How does one find out about banned users...

[Blake's Baby]

...if their banning doesn't appear in the Admin/Moderator Actions threads?

Thanking someone's post today, I noticed that they now have 'banned' under their name, and yet, I can't find any mention in the logs of them being banned. They only joined a few days ago, user name 'Comrade Jogisches'.

Does that in fact mean that they're not banned, and have just changed their status to 'banned'?

If that is the case, can it be board policy to discourage that? I know Kontrrazvedka/Iskra did it back in the day and it confused some people; I certainly wouldn't want to see it happening with any kind of regularity. Given the number of users who really are banned, current users pretending is a receipe for confusion.

[RedAnarchist]

Sorry, I banned them late last night, they were a sockpuppet of a banned member. I'll go and add them to the thread.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Actually, could I use this thread quickly to ask why the user Miles was banned? Needless to say I found his opinions struck very close to my own and he certainly influenced me a little in my political studies.

Before I even started posting here, however, he was banned - and I can't find any mod/admin post relating to his banning. Could you guys clear this one up for me?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

He banned himself.

[Q]

Yes, Miles banned himself after some internal BA drama.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does that in fact mean that they're not banned, and have just changed their status to 'banned'?

If that is the case, can it be board policy to discourage that? I know Kontrrazvedka/Iskra did it back in the day and it confused some people; I certainly wouldn't want to see it happening with any kind of regularity. Given the number of users who really are banned, current users pretending is a receipe for confusion.

Is it really that big a deal that there has to be yet another board policy to deal with it? I don't think so.

For a start, banned members lose avatar privileges. I think it's also possible for them to have sigs and others taken away as well.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, so we can tell if they're actually banned by not having an avatar? That does mean that someone like me (who doesn't have an avatar) could change my status to 'banned' and I'd look like I really was banned. No-one need necessarlily know if I ever had a sig or not.

Of course if I knew how to change my status to 'banned' I'd probably know how to add an avatar.

And 'yet another board policy'? Seriously? I'm suggesting that it's not such a good idea that members should pretend to be banned when they're not. Why does that even seem strange?

[Os Cangaceiros]

OK, so we can tell if they're actually banned by not having an avatar? That does mean that someone like me (who doesn't have an avatar) could change my status to 'banned' and I'd look like I really was banned. No-one need necessarlily know if I ever had a sig or not.

Your name would no longer be blue if you were really banned, though

[Blake's Baby]

Looking through this thread, Negative Creep, Choler and RedAnarchist don't have blue names, and I don't think any of them are banned, so that's no help.

Is there a checklist of characteristics?

Avatar - check
Name in blue - check
Sig - check

If you have any of these, you're legit, is that it?

It still seems possible that someone may not have bothered with a sig or avatar, and like negative Creep or Choler not have a blue name (for whatever reaason that might be, I have no clue) ad then look like they were banned.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Maybe there should be a policy where banned members' name is in a different color.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Looking through this thread, Negative Creep, Choler and RedAnarchist don't have blue names, and I don't think any of them are banned, so that's no help.

Is there a checklist of characteristics?

Avatar - check
Name in blue - check
Sig - check

If you have any of these, you're legit, is that it?

It still seems possible that someone may not have bothered with a sig or avatar, and like negative Creep or Choler not have a blue name (for whatever reaason that might be, I have no clue) ad then look like they were banned.

If you check a user's profile page (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8267) you'll see, below the profile pic, the date of last activity for the account. Obviously if they're showing recent activity, then they're not banned.

Why is it such a big deal? What terrible consequences are you afraid might happen?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

In terms of knowing if someone is really banned or not I know that members who are banned cannot, in most if not all cases, have other members leave them visitor messages.

[Blake's Baby]

If you check a user's profile page (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8267) you'll see, below the profile pic, the date of last activity for the account. Obviously if they're showing recent activity, then they're not banned...

Well, when I checked Comrade Jogisches' page, their latest activity was about 6 hours before I checked. Should I conclude that they weren't banned?

Oh, they were, RedAnarchist just forgot to log it.


Why is it such a big deal? What terrible consequences are you afraid might happen?

'big deal', 'terrible consequences', 'afraid'? For fuck's sake, get a grip.

Confusion is probably counter-productive unless one is deliberately trying to deceive, and therefore if it can be reasonably avoided, it should be. Is the BA deliberately trying to deceive the users of the forum? Are users deliberately trying to deceive other users of the forum? If not, what's the problem with being clear about the status of members?

I thought in the couple of posts that I saw, Comrade Jogisches made some good points. I noticed that they were 'banned', so I went to find out why. They were not logged as 'banned' and therefore I enquired, in case they had merely changed their status themselves as Iskra had done. Turns out, no, they had been banned as a sockpuppet, but RedAnarchist had forgotten to log it. That process is not apparent or transparent. Finding out about it causes confusion, wastes time and energy and frankly I've got more important things to do.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Also, banned members can still attempt to log in which, I believe, shows up as activity. So even though they are not actually doing anything it still shows in the system. Weird but whatever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, when I checked Comrade Jogisches' page, their latest activity was about 6 hours before I checked. Should I conclude that they weren't banned?

Oh, they were, RedAnarchist just forgot to log it.

An oversight which your matchless vigilance has now corrected. Problem solved, right?


'big deal', 'terrible consequences', 'afraid'? For fuck's sake, get a grip.

You're the one making the fuss over the ability of people to change their title to "banned", and you are the one asking for yet more rules ("board policy") to deal with a behaviour that is at best a minor inconvenience.


Confusion is probably counter-productive unless one is deliberately trying to deceive, and therefore if it can be reasonably avoided, it should be. Is the BA deliberately trying to deceive the users of the forum? Are users deliberately trying to deceive other users of the forum? If not, what's the problem with being clear about the status of members?

Members' status is perfectly clear. If they are truly banned, they don't post any more.


I thought in the couple of posts that I saw, Comrade Jogisches made some good points. I noticed that they were 'banned', so I went to find out why. They were not logged as 'banned' and therefore I enquired, in case they had merely changed their status themselves as Iskra had done. Turns out, no, they had been banned as a sockpuppet, but RedAnarchist had forgotten to log it. That process is not apparent or transparent. Finding out about it causes confusion, wastes time and energy and frankly I've got more important things to do.

So for the sake of your convenience we should have yet more footling little policies that regulate behaviour that is largely inconsequential? That's what I'm objecting to.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, pretty much, you should dance to my tune because I'm the most important thing about this site, that's exactly what I'm saying Noxion. Dance.

I don't know how the custom user titles work. Why should I care? There's nothing particularly witty I want to say about myself that I think would be useful to put under my user name. Certainly nothing as witty as 'spaced cadet'.

You may be right that it is a 'minor inconvenience'. It may also be that no-one else gives a monkey's. But having encountered this, and not been able to tell whether or not Comrade Jogisches was actually banned without starting a thread about it, and remembered about Iskra's case, where incidently some newbie was asking how Iskra could post if he was banned, and explaining at the time that it was possible to alter one's user title and Iskra had altered his to banned, it seems that the process (which might involve people forgetting about stuff, and in this case Red Anarchist happening to chance on this thread and being reminded to log Comrade Jogische's banning, on another occasion this not happening and no log of the banning being made) is not particularly clear. Your suggestion that the best way to determine whether or not someone is banned is to wait an unspecified time (3 days? 6 months?) and see if they post is, errm, pretty stupid. Perhaps I don't want to wait 6 months to find out if they're banned. Perhaps they aren't banned, but just don't post for 3 weeks. How to tell? Does it matter?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Yes, Miles banned himself after some internal BA drama.
Gawd, the BA sound like a coven of tyrants after all I've heard about them.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Gawd, the BA sound like a coven of tyrants after all I've heard about them.

Au contraire. Look at the case of banned use sithsaber who returned as ACtoad and was allowed to post here until he outed himself as a sock puppet. Even in the case of A Marxist Historian, AMH referred to the women in the Assange case as "whores", a clear violation of Forum rules. I have been here for less than a year and missed the so-called purge, but just look at the specific facts and cite an example of BA tyranny. I am nobody's lackey. If tyranny exists I am opposed, but I would have to see the facts.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I have been here for less than a year and missed the so-called purge

I was here when it happened. First revleft was down for some days, and then when we finaly could enter there was a message from the admins saying there had been an attack, and that some members were banned for security reasons (or they were accused of being undercover fascists). The thing is those members were considered by the community as quality posters, and the reason why they were banned was never explained well.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I was here when it happened. First revleft was down for some days, and then when we finaly could enter there was a message from the admins saying there had been an attack, and that some members were banned for security reasons (or they were accused of being undercover fascists). The thing is those members were considered by the community as quality posters, and the reason why they were banned was never explained well.

I am glad that nothing like that has happened since then and hope that it doesn't happen again, or if it does that B.A. actions are properly explained. Until the Revolution though this board is private property and that means the owner can have it administered any way he sees fit. After the Revolution we have to make sure that proletarian democracy replaces private ownership lest a bureaucratic party elite take over because we know that would mean purges with a capital P.

[Ele'ill]

In the future if you have questions just pm a mod or admin instead of making a thread.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Gawd, the BA sound like a coven of tyrants after all I've heard about them.

they're in the illuminati bru
didn't u know that?
on topic, if someone's banned it'll say so by their avatar
don't see the big deal

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, pretty much, you should dance to my tune because I'm the most important thing about this site, that's exactly what I'm saying Noxion. Dance.

Your words, not mine.


I don't know how the custom user titles work. Why should I care? There's nothing particularly witty I want to say about myself that I think would be useful to put under my user name. Certainly nothing as witty as 'spaced cadet'.

If you don't care, why should you expect anyone else to return the favour?


You may be right that it is a 'minor inconvenience'. It may also be that no-one else gives a monkey's. But having encountered this, and not been able to tell whether or not Comrade Jogisches was actually banned without starting a thread about it, and remembered about Iskra's case, where incidently some newbie was asking how Iskra could post if he was banned, and explaining at the time that it was possible to alter one's user title and Iskra had altered his to banned, it seems that the process (which might involve people forgetting about stuff, and in this case Red Anarchist happening to chance on this thread and being reminded to log Comrade Jogische's banning, on another occasion this not happening and no log of the banning being made) is not particularly clear.

It got cleared up pretty quickly from the looks of things, actually. How terrible that you had to wait a couple of days, was someone's life or health in jeopardy?


Your suggestion that the best way to determine whether or not someone is banned is to wait an unspecified time (3 days? 6 months?) and see if they post is, errm, pretty stupid. Perhaps I don't want to wait 6 months to find out if they're banned. Perhaps they aren't banned, but just don't post for 3 weeks. How to tell? Does it matter?

If you're really that desperately impatient to establish the exact status of a particular member, why didn't you think of sending a PM, either to the member in question or to an admin as Mari3L suggests above?

[Blake's Baby]

...

If you're really that desperately impatient to establish the exact status of a particular member, why didn't you think of sending a PM, either to the member in question or to an admin as Mari3L suggests above?

Because in the past it I haven't found it terribly efficient as a way of asking questions, or rather, getting answers to them. This thread at least has provoked some discussion, even if you've been snarky and dimissive of the point. Mari3l's suggestion, however, is one I shall probably be following in future.

[Ele'ill]

thread closed