• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Banlist Spreadsheet

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
In reference to this: http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4842&pid=74898#pid74898

Since I was told this should be a suggestion. even though this is not the first time this has been suggested and ignored

FA's organizational skills are lacking. Especially when it comes to bans.

It's irrelevant if the user wants a "new start" and you can't keep banning people forever. If one is still banned and no one has lifted the ban and in the meantime the user keeps creating new accounts, it is seen as a BAN EVASION. FA is not the "Witness Protection Program".

You need to keep track of bans and set a duration. If the user cannot abide by the duration of the ban, they're violating the rules and you need to enforce a longer punishment.

You guys also shouldn't "Wait for it to be implemented in Ferrox" to keep track of things.

You need a spreadhseet. While google spreadsheets isn't perfect it's sufficient to get what you need done.

http://docs.google.com you can start a new spreadsheet and invite other admins to be able to edit it. You'll be able to see the revisions made by those who are ban enforcers.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pCbVsb84ZO_DY9BZMLIHJUg

This is a sample spreadsheet. I set it to publish as a demonstration, you can set it to private and only to those you want access to use it. "Collaboration"

I put it by username, their email in registration, IP/addresses that are listed, the date the ban was set, A keyword violation. "PV" when the ban is to be lifted, and what admin set it and description and notes.

PV is a key. PV means "Policy Violation" You can also make a code "SB" as in Spambot. "B/T" "Bot/Troll/Trash" account.

C is a copyright. M is for Music, I can be Illustration, P is pictures/photography L could be for literature.

BE is Ban Evasion.

A spreadsheet can always get EXPORTED and fed into a Database, we did that to convert pike. So there is no reason to not use one now so that your team can see who set the bans. Not to mention you can sort each field so you can see it by Username, or When a ban is to be lifted.

Leaving a Category key is very good so you can see if the bans are set too long by certain violations like a PV C and, you can see if a user is repeating the same kind of PV or BE.

Anyways, if you need help with getting that set up feel free to ask me, but again there is no reason FA should be so absent minded/unorganized when it comes to this.
 

Surgat

Where is your mod now?
I really, really don't see the purpose of allowing someone back in under a different account while they're banned.

Letting someone back in before the ban is up is ending the ban, failing at upholding the rules, and eliminating any deterrent force the threat of banning has. It's allowing users to deny punishment at whim, plain and simple.
 

Damaratus

Care to join me in my lab?
Surgat said:
I really, really don't see the purpose of allowing someone back in under a different account while they're banned.

Letting someone back in before the ban is up is ending the ban, failing at upholding the rules, and eliminating any deterrent force the threat of banning has. It's allowing users to deny punishment at whim, plain and simple.

No it's not. If a user has been suspended for a longer period of time, they still have the chance to explain themselves and be forgiven, they may wish to rejoin under a different name so as not to be connected with their trollish name. The administration does not like keeping people completely suspended from the site, as much as it seems impossible to believe, some people do learn their lessons and come back as non-abrasive users of the site.

There will naturally be a better integration of ban tracking and the rules that apply with the update, but there is still a lot of bugs to work out.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Damaratus said:
No it's not. If a user has been suspended for a longer period of time, they still have the chance to explain themselves and be forgiven, they may wish to rejoin under a different name so as not to be connected with their trollish name. The administration does not like keeping people completely suspended from the site, as much as it seems impossible to believe, some people do learn their lessons and come back as non-abrasive users of the site.

There will naturally be a better integration of ban tracking and the rules that apply with the update, but there is still a lot of bugs to work out.

Then they should be TALKING WITH THE ADMINS for this exception. No excuses. If they want to keep the old account closed to disassociate themselves, you put in an user closed account and don't leave it as "BANNED".

This has nothing to do with allowing users back on the site, the person in question already made himself known who he is anyways, so it totally debunks your "rehabilitated" person argument.

I honestly cannot believe this is the lip service you guys are using for this. That's unacceptable.

Again, this is not about people moving on to different accounts once a ban has been lifted, this is someone continually getting around the ban and NOT stating their case to clear the situation up for everyone.

Again this is now, waiting for the next update is also an excuse. I gave you a solution to work with in the meantime.
 

Damaratus

Care to join me in my lab?
Arshes Nei said:
Then they should be TALKING WITH THE ADMINS for this exception. No excuses. If they want to keep the old account closed to disassociate themselves, you put in an user closed account and don't leave it as "BANNED".

This has nothing to do with allowing users back on the site, the person in question already made himself known who he is anyways, so it totally debunks your "rehabilitated" person argument.

I honestly cannot believe this is the lip service you guys are using for this. That's unacceptable.

Again, this is not about people moving on to different accounts once a ban has been lifted, this is someone continually getting around the ban and NOT stating their case to clear the situation up for everyone.

Again this is now, waiting for the next update is also an excuse. I gave you a solution to work with in the meantime.

We don't currently have a "user closed account" option Arshes. So that isn't an option at the moment. The additional problem with this particular situation is that it seems that the user didn't have the best of methods of getting in contact with the administration based on his previous expulsion.

He asked to talk to an administrator, and quite honestly the decision to allow him on was only rendered after he did so. You understand that we just didn't let him stay, he is being given the chance because he has plead his case.

I realize it was his evasion that caused this in the first place, but it's also not the first time that people have done this kind of thing because they didn't manage to find the proper avenue to say their piece. No, it probably wasn't the best way to handle the situation, but it was the way it ended up.

You have given a suggestion, possibly one that can be used, but there may be better ones then what you offered. Calm down and give it some time, there was little time to handle this situation and now you're going off the handle about it. If you want to be helpful then back off and let us manage this. Finding new things that are problems is a good thing, but forcing the issue like this only slows the overall process of getting it all done.

I'm sure there are other suggestions that people have to offer on this particular subject as well.

Your behavior isn't acceptable at the moment either. Why don't you try PMing me and getting a clear picture of the situation before jumping to particular assumptions.
 

Surgat

Where is your mod now?
Bans

Damaratus said:
No it's not.

This contradicts:

Damaratus said:
If a user has been suspended for a longer period of time, they still have the chance to explain themselves and be forgiven, they may wish to rejoin under a different name so as not to be connected with their trollish name.

That is ending a ban. The fact that they use a different account doesn't make it any different from any other non-banned user making a new account, so as to not be connected to some drama for instance.

P1. If someone is banned, then their comments, PM's, other functions, etc. are disallowed.
P2. Someone's comments, PM's, other functions, etc. are not disallowed.
C. Ergo, someone is not banned.

P1. If an action is taken that is not authorized by the official rules, then it is a violation of the rules.
P2. Ban lifting prior to official punishment length initially specified is not authorized by the official rules.
C. Ergo, ban lifting prior to official punishment length initially specified is a violation of the rules.

P1. If an action is permitted that is not authorized by an official rule, then there is a failure to uphold that rules.
P2. Permission of ban evasion is an action that was permitted an not authorized by an official rule.
C. Ergo, there is a failure to uphold the rules.

“Rules” here refers to 1.) codes of behavior explicitly stated in a public document which if not complied with are to result in punishment, and 2.) standards of behavior which the staff are to enforce. You expect users to agree to and comply with these codes of behavior, and this includes staff. We can expect the staff to agree to and comply with the additional standard requiring them to enforce those standards as the role of staff member implies; a failure to uphold the rules is a violation of the rules. The alternative is that there is no point of having codes of behavior.

In ending the ban of someone before their time is up (and it is ending the ban), you or whatever moderator and the user are violating the rules. As a result site functionality suffers as moderators are unreliable the deterrent of rule enforcement is reduced. It’s also reasonable to assume that moderators would not necessarily be impartial in ban lifting.

Damaratus said:
The administration does not like keeping people completely suspended from the site, as much as it seems impossible to believe, some people do learn their lessons and come back as non-abrasive users of the site.

Then only hand out perma-bans in extreme cases. Otherwise, if they recognize the fact that they did wrong, then they shouldn’t mind a non-permanent/non-indefinite punishment. They’re probably adults, or at least near that age; you should treat them as such.

Damaratus said:
There will naturally be a better integration of ban tracking and the rules that apply with the update, but there is still a lot of bugs to work out.

At the bare minimum I suggest that you explicitly state in the rules the conditions for ban-lifting and how many times bans can be lifted for one user before either they must deal with full punishments or face indefinite ban. The conditions for ban-lifting should be as non-arbitrary as possible, too. Otherwise what I've stated above will continue to apply.
 

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
Damaratus,
I am not a strong believer in permanent bans, and I can appreciate the thought behind letting users make appeals on their own behalf in getting their bans lifted. However, creating a new account prior to admin approval is breaking the rules. By allowing users to just pick up and keep moving on their own schedule, you are sending the message that bans are arbitrary and any length of time the admins set is irrelevant in light of the banned user's wishes.

Bans should only be removed under clear proof or intent of improved behavior (or after whatever the minimum amount of time for their specific offense was). Even if the user never breaks any other rules under their new account, a new account created without prior administrative approval is a ban-evasive one and should not be permitted.

My sleepy 2 cents.
 

Damaratus

Care to join me in my lab?
RE: Bans

Surgat said:
This contradicts:

Not it isn't a contradiction. You said: It's allowing users to deny punishment at whim, plain and simple."

I simply disagree with that particular remark.

Surgat said:
That is ending a ban. The fact that they use a different account doesn't make it any different from any other non-banned user making a new account, so as to not be connected to some drama for instance.

P1. If someone is banned, then their comments, PM's, other functions, etc. are disallowed.
P2. Someone's comments, PM's, other functions, etc. are not disallowed.
C. Ergo, someone is not banned.

P1. If an action is taken that is not authorized by the official rules, then it is a violation of the rules.
P2. Ban lifting prior to official punishment length initially specified is not authorized by the official rules.
C. Ergo, ban lifting prior to official punishment length initially specified is a violation of the rules.

P1. If an action is permitted that is not authorized by an official rule, then there is a failure to uphold that rules.
P2. Permission of ban evasion is an action that was permitted an not authorized by an official rule.
C. Ergo, there is a failure to uphold the rules.

“Rules” here refers to 1.) codes of behavior explicitly stated in a public document which if not complied with are to result in punishment, and 2.) standards of behavior which the staff are to enforce. You expect users to agree to and comply with these codes of behavior, and this includes staff. We can expect the staff to agree to and comply with the additional standard requiring them to enforce those standards as the role of staff member implies; a failure to uphold the rules is a violation of the rules. The alternative is that there is no point of having codes of behavior.

In ending the ban of someone before their time is up (and it is ending the ban), you or whatever moderator and the user are violating the rules. As a result site functionality suffers as moderators are unreliable the deterrent of rule enforcement is reduced. It’s also reasonable to assume that moderators would not necessarily be impartial in ban lifting.

Your primary point about it being the end of a ban is true. It is the end of that person's ban. I won't deny that. Such things happen. As has been stated it could have been handled differently, but this is how it ended.

Your logic is only sound if the rules were designed to be absolute. No rules can be that way. Situations change, users try new things, every situation is different. Therefore, your black and white, cold logic cannot fully dictate each situation. The administration is at least wise enough and adult enough to know that we need to keep things flexible to deal with new situations, rather then try and apply some form of absolute law.

In all honesty, site functionality has nothing to do with rule enforcement, it has everything to do with the code, which has been stymied for a while because of various situations. It affects how well the administrators can administrate. That's why the update is being worked on. It also doesn't help when users like you cannot manage to give the coders and staff enough time to be able to get to the point where things are properly working. Countless amounts of nitpicking, such as what you have put together only further deters the administration from focusing on more important matters.

Surgat said:
Then only hand out perma-bans in extreme cases. Otherwise, if they recognize the fact that they did wrong, then they shouldn’t mind a non-permanent/non-indefinite punishment. They’re probably adults, or at least near that age; you should treat them as such.

We already do this. There's a ladder system in place. It just so happens that the end of the ladder is an indefinite period of time, many times we still end up being contacted by a user who is then allowed to be "unbanned". You make a giant leap of faith based on the nature of how people will handle being punished. Not everyone on the site acts like an adult, and if someone reaches the point that they are being suspended from the site, you can be assured that they weren't behaving like an adult in the first place.

Surgat said:
At the bare minimum I suggest that you explicitly state in the rules the conditions for ban-lifting and how many times bans can be lifted for one user before either they must deal with full punishments or face indefinite ban. The conditions for ban-lifting should be as non-arbitrary as possible, too. Otherwise what I've stated above will continue to apply.

Hey, at least you managed to work in a suggestion after your rather lengthy diatribe.

There will be something posted in terms of the suspension ladder on FA. It was something that was lacking from the original ToS and will be added in. The only thing is that it won't matter how explicit we make it, there will always be people (very much like you) who will pick things apart. Making things flexible is always a more useful method, and probably the best way to go. A mutable terms of service can be adjusted far better than an absolute one.

Now I will ask the same of you as I asked of Arshes. Please take a step back and find something else to do then pick things apart. We need to get things working because it's obvious that there are things that need to be taken care of.

If you find something that you think needs work, pose it as a civil and constructive suggestion rather then trying to once again debunk the administration in how they're handling things. Nothing is perfect yet, it probably never will be, but it's hard to get things going when someone keeps on putting these road bumps in the way. The matters of important, but something that will be handled far easier when things are coded properly.

If you feel the need to try and continue to argue, send it over to PMs. This thread is for suggestions, not overblown responses, and even this response has gone far enough.

Please folks, add suggestions as to concepts to go along with a banlist spreadsheet or some other idea that works in line with this. If you think you need to respond to something on here but your response would not be in line with the topic, take it to PMs.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
You asked for suggestions and now want people to take a step back. FANTASTIC
 

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
RE: Bans

Damaratus said:
Please folks, add suggestions as to concepts to go along with a banlist spreadsheet or some other idea that works in line with this.

In following that request, I will simply add that the only thing better than the spreadsheet idea is a spreadsheet-type thing built straight into the admin's backend. The forum I admin (an mwForum build) has a spreadsheet-style bans list that does everything Arshes' proposed spreadsheet does, and it works amazingly well.
 

Surgat

Where is your mod now?
Authority issues

Damaratus said:
If you feel the need to try and continue to argue, send it over to PMs. This thread is for suggestions, not overblown responses, and even this response has gone far enough.

It’s not my problem if you can’t argue well or handle criticism. The only difference between PM’s and forum posts is that PM’s are private and thus don’t expose your poor, desperate, reasoning to a large audience. Further it will likely show that you will go so far as to close the thread to avoid criticism.

Criticism is appropriate in a forum for suggestions, as it allows you to be shown what you’re doing wrong and correct it.

Damaratus said:
The only thing is that it won't matter how explicit we make it, there will always be people (very much like you) who will pick things apart.
…
Please take a step back and find something else to do then pick things apart.

You’re right. It was wrong of me to tell what you were doing wrong in a forum for suggestions, as it might allow you to improve the way things run in the future; and we don’t want that! I’m totally responsible for your being arbitrary and unreliable, too.

Damaratus said:
If you find something that you think needs work, pose it as a civil and constructive suggestion rather then trying to once again debunk the administration in how they're handling things.

Right, because no criticism is ever constructive.

Damaratus said:
Countless amounts of nitpicking, such as what you have put together only further deters the administration from focusing on more important matters.

Right, it’s my fault you can’t just make a note of it and correct it eventually. How foolish of me to assume you are capable of taking small measures to make things better.

Damaratus said:
Nothing is perfect yet, it probably never will be, but it's hard to get things going when someone keeps on putting these road bumps in the way.

Right. Your disorganization is my fault, as I made note of it to you so you could correct it. Making note of problems brings those problems into being.

Also, since I’m apparently taking away from coding time I’m partly responsible for the results of FA’s shitty coding, as opposed to the staff who wrote the damn thing and can’t simply take note of their other errors. SORRY EVERYBODY! I feel really bad about that.*cuts self*

Damaratus said:
Therefore, your black and white, cold logic…

You’re right. I totally didn’t deductively prove that the rules stated were not being followed/upheld.


Damaratus said:
Your logic is only sound if the rules were designed to be absolute. No rules can be that way. Situations change, users try new things, every situation is different. Therefore, your black and white, cold logic cannot fully dictate each situation. The administration is at least wise enough and adult enough to know that we need to keep things flexible to deal with new situations, rather then try and apply some form of absolute law.

In other words, there’s no point in having those stated rules. You could just periodically update the rules but no, it's best to just give up reliability. It’s exactly like what I said in the other thread:

I said:
The FA staff does not believe there is a need to enforce the rules if they feel like not enforcing the rules. They do not believe their agreements are binding nor that their role carries responsibilities.

Now, they may enforce the rules even with some reliability, but they don't believe there is any sort of requirement to do so.

I guess you’re not going to take into consideration my positive suggestion [“…explicitly state in the rules the conditions for ban-lifting and how many times bans can be lifted for one user before either they must deal with full punishments or face indefinite ban. The conditions for ban-lifting should be as non-arbitrary as possible…”] either.

That’s good. People can’t expect you to uphold the rules you agreed to uphold and have no right to know the conditions and undoubtedly objective, impartial procedure and conditions for ban-appeals and repeals. People shouldn’t expect any specific punishment for breaking the rules, and should not expect that those standards of behavior have anything to back them up.

Again, this is completely my fault for “picking things apart” in the suggestion forum. Sorry guys.

Damaratus said:
You make a giant leap of faith based on the nature of how people will handle being punished. Not everyone on the site acts like an adult, and if someone reaches the point that they are being suspended from the site, you can be assured that they weren't behaving like an adult in the first place.

What does this have to do with treating adults like adults?

Damaratus said:
In all honesty, site functionality has nothing to do with rule enforcement…

The rules of the site [official explicit standards of behavior] are a part of the site.
The parts of the site contribute to the functioning of the whole site [user’s experience].
:. The rules of the site contribute to the functioning of the whole site.
 

Damaratus

Care to join me in my lab?
RE: Authority issues

Surgat said:
It’s not my problem if you can’t argue well or handle criticism. The only difference between PM’s and forum posts is that PM’s are private and thus don’t expose your poor, desperate, reasoning to a large audience. Further it will likely show that you will go so far as to close the thread to avoid criticism.

Criticism is appropriate in a forum for suggestions, as it allows you to be shown what you’re doing wrong and correct it.

Criticism in the manner that you have stated it is not actually useful. And you did not heed my request. I asked you to move to PMs, because I no longer wanted to subject the rest of the forums to your methods of breaking things down. You do have the capability of presenting things without the added scathing commentary I'm sure.

I will not take this any further in the open forum. PMs are for discussion without dragging things further off topic, which you have once again started to do.
 
Top