Banning

[---]

I have a question. Could anyone clear up the whole banning process?

It seems that some posters can just make multiple accounts. Is there a way around this? Is an IP ban or whatever 100% guaranteed?

How many different methods are used to ban particular posters, and are any of them actually impossible to breach?

Appreciate it if anyone can fill me in on it.

[RSox]

And some people probably have multiple computers so they can just go on the other computer's IP.

[Jackal]

What surprises me most about the whole Sit being Zoom situation is the fact that the moderators didn't pick up on it.

This leads to the question of whether they knew, and chose not to do anything...or are just not competent enough. I'll let you folks answer that one.

Lastly, as much as he may have "rejuvinated" the forums, I plead for the people that can, to ban Zoom. I don't even think I need to give reasoning, if you do need it, I'd be willing to pull out one of my long posts discussing just why I feel Sit shouldn't be part of this forum. We all know we don't want that happening.

Lastly, that MacGuyver guy is so fucking Coolmac, it's not normal.

[cklitsie]

Lastly, that MacGuyver guy is so fucking Coolmac, it's not normal.

Word, I fucking knew it.

[cyanide]

What surprises me most about the whole Sit being Zoom situation is the fact that the moderators didn't pick up on it.

This leads to the question of whether they knew, and chose not to do anything...or are just not competent enough. I'll let you folks answer that one.

Nobody picked up on the fact that Zoom is Sit, because "Zoom" didn't do anything bad to grab a moderator's attention. In fact, the only person who exposed Zoom is Jae, while nobody else even noticed. Though retired, Jae's been a mod for a long time and experienced enough to pick up on this. All of us, except for Yohance are new mods, so rather than being incompetent, we're inexperienced.

For sure, I'll be IP checking more often from now on, and we've had the Sit/Zoom discussion for a while now on whether to ban him or not.

[Jackal]

I suppose that's a good enough reason, I suppose not everyone does a random IP check of new posters (especially ones making 1000 posts in a month) like I used to.

Could we get an idea of where that discussion is headed so I can prepare myself if I'm in for a rude shock? Much appreciated.

[The Other Kevin]

Well, Riot was banned for a little. I don't know if you knew that.



McGuiever has to be CoolMac. There is no other explanation.

[cyanide]

McGuiever has to be CoolMac. There is no other explanation.

Except MacGuyver doesn't make 20 posts a day. And no, they're not the same.

Could we get an idea of where that discussion is headed so I can prepare myself if I'm in for a rude shock? Much appreciated.

Sit's banned, but we're going to monitor Zoom.

[Jackal]

Coolmac has sufficient knowledge of computers. It isn't difficult to get a new service provider or to switch up one's IP using a router. Specially not for someone who knows anything about computers.

That guy is coolmac, IP's may not be the same, but it's him.

Secondly, Sit is Zoom, so saying Sit is banned and Zoom is not banned is just as easy as saying Sit is not banned.

If that's what's been seen as the best solution, best of luck to you folks, honestly. That's over-riding two big time decision makers in Jae & Matthew. Basically you guys can whipe the banned list and just let everyone come back.

In essence, it is just that, right? Undermining/not supporting two moderators' decisions? With Sit running around on the forums, Matthew & Jae look like two clowns...they made a decision, and it was just bypassed. Who has the last laugh? Sit.

Sometimes I just want to bang my head till blood comes out.

[Axel]

I dont know what the deal is with banning on this forum, but on another forum where I used to post on, people who were banned never came back. I was once temporarily banned (yeah i was 13 at the time), tried coming back with a different isp... was ousted within 10 minutes.

Letting Zoom stay is a slap in the face to two founders here, Jae and Matthew. If this forum is that desperate for posters, maybe it's not worth posting here at all.

[Jackal]

My sentiments exactly, I tend not to be able to express what I'm trying to say as strongly as you just did.

Kudos.

[Jugs]

LMAO, Sit is such a fuckwit. Him and funk99 should just e-sex each other over msn FFS.

[dada]

At first I didnt pick up on Zoom being Sit but after seeing the post count and the fact he always posted in the Laker thread kinda made me notice. I had no real problems with Sit so I never really tried implying or reporting anything of the sort. I figured if he wanted to post again it must be hard enough in itself to kinda remake friends all over again and not slip too much to the point its overly obvious..

I mean, he's a Laker fan...I can't help it.

[Jing]

Sit might as well slap Jae and Matthew in the balls while he's down the too.

[bigh0rt]

Flite, banning members is done using the better judgement of one, or occasionally several NLSC Moderation Team Members. There's no need to dive any further into it than that. Precautionary measures are taken to ensure the banned member will no longer be able to visit the forums, and occasionally further measures are taken by the team, when necessary.

Jackal, Axel -- the best course of action here is just to let the moderation team to use its judgement in matters regarding banning members, its leniency, and judging everything on a case by case basis. Any issues you may have or think you have are best to be brought to the attention of Andrew or any other moderator (or both) via PM. I assure you your concerns will be addressed where necessary (Axel -- you now have proof of this).

Until then, just enjoy the forum, gents, and leave the behind the scenes decision making to be done by those who are ready, willing, able, and most importantly, ahve been selected to do so.

[---]

Hang on, before this turns into any more of a Sit thread, let me rephrase my questions.

Question 1: Why can "banned" members come back?

Question 2: If someone (presuming there are multiple ways to ban) was banned using the most difficult-to-get-back-in method, Can they still get in?

Question 3: Finally, ca a "banned" member still read (not post, read) the forums - obtaining downloads, etc while just lurking?

Thanks for the answers. I want to know the technical side of the process.

[Indy]

I suppose that's a good enough reason, I suppose not everyone does a random IP check of new posters (especially ones making 1000 posts in a month) like I used to.

Actually I IP check every name that seems somewhat suspicious, but we had already known that Zoom and Sit were the same person before he went on a mad posting spree. I IP checked MacGuyver well before anyone suggested that he was CoolMac because I thought the same thing, but he checked out.

[[Q]]

ok as a moderator, I would have to say things are different because this situation is a little unique. If this was a banned member coming back with another account, then the decision would be a lot easier. Much to my surprise, when Jae revealed it to the mods, I quickly went to ban Zoom's account. I got curious and searched for "Sit" and he was NOT banned. That was part of the reason why most of the mods decided to let Zoom stay, but we would watch him and would ban him on the first screw up.

as a poster, I would like to say that I honestly did not pay much attention to the whole Sit/funk vs Matthew/Jae thing. I read some of Nick's thread with the msn conversations, but I lost interest quickly. I went back to look at some of the discussions about it just now and I still don't really get it, but I think that he's brought some decent conversation to the forum and should be given a second chance like Riot, who most have grown to like.

EDIT:

Hang on, before this turns into any more of a Sit thread, let me rephrase my questions.

Question 1: Why can "banned" members come back?

Question 2: If someone (presuming there are multiple ways to ban) was banned using the most difficult-to-get-back-in method, Can they still get in?

Question 3: Finally, ca a "banned" member still read (not post, read) the forums - obtaining downloads, etc while just lurking?

Thanks for the answers. I want to know the technical side of the process.

1. banned members are not allowed to return. if you ask about Sit/Zoom, Sit was not banned. he just stopped posting.

2. probably not. if they did, they'd be banned again.

3. banned members can read the forums, just like non-registered members can read the forums. They don't need to sign in to read, but they have to sign in to post.

[Axel]

I was under the impression that he was banned, but either way, I feel the same. Regardless of whether the moderating staff chooses to be complacent in this issue or not, I think justice will in the end serve the greater cause. Now that he has been publically outed, those who want to give him the cold shoulder will. Unless this kid has such a pitiful life that he has nothing better to do than post on a forum where he is habitually ostracized, he'll eventually go away. I'm not informed enough to say more. I think I've pushed the envelope enough for one day.

[Nick]

So Sit created a new account in Zoom. It's against the rules. He should be punished, right?

I don't think it makes much sense to ban Sit but not Zoom. To me it makes sense to ban BOTH, but if you WERE only going to ban one, it should be Zoom shouldn't it?

Banning 'Sit' is not a punishment. He doesn't post under that name. Zoom is the new account, it's the 2nd account, that one should be banned. Sit must be forced to ues his fucked up actual identity or not at all.

And if most of the moderators knew about it already, why didn't you take any sort of action earlier? That is slightly baffling. And a bit soft. I guess Zoom was sparking discussions that you didn't want to interupt? If that's the case, then are you going to do that every time? Is there more posters that are posting under another name that nobody knows about yet? Should the community feel untrusted and that as soon as we find someone else out, you'll ban them only then, when they're found out by the public?

Please don't take these as personal attacks, but challenges.

[---]

I would just like to say this:

My reason for making this thread was just a thing I have always wanted to know, it has nothing to do with Sit/CoolMac/Dweaver or anyone else.

[bigh0rt]

Nick,

Your questions and concerns will all be addressed, even if there is no answer posted on the forums specifically.

Again, these issues are best served as discussed over PM; and you'll just have to continue trusting the moderation team to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

Again, all of your concerns have been, are, and will continue to be discussed among the moderators, and as I mentioned before -- we deal with everything on a case by case basis. So, even if you don't see specific answers to your questions, it doesn't mean they're not noticed, or are being ignored. It's just that not everything the team does is up for discussion on the forums.

[[Q]]

oh and for the record, it was Jae that allowed Zoom to continue posting despite the fact that he knew it was Sit. He only pointed it out to the other mods here less than a week ago. If you want answers on why Zoom lasted so long, direct your questions to Jae.

[Ty-Land]

And if most of the moderators knew about it already, why didn't you take any sort of action earlier? That is slightly baffling. And a bit soft. I guess Zoom was sparking discussions that you didn't want to interupt? If that's the case, then are you going to do that every time? Is there more posters that are posting under another name that nobody knows about yet? Should the community feel untrusted and that as soon as we find someone else out, you'll ban them only then, when they're found out by the public?

Please don't take these as personal attacks, but challenges.

Regardless of the way you feel, we did have our reasons. I'm sure Andrew will clear these up in due course. The course of action taken was decided upon by all of us, taking into consideration Jae's view on the situation. So while you may consider our stance a 'bit soft', this is where we stand at the moment. Hopefully this can be respected by the majority.

[J@3]

oh and for the record, it was Jae that allowed Zoom to continue posting despite the fact that he knew it was Sit. He only pointed it out to the other mods here less than a week ago. If you want answers on why Zoom lasted so long, direct your questions to Jae.

Well no, I didn't "allow" anyone to post. I'm not a moderator here anymore, nor even an active poster. I spotted him pretty much immediately after I "retired" but I figured it wasn't my mess anymore so why should I get involved. Since absolutely no one else seemed to pick up on it I figured it'd dragged on long enough so I made sure you guys knew about it. The amount of time he stayed here has absolutely nothing to do with me, it's not my job anymore and not my responsibility.