Banning

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).

Kudos on finding out a new way of saying this line ultra sophisticated and sugar coated...

"Fuck off, mind your own business, we'll decide what's best for the forum, we have a little badgie, not you."

Inexperience? Perhaps? The willingness to put up with "inexperience" all over again? The words "Fuck that shit" come to mind.

Jae & Matthew, as of late only have I realised how much I love you guys.

The decision regarding Sit wasn't made to spite or "undermine" Jae or Matthew (who for the record Axel, aren't founders of the site, nor am I. Tim, Lutz and Brien are the only founders). I can see where you guys are coming from on that one but we have our reasons for deciding on that course of action which I will get to shortly.

As far as banning members not meaning anything because of this...bans are still permanent unless otherwise noted but since we handle matters on a case by case basis we reserve the right to give people a second chance depending on the circumstances. I'm sure you can appreciate that Jackal, considering what went down a couple of years ago, which to be frank felt like quite a slap in the face itself. It was a headache and an unpleasant episode to say the least but given the circumstances I decided to swallow my pride and reinstate your account because I could understand your reasons for doing what you did, even if I didn't agree with the approach.

Similarly, I can understand why Sit created a new account and wanted to distance himself from what happened in recent weeks. Needless to say we weren't happy to find out about this and we did consider banning him. As QBaller said he originally banned the Zoom account and we did discuss banning the Sit account too. The reason we decided against it is because Zoom/Sit hasn't been causing any trouble lately, hasn't been posting with the Sit account and didn't create a new account to cause any trouble.

Does that excuse breaking the rules? No, it doesn't. But I consider it a lesser offense than creating a new account to make a complete nuisance. To that end, we told Sit we weren't happy with the practice and it wasn't the right way to go...but since he's been keeping his nose clean we'll let it go but he's not to pull any stunt like this again. If we'd noticed earlier we would have put a stop to it before he posted as much as he has (and I'll get to that in a moment).

To clarify what happened with the Sit account: yes, banning the Sit account while leaving the Zoom account open is redundant. The Sit account has been deactivated (not banned) so it's effectively retired since Sit is intent on making a fresh start. The Zoom account is probationary, Sit has been told that while we can understand his motives we're not going to tolerate a stunt like that again.

To answer Nick's question: yes, creating a second account is against the rules and is generally punishable by the deletion of the second account and a warning, depending on what the person actually does with the second account. If it's act like a complete tool then we might consider a complete ban on both accounts. If it's a banned member who has circumvented the ban control then we'll take the same measures against the new account.

It should also be noted that a few times members have created second accounts to rib the rest of the Forum, which is technically against the rules but we have let it slide because we realised it was harmless fun and while we want to be consistent in enforcing the rules, we don't want to be joyless ogres either. Yes, what Sit did wasn't harmless fun but my point is that we consider the circumstances of the infraction when deciding what action to take.

Now, getting to why it wasn't noticed...plain and simple, it's a slip up on our part. First of all, a lot of the guys are new in their positions, and I haven't been around as much as I'd like to lately. It's also not as though we haven't been concerned with other matters; the NBA Live 07 section has demanded a lot of attention since the game's release and I've had other site issues to deal with so it went unnoticed. And most importantly, we're human. We're not perfect. We make mistakes. We do miss things from time to time. However, we do strive to be better and learn from our mistakes. Situations like this one are obviously an area in which we will need to be more vigilant in, now that Jae has retired from his post.

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.

It's not a matter of being complacent, it's a matter of considering the circumstances as well as punishments that have been handed out in the past. However, your point about the cold shoulder treatment is spot on and it's one of the reasons we came to the decision to leak what had happened because while we agreed to giving Sit a second chance, we weren't happy with what he did and didn't want him to get off scot-free. Thus, as I said before the Zoom account is probationary and people are being made aware of his true identity.

I guess that's pretty much it. If there's anything further that needs to be addressed or if you have concerns or questions about this situation or the way the forum is moderated, I'm here. You know how to get hold of me.

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.

ok, it was my fault for assuming that you knew while you were still a moderator... I'm not trying to blame you Jae or make you the scapegoat, but I think if you didn't tell us, then this would be another story. I understand that you didn't really want to deal with this after you've officially retired.. but the fact that you did eventually tell us recently as opposed to when you first found out, you made it your responsiblity. I think it would've made it easier if one of the current mods spotted it on our own, then the "we didn't know" reason wouldn't make us look dumb or soft because we didn't actually know about it. anyways, I need to go to work. my head hurts from thinking about this so much. I hope you guys understand where the mods come from all of this, not knowing at first and then being told by Jae later. but like Andrew said, my immediate response was to ban the Zoom account, but I found out that Sit was never banned, so that made things more complicated.

As far as banning members not meaning anything because of this...bans are still permanent unless otherwise noted but since we handle matters on a case by case basis we reserve the right to give people a second chance depending on the circumstances. I'm sure you can appreciate that Jackal, considering what went down a couple of years ago, which to be frank felt like quite a slap in the face itself.

As cute as that is, the situation isn't the same. I didn't re-register an account and try to pass myself off as someone else. If I recall correctly, I didn't say I wanted back in, don't get me wrong, I appreciate I was let back in, but if your intentions are to lay the guilt trip, it won't work. Simply because you felt it'd be better if I actually added in put on how to better the forums instead of remaining banned. Right? I may have a fucked up way of working with problems, but in most cases I've been able to tell a good poster from a bad one, right?

What leads you to believe that if Sit could hold a vendetta against Matthew & Jae (who to most peoples' knowledge were pretty much running the site, given you seemed a bit busy, not a knock, just an observation)...that Sit won't lead one against you if you some how tick him off?

It's your forum, it's your appointed moderators' forum and I can live with you guys letting him back in, does it disgust me? Sure. Will it encourage me to post? No. May others feel the same way? Perhaps.

Basically all I'm asking is someone to have enough balls to just say, well you know what, Matthew & Jae are gone, Sit is making decent threads, we'll just let him remain here even though it shows we don't back Matthew's previous decision of banning Sit.

This is the reason why Matthew left. It's because no one stood beside him when he made a decision, most folks cowered and just said...eh, yeah, do what you feel like. When he's gone, this little bitch comes back and everyone is so under the impression that it's come back to just that..."eh, yeah, do yo thang sit".

I had to get that bit out, I've got nothing left to say on the topic, all that needed to be said, has been said. It's clear where you guys are headed.

The fact that banned members are not able to return is wrong. I don't know about that MacGuyver/CoolMac guy, but there are also other banned members posting here. 8-Hype is still posting as the new account, that's 100%. Also I have very strong suspicion that funk99 is still doing it as well. This is just not good.

Good replies by bighort, ty-land, and andrew have made the situation easier to swallow, and made the decision making more unstandable. However i'm still left with the same gripe...

It's not a matter of being complacent, it's a matter of considering the circumstances as well as punishments that have been handed out in the past. However, your point about the cold shoulder treatment is spot on and it's one of the reasons we came to the decision to leak what had happened because while we agreed to giving Sit a second chance, we weren't happy with what he did and didn't want him to get off scot-free. Thus, as I said before the Zoom account is probationary and people are being made aware of his true identity.

But you guys didn't leak it. I did. So i'm still left wondering, had it not been made public, would it have still stayed behind the scenes?

As cute as that is, the situation isn't the same. I didn't re-register an account and try to pass myself off as someone else. If I recall correctly, I didn't say I wanted back in, don't get me wrong, I appreciate I was let back in, but don't if your intentions are to lay the guilt trip, it won't work. Simply because you felt it'd be better if I actually added in put on how to better the forums instead of remaining banned. Right? I may have a fucked up way of working with problems, but in most cases I've been able to tell a good poster from a bad one, right?

You're right, the situation isn't exactly the same. But my point is that we do give second chances depending on the circumstances and that's something I figured you understood and were well aware of, given all that happened a couple of years ago.

What leads you to believe that if Sit could hold a vendetta against Matthew & Jae (who to most peoples' knowledge were pretty much running the site, given you seemed a bit busy, not a knock, just an observation)...that Sit won't lead one against you if you some how tick him off?

I told Sit that I wasn't about to tolerate any kind of uprising. If he'd followed through on it, he would've been banned by whoever got to him first. Simple as that.

As far as Matthew and Jae running the site...I guess that's a fair enough observation. They took on a lot of responsibility and put in a lot of work so that I could focus on other things and didn't need to be on the forum 24/7.

Basically all I'm asking is someone to have enough balls to just say, well you know what, Matthew & Jae are gone, Sit is making decent threads, we'll just let him remain here even though it shows we don't back Matthew's previous decision of banning Sit.

This is the reason why Matthew left. It's because no one stood beside him when he made a decision, most folks cowered and just said...eh, yeah, do what you feel like. When he's gone, this little bitch comes back and everyone is so under the impression that it's come back to just that..."eh, yeah, do yo thang sit".

Sit was never banned, so there's no banning to support in the first place. If he had been banned, I wouldn't have overturned it and I would've been behind Matthew's decision (or Jae's decision, whoever got there first). As for the whole "cowering" issue...well, I'd entrusted both Jae and Matthew with global mod status and the power and right to ban members. I didn't think it necessary to give my approval or verbal support in every situation because I trusted them to take care of those matters. And if they were still around and moderating, I'd still trust them to take care of those matters.

I can see where you're coming from with the suggestion that this decision is undermining Jae and Matthew but this whole issue is something that came up and was dealt with after both retired from their duties and as Sit was never banned to begin with, it's not as though we've overturned a decision that was made. As I said before if either Jae or Matthew had banned Sit I wouldn't have overturned it and if he'd made a comeback after being banned the new account would have been banned, thus upholding the original ruling.

I had to get that bit out, I've got nothing left to say on the topic, all that needed to be said, has been said. It's clear where we're headed.

I must admit this is something that bothers me because you seem to do it whenever these situations come up; we're discussing the matter and then you'll suddenly declare you've nothing left to say because you can see where we're headed, despite the fact I've made it clear I'm open to answering questions and dealing with the situation at hand.

If you've got something to say, by all means come out with it. As I said, I'm here, I'm not locking the thread or dismissing the issue. You asked questions, I'm answering them. And I will continue to do so, if there are still questions to be asked.

You do raise good points and I'll admit, we may have made a hasty decision which is why we've been deliberating over it again.

But you guys didn't leak it. I did. So i'm still left wondering, had it not been made public, would it have still stayed behind the scenes?

We decided to leak it and were discussing the best way when Jae came up with the idea to simply let you and Jackal know about it and make it public knowledge that way. It was either that or simply refer to Zoom as Sit in an active topic. Jae's method seemed more effective and less likely to disrupt discussion. We were aiming for a more subtle approach than simply posting a big announcement "Hey everyone, Zoom is actually Sit".

I understand that you didn't really want to deal with this after you've officially retired.. but the fact that you did eventually tell us recently as opposed to when you first found out, you made it your responsiblity.

I disagree. I didn't have any proof it was Sit, I can't check IP's or anything anymore I just noticed from the very brief browsing I do these days that there were way too many similarities... it's not as if I had prior knowledge about it being Sit, no one told me, I couldn't actually prove it in any way but I put 2 and 2 together. Essentially, any moderator here could've figured it out ALOT sooner than me. I have absolutely no responsibilities at the NLSC, I told you guys because I thought things had gone on long enough and none of you had realised.

I hope you guys understand where the mods come from all of this, not knowing at first and then being told by Jae later.

Yeah, just incase anyone mis-interprets what's going on, the current staff here have only known about this for maybe 2 days. There was an internal debate over whether it should be revealed or whatever, and I made the decision to tell Nick/Jackal myself.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but could anyone answer my question?

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

It depends in what way you mean... if they're IP banned then obviously if they're on dial-up or whatever they just get a different IP and sign up again. If they're smart they'll pick a name that doesn't look too obvious and try to lay low, otherwise they just sign up as (banned account name)_2 or something. If you mean why can they come back in general, I think there's alot of leniency around here and banning someone isn't always a death sentence.

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?

Yep, that would be an IP ban and like I said above, it would be quite easy for them unless their IP never changes (like the case with Filip for example). I mean it pretty much comes down to the moderators being able to spot these guys coming back, whether it's by checking their IP, noticing similarities in their posting styles or even the name they use in their email. I caught LankyMan a bunch of times just by comparing the information he posted about himself in the About You/Get To Know You thread.

Edit: The ban methods are name ban, email ban, IP ban and Andrew can deactivate accounts if needed.

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

As far as I'm aware, no. They get a screen that says they've been banned. I might be wrong about this, but I have a feeling that unless they're IP banned, they can just log out of the forums and they'll be able to view everything. 90% of bans here are IP bans though so that shouldn't happen as much. There is a major glitch in the ban control system for this forum that a few people have exploited, hopefully that'll get sorted out one day.

It depends in what way you mean... if they're IP banned then obviously if they're on dial-up or whatever they just get a different IP and sign up again. If they're smart they'll pick a name that doesn't look too obvious and try to lay low, otherwise they just sign up as (banned account name)_2 or something. If you mean why can they come back in general, I think there's alot of leniency around here and banning someone isn't always a death sentence.

Thanks, Exactly what I was looking for.

Yep, that would be an IP ban and like I said above, it would be quite easy for them unless their IP never changes (like the case with Filip for example). I mean it pretty much comes down to the moderators being able to spot these guys coming back, whether it's by checking their IP, noticing similarities in their posting styles or even the name they use in their email. I caught LankyMan a bunch of times just by comparing the information he posted about himself in the About You/Get To Know You thread.

If an IP ban occures, how can you find out who they are by checking their IP if your suspicious? I mean, If their IP is "banned" then they manage to get through, won't their IP's be different, thus making it impossible to tell if they are the same person?

As far as I'm aware, no. They get a screen that says they've been banned. I might be wrong about this, but I have a feeling that unless they're IP banned, they can just log out of the forums and they'll be able to view everything. 90% of bans here are IP bans though so that shouldn't happen as much. There is a major glitch in the ban control system for this forum that a few people have exploited, hopefully that'll get sorted out one day.

If your right, thats cool. I always wondered if the banned retards could still see the 89294 Allen Iverson cyberfaces on this site they so dearly need.

If an IP ban occures, how can you find out who they are by checking their IP if your suspicious? I mean, If their IP is "banned" then they manage to get through, won't their IP's be different, thus making it impossible to tell if they are the same person?

Yes and know... if you IP ban a guy on dial-up, he'll have a stack of different IP's so you just compare the new ones to his old ones and see how similar they are. If you want to go a bit further you can put them into an IP look-up website thing and see the location, I caught alot of Pinoys that way, even if the IP is different (and obviously not an exact match) the location could still be unique.

The most extreme method which I only used once is to actually Google the IP, if it shows up on a website that lists a bunch of proxy's (like it did in this case) then you know it's someone trying to get around the ban control.

Thanks for clarifying things Jae, I think most of us were a bit confused about exactly what happened

I caught alot of Pinoys that way

"pinoy-hunting"

Jae's right with the not being abe to read the forums thing. I was banned at .org and I got that screen.


With the question, they can look for similarites, like Jae said. That's how they got Pinoy_Idol and Nikolas when they came back I think.

If an IP ban occures, how can you find out who they are by checking their IP if your suspicious? I mean, If their IP is "banned" then they manage to get through, won't their IP's be different, thus making it impossible to tell if they are the same person?

To add to what Jae said, if they've got a lot of posts they've usually posted from a few different IPs and often the newly created account will match up with one of them, which makes things a little easier.

Wow thats awesome. I always thought that if some one has a different IP (I don't know much about IP's, but I think its a bunch of numbers?) to the one that was banned, it would be completely different, making it impossible to guess the person.

Before your original post I had a total of 1 (out of 31) reply actually addressing this topic

Thanks for clearing that up.

EDIT: Just saw your post Andrew, no doubt that would make it alot easier.

lol pinoy hunting haha nice one man
by the way Flite nice Melo sig

We decided to leak it and were discussing the best way when Jae came up with the idea to simply let you and Jackal know about it and make it public knowledge that way.

I was used!

So your way of making it public was telling 2 bigmouths in the community, assuming we'd tell the rest of the forum? I can see how effective that is actually. But i'm sure Jae telling me of Zoom wasn't a decision of the mods, insuring to make it public. Heck, Jae didn't even know for sure. He was just telling me of his suspicions for the sake of conversation it seemed like, and a few days later there was proof to prove it. It's not like he thought, "Alright, it's time to go to plan #42 of telling nick the official news of the bookworthy bible of Jaesus christ for the good of the NLSC and its moderation team". Atleast that's the way i saw it. Correct me if i'm wrong on that though. As far as i know, I actually knew about Sit being Zoom days before the mods. I'm not saying that as a bragging right or something, but as a point to say i've had the power to "leak" it for over a week. So we're at square 1 again with the issue. If i had never "leaked" it to the community, would the mod team have ever said anything?

I know this is just a small issue within a broader one, but my gripe still remains.

And despite my gripe with the decisions and whatnot, my resect for the new mod team is growing due to the way they're handling things in this thread.

yeah Nick I have a feeling you did know before the mods did. it was just over 4 days ago that Jae mentioned it to the mods and I looked into it and found the matching IPs and similar posting styles, etc. Most of the mods discussed what to do with the situation seeing that it was pretty weird that Sit wasn't banned. Most of us agreed to deactivate the Sit account and allow him to post under one username, Zoom, but we would watch him closely. I also posed the question whether we should announce it in the name change thread or something, though I felt that it would come out sooner or later. Many mods felt it should've been kept a secret. Jae wanted to tell everybody.

Well, if Sit's as bad as everyone says, then you guys just gotta wait a few more weeks before he screws up and gets banned. I see people lie Jackal drooling over the thought of that, and might actually try to provoke him.
If he doesn't screw up, we'll have a decent contributor to the forums.
I don't think everybody will see it as a win-win situation, but its not bad I say.

Yeah Nick is right, there was no decision to tell the two "big mouths" and see what happens, it was my own decision to tell Nick and Jackal. Nick, because I'd talked to him about it previously and I knew his opinion of Sit, and Jackal because I hadn't had a chance to talk to him on MSN.

I see people lie Jackal drooling over the thought of that, and might actually try to provoke him.

You see people like Jackal drooling over it because people like Jackal actually have fuck clue of what happened. You can't make a comment like that and expect me not to respond.

I think a lot of folks are being a bunch of cunts, this guy did a horrible fuckin' thing and he's getting off scott free. I did a horrible thing, but the person who let me off the hook was the person I insulted, not some mediating jackass's who think my only reason for wanting to not have sit around is so that I can drool about it.

I'm positively certain Matthew still despises this guy, and you guys are just letting him remain on the forums. Just spit on Matthew and call it a day already.

Are you fags so desperate for someone to provide "good" discussion? Even if that someone is Sit? Shite, unban Dweeber and Arvin while you're at it.

Dandy that Nick seems to have more and more respect, I'm actually losing more and more. Then again, it's just Jackal.

Last but not least Qballer, I'm not that stupid. I won't go provoking a cunthair like Sit when I know he's under protection from folks like yourself. Ain't that stupid...

I think a lot of folks are being a bunch of cunts, this guy did a horrible fuckin' thing and he's getting off scott free. I did a horrible thing, but the person who let me off the hook was the person I insulted, not some mediating jackass's who think my only reason for wanting to not have sit around is so that I can drool about it.

well, since I don't know the whole story, could you enlighten me please? I want to know where you're coming from on this. I don't feel completely comfortable talking about something I don't know too much about.

It's all on the forums, I'm not going to look up stuff for you.

I just got agitated at you making me look like a crazy fellow obsessed with the fact that Sit should be banned while there really isn't much reason for it. Read your post, you make me look like I want him banned whereas he's "innocent". Now you know where I'm coming from with that.

[[Q]]

ok, fair enough. I don't mind looking myself. didn't mean to offend you in any way, because I don't have a reason to. I have nothing but respect for you because you have been here for so long and have made your own unique impact on these forums.

I've tried searching on this before, and I gotta admit because it's really hard searching through 2-3 yrs of posts and it's even more confusing that a lot of the stuff has been edited, but I'm not sure if the editing really changes much though.

Last edited by [Q] on Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.