There seems to be almost unanimous support for this so far. I'll leave it open for another week before I talk to theymos again. Hopefully this will see the light of day very soon.
Topic: [Interest Check] - User Rank 'Banned' - page 5. (Read 6047 times)
Take a look at what we (researchers) are faced with. hopefully it will help explain why a "banned" tag would be useful.
and hopefully help speed up the process.
this "registration snapshot" shows all consecutive accounts registered june 19 2016, over 2.5 hour period
some days 2.5 hours registration period would be thousands of accounts long.
(members cannot easily find this info, admin can, i did ask theymos or admin to share so all could see, they declined)
all zero activity accounts are either spam, cover for farmers, or dormant farmed accounts. (i think mostly made by the farmer) are they going to spring to life in the future?
only 3 accounts created in this period, 864294, 864308, 864314, have any chance of being "real". 2 of those last logged on within 10 minutes of each other (864294 and 864308), so don't hold your breath. are they coming back?
all other accounts with activity are chinese farmed.
the lower activity accounts, 35,36,37 activity, have not posted in a while, are they banned, are they coming back?
the higher activity accounts, all 126, are all still active. they are farmed, chinese, common signature campaign - komodo.
exactly the same chinese farm attack happens 6 hours after this one. another 11 accounts with now 126 activity. and the next day. and in previous days. (not sure exactly when this started)
if i was to create a farmer list from the info here, (which i will do at some point, bit inundated atm) it would not contain any of the zero activity accounts.
if account "864288 flygirl0505 (126a)" is banned, will the next account "864289 jollyswamp20 (0a)" replace it?
i (or anyone else) cannot "keep watching" 900,000 accounts for activity.
(goddamn, i made the list all tidy, easy to see, but it has posted a bit of a mess, sorry. looked - can't fix! fixed - thanks Loyce, mental block!)
(signiture signature - fixed 
i lost the plot on this one!)
and hopefully help speed up the process.
this "registration snapshot" shows all consecutive accounts registered june 19 2016, over 2.5 hour period
some days 2.5 hours registration period would be thousands of accounts long.
(members cannot easily find this info, admin can, i did ask theymos or admin to share so all could see, they declined)
Code:
u=# username activity last active
864279 invinciblerasca 0 June 19 2016 04:45:37 AM
864280 tallabdomen62 0 June 19 2016 04:50:34 AM
864281 mattizzano1 0 June 19 2016 04:52:50 AM
864282 kiichan 0 June 19 2016 05:03:06 AM
864283 faruk8954 0 June 19 2016 04:59:19 AM
864284 Saikumargadipelly 0 June 19 2016 01:05:43 PM
864285 Metatarsallysnqs 0 June 19 2016 05:06:13 AM
864286 patr0nbriza 0 June 19 2016 05:18:09 AM
864287 antiger2612 0 June 19 2016 05:51:25 AM
864288 flygirl0505 126 October 22 2016 11:11:43 AM Komodo signature
864289 jollyswamp20 0 June 19 2016 05:47:09 AM
864290 every7878 126 October 18 2016 06:57:43 AM Komodo signature
864291 swankycostume12 0 June 19 2016 05:49:25 AM
864292 pedropimienta 0 June 19 2016 05:53:32 AM
864293 johnny11011 126 October 12 2016 12:50:04 PM no signature
864294 chronus265 1 June 20 2016 07:15:12 AM
864295 jackci123 126 October 22 2016 10:45:32 AM Komodo signature
864296 roamingnode 0 June 20 2016 06:24:20 AM
864297 nanay777 126 October 12 2016 12:48:43 PM no signature
864298 fight432100 126 October 21 2016 06:28:27 AM no signature
864299 Parsonagedzet 0 June 19 2016 05:58:37 AM
864300 follow-nana 126 October 12 2016 12:45:48 PM no signature
864301 number-o 126 October 18 2016 11:00:58 AM Komodo signature
864302 bntggy928 126 October 12 2016 12:42:06 PM no signature
864303 hafid1980 0 June 19 2016 06:20:22 AM
864304 raneedy 126 October 21 2016 06:39:10 AM no signature
864305 samhar 0 June 19 2016 06:23:09 AM
864306 Impliedaxws 0 June 19 2016 06:26:12 AM
864307 benjamin1880 37 September 01 2016 06:43:22 AM no signature
864308 BTCInvestmentGroup 2 June 20 2016 07:15:13 AM
864309 christian2585 36 August 21 2016 07:14:26 PM no signature
864310 andrew3995 35 August 21 2016 07:14:38 PM no signature
864311 decryptic 0 October 29 2016 01:55:55 AM
864312 matthew1556 36 August 21 2016 07:17:17 PM no signature
864313 raspyvacancy2 0 June 19 2016 06:38:58 AM
864314 kenturion 6 June 22 2016 06:14:20 AM
864315 levelhate24 0 June 19 2016 06:49:04 AM
864316 arifshani94 0 June 19 2016 06:52:12 AM
864317 Uploadssomz 0 June 19 2016 07:06:26 AM
864318 Minnesingerlxln 0 June 19 2016 07:09:13 AM
all zero activity accounts are either spam, cover for farmers, or dormant farmed accounts. (i think mostly made by the farmer) are they going to spring to life in the future?
only 3 accounts created in this period, 864294, 864308, 864314, have any chance of being "real". 2 of those last logged on within 10 minutes of each other (864294 and 864308), so don't hold your breath. are they coming back?
all other accounts with activity are chinese farmed.
the lower activity accounts, 35,36,37 activity, have not posted in a while, are they banned, are they coming back?
the higher activity accounts, all 126, are all still active. they are farmed, chinese, common signature campaign - komodo.
exactly the same chinese farm attack happens 6 hours after this one. another 11 accounts with now 126 activity. and the next day. and in previous days. (not sure exactly when this started)
if i was to create a farmer list from the info here, (which i will do at some point, bit inundated atm) it would not contain any of the zero activity accounts.
if account "864288 flygirl0505 (126a)" is banned, will the next account "864289 jollyswamp20 (0a)" replace it?
i (or anyone else) cannot "keep watching" 900,000 accounts for activity.
(goddamn, i made the list all tidy, easy to see, but it has posted a bit of a mess, sorry. looked -
(
i lost the plot on this one!)
Would the "banned" tag include all "nuked" accounts?
Nuked accounts are perma banned, so yes.
(and any other method used that effectively ensures an account is never coming back, including "zombie" nuked accounts)
How many temp bans can/does an account receive before perma ban, or is this case by case?
How many temp bans can/does an account receive before perma ban, or is this case by case?
1st is usually a short ban as a warning, 3rd is usually perma.
Would the "banned" tag include all "nuked" accounts?
(and any other method used that effectively ensures an account is never coming back, including "zombie" nuked accounts)
How many temp bans can/does an account receive before perma ban, or is this case by case?
(and any other method used that effectively ensures an account is never coming back, including "zombie" nuked accounts)
How many temp bans can/does an account receive before perma ban, or is this case by case?
Alright, its little help when fighting spammers. Im not against a banned tag/rank btw, but maybe it should be given with the 2nd temp ban. This could discourage spammers further as it would likely get archived somewhere and make it easier for campaign managers to refuse those as participants.
Fair point. My primary suggestion is the rank 'Banned' for those that are permanently banned. This seems to have the highest chance for possible addition to the user rank system, and implementation should be fairly trivial. I will also consider proposing 'Temporarily Banned' or 'Temp. Banned' for those serving out their secondary temporary ban afterwards. Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.
You can easily conclude, without the need of staff intervention, whether someone is ban evading if you correlate them and their other (banned) accounts (as an example). With the current we, we already have some state of uncertainty for such. Users do not know whether someone is permanently banned, which can and has (in the past) lead to questions that are redundant. The same (primarily) applies those attempting to tackle the account farming & signature spam problem.Alright, its little help when fighting spammers. Im not against a banned tag/rank btw, but maybe it should be given with the 2nd temp ban. This could discourage spammers further as it would likely get archived somewhere and make it easier for campaign managers to refuse those as participants.
I like it (but you already know that). It seems like a normal forum feature to know which user will never talk back again.
And obviously it helps the scam/alt-fighters to know which "problems" have been tackled already.
And obviously it helps the scam/alt-fighters to know which "problems" have been tackled already.
Theymos has some concerns for both temporary and permanent bans (although less for the latter) which I do not necessarily need to specify here.
I don't need to know which user has a temporary ban. Even if I'm talking to that person, he'll be back again later. And if someone is hunting for alts/scammers, there's also no reason to stop the search if the user will be back the next week.Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?
It saves them time. They don't have too look into an account that has been banned already. Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.
You can easily conclude, without the need of staff intervention, whether someone is ban evading if you correlate them and their other (banned) accounts (as an example). With the current we, we already have some state of uncertainty for such. Users do not know whether someone is permanently banned, which can and has (in the past) lead to questions that are redundant. The same (primarily) applies those attempting to tackle the account farming & signature spam problem. -snip-
Not pointless at all.
The perma banned are the most important to me. I can cross them off any list forever more. Job done.
-snip-
Agreed.
Not pointless at all.
The perma banned are the most important to me. I can cross them off any list forever more. Job done.
-snip-
Agreed.
Its pointless in the context of fighting spam. Perma banned accounts can not spam.
Thanks for picking this up Lauda, i'm 100% for this idea.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16665309
However please note that, in this suggestion we are only considering users that are permanently banned.
Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?
Not pointless at all.
The perma banned are the most important to me. I can cross them off any list forever more. Job done.
snipped
Agreed.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2713
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?
I think you should make a poll instead of making us to reply in this thread.
No, thank you. Polls can be *anonymous* manipulated. If necessary, I could summarize supportive comments as in "Number of supporters vs. opposers". Yes, please. How come you're not considering adding a "temporarily banned" status?
I'm also a big fan of both the "banned" and "temp banned" status. I think BadBear's argument against it was just along the lines of why does anybody else need to know?
The primary idea behind this is to help the community, especially those who are actively trying to fight spammers and account farmers.I think there needs to be more punishment or negative consequences to being banned especially for spam.
That is not the point of this idea, and thus should probably be discussed separately (as it has a broader effect and would require more discussion). global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2713
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
I think BadBear's argument against it was just along the lines of why does anybody else need to know? I don't think showing that users are banned is a bad thing. Showing only users that are perma banned won't help much though. I think there needs to be more punishment or negative consequences to being banned especially for spam. If you are banned currently the worst that happens is you don't post for a week or two and resume activities after. At least if people are essentially publicly marked as banned it will be a shameful thing to be tarnished with so people might put more effort into avoiding this. If it has consequences for their ability to join a signature campaign this would also help.
So it would work like the old scammer tag?
I don't see anything other than benefits for being able to see who was banned. I approve the idea.
I don't see anything other than benefits for being able to see who was banned. I approve the idea.
Yes, please. How come you're not considering adding a "temporarily banned" status?
I'm also a big fan of both the "banned" and "temp banned" status. It would make it a lot easyer for allmost everyone (with the possible exeption of the person being banned in the first place).
If you have an ongoing business deal and your partner stops replying => check his status, if it's "temp banned" you at least know why he/she doesn't respond.
If you run a sig campaign, you can filter out the banned users in a heartbeat.
...
I know with the new forum software around the corner, chances are slim of this being applied to the current SMF tough, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a nice to have feature (imho)
+1
I support this suggestion. Instead of considering users that are permanently banned, it would be better to consider anyone banned, temporary or permanent. When temporary banned users are unbanned, they may be returned to their normal rank, e.g. Member, Full Member etc.
I support this suggestion. Instead of considering users that are permanently banned, it would be better to consider anyone banned, temporary or permanent. When temporary banned users are unbanned, they may be returned to their normal rank, e.g. Member, Full Member etc.
I think you should make a poll instead of making us to reply in this thread.
Anyway, This a very good idea. +1
Anyway, This a very good idea. +1
This information is anyway available on modlog.php (although only for a couple of weeks).
Is it? I just went to the log, and while I'm sure bans are rare, all I see on modlog (with a HTML title of deletion log) is nuking, post/threads being deleted and auto bans.I am talking of the auto-bans, which indicates that a member has been permanently banned.
Temp bans don't appear in the modlog and the current proposal doesn't consider making them public.
Yes, yes, yes. Do something. Anything! I'd be all for bringing the old SCAMMER tag back, but I'm sure that's not going to happen.
It won't because the tag was manually updated by admins, and with the amount of scam accusations occuring, and half of them not having solid proof, it would be a huge hassle of theymos/others' time. Getting a team to do it would also be a waste.This information is anyway available on modlog.php (although only for a couple of weeks).
Is it? I just went to the log, and while I'm sure bans are rare, all I see on modlog (with a HTML title of deletion log) is nuking, post/threads being deleted and auto bans. I was recommended to create a thread and check whether there was demand for the user rank 'Banned'. I'm aware that this has been suggested and denied by BadBear in the past. With the addition of this rank I see a fair amount of potential in aiding the analysis and fight against spam & account farmers done by the community. However please note that, in this suggestion we are only considering users that are permanently banned.
So: Any thoughts, suggestions, concerns? Is this a good or a bad idea?
So: Any thoughts, suggestions, concerns? Is this a good or a bad idea?
I would whole heartedly support the move.
If this is applicable only to people who are perma-banned, it would remove the privacy concerns which were there earlier. This information is anyway available on modlog.php (although only for a couple of weeks).
Jump to: