus I am not the right example here. Although rare, I'm sure that there are more.

They will probably answer a politely asked question regarding that.

I heard that even Lauda and hilarious had once been banned, though I don't know if it's true or not. I don't think either that they will tell if they really were


What makes you think that it was not me checking that option?

Typically, people adding polls choose as the first option what they prefer themselves. Other than that, I'm really perplexed by the fact that you haven't yet understood that I in fact support using the modlog as a viable alternative to the Banned rank, and precisely on the account why I'm against the introduction of that rank, i.e. because folks won't be intimidated by seeing users stigmatized as Banned. I'm against spam as everyone else, though I still disapprove of what the headhunters are doing, apart from going after the users who are copy-pasting, of course (the latter have no excuse and should burn in Hell)

Youd be surprised how many members had been banned before, but got the message and are now contributing to this forum.

But where's retaliation here?

If something turned out in your favor over time, wouldn't you be "personally satisfied" too? I'm happy because even if this idea (that of the Banned rank) was meant to help the community, it would only cause real damage in exchange for dubious benefits (the reasons why I'm thinking so I explained before). To tell the truth, I think that the whole shebang with the Banned rank was only a cover for something else, which I also noted earlier, and the events that followed proved my point. I'm not going to discuss this here since it is basically none of my business (at least, I hope that it will never be), and I deplore you from discussing it either if you understand what I refer to. If you don't, then let's leave it at that


I guess you should finally make up your mind whether the introduction of the Banned rank would be justified or not on account of that (since this is the cheval de bataille of the supporters of this idea)


So, in your opinion, I'm prohibited from pointing out the advantages of using the modlog to those who do as well as checking the interest toward a tool or service that will make this log more useful and handy to them. Did I get your point right?

After 2 days feverishly protesting, 100% of poll respondents disagree with OP.
Same as on the original thread.

Yes, it would greatly help both mods and headhunters   - 1 (100%)
No, it will only make these activists and mods lazy   - 0 (0%)
The access to modlog should be denied to everyone   - 0 (0%)

My bad, i guess QS ain't too bothered after all.

You said,you're "personally satisfied" that the banned rank didn't get introduced.Why would you be happy over something which was meant to help the community?


No they aren't.It wouldn't matter as much.From what I have seen,the number of headhunters and mods who actively take care of copy-paste posters are comparatively low and this isn't a topic one should be bragging about.

Exactly.And hence my point.

Retaliation for what, I'm sorry?

After all, the Banned rank didn't get introduced, so what exactly should I retaliate for, and to whom? I've learned about the existence of the modlog, which allows to catch permabans in close to real time (with some reservations), and if there is actually a need to see who has been permabanned recently, this log, in the absence of the Banned rank, could help the headhunters. Provided the problem really exists in the first place, of course (which I now seriously doubt)


So all those claims about the need of introducing the Banned rank for the purpose of making the lives of headhunters and mods alike are fake and far-fetched, right?


I don't search for copy-pasters specifically, but if I see them, I report them. So what's your point?

Started a new topic ? Retaliation much ?

I doubt there are as many active members who find copy pasters on regular basis.Only hilariousandco does most of the hard work.I still do not understand what's the point ?

How many copy paste posters have you reported last week ? Apart from making controversial threads,I don't see you taking any actions.

What is the purpose of you posting this?


This is the major argument of the headhunters and those sympathizing with them. Namely, that it would "save a fair amount of time for the parties involved". This argument has been repeated many times already. In fact, I agree with it if we consider this issue in isolation, though it still remains to be seen how plausible these claims are. Strictly speaking, I'm not against headhunters and their likes as long as they don't lose their own head while pursuing spammers, farmers and other suspicious types...

But the matter is more intricate than that

Is it just me? You talk total bollocks.

Oh, the poor banned user must be protected until he can be "unpermabanned".
I don't see any support for your objections, except maybe QS.

I think everyone knows the reason this is not implemented is simply because theymos is such a dork.
He loves spammers and scammers and those who talk bollocks on his forum.

I'm afraid that with public bans it will be next to impossible. Let's face the facts, by declaring the ban public, a moderator is burning the bridges behind him. Lifting the ban later means that the ban shouldn't be given at all, and it was just that, a mistake. No mod is going to recognize this in public simply because it will be equal to recognizing his mistake. But that means that the mod is not quite fit for his job, plain and simple. It could work out once or twice, but bans won't revoked...

It is a one way ticket

Are reports about already banned users hindering Staff/Moderation duties? I don't see how can there be a continuous surge of reports regarding already banned users. A user violates rules, is reported, then banned. In some/most cases, the violation may be deleted or the user nuked entirely. If a post that violates the forum rules isn't deleted after the ban, then it simply gets buried... I don't see this attracting too many erroneous reports, it's unlikely that someone will be reporting a post made a week or a month ago by a user that's already banned.

What I essentially mean is when there's a problem and it gets reported X number of times, the problem will be dealt with and it will "wear off" so to speak.

Maybe there's more to this in the Banned rank thread, which I haven't read...

I do plan on creating one.
As I said earlier, I had kept a track of permabans for a few months in 2015. Then  I grew tired of it.
Let me go look at the reputation section.

Not necessarily the moderator making a mistake. Bans are sometimes lifted if the person who got banned did not cause excessive amounts of trouble, was a semi-decent contributor to the community in one way or another prior to getting banned, and asked nicely to be allowed to participate in the community again.  

But yes, making the fact that someone is/was banned public will make these instances more heavily scrutinized, which will lead to less people participating in the community.

This is another reason against public bans

If bans are made visible (e.g. by bestowing a Banned rank on a user), it will be a lot more difficult to revoke the ban. Right now, it is a business between a moderator and a user, and no one beside them would know if the ban was given, contested and probably lifted. When the bans are public (and still more so if it is made known who banned a certain user), revoking the ban will be something out of extraordinary since that would basically mean admission of being wrong by the moderator giving the ban, and people will inevitably start to question the authority of this moderator on account of that

Some chances might be necessary for the forum, however I don't think a police state is ever the answer. This will do nothing other than drive people away from the community, especially considering the privacy ideals that most of the community values.


Just because a user is "perma-banned" today does not mean the ban will not be reversed some time in the future if they ask nicely. Also, just because someone is perma-banned does not mean they will be disallowed from participating in the community in the future if they use an alternate account.

Well, the headhunters and their likes are feverishly supporting the idea of adding the Banned rank on the account that it will let them avoid reporting already banned users as well as free mods from reading their reports. While I have some serious scruples about their activity, I certainly agree with them in this respect. But since there is no such rank at Bitcointalk so far (and I hope there will never be), the use of the modlog for finding users recently permabanned seems to be the only viable alternative as of yet (and as to me, it is the best alternative to the Banned rank out there)...

So what did I miss exactly in your reasoning?

As someone who keeps an eye on the forums, sometimes the patrol page and reports some posts, I am in favor of anything that helps to catch spammers, copy pasters, etc. However I don't see how this extra information could be useful in catching spammers. A live Patrol page would be something much more useful in this task. Maybe this could be a reality, some day, on the new forums.

That should work much better the Banned rank. I guess it would require a whole lot less effort and shrink the room for possible "unintended consequences" as well. Eventually, you could even start advertising some service like Mitchell does in his Overview of Bitcointalk Signature Campaigns thread and earn some money to pay for a full-fledged stand-alone utility or service, which would incorporate all the bells and whistles that the modlog could provide by that time or already provides now...

If there will still be a need for it, of course

I actually just wanted to agree with minifrij's observation, but forgot to quote their post.

This is not a valid argument.

---

I think both Meta and Reputation would be acceptable for something like that in one way or another. Do you plan on doing that or are you just asking out of curiosity?

Why do I feel like your post was actually intended as a hidden accusation in sexism?

Nevertheless, if I don't walk along the railroad tracks, it is a personal vendetta against trains, right? And if I stay away from road traffic, it is a personal vendetta against automobiles, correct? I might prefer ground transport to airline services, but it would be no less than my personal vendetta against airplanes, wouldn't it? I can only assume how many peeps reported on me in the past, though I'm not copy-pasting other users' posts (apart from quoting them, of course) or involved in account-farming. To be honest, sometimes I even regret the latter, namely, that I didn't register a few hundred accounts along with this one back then (to sell them later for a profit), which was not against the rules if I'm not mistaken. But how would you personally treat the people who might have been reporting on you without having anything to do with your life or any reason to interfere with it? Obviously, I don't speak about occasional reporters who see some user copy-pasting another user's post (since this is a permaban in any dimension). I talk mainly about people who totally lose their marbles when they are going after alleged "lawbreakers" here (i.e. compulsive headhunters). I guess you are more familiar with these types than me


I'm really fascinated how people can't see the forest for the trees

I don't deny that making permabans public (or any bans, for that matter) could somehow help headhunters as well as moderators, but people don't see that it will mainly serve the purpose of bullying and intimidating folks here (see the Law of Unintended Consequences for more info). And still more so if the bans are made visible without revealing the information who gave the ban and for what exactly. In the latter case, anonymous bans would be a total perversion of the idea behind Bitcoin, in a truly Orwellian manner. When I started a thread about the necessity of cancelling Bitcoin halvings on purely economic grounds, I was quickly stigmatized as a traitor to the Bitcoin community and a heretic to the Bitcoin ideals, but I don't see a lot of people rising in righteous indignation against this idea of introducing public bans, though it is even more contrary to the fundamental principles of Bitcoin (namely, giving people freedom from the diktat of the government)


In fact, I didn't mean anything such apart from how much that would remind me of 1984

I, for one, whole-heartedly support this idea.
If I were to create a thread of list of perma-bans, which would be the right board to create it in?
Reputation board?

Deisik might be refering to something specific that I only vaguely remember myself. The idea that every community over a certain size needs some sort of enforcer to maintain a set of rule that have been agreed on in one way or another. Problems occured over when a few of these enforcers had been too pushy when enacting the rules. This eventually led to a split within the community. There was a specific community where this happened and I suspect that deisik either has heard of it, something similar or came to a similar conclusion based on different events.

@Deisik if this sounds only vaguely familiar to you, please let me know. I wanted to look into the story for quite some time, but forgot too many details to get a good starting point.

---

I personally dont like a very similar tool used for similar reasons, the wallet explorer. It is somewhat established at connecting wallet addresses via inputs, which is imperfect information as well. I think these connections, especially the transactions themselves should be verified by hand. Due to the comfortable tool, this is less and less done when alt accounts are connected.

A similar effect might take place once a tool for the modlog is established. IMHO this is more likely if its externally hosted and the data can no longer by verified. There is a small archive of modlog pages on archive.is[1] and maybe on other similar sites. Since moderation is something moderators should do, I would say that a tool for easier access should be restricted to staff. After all we have to assume that they double check all available data before an account is (perma) banned.

Regardless of my opinion I dont think a tool like this will be implemented in the current forum. Mabye it can be made for epochtalk, maybe epochtalk already has something similar. I didnt look too much into it tbh.

[1] http://archive.is/https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php

Sarcasm. This does seem like a personal vendetta against such type of people, which is not a valid argument.

Classic non sequitur. Your conclusion could either be true or false, but you assume that it will inevitably be true which makes your statement a fallacy. That is, unless you have 'proof' to back something like this up.

Obviously, you didn't get my point correctly

And you may not be able to fully understand and accept it because people are different (just like you can't explain an idea of color to a completely colorblind person). The things which you consider as helpful to the headhunters (let's call them so since it seems to be a fitting name), namely, introducing the Banned rank and similar things (including modlog scripts) would actually be slowly killing the forum not helping it, making it into a sort of police state as has already been noted. Remember, the road to hell is also paved with good intentions


I don't like them, but I certainly don't hate them either. In fact, I just don't care about them as long as they don't interfere with my life. But since the latter is impossible with such people, I prefer to just stay away from them (if given choice)

I truly cannot understand your extreme aversion to making things easier for people that want to try and help the forum. From what I've seen your entire argument against the 'Banned' rank is that you don't like the people that would take notice of it, which seems pretty silly to me. If there is more to it, feel free to correct me - I may have missed some parts of what you said.

No doubt. There are problems with this however.
For starters, the biggest problem is that it would not have legacy statistics. While the information collected by a script may be useful later down the line, currently it wouldn't help anything much. All information about every ban given is stored and is at theymos' disposal AFAIK. It would be better to have something official for this reason alone.
This is also making the lives of people that want to use a tool like this more difficult, though no doubt that is your intention. To have to make and maintain a script for general use which would provide incomplete information at best is certainly not as helpful as it being already built into the forum.

Yeah! He didn't say he hated them, just that he didn't like them!

This isn't real life. If you don't like people that do this, the forum has a built in 'Ignore' function that is very handy.
Shame that this function was added at the forum's inception though, people should have had to develop external scripts to hide posters that they don't like!

It's arguable if it's necessary. I doubt the forum is currently serving it's initial purpose to most users, therefore behaviors have to change along with it.

Generally speaking, the bans that are not included in the modlog are bans that would otherwise be a temp ban if a user had not been banned for similar violations multiple times in the past. These bans are also imposed by an admin verses a moderator, and are more likely to be reconsidered after a certain amount of time has elapsed. This is a very high level generalization and will often not be accurate.

I don't think theymos wants the forum to become too much of a police state. The forum is probably in more of a police state now then it ideally should be.

People have written scripts on their own without any reward just to obtain some statistics from the site. Just like other people are busy searching alt accounts, copy-pasters and their likes for free. Some guy is even running a site estimating how much a Bitcointalk account is worth in bitcoins (I guess you have already evaluated yours). So yes, I do think that if theymos said that he would be glad to see some tool developed based on the modlog for the purpose mentioned, there would soon be enough tools for doing just that...

He would only have to provide the description of the modlog (if there is none yet)


This is a typical mindset of a woman (so-called "woman's reason"). I didn't say that I hate them because I don't. I just prefer to stay away from such people in real life, that's all

It would be sufficient to save a fair amount of time for the parties involved. As I've mentioned above, either suggestion would be at least somewhat beneficial to involved parties.

Nobody tried to deny that a full modlog would not be more informative (that's an intuitive conclusion).

What makes you think that "theymos endorsing" this would make people want to do it for free?

I hate people who contribute to the forum as well. /s

Between the lines I read some sort of vendetta against letting people know which accounts are banned.

Ontopic: It would be minutes work to process the Modlog into a BB-format that can be posted. I'd be happy to do it, and keep it updated (using a daily download from a cronjob), if I could get a complete Modlog since the beginning of time. Starting now seems useless, as I miss out on years of data.

And how much info would headhunters get if they just saw some user banned?

As to me, providing a full list of banned users per given period in the log won't disclose anything important. But you can't possibly deny the fact that logs are typically more informative in this respect. Basically, you could add in the modlog additional data which could help the headhunters trace committed spammers, farmers and other law violators. I don't know what it could be since I'm not particularly interested in that. In respect to paying money for developing such a utility, you should understand that I'm quite happy with the current situation. I guess the headhunters themselves should pay or develop this utility on their own if they are such fierce fighters with spammers and farmers. In general, I don't very much like this kind of people (though I made a few reports myself when I had seen my own posts copy-pasted), but this is just me

"2 months is like 17 seconds in theymos time." - Anonymous Author. You'd be surprised how long some things take, especially when theymos is either busy or has a big 'to-do' list.

Why would you want it in a competitive manner? As said, if you have the money, you can get it built up. There are plenty of developers that could do this without struggle. In any case, you could run a development competition as well.

---

I think the information is intentionally withheld. I may be wrong.

So this is exactly where theymos could help us. I mean by adding more info to the log, so it could be used more efficiently and effectively for the purposes discussed here


How's that? What specifically makes you think so?

If your refer to theymos allegedly giving you consent to your idea (and which you think I intentionally ignored in the OP), I'm in fact strongly inclined to think that it was rather a polite refusal than actual consent (as I already told you before). You said that he wouldn't refuse in this way, but this is exactly how I would myself give my disapproval in a polite way if I didn't want to refuse directly. Anyway, two months are more than enough to draw at least some conclusions


Let's not be hypocrites here. If theymos endorsed this idea himself, it would be done much faster and in a more competitive manner, producing a better tool in the end

Yet it is mentioned in a misleading way.

---

The poll should have been a simple: Yes, No, Other. If I don't agree with the stuff after the comma(s), then I can not vote.

This claim doesn't even make sense. As you've mentioned it yourself elsewhere:

All you need to do is hire someone to do it, and host it in a user accessible way (e.g. on a website). Theymos does not need to do anything for your suggestion to 'happen'. Either suggestion would have at least some benefit.

The information is already publicly available, so I don't see why the information should not be presented in a more user friendly format.

The modlog however does not include everyone that is banned, and not even everyone that is permmabanned

What is an outright lie here?

I didn't claim that this idea had been rejected, all I said is that it looks like this idea didn't catch on, i.e. it seemingly didn't gain enough popularity up to a point of being actually implemented. All I know is that I don't see the Banned rank on the forum two months after it had been discussed. What other conclusion should I have come to in your opinion? Also, which majority of people do you refer to exactly? Did you set a poll to see what people really think about it? In any any case, this is not the point of this thread


Are you afraid that theymos will see the thread, find this suggestion a better alternative to the Banned rank (your idea if I'm not mistaken), and likely endorse this endeavor?

That is a lie and you know it. The majority of the people that have responded were in favor of it. Theymos is also okay with it as long as it causes no other issues.

---

This thread shouldn't be in Meta as this tool can be developed without theymos having to change anything. The third poll option is suited for Meta though.

Well, it kinda seems that the idea of introducing the Banned rank didn't catch on (and personally, I'm quite happy and satisfied with this outcome). But there are still people who are busy with finding copy-pasters as well as other violators, and they claim that such a rank could help them greatly in their butcher job (which may well be the case) since they don't know if the offending user has already been banned. The modlog could help them in their toil, though in its raw form it may not be quite handy and usable overall...

So, is there a need for developing a tool for analyzing this log and representing its data in a more readable format for these activists (and mods alike)?