Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jun 15, 2019 19:53:07 GMT
We are at a point where the permanent ban list is being treated as a tool for admins to simply 'block' people they personally find annoying, so that they aren't forced to ever have to have their pretentious, graceful eyes be assaulted by the sight of an operator who acts so fucking horribly uncouth to them.
Let me provide some history here. In 2011 when the server was getting bigger and more rules were necessary and attacks were getting more destructive & common, a system known as "Ban on Sight" was used where admins would remember certain users and ban them whenever they joined back whenever the normal ban list was purged. This system wasn't efficient or anything but admins back then had to be more "on guard" as less systems were in place, so it worked better than it would sound today. In a way, "ban on sight" lives on less formally to this day as IP/user ban bypassing will always be a thing. In 2012, the "permban list" was created to replace this system. The permban list was meant to be a prestigious list with few people to get rid of the most dangerous threats to the server. Permban requests back in the day would be scrutinized if they were submitted for anything that wasn't absolutely severe.
Nowadays, we have a system where anybody who commits a minor offense slightly more noticeable than one that would simply result in a regular ban will receive their very own permban request and get onto the list. However, it is extremely easy to get off of this list: wait an arbitrary short amount of time and act apologetic, you can get off even if you were on the permban list 7 times. There's always going to be at least 5 admins that fall for any story you give 'em and vouch for anything that 'looks genuine' and vouch for any permban request which 'looks malicious' even if it's not even against the fucking rules. This has been propagated by the people who approve permban requests; there's permban requests all the time and the only thing worth doing is approving them as long as those vouches are there, so we're at the point where the policies don't matter.
I've basically described a cycle which can be summed up as simple as this:
- user commits noticeable offense or non-offense which 'appears malicious'
- someone submits a permban request
- the admin bots necessary to approve it all throw in their vouches which at this point is just post count incrementing
- permban request approved
- user may submit an appeal which looks apologetic
- the admin bots vouch unless the appeal was submitted too fast after being permbanned or there is a concern raised where that specific appeal may be rejected
- user inevitably ends up free and this cycle can repeat
An ideal scenario would look like this:
- a user repeatedly commits major offenses that threaten & damage the server's uptime (the word repeatedly is key here)
- someone submits a permban request
- admins vouch based off of factors including severity of offense, intent, & offense history
- user is permbanned
- user may submit an appeal which looks apologetic
- admins vouch & the appeal is approved
- BUT, if it happens a 3rd time any appeals will be rejected and would have to wait for the permban list to be cleared
Here's my suggestion to achieve an ideal permban system:
Update the permban request template to REQUIRE the request to contain actual major offenses which don't just consist of "person is obnoxious", "person was banned a few times for non-severe reasons therefore has to be permbanned".
Update the permban request template to require other factors including an examination of the person's intent showing context, and the person's history of offenses.
If the template isn't properly followed like this, then automatically DENY it and close it the same way an admin application would be closed for not following the template.
The person whom reviews the permban requests to approve them must actually examine these factors themselves and determine if the person actually deserves to be permbanned according to the policy and not personal reasons or exaggerations.
Update permban appeals to be automatically denied if the person had a previous appeal which was accepted but was then permbanned again for a serious reason.
Clear the permban list routinely. (this should be a lengthy amount of time and certain cases such as bots can be left in, perhaps half a year or even a full year before the list is cleared)
If you disagree with anything in this suggestion, then please make a post explaining why. The system right now is ridiculous and needs to be fixed.
Let me provide some history here. In 2011 when the server was getting bigger and more rules were necessary and attacks were getting more destructive & common, a system known as "Ban on Sight" was used where admins would remember certain users and ban them whenever they joined back whenever the normal ban list was purged. This system wasn't efficient or anything but admins back then had to be more "on guard" as less systems were in place, so it worked better than it would sound today. In a way, "ban on sight" lives on less formally to this day as IP/user ban bypassing will always be a thing. In 2012, the "permban list" was created to replace this system. The permban list was meant to be a prestigious list with few people to get rid of the most dangerous threats to the server. Permban requests back in the day would be scrutinized if they were submitted for anything that wasn't absolutely severe.
Nowadays, we have a system where anybody who commits a minor offense slightly more noticeable than one that would simply result in a regular ban will receive their very own permban request and get onto the list. However, it is extremely easy to get off of this list: wait an arbitrary short amount of time and act apologetic, you can get off even if you were on the permban list 7 times. There's always going to be at least 5 admins that fall for any story you give 'em and vouch for anything that 'looks genuine' and vouch for any permban request which 'looks malicious' even if it's not even against the fucking rules. This has been propagated by the people who approve permban requests; there's permban requests all the time and the only thing worth doing is approving them as long as those vouches are there, so we're at the point where the policies don't matter.
I've basically described a cycle which can be summed up as simple as this:
- user commits noticeable offense or non-offense which 'appears malicious'
- someone submits a permban request
- the admin bots necessary to approve it all throw in their vouches which at this point is just post count incrementing
- permban request approved
- user may submit an appeal which looks apologetic
- the admin bots vouch unless the appeal was submitted too fast after being permbanned or there is a concern raised where that specific appeal may be rejected
- user inevitably ends up free and this cycle can repeat
An ideal scenario would look like this:
- a user repeatedly commits major offenses that threaten & damage the server's uptime (the word repeatedly is key here)
- someone submits a permban request
- admins vouch based off of factors including severity of offense, intent, & offense history
- user is permbanned
- user may submit an appeal which looks apologetic
- admins vouch & the appeal is approved
- BUT, if it happens a 3rd time any appeals will be rejected and would have to wait for the permban list to be cleared
Here's my suggestion to achieve an ideal permban system:
Update the permban request template to REQUIRE the request to contain actual major offenses which don't just consist of "person is obnoxious", "person was banned a few times for non-severe reasons therefore has to be permbanned".
Update the permban request template to require other factors including an examination of the person's intent showing context, and the person's history of offenses.
If the template isn't properly followed like this, then automatically DENY it and close it the same way an admin application would be closed for not following the template.
The person whom reviews the permban requests to approve them must actually examine these factors themselves and determine if the person actually deserves to be permbanned according to the policy and not personal reasons or exaggerations.
Update permban appeals to be automatically denied if the person had a previous appeal which was accepted but was then permbanned again for a serious reason.
Clear the permban list routinely. (this should be a lengthy amount of time and certain cases such as bots can be left in, perhaps half a year or even a full year before the list is cleared)
If you disagree with anything in this suggestion, then please make a post explaining why. The system right now is ridiculous and needs to be fixed.
