I honestly thought this had already been made clear, but perhaps it's just how I interpreted things? But the stated intent is that banned users would need to lodge an appeal in order to join the CoRe forums, and otherwise wouldn't be allowed to join. Thus if they join without appealing their ban, they would then be banned.
+4
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
That kind of harassment gets infinitely harder with people taking up new identities, which is tied into some of the discussion around here. Like.. if someone has been removed from this forum, either voluntarily or by management action, then I would be exceedingly hesitant to let them back in under a different name without making it extremely clear who they were. That was, after all, the whole point of the "No Alts" rule. I'm not saying no one can be redeemed or participate.. just.. you know, some kind of parole process that codifies the whole "people who return from a ban are on thinner ice" stuff. Technically I fall under that as I asked for a tempban from the forum.
how do we accomplish that only for people who were previously banned without also snaring every new account?
I don't see a way to accomplish this from a technical solution. We live in an age of VPNs and other methods that basically allow anyone to be anything and say whatever they want. Heck, if I really wanted to I could feed my replies through a computer model to strip out my "voice" and replace it with someone else's. I am going off good faith that no one here would do that to harass others... but I've been burned for my good faith before.
I honestly thought this had already been made clear, but perhaps it's just how I interpreted things? But the stated intent is that banned users would need to lodge an appeal in order to join the CoRe forums, and otherwise wouldn't be allowed to join. Thus if they join without appealing their ban, they would then be banned.
So to clarify - there will not be a distinction between PA banned members and CR banned members, in terms of process and treatment ? With the only exception being Delz's difference between "self-declared hiatus" and the current banning structures?
I'm not wanting to make accusations, I just want to make sure it is clear. Like... maybe someone has scraped it or the mods have it, but I don't even know if there is a list of all banned usernames out there. The forum mod actions threads were crude workarounds for the fact that banning a spam account had the same "weight" in Vanilla as banning a community member of known standing.
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
I honestly thought this had already been made clear, but perhaps it's just how I interpreted things? But the stated intent is that banned users would need to lodge an appeal in order to join the CoRe forums, and otherwise wouldn't be allowed to join. Thus if they join without appealing their ban, they would then be banned.
So to clarify - there will not be a distinction between PA banned members and CR banned members, in terms of process and treatment ? With the only exception being Delz's difference between "self-declared hiatus" and the current banning structures?
I'm not wanting to make accusations, I just want to make sure it is clear. Like... maybe someone has scraped it or the mods have it, but I don't even know if there is a list of all banned usernames out there. The forum mod actions threads were crude workarounds for the fact that banning a spam account had the same "weight" in Vanilla as banning a community member of known standing.
The nameclaim system prevents anyone who is banned from signing up with their username
And yes there is a list of all banned usernames that mods have access to.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited February 5
there is a list of banned users
it's over 20,000 accounts. mostly spam accounts
there's no distinction between a legitimate ban of a real person, a spam account, and a requested self-ban, so blanket solutions to the problem are not good solutions and targeted solutions to the problem are not terribly feasible and easily subverted
there's no distinction between a legitimate ban of a real person, a spam account, and a requested self-ban, so blanket solutions to the problem are not good solutions and targeted solutions to the problem are not terribly feasible and easily subverted
That sounds like our ability to do much of anything here is being restricted by the lack of clear record keeping, and that there really is no good solution beyond just filtering people out again.
No I don't.
+1
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
there's no distinction between a legitimate ban of a real person, a spam account, and a requested self-ban, so blanket solutions to the problem are not good solutions and targeted solutions to the problem are not terribly feasible and easily subverted
That sounds like our ability to do much of anything here is being restricted by the lack of clear record keeping, and that there really is no good solution beyond just filtering people out again.
i mean we could narrow the list by cross-referencing post count and the time between account creation and banning
but beyond that it's a matter of remembering why every user leftover was banned
some will be obvious, many will be unclear
and if someone really wanted to get around their ban they can easily get around whatever prevention methods we put in place outside of, like, deep verification of all new users (not happening)
i 100% agree if a known actor pops up they will be shut down, but the prevention step is likely not a lot of juice for the squeeze
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
That kind of harassment gets infinitely harder with people taking up new identities, which is tied into some of the discussion around here. Like.. if someone has been removed from this forum, either voluntarily or by management action, then I would be exceedingly hesitant to let them back in under a different name without making it extremely clear who they were. That was, after all, the whole point of the "No Alts" rule. I'm not saying no one can be redeemed or participate.. just.. you know, some kind of parole process that codifies the whole "people who return from a ban are on thinner ice" stuff. Technically I fall under that as I asked for a tempban from the forum.
how do we accomplish that only for people who were previously banned without also snaring every new account?
I don't see a way to accomplish this from a technical solution. We live in an age of VPNs and other methods that basically allow anyone to be anything and say whatever they want. Heck, if I really wanted to I could feed my replies through a computer model to strip out my "voice" and replace it with someone else's. I am going off good faith that no one here would do that to harass others... but I've been burned for my good faith before.
I honestly thought this had already been made clear, but perhaps it's just how I interpreted things? But the stated intent is that banned users would need to lodge an appeal in order to join the CoRe forums, and otherwise wouldn't be allowed to join. Thus if they join without appealing their ban, they would then be banned.
So to clarify - there will not be a distinction between PA banned members and CR banned members, in terms of process and treatment ? With the only exception being Delz's difference between "self-declared hiatus" and the current banning structures?
I'm not wanting to make accusations, I just want to make sure it is clear. Like... maybe someone has scraped it or the mods have it, but I don't even know if there is a list of all banned usernames out there. The forum mod actions threads were crude workarounds for the fact that banning a spam account had the same "weight" in Vanilla as banning a community member of known standing.
Yeah, so just for the sake of clarity, allow me to collect and repeat a few key points:
Every PA username is locked/reserved on Coin Return. No username that has ever been used on PA can be signed up under on Coin Return without going through the automated transfer process (which requires your PA account to be active), or by a manual verification method to be implemented specifically for folks who opted for a self-ban and account purge on PA for privacy/etc reasons.
Banned for causse users from PA are not welcome by default on Coin Return, and as a consequence of the above condition, will not be able to simply register their old name on Coin Return. Pending some implementation of the PA block list (which, the exact specifics of are still up in the air regarding how much additional data we can take from it, both on a legal and technical standpoint), there may be other safeguards to prevent those users from registering, but nothing is foolproof against a motivated alt-creator. My suspicion is--and this is just personal commentary--that a lack of motivation to give a shit will be what keeps 99.9% of those users out. We'll deal with the 0.1% who are both motivated and slippery in another way, but you can't build elaborate systems around odds like that.
Alts of banned users, when found out, will be banned. Any qualifiers or equivocating you see in anything written here is nothing more than acknowledgement of the real world technical and social (and, to a degree, legal) limitations put on us in this process. The goal, which I think we will easily achieve, is to protect the community from harmful ex-members of this community at least as well as is currently done on PA (although we'll of course aim for better where possible).
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
+10
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
also, yeah we aren't totally defenseless
spacekungfuman can't sign up on CR as spacekungfuman regardless
but he could sign up as spacekungfuman1 or any other name and we can't really preemptively prevent that
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
But to be clear, he could do the same thing here and we wouldn't really be able to prevent it. Of course, we'd probably notice immediately and ban the account, but there's not really alt prevention in place, only the ability of our moderators to deal with alts when they do appear.
I think it's worth pointing out that the list of people who were banned for cause and would even want to bother sneaking onto CoRe is almost certainly single digits. It's important to have a policy (which, seemingly, we do), but there isn't going to be a massive influx of bad actors. Most people just don't care enough, and the ones who might are probably in recent enough memory that they'd be easier to spot.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
There's a large difference between stating the limitations of prevention abilities and condoning negative outcomes that are possible because of those limitations. To me it seems deliberately provocative to imply or state otherwise.
Harmful presences are removed being the summary of some core values should not need hyper-specific bookkeeping about every possible iteration of a situation, but if it makes somebody feel safer, okay. If it's just to stir a pot or lob grenades that's not okay, but I'm an imperfect being that can't read true intentions of people I don't know over text so we should err on the side of safety.
Harmful presences are removed. Nobody reasonable will dispute that somebody who was stalking or delivered physical harm is a harmful presence. Reasonable people pointed out there's no way to prevent somebody who does those things from circumventing the precautions that can and are being reasonably taken and so the only solution left for those cases is to be reactive.
1) A publicly available list of accounts banned for cause (non-spam, non-self-request). No other information should be retained (such as email addresses, ip addresses, etc) as this isn't publicly available information.
2) An explicit statement in the ban appeal process that previously banned members must follow the process to be admitted to CoRe.
3) A rule stating that if the CoRe leadership discovers that a CoRe member knew that the person was previously banned, they will be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including a permanent ban.
(1) is required for (3).
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
The main lists are in the SE++ and D&D Ban and Infractions thread and is already public. I think, other than the mod forums, that may be the only documentation that we have, although I'll have to check. The actual forum-exported ban lists contains users banned for any reason, which includes spam bots and whatnot.
I don't think #3 there is really enforceable. That's leading into "thought crime" territory.
1) A publicly available list of accounts banned for cause (non-spam, non-self-request). No other information should be retained (such as email addresses, ip addresses, etc) as this isn't publicly available information.
2) An explicit statement in the ban appeal process that previously banned members must follow the process to be admitted to CoRe.
3) A rule stating that if the CoRe leadership discovers that a CoRe member knew that the person was previously banned, they will be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including a permanent ban.
(1) is required for (3).
Man 3 is ridiculous
+19
ToxI kill threadsDilige, et quod vis facRegistered Userregular
Y'all we just had the conversation about mods not being cops.
maybe the real panopticon was the friends we made along the way
The main lists are in the SE++ and D&D Ban and Infractions thread and is already public. I think, other than the mod forums, that may be the only documentation that we have, although I'll have to check. The actual forum-exported ban lists contains users banned for any reason, which includes spam bots and whatnot.
I don't think #3 there is really enforceable. That's leading into "thought crime" territory.
Those current ban and Infraction lists also only go back as far as Vanilla. There were prior threads on the old boards that may be sunk somewhere in the forums, or they might be gone entirely.
That's unbelievably cool. Your new name is cool guy. Let's have sex.
0
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
If (1) is asking for a full historical record of such users dating back to the beginning of the PA forums, that's likely impossible to get a list that's extremely accurate.
As was mentioned, the current ban list consists of over 20,000 accounts. Probably more than 19,700 of those are spammers or similar. Users who were banned for cause are typically listed in the ban/infraction thread(s), but those lists aren't perfect, and don't go back all the way. So there are definitely some people on that list who are banned for cause that we would have a very hard time picking out from amongst the spammer haystack. But in either case, they still cant register on Coin Return regardless.
It's a situation where we'll probably have to do the best we can (which, again, is at least as good as PA is currently doing) with the data we have, and simply make it a point to be more thorough and well documented going forward.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
This is some HOA level bullshit, y'all understand this is going to be a new place, completely disconnected from penny arcade the entity or whatever and these forums, right
What straw man super spies are y'all imagining, seriously
i would prefer a less hostile tone when engaging in these conversations
The main lists are in the SE++ and D&D Ban and Infractions thread and is already public. I think, other than the mod forums, that may be the only documentation that we have, although I'll have to check. The actual forum-exported ban lists contains users banned for any reason, which includes spam bots and whatnot.
I don't think #3 there is really enforceable. That's leading into "thought crime" territory.
Those current ban and Infraction lists also only go back as far as Vanilla. There were prior threads on the old boards that may be sunk somewhere in the forums, or they might be gone entirely.
Yeah, I'll do some digging around. It might be worth finding.
if an old/banned user returns and behaves badly again then they get banned again, simple as
if an old/banned user returns, doesn't behave badly, and nobody finds out they previously posted under an old name, then who really cares?
trying to develop an automated system to detect what's ultimately a fairly small group of trolls (who're persistent enough to keep making alts anyway) seems like a lot of work for little return
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
This seems like a lot of hullabaloo about a problem that is very unlikely to exist.
As people have noted, there's nothing preventing a currently banned user from making an account and posting here, and yet there's (almost) no instances of alts or troll accounts being made. (Almost) everyone who signs up for Coin Return is either active or lurking here. The number of users who are banned here and keep up with the forums and would be motivated to make an alt on Coin Return, but aren't willing to make an alt on the current forums, is going to be extremely minimal. Trying to create a detailed technical or administrative solution to this problem seems extremely high effort for the same outcome as just ad hoc banning anybody who acts shitty or reveals themselves to be an alt.
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
I also remember that a mod once admitted to making up some of the alt names in one of the ban threads where a user had a half dozen or so alts. He banned all the alts, listed the first two in the thread, then just threw down whatever sounded about right because he was already forgetting the full list of names and this had already taken up more energy than it was worth.
So even those lists contain inaccuracies, and that's when they could be bothered putting the bans in (again, I know for a fact several bans were never entered, usually because they happened in a fairly high-profile way so adding to the list seemed redundant in the current context of the boards).
This is some HOA level bullshit, y'all understand this is going to be a new place, completely disconnected from penny arcade the entity or whatever and these forums, right
What straw man super spies are y'all imagining, seriously
i would prefer a less hostile tone when engaging in these conversations
As would I
It seems a few posters are trying their damndest to make enough of a stinky mess of unreasonable demands as to poison the well and ruin the thing and it's aggravating
raising the temperature by responding the way you did is not going to make things less aggravating
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+4
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
I also remember that a mod once admitted to making up some of the alt names in one of the ban threads where a user had a half dozen or so alts. He banned all the alts, listed the first two in the thread, then just threw down whatever sounded about right because he was already forgetting the full list of names and this had already taken up more energy than it was worth.
So even those lists contain inaccuracies, and that's when they could be bothered putting the bans in (again, I know for a fact several bans were never entered, usually because they happened in a fairly high-profile way so adding to the list seemed redundant in the current context of the boards).
yeah any intent aside, those threads are not going to be comprehensive nor flawless in their accounting
This seems like a lot of hullabaloo about a problem that is very unlikely to exist.
As people have noted, there's nothing preventing a currently banned user from making an account and posting here, and yet there's (almost) no instances of alts or troll accounts being made. (Almost) everyone who signs up for Coin Return is either active or lurking here. The number of users who are banned here and keep up with the forums and would be motivated to make an alt on Coin Return, but aren't willing to make an alt on the current forums, is going to be extremely minimal. Trying to create a detailed technical or administrative solution to this problem seems extremely high effort for the same outcome as just ad hoc banning anybody who acts shitty or reveals themselves to be an alt.
Addendum: This post is kind of funny now that a user named "Alt Zavian" has joined (I'm assuming just to post while keeping the old account wiped).
The main lists are in the SE++ and D&D Ban and Infractions thread and is already public. I think, other than the mod forums, that may be the only documentation that we have, although I'll have to check. The actual forum-exported ban lists contains users banned for any reason, which includes spam bots and whatnot.
I don't think #3 there is really enforceable. That's leading into "thought crime" territory.
1) A publicly available list of accounts banned for cause (non-spam, non-self-request). No other information should be retained (such as email addresses, ip addresses, etc) as this isn't publicly available information.
2) An explicit statement in the ban appeal process that previously banned members must follow the process to be admitted to CoRe.
3) A rule stating that if the CoRe leadership discovers that a CoRe member knew that the person was previously banned, they will be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including a permanent ban.
(1) is required for (3).
Man 3 is ridiculous
It's fine to find my or anyone's proposal ridiculous, but could you explain why? I obviously didn't think it was ridiculous, or I wouldn't have proposed it. That's not say there aren't flaws I haven't foreseen or considered, but it's helpful to know what they are.
This seems like a lot of hullabaloo about a problem that is very unlikely to exist.
As people have noted, there's nothing preventing a currently banned user from making an account and posting here, and yet there's (almost) no instances of alts or troll accounts being made. (Almost) everyone who signs up for Coin Return is either active or lurking here. The number of users who are banned here and keep up with the forums and would be motivated to make an alt on Coin Return, but aren't willing to make an alt on the current forums, is going to be extremely minimal. Trying to create a detailed technical or administrative solution to this problem seems extremely high effort for the same outcome as just ad hoc banning anybody who acts shitty or reveals themselves to be an alt.
Addendum: This post is kind of funny now that a user named "Alt Zavian" has joined (I'm assuming just to post while keeping the old account wiped).
Just to clarify, zavian had their account purged based on privacy concerns when there was talk about scraping the forums, etc. I'm sure you're aware, but just want to point out that this is a very different situation than a banning-for-cause for anyone else following along here.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
In the interest of not having this thread spiral into back and forth sniping and cyclic arguments over unhelpful topics, can folks please take a step back, a deep breath and take a break from this thread for a while if they're feeling heated or hard done by or frustrated? I don't want to have to thread kick anyone else to allow this thread to continue to operate in a sensible and effective manner.
Posts
*within the rules and values
I don't see a way to accomplish this from a technical solution. We live in an age of VPNs and other methods that basically allow anyone to be anything and say whatever they want. Heck, if I really wanted to I could feed my replies through a computer model to strip out my "voice" and replace it with someone else's. I am going off good faith that no one here would do that to harass others... but I've been burned for my good faith before.
So to clarify - there will not be a distinction between PA banned members and CR banned members, in terms of process and treatment ? With the only exception being Delz's difference between "self-declared hiatus" and the current banning structures?
I'm not wanting to make accusations, I just want to make sure it is clear. Like... maybe someone has scraped it or the mods have it, but I don't even know if there is a list of all banned usernames out there. The forum mod actions threads were crude workarounds for the fact that banning a spam account had the same "weight" in Vanilla as banning a community member of known standing.
To quote Delz from last page:
And yes there is a list of all banned usernames that mods have access to.
it's over 20,000 accounts. mostly spam accounts
there's no distinction between a legitimate ban of a real person, a spam account, and a requested self-ban, so blanket solutions to the problem are not good solutions and targeted solutions to the problem are not terribly feasible and easily subverted
That sounds like our ability to do much of anything here is being restricted by the lack of clear record keeping, and that there really is no good solution beyond just filtering people out again.
i mean we could narrow the list by cross-referencing post count and the time between account creation and banning
but beyond that it's a matter of remembering why every user leftover was banned
some will be obvious, many will be unclear
and if someone really wanted to get around their ban they can easily get around whatever prevention methods we put in place outside of, like, deep verification of all new users (not happening)
i 100% agree if a known actor pops up they will be shut down, but the prevention step is likely not a lot of juice for the squeeze
Yeah, so just for the sake of clarity, allow me to collect and repeat a few key points:
Every PA username is locked/reserved on Coin Return. No username that has ever been used on PA can be signed up under on Coin Return without going through the automated transfer process (which requires your PA account to be active), or by a manual verification method to be implemented specifically for folks who opted for a self-ban and account purge on PA for privacy/etc reasons.
Banned for causse users from PA are not welcome by default on Coin Return, and as a consequence of the above condition, will not be able to simply register their old name on Coin Return. Pending some implementation of the PA block list (which, the exact specifics of are still up in the air regarding how much additional data we can take from it, both on a legal and technical standpoint), there may be other safeguards to prevent those users from registering, but nothing is foolproof against a motivated alt-creator. My suspicion is--and this is just personal commentary--that a lack of motivation to give a shit will be what keeps 99.9% of those users out. We'll deal with the 0.1% who are both motivated and slippery in another way, but you can't build elaborate systems around odds like that.
Alts of banned users, when found out, will be banned. Any qualifiers or equivocating you see in anything written here is nothing more than acknowledgement of the real world technical and social (and, to a degree, legal) limitations put on us in this process. The goal, which I think we will easily achieve, is to protect the community from harmful ex-members of this community at least as well as is currently done on PA (although we'll of course aim for better where possible).
spacekungfuman can't sign up on CR as spacekungfuman regardless
but he could sign up as spacekungfuman1 or any other name and we can't really preemptively prevent that
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Harmful presences are removed being the summary of some core values should not need hyper-specific bookkeeping about every possible iteration of a situation, but if it makes somebody feel safer, okay. If it's just to stir a pot or lob grenades that's not okay, but I'm an imperfect being that can't read true intentions of people I don't know over text so we should err on the side of safety.
Harmful presences are removed. Nobody reasonable will dispute that somebody who was stalking or delivered physical harm is a harmful presence. Reasonable people pointed out there's no way to prevent somebody who does those things from circumventing the precautions that can and are being reasonably taken and so the only solution left for those cases is to be reactive.
1) A publicly available list of accounts banned for cause (non-spam, non-self-request). No other information should be retained (such as email addresses, ip addresses, etc) as this isn't publicly available information.
2) An explicit statement in the ban appeal process that previously banned members must follow the process to be admitted to CoRe.
3) A rule stating that if the CoRe leadership discovers that a CoRe member knew that the person was previously banned, they will be subject to disciplinary actions up to and including a permanent ban.
(1) is required for (3).
I don't think #3 there is really enforceable. That's leading into "thought crime" territory.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
Man 3 is ridiculous
Those current ban and Infraction lists also only go back as far as Vanilla. There were prior threads on the old boards that may be sunk somewhere in the forums, or they might be gone entirely.
As was mentioned, the current ban list consists of over 20,000 accounts. Probably more than 19,700 of those are spammers or similar. Users who were banned for cause are typically listed in the ban/infraction thread(s), but those lists aren't perfect, and don't go back all the way. So there are definitely some people on that list who are banned for cause that we would have a very hard time picking out from amongst the spammer haystack. But in either case, they still cant register on Coin Return regardless.
It's a situation where we'll probably have to do the best we can (which, again, is at least as good as PA is currently doing) with the data we have, and simply make it a point to be more thorough and well documented going forward.
there's only so much we can do with 25 years of spotty record keeping on a forum that did not have great tools for it
i would prefer a less hostile tone when engaging in these conversations
Yeah, I'll do some digging around. It might be worth finding.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
if an old/banned user returns, doesn't behave badly, and nobody finds out they previously posted under an old name, then who really cares?
trying to develop an automated system to detect what's ultimately a fairly small group of trolls (who're persistent enough to keep making alts anyway) seems like a lot of work for little return
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
As people have noted, there's nothing preventing a currently banned user from making an account and posting here, and yet there's (almost) no instances of alts or troll accounts being made. (Almost) everyone who signs up for Coin Return is either active or lurking here. The number of users who are banned here and keep up with the forums and would be motivated to make an alt on Coin Return, but aren't willing to make an alt on the current forums, is going to be extremely minimal. Trying to create a detailed technical or administrative solution to this problem seems extremely high effort for the same outcome as just ad hoc banning anybody who acts shitty or reveals themselves to be an alt.
So even those lists contain inaccuracies, and that's when they could be bothered putting the bans in (again, I know for a fact several bans were never entered, usually because they happened in a fairly high-profile way so adding to the list seemed redundant in the current context of the boards).
raising the temperature by responding the way you did is not going to make things less aggravating
yeah any intent aside, those threads are not going to be comprehensive nor flawless in their accounting
Addendum: This post is kind of funny now that a user named "Alt Zavian" has joined (I'm assuming just to post while keeping the old account wiped).
Fair enough.
It's fine to find my or anyone's proposal ridiculous, but could you explain why? I obviously didn't think it was ridiculous, or I wouldn't have proposed it. That's not say there aren't flaws I haven't foreseen or considered, but it's helpful to know what they are.
Just to clarify, zavian had their account purged based on privacy concerns when there was talk about scraping the forums, etc. I'm sure you're aware, but just want to point out that this is a very different situation than a banning-for-cause for anyone else following along here.
i just told you to tone it down
Please stop trying to turn this into a fight