MetaTalk posts tagged with ban

They'll dance for a fee, but devour you for free.

JimmyJames — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:09:34 -0800

Zombie Strippers!!!??!?! WTF? I just saw this ad for Zombie Strippers on the blue. It seems to be a new horror/porno film. I saw it as I was refreshing the page so I'm not sure about the URL of the ad. I like zombies and I like strippers. But mixed, on Mefi? No thanks.

seofeed? really?

bunnytricks — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:13:04 -0800

I think seofeed should get a preemptive five dollar refund. Just sayin'.

Karnofsky alarm?

Skeptic — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:53:56 -0800

Isn't this Metafilter FPP slightly suspicious? Let's review the evidence: a) Double; b) From a very recent member; c) Single-link; d) To the website of a notorious self-publicist and spammer. My alarm is ringing pretty loudly there.

And here's a banning for you, and yes, one for you too...

SpacemanStix — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:12:25 -0800

Are there different degrees of being banned on MetaFilter, if you do something inappropriate? Or is every banning pretty much permanent? I've been curious if those who have been banned are able to atone for their sins. Do their IP addresses get blocked so that they can't create new accounts, that kind of thing? (I have no personal interest in the matter aside from idle curiosity, by the way.) And also out of curiosity, what's the worst thing anyone has been banned for?

Temporary commenting lockout for bad behavior in AskMe?

baphomet — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:37:52 -0800

Temporary commenting lockout for bad behavior in AskMe? Details and thoughts inside. This MetaTalk thread got me thinking about ways to discourage people from providing "noise" answers in AskMe. It's been previously established that AskMe works because people enjoy answering questions- they enjoy helping somebody solve a problem, sharing their knowledge and/or experience, or they just enjoy sounding smart. All of these are perfectly valid reasons for posting answers and contribute greatly to the helpful and informative atmosphere of AskMe. That said, the MeTa linked above got me thinking- why do people post the types of answers that the poster knows the mods will delete, and which the mods are obviously growing frustrated with cleaning up after? There are, to my mind, 3 different types of answers that qualify as such:

Answer that is generally unhelpful or non-topical
Answer that is inflammatory/constitutes a personal attack on the OP or another commenter
Answer that is obviously a throw-away joke which the poster expects will be deleted

Looking at the categories above, the reason people post such noise answers is because they know there's no penalty for doing so. It's a cheap thrill- I'm breaking the guidelines! And there's no consequence!- and while I realize that repeat offenders get "reached out to" by the mods, it seems like there isn't any real deterrent. This results in an excess of noise and clean-up work for the mods. My solution, then, given the motivations for participating in AskMe listed above, is to temporarily remove someone's ability to post in the Green when an answer qualifying as (2) or (3) above is deleted. Ideally the lockout would be progressively longer with repeat offenses- starting with one day, then escalating as necessary from there. The system could be designed to MeFi Mail the offender when they get a lockout, and could be designed so that a prolonged period between warnings would take them back down the scale (example: 2 warnings in one week results in 2-day lockout, but if the poster goes a year without a lockout they'd be back to a 1-day for the next offense instead of a 3-day). Note that this system would only pertain to (2) and (3) above, as answers qualifying as (1) are usually benign and are not ill-intended. Now I realize that the MetaFilter community is ideally self-policing, and that community pressure is the preferred method of discouraging bad behavior, but the real question there is: does community pressure scale well enough to the size of the community? At a certain point, introducing stronger moderation to AskMe (the era of jessamyn and then cortex) was completely necessary as, when the community reached a certain point, community pressure and standards couldn't keep up with people's basic propensity to misbehave. I would argue that somewhere out there in AskMe's future there is a point at which a formal negative sanction will be necessary to discourage this kind of behavior. I've considered the benefits and detriments of such a system, or a similar one, but this post is long enough and I'll leave it to you all to debate it.

A house at the intersection of technology and politics.

markkraft — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:16:27 -0800

So... I was doing some research online regarding the whole Obama/Rezko real estate issue re: Obama's house, the lot next door which Rezko bought, etc. As a result of my research, I have located Obama's house on Google Maps, which actually has overhead and *VERY* zoomable street-level views of the whole area. I've also checked Zillow, which shows all the nearby property prices. This information is new and very revealing, in that it suggests that Obama might have even slightly overpaid for his house, and that Rezko bought a potentially very profitable piece of real estate. But there are some issues involved, as you may have guessed... I could link people to the various maps, street-level views, etc., but the images are very high detail... as in, you can read the nearby licence plates, determine the alarm company, make some determinations as to the nature of the security around the house, etc. I could also put screenshots of the images up on a free host I have access to, taken with the intent of not showing anything that would give away the house's location and potential security, but that might technically be seen as self-linking. I was also planning on adding supporting links and text from Barack Obama's very detailed 13 page Chicago Tribune interview on Rezko that he did over the weekend, but I don't want to be written off as newsfilter or Obamafilter. Alternately, I could post the whole thing to my blog, and see whether anyone else wants to post about it, as I think there are some very revealing and important issues on this story that have to deal with technology, privacy, and the likely private motivations of some very public people. So... what do you think would be the best way to post this original, quite interesting information on MeFi?

Self linking makes my heart hurt...

Item — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:07:00 -0800

This user had a post deleted yesterday for self linking and four out of her five comments have been self links. Why is her account still active? One of the only rock solid, steadfast rules around here that everyone seems to agree on is that self linking is vile and bannable behavior. Though I know occasionally doing it in-thread is permissible, it's pretty much all she's done. I realize that it appears that she joined because there was a post made about her music last spring, but I can't see why that's a valid excuse. I wish someone else would've brought this up instead of me. I'm really less of a whiner and more of a... well, not a whiner.

Ban...

hermitosis — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:50:46 -0800

Ban.

7 posts, 13 comments? Go back under your rock.

felix betachat — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:05:45 -0800

Dom, buddy, you're busted._nsfw Stop spamming MetaFilter.

What? No flameout? And you paid yer 5 bucks and everything!

flapjax at midnite — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:38:32 -0800

"You win, Metaflter", or, "How to go from very first post in the blue to self-banning in only thirteen comments!" (give or take one or two that were deleted...) "Mission accomplished!"

HiveMind: Where's the door?

Ambrosia Voyeur — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:15:56 -0800

Bad day for posting here, but I'm miffed. How many chances do/should people get to drop insulting hurtful shits in AskMe threads of all places before they're just banned? I don't want to institute a talk nice policy, but being a dick to an OP looking for a psychiatrist or similar is, to me, a higher crime than just crayoning the walls, it's really demonstrating a bad fit here.

So, are you even still allowed here?

parmanparman — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:11:49 -0800

Is there a meta-index of banned users? I got a strange e-mail about a month ago from someone who claims to have an account but 'cannot post this week'. It was stupid and I wrote back that I thought the link was very commercial. It got me thinking: is there an index to check whether a user name has been banned?

youlikeme seems to be a spammer

nathan_teske — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:25:48 -0800

youlikeme seems to like linking to the same site for their posts.

Repetitive Blink

y6y6y6 — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:01:19 -0800

CAN I PRETTY PLEASE GET THE REASON WHY THIS USER ISN'T BANNED OR SUSPENDED PLEASE???? CAN I PRETTY PLEASE GET THE REASON WHY THIS USER ISN'T BANNED OR SUSPENDED PLEASE???? CAN I PRETTY PLEASE GET THE REASON WHY THIS USER ISN'T BANNED OR SUSPENDED PLEASE???? CAN I PRETTY PLEASE GET THE REASON WHY THIS USER ISN'T BANNED OR SUSPENDED PLEASE????

Bannination

cup — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:33:36 -0800

Goodbye webmeta, and thanks for all the ~~fish!~~ spam!

I don't like the looks of this.

Kwantsar — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 06:29:38 -0800

I don't like the looks of this. Especially in light of this.

Please delete me, let me goooooo

drakepool — Mon, 30 May 2005 12:22:06 -0800

Please obliviate drakepool. He wants his metafilter output erased and his time here behind him. He can't communicate what he think anyway. He content to go back to laying his nonsense on his friends...

Self-link, it seems

John Kenneth Fisher — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:38:19 -0800

Self-link, it seems

Self-link detected.

goatdog — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:26:06 -0800

They're clamoring for it, and here it is. This post contains a nakedly aggressive self-link. For shame, doc.

This fella has issues.

bluedaniel — Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:07:31 -0800

This fella has issues.

Banned anyway

squirrel — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 06:55:26 -0800

Pleased don't ban Cancergiggles; just delete his self-post.

Please ban people for crummy answers.

kavasa — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:16:14 -0800

There's been a lot of hand-wringing in re: askme lately, so, have we considered the idea of the temporary ban? I submit for your consideration this post. In my mind, that warrants, say, a 2-week ban from askme. Second offense is a 4-week ban and third offense is a permant ban. All from askme, mind you, I'm not talking about a mefi-wide ban.

Of course, this is all more administrative overhead for Matt and god knows I wouldn't bother were I in his shoes. It just sort of seems like a definitive "this sort of uselessness is not desired here" response would be nice.

Self-link detected.

Pretty_Generic — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:40:23 -0800

Official tank04 Is A Dick Thread

Pleas explain timeout durations

angry modem — Mon, 08 Mar 2004 09:44:14 -0800

Banned from MeFi? Are there any hard and fast rules? Why does lazy-ville get banned for weeks, others only a week, and others forever? If I ever happen to step on someone's toes while on a bender or something, I just want to know what the results might be. Also, is there any page for information regarding who's been banned in the past?

tubgirl or goatse? that's a banning.

crunchland — Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:51:55 -0800

automatic banning of anyone who does this.