March 28, 2005

5:05 PM

If a user is banned for blatantly violating the no-self-link rule, would it be a good idea to either a) note the banning on that person's user page or b) delete the user page entirely? Seems strange to keep a user page from someone who took a dump on the community.
posted by mediareport to feature requests at 5:05 PM (41 comments total)

My preference would be for a).
posted by mediareport at 5:14 PM on March 28, 2005

A Scarlet "B" ?
posted by exlotuseater at 5:14 PM on March 28, 2005

While the scarlet a) suggestion would be convenient for most members, it might increase Matt's work. If the self-linker is banned without ceremony there is less likelihood of a popular revolt against the bannination. I know what I would do if I were Matt.
posted by caddis at 5:20 PM on March 28, 2005

I know what I would do if I were Matt.

Yes, but when sending in the MefiBlackOps for a little wetwork make sure that the media is kept away. Nothings more embarrassing than the removal of hostiles being captured by video bloggers.
posted by substrate at 5:30 PM on March 28, 2005

Sounds a bit like making a shitlist - which Matt has always shyed away from on the grounds that as soon as there's a shitlist, certain people will bend over backward to get on it.
posted by scarabic at 5:32 PM on March 28, 2005

Just a picture of the tattoo that matt gave them. That should do nicely.
posted by schyler523 at 5:35 PM on March 28, 2005

If banned for life, the file/profile should be deleted
posted by edgeways at 5:45 PM on March 28, 2005

I don't know, I think doing something with their profile would draw attention to it. Doing nothing usually means that folks are soon forgotten.
posted by mathowie at 5:48 PM on March 28, 2005

In big letters on the profile page:

THIS USER DID NOT OBEY THE RULES AND WAS (insert the "banned for life" tattoo here)

Or something. That would amuse me and my amusement is VERY important. Very.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 6:09 PM on March 28, 2005

I think it looks weird seeing banned users having apparently-normal user pages. I'm against deleting them, but some inconspicuous note of some kind shouldn't hurt, like putting a closing date after the "member since" thing.
posted by cillit bang at 6:13 PM on March 28, 2005

The Tattoo and date should do.
posted by adamvasco at 6:26 PM on March 28, 2005

...and knowing some members (i'll reluctantly admit that i have a penchant/affinity for this fringe), they would commit flagrant self-bans: there's something oddly tempting about having a banned status. It's like living as an e-outlaw, flouting authority left and right! There'd be self banninations all over the place...

/don't ban me, plz.
posted by naxosaxur at 7:38 PM on March 28, 2005

Destroy him.
posted by ontic at 8:13 PM on March 28, 2005

I can see how a "banned" marker might draw more attention to the jerks - say, if someone bothered to search the site and list all banned user pages or something. I guess it's the idea of, say, a person having active links pointing to their site from a site they just shit on that rubs me the wrong way. Do you de-activate those? That'd be enough, I think.
posted by mediareport at 8:32 PM on March 28, 2005

Can't you just automatically redirect from a banned users page to fark suicide girls warmfuzzypuppies.com?
posted by anapestic at 8:39 PM on March 28, 2005

I think the banned user's links should all be redirected to delicioustruffles.com.
posted by soyjoy at 10:07 PM on March 28, 2005

Deleting user pages would be totally communist dude. An indication that their account is closed would be a good thing.
posted by dodgygeezer at 1:16 AM on March 29, 2005

I like where naxosaxur's going here with the honeypot theory. If being banned is attractive enough, the ban-prone 5% will seek it out. Maybe some will even register just to be banned. For some short-term disruption, which might even be entertaining, you've isolated and removed the lunatic fringe, and maybe made a few bucks in the process.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 2:20 AM on March 29, 2005

*hahaha* That'll be the day, funny idea actually, but will their fives even come close to being worth the headache? Entertaining maybe.
Tempting as it is to write 'banned for life' on the userpages, it's probably best not to make a fuss and they will soon be forgotten.... Though it would be nice for people in the know to be able to suss out banned or just deserted when looking at old userpags.. A discreet asterisk somewhere maybe? Hmmm...
posted by dabitch at 2:46 AM on March 29, 2005

Exactly my thought — something small and inconsequential (and preferably unsearchable) to differentiate between those who simply haven't posted in a million years, and those who can't, due to permanent ban.

Forget about the fact that this probably won't be retroactively feasible for all banned accounts, and make it a feature that applies from 3/05 (or 4/05) onward.
posted by taz at 3:32 AM on March 29, 2005

Actually, I think it'd be good if another line was added under where it says "member since: February 18, 2004" something like "last posted: March 3, 2004" or "last logged in: March 3, 2004". That way we can quickly tell if an account has been abandoned. Still, it might be nice to have banned accounts marked as "closed".
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:36 AM on March 29, 2005

I say we tattoo them all on the ass, Cabbage Patch Kid style.
posted by orange swan at 5:30 AM on March 29, 2005

I think Matt is right. When people are banned, there's no reason to call further attention to it by changing their user page.
posted by dfowler at 5:57 AM on March 29, 2005

I've thought about this a couple times, and can never think of anything that works any better than the way it is now.
posted by frykitty at 7:16 AM on March 29, 2005

I initially kept the question to just users banned for blatant self-linkage, which I think everyone would admit is just about the least desirable thing you can do here. It's hard to imagine a note like "account closed for posting lame self-promoting link to front page" becoming an outlaw badge of honor.

I do like dodgygeezer's idea of a "last logged in," though.
posted by mediareport at 7:29 AM on March 29, 2005

people log out?
posted by quonsar at 7:44 AM on March 29, 2005

Fucking nazis.
posted by LouReedsSon at 7:50 AM on March 29, 2005

people log out?

Erm, ok then. Last comment/post or something.
posted by mediareport at 8:23 AM on March 29, 2005

A banned for life tat on the user page would be nice. I mean, it's hard to tell sometimes between the oldtimers who left because the site was going to hell, and the hellbringers.
posted by graventy at 2:24 PM on March 29, 2005

If we have to do something how about just adding the blink tag to the whole thing. People could still see their page but no one would want to.

I think matt's right though just let them wither away.

The problem is what to do with people who know the hammer will be coming and so do any of these suggestions to their own user page.
posted by Mitheral at 2:31 PM on March 29, 2005

How about the email address becomes 'gone at gone dot com'
posted by tellurian at 3:42 PM on March 29, 2005

I mean, it's hard to tell sometimes between the oldtimers who left because the site was going to hell, and the hellbringers.

because, after all, it is absolutely critical that we are able to distinguish this.
posted by quonsar at 4:50 PM on March 29, 2005

mediareport- to get "last comment" or "last post", you just click on the number of comments or posts on the profile page.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:29 PM on March 29, 2005

An extra click? Outrageous.

But seriously, quonsar reminded me that I never bother to log out, so I was just trying to figure a way to tell active accounts from inactive ones. But really, my thoughts about dodgygeezer's suggestion were secondary to the issue of distinguishing user pages of banned users from those of other users. That still seems like a useful thing to me, but whatever.
posted by mediareport at 9:57 PM on March 29, 2005

Question:
Why is the self linkage considered such a horrible thing?
I mean is it really any worse then the people who post FPP's that consist of a single link to a bad gag (today's really really stupid and obviously fake recording of a cell phone call being exhibit A) or some sleazy news story that is better suited to Fox News?
As long as the self link is contained in a posting with other links and it belongs with those links thematically I don't see why it's such a bad thing.

One vote for banning those who post single link gag posts.
posted by berek at 9:58 PM on March 29, 2005

Search the MeTa archive, berek, for "self-linking." You'll find plenty of reasons; it's one of the most basic rules here for a reason.
posted by mediareport at 11:03 PM on March 29, 2005

Goddammit, I've got to stop being so fucking helpful. Here, berek: mathowie clearly explains the no-self-link rule on May 11, 2001. The other comments in that thread are also worth reading.

In short, the MetaTalk archive is your pal.
posted by mediareport at 11:10 PM on March 29, 2005

Nice job mediareport. Also these days we can invite people to buy a textad, sponsoring their fave watering hole and getting some eyeballs in one go.
posted by dabitch at 3:05 AM on March 30, 2005

Okay, I see why blatantly promoting your site for the sake of promoting it is bad, but that doesn't answer my question.
If I have a multi link post dealing with the many facets of the fascinating world of widgets and my post happens to be on widgets and is germain to the subject, why is so bad to include it with the other links?
Also, if some one else happens to post links about widgets and my post can add to the discussion is it really so bad to selflink in the comments?
posted by berek at 10:08 AM on March 30, 2005

The point is that when it comes to evaluating your own work, your judgment may be biased. Your objectivity is compromised, and this leads to substandard posts. We've already got enough "OMG check out this hi-larious blog post", and it's easy to think your own contribution is better than it really is.

Also, linking to something of your own in comments is A-OK, as it says explicitly in the guidelines for posting.
posted by gleuschk at 10:27 AM on March 30, 2005

Okay, Berek stands under, gets the point, and sees the forest for the trees.
posted by berek at 10:39 AM on March 30, 2005