Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Applications update

Page: 1(2)3

20:17 / 14.01.08

Why, what would that prove?

20:24 / 14.01.08

Near as I can tell, after achieving the requisite number of votes from two forums (and twice from one of those forums), the first of two bannable suits has not been banned.

This was a little unexpected. At least I didn't expect it.

I have a suspicion that there might be an automatically generated email or a blinking red light somewhere that's trying to get Tom's attention for him to do the last step by hand, or at least to make some final acceptance, clicking a link that enters vital info into a banlist or something like that.

OR there might be some kind of auto-ban override for a user who's using the same IP address as another user, since I created two accounts at the same time. This amounts to much the same thing as far as actually banning someone goes, depending on the IP address used (if unique, then auto-ban goes through). I don't know how likely this explanation is to be the truth, but I could test it tonight at the college, which has a different IP address than the library, and is unlikely to have any other members signed in.

21:11 / 14.01.08

I think that's fairly unlikely, g, given that the functionality - such as it is(n't) - was a quick fix. I can't really see there having been enough time spent on it to worry about whether or not a banned suit is logging on from the same IP address as a non-banned one.

I mean, given that the actual banning doesn't even work, and all.

21:21 / 14.01.08

I was thinking it might have been cloned from an existing banning system and duct-taped onto our unique software. But I feel like a 3rd-grader trying to figure out how a B-52 bomber works.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:16 / 14.01.08

Yeah, I call blinking red light. Well, that's worth knowing.

Who do you think you are kidding, Mister Hitler.
If you think the Barb is done...

Mordant Carnival

22:28 / 14.01.08

VERB: 1. To make or become unusable or inoperative: break, ruin. Slang : bust. See HELP. 2. To undergo sudden financial ruin: break, bust, collapse, crash, go under. Informal : fold. Idioms: go belly up, go bust, go on the rocks, go to the wall. See MONEY. 3. To lose strength or power: decline, degenerate, deteriorate, fade, flag2, languish, sink, wane, waste (away), weaken. Informal : fizzle (out). Idioms: go downhill, hit the skids. See INCREASE, STRONG. 4. To be unsuccessful: choke, fall through. Informal : fall down, flop. Slang : bomb. Idioms: fall short. See THRIVE. 5. To cease functioning properly: break down, give out. Slang : conk out. See THRIVE. 6. To not do (something necessary): default, neglect, omit. See DO. 7. To prove deficient or insufficient: give out, run out. Idioms: fall short, run dry, run short. See EXCESS. 8. To receive less than a passing grade: Informal : flunk. See THRIVE.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

23:07 / 14.01.08

See also: oh ARSE.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:13 / 14.01.08

Moving to ghost this thread, so we can talk more freely if we need to about this - anyone who wants to keep talking about it, bookmark it.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

01:58 / 15.01.08

Hang on, if we're going with the "blinking red light" hypothesis (which does, I admit, seem the most plausible option) then what was the point of the whole new "banning functionality" at all, other than collating all the calls for banning in one place so Tom could push the button (which could have, and I think actually MAY have been, easier accomplished by Haus or grant or someone contacting him and telling him once we'd reached a critical mass for banning anyway? It's not like he ever refused, is it?)

02:36 / 15.01.08

My thoughts exactly. I'd presumed that the intention was that enough votes in favour of a ban would put it into action automatically, but if that's not the case, then... well...

Words would fail me.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

02:40 / 15.01.08

It's hard to understate my satisfaction...

02:52 / 15.01.08

what was the point of the whole new "banning functionality" at all

Bone-throwing, maybe? It's a little disheartening, isn't it. He didn't have to do anything, I understand, but I'm not sure why he would get hopes up for nothing. Maybe there is something not clear yet. I'm going to check the old thread for clues.

02:52 / 15.01.08

Just on the off-chance, here's a suit from a completely unique IP.

It's a sinful suit, given to ENVY and AVARICE, and, if its browser cache is anything to go by, an excessive amount of LUST.

Plus, I heard that it 1. killed its neighbors, 2. brought them back as zombies and 3. enrolled them in a pyramid scheme. Zomb-way, I think it was called.

Burn it at the stake!

02:59 / 15.01.08

You might keep it in this forum for simplicity's sake.

*

03:44 / 15.01.08

Burn it, but send me the details for that Zomb-Way thing. I think I've got a coworker that needs to hear about it.

04:06 / 15.01.08

Maybe this would be more appropriate in Topics of Concern: Banning, but since it's being discussed here...

For reference, these are some quotes from Tom, I'm not sure that it's complete, and I'm not sure what it all means. I think it's mostly chronologically in order, though.

link:
At the moment banning people requires me going into the database, finding their user number and marking them as 'banned'. It doesn't take an enormous amount of time, but it is fiddly and it's not something as it stands that I could really open up more widely because it gives you access to the database, all the private messages etc. etc.

link:
In emergencies, Admins now have the power to ban or unban people on a whim, but if I find out people have done this without bloody good reason, I'll throw an enormous wobbly and shout at everyone before getting rid of the power completely.

link:
The new process allows an admin to ban out of hand - there aren't many admins. I may be the only one, and it allows any moderator to propose someone for a ban. They'd need another seven mods to agree and if two disagreed then it would be abandoned immediately.

We can nuance that, by the way, if people don't like the numbers.

link:
If I remember correctly, banned users can't log in.

link:
Banning, if I remember correctly, stops the user from logging in, so they can't post or anything. It doesn't scramble their password and they can't get a new one, they're just marked in the database as verboten.

It also does some other things designed to stop people just collecting a new user name and reregistering based on IP address and stuff like that.

link:
Yeah I'm not sure I'm terribly comfortable with many people on the board having de facto ban powers. I'd rather it was just me (so I could ban for legal reasons).

link:
A couple of things:

* I like the idea of a provisional step before banning being to restrict them to the policy to answer charges (so to speak) although it seems strange to let new members post to the policy.
* I'm not very comfortable about the idea of us banning people quickly if they sign up and don't seem to be right for the place. I think that's going to result in people getting angry and trying to hurt the place, rather than them just not being bothered to go through the process of joining.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:18 / 15.01.08

Hang on, if we're going with the "blinking red light" hypothesis (which does, I admit, seem the most plausible option) then what was the point of the whole new "banning functionality" at all, other than collating all the calls for banning in one place so Tom could push the button (which could have, and I think actually MAY have been, easier accomplished by Haus or grant or someone contacting him and telling him once we'd reached a critical mass for banning anyway? It's not like he ever refused, is it?)

Well, he had previously felt obliged to look at every banning discussion, and the original posts linked therein, before making a decision. The voting system, presumably, was to avoid this, by mechanising the process of a group of moderators agreeing that somebody should be banned, and not vetoing that decision. So, red light flashes, Tom knows that discussion has been had and consensus agreed, Tom bans. Assuming Tom there.

How does this differ from myself or Randy emailing him, ccing the other, saying "We have had a discussion, and the consensus is that x needs banning - do you agree, (other one of Haus - Randy)"? Numbers, pretty much.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:31 / 15.01.08

Numbers... of people who got duped into thinking Barbelith had a functional banning process?

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:01 / 15.01.08

Ban Flyboy!

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:04 / 15.01.08

Repeatedly!

15:17 / 15.01.08

See, this:
The new process allows an admin to ban out of hand - there aren't many admins. I may be the only one, and it allows any moderator to propose someone for a ban. They'd need another seven mods to agree and if two disagreed then it would be abandoned immediately.

makes me think that there's some automation that's not working the way it should. I wonder if it's just a thing like registering a domain name, where you have to wait for information to get logged by the system.... no, that doesn't seem to make sense.

Hmm.

15:19 / 15.01.08

Something somewhere is broken. Someone should tell Tom.

He's a good man, like President Truman or my father.

16:31 / 15.01.08

I had another thought, but am not sure I should be discussing it until this thread is ghosted.

16:45 / 15.01.08

Oh Christ...

17:03 / 15.01.08

Emailed Tom.

18:08 / 15.01.08

Ah - thread ghosted.

My one thought was that I haven't tried logging on with bannable1 from the library where the suit originated, so it *could* be that that's the IP that's blocked... and nothing else has (yet?) happened to prevent bannable1 from polluting this board.

20:44 / 15.01.08

So, really, there's nothing to stop a troll just renewing their IP address, using a proxy server or something else to get around it. I would have thought the easiest option would be for the banninator system to scramble someone's password into the ground?

21:03 / 15.01.08

So would I, but I didn't code the thing.

22:57 / 15.01.08

On the plus side, I (or Haus, or whoever) probably wouldn't be banned after adding user accounts that were subsequently banned, which was what prompted this experiment to start with.

00:43 / 16.01.08

Unless, red light blinking.

03:28 / 16.01.08

It blinks for all of us, Tsuga.

18:06 / 16.01.08

For allll of usssss

02:47 / 17.01.08

I'm still here, able to log in from my originating IP (Bannable III being the university account, rather than the two library accounts of bannable1 and bannable2.)

I did get the nicest welcoming PM from Ubermice/mouse among voles. I feel all gushy and new all over again.

So now what?

gamma globulins

14:15 / 18.01.08

So where do we go from here?

16:41 / 18.01.08

Well, I'm happy to take an allowance of emails and add people in by hand. It's technically no different than it was a couple of months ago. We don't have a banning mechanism per se, but could (if pressed) lock and delete things until either Troll got frustrated or Tom woke up (or got back from Macdex, which is where I think he is now).

This is somewhat inconvenient, and not very good security.

Page: 1(2)3