Subject: The app has the option...
Author:
Posted on: 2016-04-23 06:23:00 UTC
...to restrict posting privileges. I'm on their website now, having a look. And the login thing seems to be what lets certain users modify and delete posts.
I think that we should take a good look at our options - whether the openness of the current settings is more important to us than keeping out Toroll and her ilk.
Since discussion isn't yet over. Link. Updated tally following.
Ban
Permaban: Huinesoron, Neshomeh, Sergio Turbo, Phobos, Scapegrace, Desdendelle, Iximaz, TheShyIon, sjosten (9)
12 month ban: Hieronymus Graubart, PoorCynic (2)
6 month ban: Hardric, Storme Hawk, eatpraylove, Seafarer (4)
Voted for banning: 15
Do Not Ban
One last chance: Ekyl, Badger421 (2)
No action, wait a while: Delta Juliette, doctorlit, Alleb, Tomash (4)
No action: EileenAlphabet, VixenMage (2)
Voted against banning: 8
Other:
Is Data Junkie: Data Junkie (1)
Abstain: Matt Cipher, Larfen J. Stocke esq., SkarmorySilver, DawnFire, Cat-on-the-Keyboard (5)
Vocally abstained: 5
Total
15/23 people are in favour of a ban, or slightly more than 65%. 5 have abstained. 1 is Data. 16 people who have posted on the front page (as of the time of this post) haven't said anything.
Ban
Permaban: Huinesoron, Phobos, Scapegrace, TheShyIon, sjosten (5)
12 month ban: PoorCynic (1)
6 month ban: eatpraylove (1)
Voted for banning: 7
Do Not Ban
One last chance: Ekyl, Badger421, Neshomeh, Iximaz, Desdendelle, Storme Hawk, Sergio Turbo, Hardric, Matt Cipher (9)
No action, wait a while: Delta Juliette, doctorlit, Alleb, Tomash (4)
No action: EileenAlphabet, VixenMage, [EvilAI]UberOverlord, DCCCV, Seafarer, Mattman the Comet, Hieronymus Graubart (7)
Voted against banning: 20
Other:
Is Data Junkie: Data Junkie (1)
Abstain: Larfen J. Stocke esq., SkarmorySilver, DawnFire, Cat-on-the-Keyboard, Firemagic, Edhelistar, July* (7)
Vocally abstained: 7
Total
7/26 people are in favour of a ban, or roughly 26%. 7 have abstained, one of which might count as a vote for permaban unless there is a decision to the contrary. 1 is Data. 11 people who have posted on the front page (as of the time of this post) haven't said anything.
Even if all of those eleven vote for 'ban', they will only amount for 18/37, or 48% percent. Even with July's vote counting as 'permaban', the result is 19/37, 51%. It looks to me like the verdict is "do not ban"; out of those, "one last chance" is the option with the most support.
Unless anybody objects: the verdict is that Data will get one more chance, if/when they will return.
Note that I didn’t change my opinion. But I guess the message was received. As far as I’m concerned, Data may return whenever they feel ready.
HG
Since Data left (and apologized in a way I am ready to believe), I see no point in furthermore banning him, as I think that's the result we are going to reach. I know that I've abstained from the voting, and who knows - maybe some of you think I shouldn't say anything about the matter anymore, but here's my proposition:
When the voting ends, the dominant option wins.
If it's ban - and we decide which one it's gonna be - we put it on hold until Data returns (IF he returns). Then, we sit and observe.
One more offense, of any kind, and he gets to use his "1 Free Ban" coupon.
No action
So the main reason I voted ban was that Data had refused to apologise. That's changed now - they've apologised, and they seem sincere.
Besides, they've behaved themselves for the entire voting process. I've found Data to be polite and friendly.
Therefore, I change my vote to no ban. (And that's my last word on this - if I seem to post recanting again, it's not me.)
I thought Data was daring us to ban them, like Tomash mentioned at some point. I also thought they hadn't given us any other option, what with refusing to take anything back or promise to avoid similar stunts in the future.
Since they've actually apologized, I'd be a jerk not to revise my position, whether I can personally accept it yet or not.
Make me another "one last chance." I'll be really very angry if we have to go through anything like this with them again.
~Neshomeh, exit stage right post haste.
Ban
Permaban: Huinesoron, Sergio Turbo, Phobos, Scapegrace, TheShyIon, sjosten (6)
12 month ban: Hieronymus Graubart, PoorCynic (2)
6 month ban: Hardric, Storme Hawk, eatpraylove (3)
Voted for banning: 11
Do Not Ban
One last chance: Ekyl, Badger421, Neshomeh, Iximaz, Desdendelle (5)
No action, wait a while: Delta Juliette, doctorlit, Alleb, Tomash (4)
No action: EileenAlphabet, VixenMage, [EvilAI]UberOverlord, DCCCV, Seafarer (5)
Voted against banning: 14
Other:
Is Data Junkie: Data Junkie (1)
Abstain: Matt Cipher, Larfen J. Stocke esq., SkarmorySilver, DawnFire, Cat-on-the-Keyboard, Firemagic (I asked her off-Board), Edhelistar, July* (8)
Vocally abstained: 8
Total
11/25 people are in favour of a ban, or exactly 44%. 8 have abstained, one of which might count as a vote for permaban unless there is a decision to the contrary. 1 is Data. 13 people who have posted on the front page (as of the time of this post) haven't said anything.
My own note: it seems horribly excessive to ban someone who a) apologised and b) took a voluntary time off; it's a different horse entirely compared to "I don't apologise and I'm going to continue being an ass". I know that, assuming Data won't be banned, I'll be watching them like a hawk from the moment they will return. If they will return.
Put me in "one last chance" bracket, Mr. Tally Man.
I'm changing my vote to last chance. Data's departure from their own will means a ban is meaningless, and they did apologize. I think they deserve another chance whent they come back.
After all, it is kinda moot to ban someone's who apologized and is leaving on their own.
But can I change my opinion to 'One last chance' please?
EvilAI pointed this out, but didn't link: Bramandin votes against a ban.
Specifically, as a general statement about when should ban proposals take place. It's also in a different, albeit related, thread. Bramandin, please clarify your position.
Ban
Permaban: Huinesoron, Neshomeh, Sergio Turbo, Phobos, Scapegrace, Desdendelle, Iximaz, TheShyIon, sjosten (9)
12 month ban: Hieronymus Graubart, PoorCynic (2)
6 month ban: Hardric, Storme Hawk, eatpraylove, Seafarer (4)
Voted for banning: 15
Do Not Ban
One last chance: Ekyl, Badger421 (2)
No action, wait a while: Delta Juliette, doctorlit, Alleb, Tomash (4)
No action: EileenAlphabet, VixenMage, [EvilAI]UberOverlord, DCCCV (4)
Voted against banning: 10
Other:
Is Data Junkie: Data Junkie (1)
Abstain: Matt Cipher, Larfen J. Stocke esq., SkarmorySilver, DawnFire, Cat-on-the-Keyboard, Firemagic (I asked her off-Board), Edhelistar, July* (8)
Vocally abstained: 8
Total
15/25 people are in favour of a ban, or exactly 60%. 8 have abstained, one of which might count as a vote for permaban unless there is a decision to the contrary. 1 is Data. 12 people who have posted on the front page (as of the time of this post) haven't said anything.
In the thread about the ban process. Or are otherwise out of order. We do not want any vote to not get counted and possibly lead to an unfair or improper result.
I do think by then end of the mess Data Junkie did cross the line. However, it is my opinion that the line was not crossed until after people had started singling out Data Junkie.
While at the start Data Junkie did adopt an aggressive posture, in my year here that had really only been the only time I saw anything from Data Junkie. For that reason alone I think a ban is excessive.
Well, since I have been lurking in and out the last months, just to find the Board in a sudden storm, for which I have no idea what the causes are (even after reading what's beyond the links!), and for lack of more information, I decide to abstain in this matter.
Between working when the internet is available and generally being very busy with said work, I haven't actually had the opportunity to give my piece on this particular portion.
I've been holding back from entering further discussion or replies since my last regarding the whole matter for a variety of reasons.
While I would like to vote, and would vote for a permaban, I also don't think I personally have a right to vote as one of the primarily aggrieved parties, if not the primary aggrieved party here.
That said, the series of events that Data Junkie had repeatedly referred back to with regards to my behavior had ended with the suggestion of a ban for several of the people involved- at the time I had said I didn't want them banned, and wanted to give them a second chance, in accordance with the Constitution.
I eventually ended up leaving afterwards because that second chance given just resulted in more of the same against me, and now again, several years later.
I'll leave it up to someone else to decide how to count this vote, or even whether to do so.
-July
And as a marker against fraud, I'm choosing to go HP style for authentication with things a few people present on the board would be able to assure are correct, but are not well known items in and of themselves:
Way way back when when I was working on the first radio play with Sara and hS, I would bother hS by calling him 'boss'.
During the DC gathering, Shoe got lost and Phobos had to set out to go find him and bring him back to the vacation house.
doctorlit sent me a text message including a photo of bison. They were very cute.
Never thought that an April's Fools joke would become so appropriate. My thanks to the IO.
Also, if I'm calculating years correctly, I think you're out of college now? Does that mean you've managed to move away from your parents and their negative comments?
—doctorlit does hope so; that would be healthy for you!
Not to be rude, just that you're quoting someone and seem to be speaking directly to somebody, but replying to your own post. Maybe it's the hour but I'm a tiny bit confused.
Our dear troll is now using the username of whoever they're replying to. Apologies for making a slightly out-of-context mess out of Ekyl's quite reasonable post...
(It also seems that trying to rename Toroll (dear, please use your own username. We will happily talk ourselves to death on the matter!) marks the post with my IP rather than theirs - all their posts thus far have come from 176.31.180.157, which appears to be another proxy.)
Considering that she didn't use the authentication thing at the end, and the IP addresses don't match, I think our friend Toroll has moved on to stealing the names of the people she's responding to.
Can we please just make a Tor ban? The exit IP list is public and updated, and I've seen other sites managing to block it. Even if it doesn't get rid of Toroll, it'll at least force her to use her own IP address.
~Seafarer, well fed up with anonymous posters
From what I understand, board software only allows one IP ban at a time. Meaning the Nameless Admin could ban one of the exit IPs that she uses, but I'm pretty sure she can easily switch to another one. Literally the only region of the PPC that can IP-block her is the IRC, because the Sorcery server blocks TOR connections.
I was under the impression that groups of IP addresses had been blocked before, to keep people from changing to a different computer in the same general area and thus grabbing a different IP address.
But I think that if this keeps up, we'll need to change to a system of "only logged-in people have posting privileges".
The login in system does nothing from what I've been told. There's been a few pushes for a different board that allows people to log in, and can ban multiple IPs, but nothing has ever come of it.
...to restrict posting privileges. I'm on their website now, having a look. And the login thing seems to be what lets certain users modify and delete posts.
I think that we should take a good look at our options - whether the openness of the current settings is more important to us than keeping out Toroll and her ilk.
... to set things so that posts by users not logged-in have to be approved before they go through.
Since we have users who are unable to log in or keep a login running, that is the only option I would be willing to activate.
And yes, it would be a lot of work for me.
Or, you could just not reply to Toroll and let me delete them when I get online.
If it did, we would've done it already.
If we can block one IP address, it doesn't seem like it'd be hard to block a lot. Some tech wizard can write a code to update the list of blocked IP addresses as the Tor list is updated. Or I'd hope so, anyway.
Maybe we should ask the Nameless Admin if it's possible?
Long answer: just don't reply to it and it will be deleted when the Nameless Admin is online. The only reason I'm leaving anything there is because they have replies after them.
Hope no one's hitting those by accident.
The whole "break the PPC apart" thing has already failed, and it seems to me like so openly admitting and discussing your agenda and actions would be rather counterproductive. If anything, now people are going to be inclined to think anything even slightly odd people say is actually you.
Really, if you had a genuine case to present, it seems like it would have been better served by just openly discussing it with us rather than resorting to this.
Not only that, but in the previous post you stated a belief that people would be more inclined to read your posts this way - suggesting you have things you want to say that you want to be heard. Just openly having a dialogue with us about it would be far more productive than all this nonsense.
Someone who repeatedly impersonates other Boarders isn't someone you need to be having a productive dialogue with. It's a troll who would be IP blocked if such a thing were possible. This goes to everyone else too.
Do not feed the troll.
hS
Or at least the IP is a Tor exit node.
I do apologize for the inter-country data transfer, but this was the first time I got to be the keeper who reported a major (non-rodent) birth, and I got overly excited. >.>
—doctorlit confirms Genuine July™
That unless there is a decision saying otherwise, July's vote should count, same as everybody (except the party under discussion — IIRC we didn't let dimensia or Rifle Calibre Guy weigh in). Until there is a decision, though, I'll count this as an abstention.
Since someone has already tried to vote on my behalf, I can't let that happen. I also don't want to see one spur of the moment thing blossom into any madness.