On permanent banning

[deltarho[1859]]

Excellent observation, angros47.

[badidea]

At PowerBASIC they have a poll facility built into the forum software. I do not know whether we have that or not.

It used to exist, see e.g.: https://freebasic.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1425

[deltarho[1859]]

Advanced Polls fo phpBB.

[marcov]

Moderation is IMHO not something that should be done with voting. It only would make it more partisan.

[deltarho[1859]]

Moderation is IMHO not something that should be done with voting.

I am not suggesting that. I was interested in comparing the current system with another – the decision would still rest with the moderators alone. My proposal would reduce partisanship.

[angros47]

The only place where I saw an attempt to do moderation with votes was Yahoo Answers, in its last period. It didn't work: the site was full of garbage, and flames, with that system. Basically, trolls registered five or six accounts, and used them to downvote people who disagreed with them, so they were able to erase their posts. And since they used the voting system to be able to reduce the number of moderators, there was no one to intervene to stop these abuses. A lot of serious users grow tired of that and abandoned the community, and then Yahoo Answers closed.

So, I'd say that voting does not help moderation, at least according to what I have seen.

[deltarho[1859]]

Basically, trolls registered five or six accounts

Hmmm, and we have lately seen how easy it is to register multiple accounts here.

[bfuller]

I just had a look at the member list and sorted by number of posts. There are 316 pages total, 180 pages with zero posts. I wonder how many are attempts at double accounts?

[grindstone]

But what use could it have to create a second account if you don't post anything there?

[marcov]

On the lazarus forum we have a similar phenomenon, many 0 post accounts (up to 3/4 of the total). Also we also have quite some (10-20 a week) registrations that are never confirmed.

From what we can see most of the older ones are probably automatically created by spam bots that I assume lost state or got their command and control servers IP blocked before they could really spam. We can see this mostly because those accounts (email or IPs) come from countries that in that period were the main source of spam.

For the rest we assume it is people that register out interest, but decide for something else or, for students, their assignment already finished before they could ask.

I think socketpuppeting is a very small% on the total number of accounts, but potentially not on the number of active users. (which you would find out when voting started).

Anyway, IMHO this openly attacking and second guessing moderators is extremely counterproductive. If you have a problem with a moderator(s), contact somebody in private, don't start gaslighting the forum.

[Lost Zergling]

@marcov :

If you have a problem with a moderator(s), contact somebody in private, don't start gaslighting the forum.

I agree with you. In an ideal world.
I am also in a logic of securing licenses, I understand the logic of securitized which is that of moderators and my interest is therefore that moderation works correctly, ie that it is effective without being too overtly authoritarian. I have a strong legal and political sensibility in this regard, and I strive to defend the free expression of copyright in the long term. I fear the drifts in the long term because of the practical facilities taken on the respect of the form.
How that ? It has been three times that I have seen myself intervene on the underlying questions of long-term policies indirectly concerning our future potential, and each time a common point on the source, which seems to indicate the expression of a will upstream (or around) of the official moderators.
I do not dispute it, nevertheless I therefore made the coherent choice to continue to defend the independence of my approach.
I cannot regret it, I'm sorry. I do not know what might be the motivations of deltarho, but they seems to me very different than mine.

[marcov]

@marcov :

If you have a problem with a moderator(s), contact somebody in private, don't start gaslighting the forum.

I agree with you. In an ideal world.

No in every day real world. Moderators are appointed by the owner of the forum. There is no democracy, no politics period.

Moderators are however also volunteers, and having to cover their *sses at every move, and trying to micromanage them with rules and guidelines, only makes for skittish moderators that feel they have to deal with the worst and are hemmed in at every turn. Or worse, "gone" moderators.

If for some reason a really bad moderator has taken up residence, handle your concerns privately.

I am also in a logic of securing licenses, I understand the logic of securitized which is that of moderators and my interest is therefore that moderation works correctly, ie that it is effective without being too overtly authoritarian

As said, this political lingo is misplaced. A forum is not a democracy.

Moreover, even if you would want to draw analogies with states, this situation is more that the banned users resisted the final verdict of the highest court. IOW after long deliberation a verdict was issued, and they are not abiding by it, even after warnings. At that point, enforcement comes into effect. And after warning, banning is basically the only instrument moderators have.

. I have a strong legal and political sensibility in this regard, and I strive to defend the free expression of copyright in the long term.

Irrelevant to the subject.

I fear the drifts in the long term because of the practical facilities taken on the respect of the form.

So do I. Ganging up to moderators should not be a means of passing the time till dinner.

How that ? It has been three times that I have seen myself intervene on the underlying questions of long-term policies indirectly concerning our future potential, and each time a common point on the source, which seems to indicate the expression of a will upstream (or around) of the official moderators.

What does "intervene" in this context?

[Lost Zergling]

@marcov. I'm going from bottom to top.
'intervene' just mean for me giving my opinion in the forum, nothing more. (the thrd 'intervention' was the post you just replied).
I did say : 'I fear drift…'
You answered 'so do I' : this point is actually the very really important for me. Perhaps the one.
Probably a professional bias reliquat from my studies : in penal law, respect of the form is a very important safety : as you cannot respect form, the accused shall not be declared guilty.
I do NOT want to put the blame on moderators, I just tried to explain or justify the reasons of my behaviour.
That wasn't very diplomatic nor very respectfull, I must admit it.
My will is never to 'ganging up to moderators', on the contrary this would be precisely my reproach to deltarho.
You said 'irrelevant to the subject', ok, my opinion just was different, perhaps I'm mistaken.
Never I did want to make analogie with states, you'd mistaken or translation mistake.
'political lingo is misplaced' : indeed. I just tried to explain my though, I recognize that was very clumsy.
About the very difficulties the job the moderators : I do hear your remarks and I take the engagement to be more precautionous in the futur.
ps : I was not referring to you nor to moderator team.

[deltarho[1859]]

Here we go – waffle, waffle, and more waffle. You guys are reading too much into this, shooting off in directions that having nothing to do with the title of this thread.

I do not know what might be the motivations of deltarho, but they seems to me very different than mine.

What on earth are you talking about?

The last few posts cover aspects which I haven't even touched upon.

What motivates me is justice. I do not believe that the current system gives us that.

All that I am saying is when considering a permanent ban, then all the moderators must be involved, and they must vote.

That is it. There is no need for all the waffle that is being dumped.

Do me a favour and read the opening post, and you will see that the last few posts have nothing to do with it.

From Forum Policy: “Don't deviate from the topic of conversation in a thread. If you have something new to talk about, consider starting a new thread.”

[Lost Zergling]

@deltarho. I don't think so.Read as well my first post onthis thread :
'What should interest us, users, are ethic, ideas and methods rather than put the blame on the decision process.'
My conception of 'justice' is not targeting moderators, nor their decisional process.
offtopic ?
Thus, I think their decisions were justified.(as to substance and despite I deeply regret what happened)
offtopic ?
Thus, when you created your first post you did reuse expressions and words I did use in my latest post in another topic, different meaning.
Coincidence ?
Sorry being a little upset.