Banned posters making a clean start

[Answerprancer]

If a previously banned poster comes back under a new name (presumably this can be seen either by hints in the e-amil address, patterns in their way of typing or IP address) what is wrong with giving them a second chance to clean up their previously soiled act ?

I have seen many threads with worthy contributions from persons whose additions later get flagged up as "answer removed" and I think it's a shame if these are people who have slipped up once, got banned and are genuinely trying to make a clean start.

[Answerprancer]

...apart from that tw/-\t I had a run-in with recently :-)

[Buenchico]

Irrespective of AB's "once banned, always banned" rule there has never been anything to prevent a banned user from making a completely fresh start. If they register under a new name (which requires a new email address) there is no way whatsoever that anyone here could identify them. (IP addresses are irrelevant since most people have dynamic addresses, so simply disconnecting and reconnecting from/to the internet can change an IP address).

The problem is that certain people can't resist the temptation to let us know who they really are. For example they'll almost immediately start attacking another user. (The guy who repeatedly 'has a go at' Dot Hawkes comes to mind here). Or they'll drop very unsubtle hints about their identity. (Last night a 'new' user was posting perfectly innocuous comments and joining in the conversation in a friendly way. But a few posts in he offered to 'nok up' a meal for someone. That must have immediately set alarm bells ringing with the site's moderators, as there was a suggestion that he was either 'NoKnow' or, at least, a friend of his).

If a banned user really wants a fresh start there is absolutely nothing to prevent him from having one. (It's probable that several banned people have already reappeared under new names, without anyone noticing it). It's only those who openly try to 'beat the system' who are unable to participate on AB.

Chris

[Answerprancer]

Thanks for your response - aside from obvious attempts to "beat the system" (and by that, I assume you mean, continue to break the rules) it sort of answers my question about "patterns in their way of typing", then again -fair enough if they are continuing where they left off- but if they're being re-banned simply because someone has recognised their posting style, I think that's a bit unfair.

[factor-fiction]

I may be wrong but I think it's the editor's decision to SUSPEND users. However I have seen someone talk about an automated system based on a certain number of reports and presumably the Ed would then review that decision at a convenient time.
The Ed has said some posters are banned permanently and will be banned once 'outed'
Clearly the Ed can't watch every minute. If he did he'd spot most of them a mile off.

I suggest the Ed should reconsider the permanent ban as it seems unworkable. Over the last week I've been on quite a bit and have spotted at least 10 such posters and most have eventually been removed. But we all know he or she will be back a few minutes later. So it becomes a game.

In some cases it's not just banned posters. I suspect some existing posters also play games and post under new names to see if others accuse them of being NoKnow, Man-On-The-Top-Of-The-Clapham-Omnibus, gravy, legend, etc

If the Ed were to give them another chance to banned users and invite them back they may even lose interest as the fun to them seems to be in outwitting the Ed.

[dotty.]

'who have slipped up once, got banned and are genuinely trying to make a clean start. '

really? Which ones are they then? To your knowledge?

[ChuckFickens]

Factor, the suspensions are done by site moderators and there is no facility for members to be removed, banned or suspended by user reporting, all this does is bring the reported posts/users to the attention of the EDs for review.

[sara3]

Answerprancer, in some cases I would agree with you.. but you'll get nowhere with it.

[Answerprancer]

None to my knowledge Dotty, it was my assumption that this *could* happen. I don't visit here regularly enough to know the politics.

[factor-fiction]

Interesting censor/filter- I never typed 'Man on The Clapham omnibus' or any words resembling that!

[ChuckFickens]

Try typing sp1derman (obviously spelt correctly)

[Answerprancer]

spiderman

[Answerprancer]

...well, that was boring!

[dotty.]

if you typed kn0bby then that's what the censor changes it too cos that name is banned and excluded and ostracised and will remain so unless he opens a milliners anytime soon,

[ChuckFickens]

Damm it, they have removed that one then! spiderman and superman used to be changed to banned hero.

[jno]

there's nothing to stop this happening. The trouble is, they mostly just can't help repeating the original offences, they're just hardwired that way. And so they're spotted pretty quickly.

Obviously this begs a question: are there in fact any offenders who have reformed completely and returned under new names which nobody has guessed at? Could be. And if so, they should have no trouble.

[Answerprancer]

I suppose so, my 'stalker' has regulary ended up repeating patterns.

[askyourgran]

The only problem with this is that when a 'new' user comes on he is treated with suspicion, some are actually quite rude to them just in case it is a banned user.

[Buenchico]

If a user is suspended, Factor30, it's unlikely to have been done by the one of the three editors (unless that editor just thinks that the user just needs a bit of time to calm down or to sober up). It's far more likely to have been done by one of the moderators. They can only suspend people (and not ban them) and they have to tell the editor why they've done so. Then that person can either be reinstated (by an editor or by a moderator) or banned (solely by an editor).

To the best of my knowledge, the automated system for suspending a user no longer works. (The idea was that 10 people submitting 'report this' posts would be sufficient for a user's account to be put on hold. However certain people seemed to stack up a whole load of usernames so that they could then submit 10 apparently separate reports to block the posts of someone they disliked. Dot appeared to suffer from such victimization) .

I'm sure you're correct in saying that some people enjoy the game of trying to outwit the editors (and the moderators). The problem is that 'winning' doesn't seem to be good enough for them. They need to be SEEN to have 'won', which means that they can't resist the temptation to reveal their true identities. If they simply want to PARTICIPATE (which, surely, is what CB is all about), rather than to WIN, all they have to do is to start with a new username and keep quiet about their previous identity.

Chris

[ummmm]

jno...yes.

[ummmm]

Chris....Dot use to do that herself.