Hmmm, I was thinking that AO start banning by hostmasks and not usernames (is that how its done right now) or IPs.... So people like freeOn (Bonfire) GbinaryR (Gbin@ryR) and others cant come back as another name to bother everyone all over again....
Printable View
Hmmm, I was thinking that AO start banning by hostmasks and not usernames (is that how its done right now) or IPs.... So people like freeOn (Bonfire) GbinaryR (Gbin@ryR) and others cant come back as another name to bother everyone all over again....
Makes sense, but dont hostmasks use entire ISPs as the reference point?
Yeah they do. I hope this can happen as well. Didn't free0n not care when he came back either if he was banned again. Boy and I remember komo, ko123, etc. THAT was really annoying.
My vote is yes, considering it isn't up to my vote.
Yeah, but you could end up unfairly banning others as well, and the banned person could use something like multiproxy to get around the IP ban. There really isn't anyway to ban people by hostmask or IPs unless you are willing to risk getting rid of other people.
Exactly the point I was trying to make Linuxelite :)
The only way it would work is if everyone had a static IP, but like linuxelite said, there are ways around that too. JMHO
Waste of time. Threes no effective way to ban people other then canning accounts. People can always access antionline from another computer. Besides with suicide threads and auto-banning threes only so much trouble you can cause. And what about people who learned from there mistakes and want to take a second crack at being an antionline member.
Yesterday, I was thinking about this @home. Actually what make a person to get ban from AO.?????
Neo
I think you are asking, What makes a person get banned from AO ?
The answer is basically the failure to adhere to the guidelines in the FAQ's. To get an idea, select one of the recently banned members, view their profile and have a look at the content of their posts, that should help answer the question.
Regards
PP
I think that any perm-ban solution would be unenforceable, and would be prone to catching too many innocents. I think the current account-by-account method is better.
Personaly I would also like to see a stricter banning system as well. Though at the same time I am also concered about inocent people not being able to join because someone on the same ISP did something to get banned, I am not all that sure how banning works but I would assume that eventualy someone else may be assigned the "banned" ip address.
i was a member of a site which I will not name, I was baned with a IP ban. I do not know why I was banned, but I left and found this site. One day I was logging in and was told that my IP address has been baned. It was unfortunate but I took the point and went somewhere else. My IP is static but I could atempt to use a proxy, but its not worth my time.
I hope that a new banning system can be implemented.
Agreed, an account-by-account based ban would be most effective in reducing the amount of innocent people that want to access AO and want to adhere to the rules.
I am not sure if this is even possible...but how about a "global-ignore" feature that only the moderators could implement in the case of the examples you have already discussed in this thread. If I am correct, an ignored person cannot post to a thread if the thread starter has him/her in his/her ignore list. If this is the case then a moderator could "global-ignore" the offender by adding him/her to every users ignore list, and make this moderated feature permanent or something ( can't find the words to use, bare with me here :-) ) so that no-one can remove them from their individual ignore list.
Am I making any sense here? LOL I am not positively sure how the ignore feature works, or if this could even be implemented. This will not stop the offenders entirely, and may add a bit more responsibility to the moderators, but would give one more option for the moderators to use in extreme cases.
I get ya, actually its an interesting idea although your putting the power to 'ban' in the hands of moderators. A good idea for discussion anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this but isn't it that when a person registers on here, they usually put reference points like their email account, their IM, ICQ, and/or yahoo messenger?
If so, is there any way of referencing these things on a banned person when they try to re-register? Maybe something like having a database of banned user's email addresses/IM/ICQ and running a scan against it on new members. Some people don't think about changing these things.
Just a thought.
Curious_One may have an idea here. Use the things that should uniquely identify someone to enforce a ban. I know what everyone will say, that it is easy to get another email address or IM handle, but I was thinking along the lines of what companies like eBay try to do.
A long time ago when you signed up for an eBay account they would require some sort of "proof of identity" if a person tried to sign up with an email address from hotmail or yahoo or something like that. Maybe there is a way to screen for these types of free email addresses and make someone that wants to sign up with one somehow verify who they are.
I personally believe it is fine as is. What about households with multiple people accessing one computer? There are instances in cases like that there may be one bad seed. I would also hate to mess up some how, and never be allowed back on AO. Also that would be really bad if someone has a thing against you, and it turns into their goal to get you off AO forever.
I had not thought of that possibility, I do remember an instance where a members little brother was logging in with his identity and creating enough havoc that it about got him banned. Again Joey seems to be on his toes and clear headed. I might modify my previous post by adding that this person might be given a sort of amnisty by PM to the moderator and pleading his case. Possibly when using the ignore feature I mentioned it sends the offender a PM with an option to reply, then he will in a sense have a second chance to redeem himself. Just another thought.
<edit>I re-read what I have written and what everyone else has posted and after much thought ( and a PM or two with some of you ), I have to withdraw my suggestions, several reasons.
[list=1][*]This should not be a moderated issue, too much responsibility/control of one person.[*]Using words like: offender, amnesty, and redeem makes it sound like a prison warden memo.[/list=1]
</edit>
/me looks around and wonders if John Ashcroft planted the seed for this thread.....
Indiscriminate banning would be a form of censorship, would it not?
I don't think jp would go for the "proof of identity" idea. Two reasons
1. Lots of people who have accounts here never even touch the forums and don't want to be hassled buy having to identify them selves.
2. Kind of hard to be anonymous if you have to dish out lots of personal info. I'm afraid we would lose some of our more paranoid members.
I still feel the same way as in my post that was made earlier.
However, wouldn't this cause conflicts. How would you perm. ban an individual if he was using a friends computer, school computer, library computer, possibilities are endless. Also if you did decide to go through with this process. From what points would you ban him? The system he used most? Every system the user ever used? I just do not see how this would work.Quote:
Originally posted here by Joey_Batch_File
I personally believe it is fine as is. What about households with multiple people accessing one computer? There are instances in cases like that there may be one bad seed. I would also hate to mess up some how, and never be allowed back on AO. Also that would be really bad if someone has a thing against you, and it turns into their goal to get you off AO forever.
you can now add ac1d to the list of banned people who will probly try to come back now
--NetSyN
oh wow feel the negs!!! lmfao
dont like what i have to say put me on ignore wankas
and as for u jehnx u got ur ass banned so what u doing here? cant tell when ur not wanted? go make a new life for urself ur gray points make me laugh "jehnny"
:flip: :flip: :flip:
I came across this old thread yesterday and thought that it was rather amusing givin the actions of JP recently..
Quote:
Originally posted here by ac1dsp3ctrum
So people like freeOn (Bonfire) cant come back as another name to bother everyone all over again....
Quote:
Originally posted here by JCHostingAdmin
Didn't free0n not care when he came back either if he was banned again.
I have seen alot of dislikes for the member FreeOn, and I see similiarities between FreeOn and FreeOn5's profiles i.e. Malicious Coding and a Love for XP. So, I guess he's back....Quote:
Originally posted here by sumdumguy
I didn't really follow what transpired back when freeon (and i guess there's a freon too)
did his acts that caused his banning .. but now he's back as bonfire and doing, what i guess he did before.
http://www.antionline.com/member.php...&userid=109963
hey joey..
I just wanna point out a few things..
First, I don't (and didn't) have any dislikes for freeon.. and yeah, I noticed he was back.
At this point, at least to me.. it's a "don't care". I pointed out what freeon was doing in
the addicts forum.. and I thought that info should remain there.. not for general viewing.
I also pointed out in that same thread that ignoble was the reincarnation of noble_hamlet..
And what happened ? a few folks here "shot the messenger".. so I decided to give up
trying to help point out potential troublemakers and mind my own business.
In fact, since this place seems to be steadily degrading, I'm going to (for the most part) be
just an interested observer.
heh.. i wonder who bumped this thread up, out of obscurity .. (it wasn't me with this post)
but now that you look at it.. most of the folks that were talking about "protecting" the site
from previously banned members.. are now banned themselves.
ain't it funny how things can come full circle ?
I came here by way of a now ex-boyfriend.. still friends to some extent as we have common
computer interests.. but now he has become dissallusioned with this place and I have
renewed my interest..
one thing I can't put up with is dishonesty.. and I'm sure this place has it's share.
and if and when i see it.. I'll never hold back on what I think.. I'm straight to the point.
the wool has been pulled across my eyes to many times to let it pass uncontested.
peace until provoked...