Suggestion for mods: please add (banned) suffix to the names of posters that have been banned.

[Umbral Reaver]

It'd ease things a lot around here. Too often we're left wondering if some bigot is still there, waiting to pounce.

[Themetricsystem]

As comforting as that info may be I'm pretty sure that is considered personal information related to their account and cannot be exposed as you have suggested or at the very least would represent a non-consensual alteration of user data that is also similarly illegal.

Laws passed in recent years have made modifying user information on the behalf of the user, even after they have their Account deactivated, make this at BEST a gray area in terms of what's allowed and more realistically is not something that can be done without breaking those regulations.

[The Inheritor]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

It'd ease things a lot around here. Too often we're left wondering if some bigot is still there, waiting to pounce.

I second this idea.

[knightnday]

Dunno about that. I've seen user accounts come up as BANNED on a number of sites/forums, although they didn't have a store connected to them. Still, a way to know that X is gone might be nice.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

I do not know if the site software is up to it, but other forums I've been on have a marking for 'infractions' that clearly delineate how a person has violated forum policy and how many times -- and it's considered part of the TOS.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I would be very, very surprised if it was illegal. It's not private customer data, especially since PermSus doesn't actually prevent you from accessing downloads. If Twitter is allowed to put "This user has been banned" on profiles, why wouldn't Paizo be?

[Kobold Catgirl]

(The only current tell we have is if someone who was formerly accepting PMs suddenly stops being PMable. That's how I identified a very recent ban.)

[Themetricsystem]

Altering or even adding something to someone's username counts as modifying their personal information (as usernames are used to identify individuals within a given ecosystem) and is something that is generally a prohibited practice. Typically this is only ever done, by legitimate and law-abiding organizations, when either the user personally requests it or when their username is in conflict with the service ToS or other policies that the individual agreed to when creating the account.

I believe there are ways of going this otherwise though such as how the subscriber, contributor, developer, etc... tags are shown for users that don't actually alter their username directly though.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I second the OP, by the way.

[The Inheritor]

How about this, There is a System in place for additional Forum Titles. Where the subscriptions are mentioned.

Having banned people have a [color=red]Banned[/color] Tag

[Themetricsystem]

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking as it gets the message across and doesn't interface whatsoever with the username directly.

[Umbral Reaver]

Yeah, that's all that's needed. I didn't mean like an actual modification of their username. Just a display thing.

[Catulle]

Themetricsystem wrote:

As comforting as that info may be I'm pretty sure that is considered personal information related to their account and cannot be exposed as you have suggested or at the very least would represent a non-consensual alteration of user data that is also similarly illegal.

Laws passed in recent years have made modifying user information on the behalf of the user, even after they have their Account deactivated, make this at BEST a gray area in terms of what's allowed and more realistically is not something that can be done without breaking those regulations.

Can you point towards any? This is not cohesive with any iteration of law that I've come into contact with, and I'm in the (former) EU state that hasn't been bothered to change any of those oppressive data regulations I am unreliably told exist.

[captain yesterday]

I'm glad it's not my job moderating this mess! (I mean the forums in general of late not this thread).

Happy holidays to everyone! Hopefully calmness will prevail.

[Themetricsystem]

Catulle wrote:

Can you point towards any? This is not cohesive with any iteration of law that I've come into contact with...

Yup, that's the GDPR: Since I believe you're in and referring to the UK I've linked the appropriate website. This stuff is DENSE, not written for the benefit that most people can grok it even with a fair explanation, and very poorly enforced so I can't blame anyone for not knowing or understanding. The username is personal data if it distinguishes one individual from another regardless of whether it is possible to link the 'online' identity with a 'real world' named individual.

The username is considered an online identifier, and as such is protected from being modified by anyone other than the user in most circumstances unless it conflicts with the terms of the services or website being offered. It's the same reason why a company typically cannot and will not update your address, real name, or other identifying information unless you specifically request it despite how easy it is to scrape that kind of info from metadata attached to email addresses.

[Umbral Reaver]

Good thing nobody is asking for the actual username itself to be altered.

[Themetricsystem]

Right exactly, this stuff is complicated, I was just trying to help offer viable suggestions and alternatives to modifying the name of these users.

[David knott 242]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

(The only current tell we have is if someone who was formerly accepting PMs suddenly stops being PMable. That's how I identified a very recent ban.)

It wouldn't be a real clue, as I made myself un-PMable several years ago.

But I suppose the state of being banned could be treated as an involuntary subscription and handled accordingly?

[Umbral Reaver]

Adding a 'banned' display element does not change the username itself.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I'd previously PMed the user. It sometimes works, but usually it's not a tell.

[Andy Brown]

I also wouldn't put it past some people to try to get a temp ban just to pick up the marker as a badge to show how clever they are

[Tender Tendrils]

Adding and indicator requires no changes to the software, just adding a label to an account which the existing forum software is very capable of doing (this already happens with people with subscriptions and mods/staff/contributors).

Hiding accounts isn't something the current software can do and would require upgrading to new software which is very expensive and time consuming.

Deleting accounts can't work because Paizo's "bans" are technically permanent suspensions (they can't participate in the forums ever again, but can still access their downloads and use the store). Deleting accounts would cut these people off from products they have purchased and their ability to purchase future products, which has been deemed too punitive (people are being kicked off the forums for the safety of others, not as a punishment).

Most forums are generally based of some kind of software package that they purchase or subscribe to, rather than coded from scratch, so sometimes certain features are just unavailable to the people running the forums unless they upgrade to a more premium version of the product or upgrade to a new product. Adding a "banned" title that can be applied to users is probably just a case of going into a menu and adding it.

[The Raven Black]

Likely the novelty of this would get some fake accounts be created just so the person can wear their Banned tag as some twisted kind of honor badge (like drivers that try to get the highest possible speed on road radars). But the urge to do so will soon vanish and not be worth the effort.

Since implementing thie Banned tag seems pretty feasible and would greatly help many community members feel safer, I think we should do it.

[Andy Brown]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Adding and indicator requires no changes to the software, just adding a label to an account which the existing forum software is very capable of doing (this already happens with people with subscriptions and mods/staff/contributors).

Hiding accounts isn't something the current software can do and would require upgrading to new software which is very expensive and time consuming.

You obviously know more about the current software than I do

Quote:

Deleting accounts would cut these people off from products they have purchased and their ability to purchase future products, which has been deemed too punitive (people are being kicked off the forums for the safety of others, not as a punishment).

I disagree with that decision too; I see it as putting company profits ahead of forum safety

[Tender Tendrils]

Andy Brown wrote:

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Adding and indicator requires no changes to the software, just adding a label to an account which the existing forum software is very capable of doing (this already happens with people with subscriptions and mods/staff/contributors).

Hiding accounts isn't something the current software can do and would require upgrading to new software which is very expensive and time consuming.

You obviously know more about the current software than I do

Quote:

Deleting accounts would cut these people off from products they have purchased and their ability to purchase future products, which has been deemed too punitive (people are being kicked off the forums for the safety of others, not as a punishment).

I disagree with that decision too; I see it as putting company profits ahead of forum safety

Not just company profits - people paid for those digital products, so there are legal issues with cutting off access to the downloads for them once the person has purchased them.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I think calling Andy a chud is extremely uncalled for (they're literally queer, please don't do this), but I also think the comparison was enormously inappropriate to the point of being disrespectful.

Every single website I've ever been to labels posters who've been banned. It's not for bullying purposes (trust me, I'm more than happy to bully chuds who haven't been banned), it's for simple site functionality so we know that toxic posters are no longer here. Hell, once someone has been banned is usually when I stop calling them out, since I'm no longer worried they'll show up to harass people again.

How could a simple "banned" marker possibly lead to toxicity towards an unpleasant poster? They're literally gone. We can't hurt them anymore. It's just a way to save us time, clarify something that is useful and valuable to know, and help their targets feel safe again.

[Tender Tendrils]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I think calling Andy a chud is extremely uncalled for, but I also think the comparison was enormously inappropriate to the point of being disrespectful.

Every single website I've ever been to labels posters who've been banned. It's not for bullying purposes (trust me, I'm more than happy to bully chuds who haven't been banned), it's for simple site functionality so we know that toxic posters are no longer here. Hell, once someone has been banned is usually when I stop calling them out, since I'm no longer worried they'll show up to harass people again.

How could a simple "banned" marker possibly lead to toxicity towards an unpleasant poster? They're literally gone. We can't hurt them anymore. It's just a way to save us time, clarify something that is useful and valuable to know, and help their targets feel safe again.

Yeah, there is literally a user who hasn't posted in like a week, and I have been stress-checking the posts portion of their profile because I am afraid they are just busy instead of banned and that they will come back. Not knowing if they are gone or not means I can't let out a sigh of relief and fully relax.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Deleting the account isn't just technically difficult and legally dubious--it has an unpleasant side effect of sweeping things under the rug. I dunno, it has its own problems.

More seriously, it also means the mods have to delete every single post from that user. Imagine if you got banned, and the mods had to delete every single post you'd ever made, and modify every thread you'd ever posted in to ensure it remained legible. Logistically, the labor alone makes it infeasible.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I think calling Andy a chud is extremely uncalled for, but I also think the comparison was enormously inappropriate to the point of being disrespectful.

Every single website I've ever been to labels posters who've been banned. It's not for bullying purposes (trust me, I'm more than happy to bully chuds who haven't been banned), it's for simple site functionality so we know that toxic posters are no longer here. Hell, once someone has been banned is usually when I stop calling them out, since I'm no longer worried they'll show up to harass people again.

How could a simple "banned" marker possibly lead to toxicity towards an unpleasant poster? They're literally gone. We can't hurt them anymore. It's just a way to save us time, clarify something that is useful and valuable to know, and help their targets feel safe again.

Yeah, there is literally a user who hasn't posted in like a week, and I have been stress-checking the posts portion of their profile because I am afraid they are just busy instead of banned and that they will come back. Not knowing if they are gone or not means I can't let out a sigh of relief and fully relax.

I've been regularly checking one poster's PbPs for the exact same reason.

[thejeff]

The Raven Black wrote:

Likely the novelty of this would get some fake accounts be created just so the person can wear their Banned tag as some twisted kind of honor badge (like drivers that try to get the highest possible speed on road radars). But the urge to do so will soon vanish and not be worth the effort.

Some probably would, since there are a lot of weird people out there, but since they'd be gone afterwards couldn't proudly display their new Banned tag on ongoing posts, I don't see much motivation.

[Andy Brown]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I think calling Andy a chud is extremely uncalled for, but I also think the comparison was enormously inappropriate to the point of being disrespectful.

Thanks for that. I'll hold my hand up and say I could have worded my disagreement in a less inflammatory way. I'm not convinced it would have stopped the pile-on for disagreeing though.

Quote:

Every single website I've ever been to labels posters who've been banned.

And places I've been have deleted the account. Different experiences, or maybe a generational change.

Quote:

How could a simple "banned" marker possibly lead to toxicity towards an unpleasant poster?

I've been around long enough to see choice of font lead to toxicity...

Kobold Catgirl in a different post wrote:

Deleting the account isn't just technically difficult and legally dubious--it has an unpleasant side effect of sweeping things under the rug.

I'll give you that as a side effect, but it's about the same as deleting offensive posts when it comes to sweeping stuff under the rug.

Quote:

More seriously, it also means the mods have to delete every single post from that user. Imagine if you got banned, and the mods had to delete every single post you'd ever made, and modify every thread you'd ever posted in to ensure it remained legible. Logistically, the labor alone makes it infeasible.

Deleting all of a user's posts should be one simple database command (alternatively it ought to be possible to use a simple command to change the text of the posts to indicate the user has been banned). Again I'm assuming stuff about the website backend which may not be true.

But you're right about it needing a horrible amount of manual work to get rid of quotes of those posts.

[The Raven Black]

thejeff wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Likely the novelty of this would get some fake accounts be created just so the person can wear their Banned tag as some twisted kind of honor badge (like drivers that try to get the highest possible speed on road radars). But the urge to do so will soon vanish and not be worth the effort.

Some probably would, since there are a lot of weird people out there, but since they'd be gone afterwards couldn't proudly display their new Banned tag on ongoing posts, I don't see much motivation.

Totally Not Gorbacz is a thing ;-)

[thejeff]

The Raven Black wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Likely the novelty of this would get some fake accounts be created just so the person can wear their Banned tag as some twisted kind of honor badge (like drivers that try to get the highest possible speed on road radars). But the urge to do so will soon vanish and not be worth the effort.

Some probably would, since there are a lot of weird people out there, but since they'd be gone afterwards couldn't proudly display their new Banned tag on ongoing posts, I don't see much motivation.

Totally Not Gorbacz is a thing ;-)

Sure, but Totally Not Gorbacz hasn't been banned. That account wouldn't have a Banned tag.

Someone could certainly make a new account to come back in and search their old undeleted posts to see the Banned tag, but that seems less of a draw.