Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 12:16 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  When a user is banned their ip and email are blocked. They cannot sign up using either.

The recent issue is the one who will not be named is using a mobile device. So the ip roams. We cannot simply block all IP's because then anyone his same mobile company (and it's a biggie) would be caught up. He uses a different email each time.
Thanks for the explanation. Thumbsup

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 12:16 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 10:32 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  Hello,

I'm sure you all are aware of the recent stalker/harasser that keeps sock puppeting on this site. The ban log is filling up, which is fun to watch at times, but overall it seems like unnecessary extra work for the forum team.

Is there a more permanent solution? Here are some that come to mind.

-Blocking the IP:
--Although, I think this is probably intentionally avoided because of the potential to block out somebody who is not the offender, but just inherits or shares the IP.
--Also, there are ways around it.
--One idea is to put a temporary IP block up for an unspecified amount of time, and hopefully in that time they would just give up.

-Blocking (blacklisting) the Email Address:
--Blocking a banned member's Email address from even having the ability to create a new account. (is this already done?)
--Of course they have the ability to make new Emails, but that at least causes more work for them if they really want to keep this up.

I don't fully know the process, so I'm just trying to think of solutions based on observation. I doubt any of this will actually be considered, but it's what I do. Ah well.

Other ideas??

When a user is banned their ip and email are blocked. They cannot sign up using either.

I don't believe that is the case, at least not the IP.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
Can someone fill me in on what's going on?

Did I arrive in a time of crisis?

I'm confused :/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 03:09 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 02:51 PM)Li_Holodomer Wrote:  Can someone fill me in on what's going on?

Did I arrive in a time of crisis?

I'm confused :/

Long story. Former troll keeps returning and harassing some members to the point of extreme creepiness.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
I Am Not A Lawyer, but is it possible to involve legal or civil action against him for stalking/harassment and subpoena the user from whatever mobile ISP he is using?

I mean if it is getting creepy bad, then there maybe a legal option.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 05:03 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  I Am Not A Lawyer, but is it possible to involve legal or civil action against him for stalking/harassment and subpoena the user from whatever mobile ISP he is using?

I mean if it is getting creepy bad, then there maybe a legal option.

I think you can, and dei should, I would.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 09:28 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 11:21 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Honestly what should have been done is not given him an opportunity to get established here. His whole coming here was stalking and therefore a rule 4 and 5 violation. The Admins not taking that seriously put a lot of people at risk and opened Seth up to a lawsuit. The potential for breach of trust was too high to give this kind of threat 18 strikes.

I honestly couldn't agree more. This was my main issue with how the administration handled the situation as well.

I'd suggest we take this away as a learning experience that there are some truly malicious people out there that aren't deserving of a "fair chance" because giving it to them puts the security of other users on the forum at risk. They may not be common, but this is the internet, malicious predators do exist and can use this forum as gateway for their activities. They need a different response than a by the book routine in order to effectively disarm them.

At one point in time, it held true that this forum was a place that people's personal lives simply had no possibility of being aversely affected by others. That time is long gone, we've had too many incidents to continue holding on to that mentality.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
23-09-2014, 09:45 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
Wait, a lawsuit for Seth? How/why?

Atheism is the only way to truly be free from sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 09:54 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 09:45 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Wait, a lawsuit for Seth? How/why?

We knew about his previous actions and took no steps to inform anyone or to prevent him from repeating them. Seth's is the owner of the forum therefore would be liable if a worst case scenario played out and the victim (or their family) sued.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
23-09-2014, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2014 10:21 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 09:54 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 09:45 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Wait, a lawsuit for Seth? How/why?

We knew about his previous actions and took no steps to inform anyone or to prevent him from repeating them. Seth's is the owner of the forum therefore would be liable if a worst case scenario played out and the victim (or their family) sued.

This is especially relevant because he DID end up leaking private details of one of our members, something that he was a known risk for. In what I believe to be a serious flaw in our current approach to security of user privacy, leaking private information isn't a banworthy offense (WC was banned for a rule 5 violation, not for a rule 3 violation which is interfering with people's lives outside the forum). In addition, only an admin can make the call as to whether privately leaked information can be retracted by a forum team member, unlike, say porn, where ANY member of the forum team can step in.

What if Dark Light hadn't been online when it happened and we had to wait hours in order to be authorized to remove the private information that was leaked? What if it was leaked by somebody that had even more malicious intentions than WC did and didn't retract the information 10 minutes after posting it, but instead left it up on the forum? What if the victim HAD been somebody that was willing to sue Seth due to the FT's inability to properly protect his/her private information?

If members are banned for posting porn since it could lead to lawsuits against Seth; if any forum team member can remove pornographic images from posts due to the legal urgency, then by the same principle maliciously leaking sensitive private information needs to be a banworthy offense and any forum team member needs to have the authority to immediately fix the privacy breach the moment it's spotted.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: