Any mileage in a database banning abusers on this and / or other forums

msatt · January 6

Just read an @Virmach thread and it is clear from Virmachs comments that there has been some real provable abuse.
I believe providers have 'Maxmind' so they can create a fraud type record which is read / used by other providers. If so why can't there be the equivalent for forums so a user can be banned from the site?

bikegremlin · January 6

There are such tools - XenForo for example uses API to check on user registration with some spammer databases.
It's not perfect, but it can help.

Decicus · January 6

While I've never used it myself, I know a couple of forums have used Stop Forum Spam in the past. Not sure how well it has worked though.

angstrom · January 6

Perhaps I'm missing something, but given that a user who signs up on a forum (e.g., on LES or OGF) can choose an arbitrary username and give a throw-away email address, how could they be reliably identified?

angstrom · January 6

If you mean a user/provider with a transparent/constant username who signs up on a forum and spams, it doesn't follow that the same user/provider with the same username who signs up on another forum will also spam on that other forum

In general, forum A won't ban a given user because they've spammed on (unrelated) forum B as long as they abide by the rules of forum A

msatt · January 6

^ So are you saying a proven abuser should be allowed on 'proper' forums ?
Totally appreciate the complexity of different usernames on different forums - but without a starting point / database nothing will change.
Why can't all the 'proper' forums support a single confederated sign on.
Why should users be allowed to have different usernames on different systems?

techdragon · January 6

@msatt said:
^ So are you saying a proven abuser should be allowed on 'proper' forums ?
Totally appreciate the complexity of different usernames on different forums - but without a starting point / database nothing will change.
Why can't all the 'proper' forums support a single confederated sign on.
Why should users be allowed to have different usernames on different systems?

Likely because the problem you are trying to fix isn't addressed by this solution. Bad actors will just navigate around it with ease as pointed out earlier.

Forums aren't owned or paid by a single confederated anything...

Why shouldn't users be allowed to have different usernames on different systems unless they're linked to a GPG key, domain etc. (verifiable digital asset)? Nobody owns them.

msatt · January 6

^ Fully appreciate we are getting in to user privacy / protection.
In the example I gave, Virmach identified and responded to the user on this forum. Also looking at the users other comments they appear to have been trouble elsewhere (another provider). So to me this should be potentially a ban as the first step.
Now what happens with this user on other forums is really where a database could be used all be it open to abuse etc.

techdragon · January 6

@msatt said:
^ Fully appreciate we are getting in to user privacy / protection.
In the example I gave, Virmach identified and responded to the user on this forum. Also looking at the users other comments they appear to have been trouble elsewhere (another provider). So to me this should be potentially a ban as the first step.
Now what happens with this user on other forums is really where a database could be used all be it open to abuse etc.

Not sure being banned by a provider should extend to a forum ban but I can see what you are saying. Such solutions could hold users accountable but in reality proving someone controls a handle on a forum is generally difficult even if you do know who is behind it. I also think there is unlikely to be much of a market for such a product should someone create it but it is a nice FOSS project, I guess.

mikho · January 6

There are users banned on OGF that are still here and vice versa.

We live by different rules, the same way as different countries are run.

For instance, we dislike Providers who posts offers here using ColonCrossing and their datacenters. Such a rule on OGF would impact their funding.

There are exceptions of course.

But as an example to why it probably wouldn’t work out that well.

msatt · January 6

@mikho - I could suggest that a banned user on OGF is behaving themselves here so they don't get banned.
Obviously anyone banned could re-register using another name / connection but as has been seen they are often caught out because of their actions etc.
Understand that forum admin does not want to get involved in 'policing' bans hence my suggestion for some automated system. However on the OGF the members DID get a provider banned (for good reasons), so why can't a provider get a user banned?

mikho · January 6

@msatt said:
@mikho - I could suggest that a banned user on OGF is behaving themselves here so they don't get banned.
Obviously anyone banned could re-register using another name / connection but as has been seen they are often caught out because of their actions etc.
Understand that forum admin does not want to get involved in 'policing' bans hence my suggestion for some automated system. However on the OGF the members DID get a provider banned (for good reasons), so why can't a provider get a user banned?

A provider sharing user information to different forums would most likely lose most of their clients.

Especially among forums like this and OGF, where users are keen on keeping their data private.

There are even users who signs up with providers using fake data so the database would probably be full of so much fake data that queries against it could do more harm than good.

Talking about false/positives.
And the community members are pretty good at finding out bad seeds on their own, without the need of a database.

Back when I was a provider, the only ”good” thing I made out of Maxmind was to sort out Datacenter IPs.

So that customers didn’t use a VPN when signing up.
Thats because I, by my countries law, was required to apply tax depending on the countey the user came from.

So IP, address and some other checks were in place to comply to those laws.

legendary · January 6

Rats will find way to abuse. Always.

ZizzyDizzyMC · January 6

I remember MCBans, I was privy to what was gonna happen as Storm_Surge proceeded to ban all server admins from their own servers by spinning up 3 servers, installing mc bans, then banning the server admins on there - which resulted in the plugin blocking them from joining their own servers.

made a funny video out of it.

Very terrible idea, wouldn't ever do it again.

angstrom · January 6

@msatt said:
^ So are you saying a proven abuser should be allowed on 'proper' forums ?

I'm sure what a " 'proper' forum" is, but setting this aside, if what you mean is a forum-A user who behaves abusively towards a provider on forum A, then yes, action should be taken against this user on forum A, but for this, one doesn't need a database

Totally appreciate the complexity of different usernames on different forums - but without a starting point / database nothing will change.
Why can't all the 'proper' forums support a single confederated sign on.

I don't usually say this (because I believe that society needs regulations), but that sounds vaguely Orwellian

Why should users be allowed to have different usernames on different systems?

That sounds Orwellian, now not even vaguely so!

itsdeadjim · January 6

I’m not entirely sure what practical system you’re proposing, but as a general principle:

personal freedoms > theoretical possibility of abuse

History rarely smiles upon attempts to shift that balance.

Mumbly · January 6

@msatt said: Why should users be allowed to have different usernames on different systems?

Am, what?
You can have on my system (chatroom, forum, whatever... ) any nickname you want. My playground, my rules.
I don't give a shit what nickname you use on a competitor's chatroom, forum or whatever... because why should I?

@msatt said:
^ So are you saying a proven abuser should be allowed on 'proper' forums ?

Also, what does "proven abuser" even mean? Proven to whom?
My internet community has different rules than yours. Just because someone annoys you and gets banned on your place it doesn’t mean he isn't a valuable member contributing significantly to my community - and the same applies vice versa.
My online community has absolutely nothing to do with yours. Why should I even trust you or your judgment? You may run your forum, but to me, you’re nothing more and nothing less than any other visitor to my forum, chatroom or whatever...
Trying to put a decentralized and often non related places under one regime or one rule is just bad, really bad.

wankel · January 6

@Mumbly said:

Trying to put a decentralized and often non related places under one regime or one rule is just bad, really bad.

People Companies keep trying though, and for whatever reason, users consumers keep falling for it, more and more. Some governments push back, other governments look with jealous eyes at the possibilities.

tulipyun · January 6

Is this a joke or something else?

If this is a serious discussion, I find this idea absolutely appalling.

Firstly, VirMach doesn't seem to own LES. Even if the user is at fault, as long as what they said doesn't violate community rules, it's clearly wrong to ban them from speaking publicly for allegedly abusing VirMach's services.

Secondly, VirMach's services are far from flawless. They have disappointed users in many instances (e.g., servers being down for months with a complete lack of communication). Why don't you suggest banning VirMach from all communities?

Thirdly, if the solution to any dispute is to silence one party, there will never be a peaceful community. Without a fair investigation (like a court investigation), we shouldn't simply believe one side of the story.

Finally, users are always the weaker party. To be fair, we shouldn't expect users to be technical experts, familiar with every detail of how the system works. If a user accidentally and briefly breaches a limit, a friendly solution should be offered. I believe VirMach is perfectly capable of offering users a second chance in a gentlemanly manner.

Perhaps you've heard the saying: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I believe users shouldn't be banned from speaking arbitrarily. Even those who have done wrong have the right to speak, let alone being banned on a broader scale.

havoc · January 7

Think you'd have a rough time making that data protection compliant. You would by definition need to store some identifiable data

skorous · January 7

@tulipyun said: we shouldn't expect users to be technical experts, familiar with every detail of how the system works.

Why not?

Mumbly · January 7

@skorous said:

@tulipyun said: we shouldn't expect users to be technical experts, familiar with every detail of how the system works.

Why not?

I think what he wanted to say is that we can't take for granted that everyone will know their way around, be well-versed, understand the system, blend in like a pro, avoid mistakes, and so on - especially when we take cultural differences, language barriers and so on... into account.

This doesn't mean a person gets a blank check to cause trouble without consequences, but yeah, he's generally correct. People don't usually do silly things just because they're troublemakers, it's often due to a lack of experience, age, cultural background, and similar factors.

There's also the language factor. I often notice with non-native speakers (myself included) that they express themselves more directly, don't always find the right words, and in arguments, come across as more direct, rough and confrontational than they intended to be.

AlwaysSkint · January 7

@Mumbly said: I often notice with non-native speakers .. that they express themselves more directly, don't always find the right words, and in arguments, come across as more direct, rough and confrontational than they intended to be.

I don't have that as an excuse.
[ Missus calls me Victor Meldrew quite frequently! ]

Mumbly · January 7

@AlwaysSkint said:

@Mumbly said: I often notice with non-native speakers .. that they express themselves more directly, don't always find the right words, and in arguments, come across as more direct, rough and confrontational than they intended to be.

I don't have that as an excuse.

But you don't need it anyway. You've been around long enough, know your way around, people love you, and so on.

AlwaysSkint · January 7

^ Shucks.

mikho · January 7

@Mumbly said:

@AlwaysSkint said:

@Mumbly said: I often notice with non-native speakers .. that they express themselves more directly, don't always find the right words, and in arguments, come across as more direct, rough and confrontational than they intended to be.

I don't have that as an excuse.

But you don't need it anyway. You've been around long enough, know your way around, people love you, and so on.

Love might not be the right word here?

More like a distant uncle that slips you $5 under the table to keep his secrets. 😉

Mumbly · January 7

@mikho said: Love might not be the right word here?

More like a distant uncle that slips you $5 under the table to keep his secrets. 😉

Fair enough! Love might be a stretch. How about we go with "fondly tolerated with occasional hush money" instead?

bikegremlin · January 7

@tulipyun said:
Is this a joke or something else?

If this is a serious discussion, I find this idea absolutely appalling.

Firstly, VirMach doesn't seem to own LES. Even if the user is at fault, as long as what they said doesn't violate community rules, it's clearly wrong to ban them from speaking publicly for allegedly abusing VirMach's services.

Secondly, VirMach's services are far from flawless. They have disappointed users in many instances (e.g., servers being down for months with a complete lack of communication). Why don't you suggest banning VirMach from all communities?

Thirdly, if the solution to any dispute is to silence one party, there will never be a peaceful community. Without a fair investigation (like a court investigation), we shouldn't simply believe one side of the story.

Finally, users are always the weaker party. To be fair, we shouldn't expect users to be technical experts, familiar with every detail of how the system works. If a user accidentally and briefly breaches a limit, a friendly solution should be offered. I believe VirMach is perfectly capable of offering users a second chance in a gentlemanly manner.

Perhaps you've heard the saying: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I believe users shouldn't be banned from speaking arbitrarily. Even those who have done wrong have the right to speak, let alone being banned on a broader scale.

Words can be more deadly than swords is a figure of speech, but it holds a lot of truth.

I'm not sure what the right measure is, but I don't like either censorship, nor absolute, unchecked freedom of speech.
Contradiction, I know.

Spam lists like StopForumSpam do help forum moderation. If an IP + username (combined, not as in "either" but as in "both") has been flagged there in the previous 10 or fewer days, it's 99.99% a spammer. That alone makes it worthwhile, even though it's not perfect.

Mumbly · January 7

@bikegremlin said: Spam lists like StopForumSpam do help forum moderation. If an IP + username (combined, not as in "either" but as in "both") has been flagged there in the previous 10 or fewer days, it's 99.99% a spammer. That alone makes it worthwhile, even though it's not perfect.

That's a different kind of beast, though. It's not meant to deal with potentially problematic forum members as suggested by op but rather with automated spam bots that advertise URLs, etc...

tulipyun · January 7

@bikegremlin said:
I'm not sure what the right measure is, but I don't like either censorship, nor absolute, unchecked freedom of speech.
Contradiction, I know.

Just to be clear, my premise is “as long as what they said doesn't violate community rules”, which also implies that the relevant laws should be obeyed, so it's certainly not “absolute, unchecked freedom of speech”.

I guess it's okay to oppose censorship on that premise, right?

hornet · January 7

@msatt said:
Any mileage in a database banning abusers on this and / or other forums?

That depends. Is light zoophilia frowned upon?

...

But in all seriousness, I say go for it!

Any mileage in a database banning abusers on this and / or other forums

Comments