Page 1 of 3
#1
All regulars should be given the ability to delete posts & ban accounts from users who joined within a short preceding trial period, perhaps three or six months, provided there is sufficient reasoning (and subject to moderator review).


How does that sound? Realistic? Disagreeable?
#4
If I had won the mod election this wouldn't be happening on my watch, so now you bishes reap what you sow.
Quote by snipelfritz
You lost me at "Lubricate."

I'm raw, like nature. Nature boy. Big jungle leaves are my cum rags.

Sometimes I fuck a bamboo shoot.


There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
#6
Quote by Joshua Garcia
If I had won the mod election this wouldn't be happening on my watch, so now you bishes reap what you sow.


Quote by Hal-Sephira

We all have the rights to be mad

So does you
#7
Quote by WooWeeWooWee
i dunno, sounds kinda dumb to me guys. People could abuse it

lmao part of me's gonna be sad to see this loser gone now.
#8
When this happened earlier dreadnought said that no one had reported it. So I guess maybe before we start giving mod powers to everyone we should make sure we report these kinds of things first.
Quote by Hal-Sephira

We all have the rights to be mad

So does you
#9
I actually said this when I did my campaign to be an elected mod, but there needs to be a mod graveyard shift, i.e. Mods from different parts of the world, where the likelihood of them being online around the clock is greater, rather than just mods who seem to be primarily based in the UK and US
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#10
Quote by Victory2134
When this happened earlier dreadnought said that no one had reported it. So I guess maybe before we start giving mod powers to everyone we should make sure we report these kinds of things first.

I did report it. In two threads. The issue is that no mods are online. So long as it's limited to multis/spammers/adbots, this could resolve those issues when they arise. Pretty quickly.

Plus, like I said, every ban would be subject to mod review. Has to be justifiable. Honestly it'd make mods' jobs and our presence here a lot easier, plus it reminds new users that they've gotta follow the rules before they're more or less "verified" as genuine users.
#11
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
I did report it. In two threads. The issue is that no mods are online. So long as it's limited to multis/spammers/adbots, this could resolve those issues when they arise. Pretty quickly.

Plus, like I said, every ban would be subject to mod review. Has to be justifiable. Honestly it'd make mods' jobs and our presence here a lot easier, plus it reminds new users that they've gotta follow the rules before they're more or less "verified" as genuine users.


Hey man I feel you, I'm all for pro-carry laws too.
Quote by Hal-Sephira

We all have the rights to be mad

So does you
#12
Maybe if trusted users could just place a suspension on other users accounts, and a mod reviews that suspension within 48 hours?
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#14
Quote by i_lovemetallica
Maybe if trusted users could just place a suspension on other users accounts, and a mod reviews that suspension within 48 hours?

The idea is to deter joke suspensions and what not. It'd pretty much result in one unbanned account online every 48 hours lol. However, if users could be stratified into "Verified" (two years of activity) and "Unverified" accounts, mods would reserve their policing for regular community ethics stuff, and the rest of us could get rid of adbots and spammers.
#15


Fuu shooting is better than pepe shooting
Quote by Hal-Sephira

We all have the rights to be mad

So does you
#16
This site is how I learned guitar over the past 5 years, though hadn't bothered to register until a couple months back. Now this goddamn add pops up about a lifetime membership that I don't fucking want lol. -_- owell
#18
This falls down in a couple of areas as I see it.

1. You mention "regulars" being in charge of this. Define regular. I vanish for a while in phases but I've been consistently here for 10 years. I am a bad person to have this.

2. What punishment would be given to one of these regulars who bans their friend for a laugh?

3. "Trusted users" are mentioned. So, mods then?

4. Would the ban be enforced before or after the mod review. If before, you're a mod, plain and simple. You have just moderated the content on the forum.You're not a regular or a trusted user.

5. This would be enforcing a guilty until proven innocent system rather than the other way around.

6. You talk about the ban being justified but the FotB is there so that both sides of the story can be held. If the ban is upheld and then later reviewed in the FotB to be incorrect, what then?

7. Why bans and not just warnings? Warnings are the first step, not a straight ban.

8. Saying "only in extreme cases" would completely negate the point of having anything in the first place.

There's more, but that's a few to work on for now.
#20
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
All regulars should be given the ability to delete posts & ban accounts from users who joined within a short preceding trial period, perhaps three or six months, provided there is sufficient reasoning (and subject to moderator review).


How does that sound? Realistic? Disagreeable?

sounds like crap mate.


edit:^ lol


I've been in favour of better mod cover with extra mods to deal with this intead but that has the hassle of trying to find users who are stable, trustworthy, competent and dedicated. So it's always fizzled out when I've pushed for it.


I could maybe get on board of like some kind of "confirmed" user status where new members on on a probationary period of a few months and during that time everyone who has been around longer can flag posts to be hidden to every except mods, but maybe it requires multiple people to flag it for that to happen. and of course you might get problems with people teaming up and abusing that power but such a thing could easily be tracked and shut down by mods.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#21
Regular means 5 posts per day in ihittct9lol

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#23
Quote by Colohue

7. Why bans and not just warnings? Warnings are the first step, not a straight ban.
There's more, but that's a few to work on for now.

That's why I suggested suspensions. So say for example, you have these users/bots who will just spam a heap of junk in the forums, and we've all seen circumstances where its gone unchecked because they've done it at a time when mods haven't been around. But if there are other users with some limited powers who can suspend a users posting ability for, say, 48 hours until a mod reviews it, then it may lead to less spam.

Cheaper than a spam filter also
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#24
Quote by IbanezRGR320
I disagree with this, that's what mods are for

It seems to be on dude tho, so whatever


Mods are useless though

My home address, pictures of my family etc. were all up on this site for several hours once and I couldn't do anything about it because mods were offline

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#25
Quote by i_lovemetallica
That's why I suggested suspensions. So say for example, you have these users/bots who will just spam a heap of junk in the forums, and we've all seen circumstances where its gone unchecked because they've done it at a time when mods haven't been around. But if there are other users with some limited powers who can suspend a users posting ability for, say, 48 hours until a mod reviews it, then it may lead to less spam.

Cheaper than a spam filter also

The rest of the questions still stand. How do you define a user deserving of this without also defining them deserving of being a mod? How are they punished if they abuse it? How is this not guilty until proven innocent?

I'm also not a fan of encouraging new user segregation. This site needs to encourage new members rather than limit them. Adbots are usually pretty obvious, this gives power over a whole load of people who might not be too familiar with how things work yet. It's unwelcoming and I've never liked anything that puts people in a situation where they are considered "lesser users."
#26
^ That's a fair point, I think the big issue comes back to, and I've actually been saying this for a while, there needs to be better distribution of mods across the globe. The majority of mods are in the US and UK. As far as I'm aware, none of the Pit Mods are in the Southern Hemisphere.

When do we mostly use our internet for leisure(i.e. Ultimate Guitar)? At night.

So during the day in the Northern Hemisphere, when the mods are working/doing whatever normal people do, if there were mods in other parts of the world to monitor activity, that would probably nip the problem in the bud.
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#27
I only use UG in the day

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#28
Unfortunately mods can only be chosen based on the users available to us. I would hope for the same as you're looking for. I've mentioned this in the past but if there aren't many people available then they won't be available. I'm not familiar with the mod selection process but they don't seem to be actively looking for more, anyway. Reasons? Unknown.
#29
Don't know if it's been mentioned (cba to go through the thread at this point) but why not build a system where 5 reports from 5 different users results in an instant ban? Mods already have false reports on lock down.

I should know, I got banned for reporting myself that one time. The irony was beautiful.
Quote by snipelfritz
You lost me at "Lubricate."

I'm raw, like nature. Nature boy. Big jungle leaves are my cum rags.

Sometimes I fuck a bamboo shoot.


There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
Last edited by Joshua Garcia at Apr 7, 2017,
#30
Quote by Colohue
This falls down in a couple of areas as I see it.

1. You mention "regulars" being in charge of this. Define regular. I vanish for a while in phases but I've been consistently here for 10 years. I am a bad person to have this.

An account older than two or three years is my first impression. I dunno where to set the bar, if this were really being implemented it'd have to account for people who are part of this community on the daily but haven't been around two years.

2. What punishment would be given to one of these regulars who bans their friend for a laugh?

It wouldn't happen, cuz accounts that qualify as "regular" can't be banned by other users with seniority. But let's say someone makes a ban and it isn't mistaken, it's an actual abuse of the power. Ban them too.

3. "Trusted users" are mentioned. So, mods then?

Nah as in when you join the site there's a trial period. Other forums usually don't allow you to make new threads until you've had like 15 posts or something, so the idea of stratifying users in the interests of spam prevention isn't wholly new.

4. Would the ban be enforced before or after the mod review. If before, you're a mod, plain and simple. You have just moderated the content on the forum.You're not a regular or a trusted user.

You're not a mod since you can't ban anyone other than new users.

5. This would be enforcing a guilty until proven innocent system rather than the other way around.

This is a forum bud, there's no due process here It's about efficiency. Of course a mod would have to review any bans made by one of these regulars. It's about decluttering a forum quickly, not just handing us ban powers.

It's actually not a ban and more like their account would be in ban limbo: you stop them from creating new posts, and a mod later looks at the decision (as though it were a common variety report) and decides whether it's permanent or not.

6. You talk about the ban being justified but the FotB is there so that both sides of the story can be held. If the ban is upheld and then later reviewed in the FotB to be incorrect, what then?

It's unlikely. The banned account has to be either: 1) A spammer such as the most recent one, or 2) An adbot. These users wouldn't be able to ban new users for misbehavior like racism or harassment or any other rule. If they do, they get a ban. Powers are strictly about declutterment.

7. Why bans and not just warnings? Warnings are the first step, not a straight ban.

What good would a warning do to an adbot or spammer? The idea is to isolate them so they don't make thousands of posts, which the mods then have to go back and delete, and which we have to sift through. It'd be instantaneous: a spammer or adbot starts making posts, you ban them. Later a mod reviews the decision and if it's anything other than that scenario, you get banned too.

8. Saying "only in extreme cases" would completely negate the point of having anything in the first place.

It's only in certain circumstances.

There's more, but that's a few to work on for now.

Sure, shoot em my way. This probably won't ever be implemented but hey since the admins are trying to drastically modernize the forum, it can't hurt to put out suggestions.
#32
Quote by Joshua Garcia
Don't know if it's been mentioned (cba to go through the thread at this point) but why not build a system where 5 reports from 5 different users results in an instant ban? Mods already have false reports on lock down.

I should know, I got banned for reporting myself that one time. The irony was beautiful.

Weirdly I was just thinking about this, but like someone else said, users cba to report stuff usually. They just leave, the spam piles up, the forum lags and all. Plus it creates more potential for abuse, like a bunch of people banning someone as a joke.
#33
Quote by UltimateGuizar
If you guys voted for me none of this would have happened. 

Fine I'll vote for you next year but you have to give up your regular modship first.
#34
Interesting idea, but like Colohue has highlighted, I personally just think there are a few too many grey areas for it to work without any hitches. Too many disagreements about whether or not a ban was justified, or whether the new user deserved the benefit of the doubt. Also just because someone's a regular here, I don't necessarily think that means they should be trusted. 

Ideally we either just need more mods, or we could perhaps go about promoting some extra users to have really minor moderator powers to help with the workload? I'm not sure what a moderator does or doesn't do anyway, but maybe a few genuinely trusted users could be given the power to delete posts and nothing else - but this will then highlight the action to a 'real' moderator who can decide on the best subsequent course of action (bans etc.)

Joshua Garcia's idea of 5 strikes and you're out could potentially work too, but then I can't help but think this will just turn into a bit of a hivemind system like Reddit. 
Last edited by matt bickerton at Apr 7, 2017,
#35
I don't think it's fair to relegate new users to a lower status, and 2 years is an awfully long time get "verified".

Suggestion:
If a user's posts are reported by more than, let's say, 40% of logged-in users throughout a 24-hour period, the user gets banned unless vetoed by a mod.
Users, young or old, know a spammer or an adbot when they see one. It doesn't grant more power to individuals and it requires too much collective coordination to ban a law-abiding user for shiggles. The actual percentage may need to be fudged a bit but you get the basic idea. If a lot of people agree it's spam, it usually is.
#36
Quote by matt bickerton

Joshua Garcia's idea of 5 strikes and you're out could potentially work too, but then I can't help but think this will just turn into a bit of a hivemind system like Reddit. 

That's where the internet's going, why not embrace it?
#37
Quote by Joshua Garcia
Don't know if it's been mentioned (cba to go through the thread at this point) but why not build a system where 5 reports from 5 different users results in an instant ban? Mods already have false reports on lock down.

I should know, I got banned for reporting myself that one time. The irony was beautiful.


No way dude I'd be banned every time I posted a gif and then I'd have to wait for a mod to review it before I could post another gif only to be instantly banned again.
Quote by Hal-Sephira

We all have the rights to be mad

So does you
#38
Quote by Victory2134
No way dude I'd be banned every time I posted a gif and then I'd have to wait for a mod to review it before I could post another gif only to be instantly banned again.

Actually a good point. Even if a ban is overturned, what's to stop the same infraction being deemed bannable by someone else? 

There's also logistics issues. The system used by UG to ban users is something that mods have specific access to. Users with these powers would have to be granted the same access and there are records for everyone, with details on reasons for bans and comments on accounts. It doesn't matter how trusted you are, it's not right to give that to anyone. I'd imagine I still have plentiful comments and bans in there from years ago.
#40
Quote by Victory2134
No way dude I'd be banned every time I posted a gif and then I'd have to wait for a mod to review it before I could post another gif only to be instantly banned again.

you could always stop posting them :twothumbswaywayup:
Check out my band Disturbed
Page 1 of 3