This thread is for users to provide feedback on Moderating policies and decisions.
AL888 has been permanently banned from this forum for repetitive suspensions and violations of the Code of Conduct. FAQ - Zcash Community Forum
5 Likes
AL has been our fellow troll for a long time, and personally I feel sad for this decision.
Couldn’t we just accept he has tourette syndrome and doesn’t insult on purpose? I don’t think user are offended by his posts, but more entertained.
My life feels so empty
4 suspensions show that they have no interest in changing their behavior. Telling a Zcash Developer, or any other Community member to perform a sexual act on you is absolutely unacceptable on any Forum.
2 Likes
I was amused by him for a while too, but seriously just no. If anything we probably erred in moderation by allowing him four suspensions, rather than an earlier permanent ban.
There’s no evidence for this. Please don’t armchair-diagnose; it’s disrespectful to anyone who actually has that condition and doesn’t behave badly.
1 Like
You can never truly ban someone. All you do is make them come back under a new nickname and new account!
Perhaps, but multiple accounts from the same IP addresses can be seen. Thier behavior can be seen, which if they don’t follow the community rules will result in another ban.
I don’t like banning users, I think the best approach is to explain what is expected and follow several steps:
First being direct contact with asking to edit a offending post, second being a warning, third being a time period suspension, very last resort being a permanent ban.
In this case the user has been time period suspended 4 times prior showing that they are well aware of the expected behavior but yet still return to offend again. Permanent banning is the last option available to show we do care and enforce community forums code if conduct: FAQ - Zcash Community Forum
EDIT: I should also note that I don’t make the Code of Conduct. Those are set by the Zcash Foundation and Moderators have the responsibility to abide and enforce them.
That’s what VPN’s are for. 
1 Like
You are right and I’m sorry for acting so poorly.
Also, I don’t know about all of AL’s comments and I’m noticing some very offensive.
I’ve quickly brainstormed the first things that came into my head, in his defense, without even really realizing the harm he was spreading.
1 Like
I was one of the ones that flagged the post in question. I can’t see neither anything entertaining nor anything usefull in such posts.
I’am pretty sure most of us are here to discuss and share opinions and not to be entertained on the lowest possible level. Banning such people is the only option and all i wonder why a perma bann took that long anyway…
2 Likes
@moderators regular status members can hide post with 1 flag, isn’t this is an unexpected behavior?
*edit: from Understanding Discourse Trust Levels
- TL3 spam flags cast on TL0 user posts immediately hide the post
- TL3 flags cast on TL0 user posts in sufficient diversity will auto-silence the user and hide all their posts
I’m @ T3, why can I and other T3 users hide our posts with 1 flag? (Can confirm such anomaly because I tested this)
@moderators what happens when a user abuses such mecanism? It’s not the first time this has happen and wrongfully flaging a post should be punished. (The past is the past, lets move on, but for future reference)
*edit: erased useless personal attack, was feeling left out
4 Likes
@Shawn do we have any ability to adjust flagging behavior? I would prefer that multiple flags are required to hide a post, regardless of trust level
1 Like
@sonya the short answer is yes, we can adjust everything. However, I’m not sure adjusting the default setting is needed. The idea behind trust levels is that users who achieve level 3 are seen as helpful contributors to the forum and thereby can help out with spam/inappropriate posts if a Mod isn’t around. It’s only been recently that this has become an issue.
I think the solution is that any trust level 3 who abuses the flag system will be bumped back to trust level 2 and permanently locked at that level. They will lose all of the trust level 3 privileges such as the Lounge and thier title.
Trust levels are a privilege, not a right and should not be abused to “get back” at another user.
4 Likes
Totally agree even Sonya has a valid point as well. But as somone that has flagged a lot of spam posts it indeed help to keep the forum as clean as possible if a trusted users can flag these with honest intentions. Iám pretty sure other regulars flag spam and even offendings as well pretty fast.
Sounds absolutly right if someone abuses this function that he loses this privilege.
1 Like
Is this forum self hosted? Do you have the expertise/support to do such edit? (discourse is written mainly in perl)
I find this unfair and not fitting.
Anyone can make a mistake, anyone can be drunk, stoned, sick, or whatever. People that have access to the lounge shouldn’t be punished.
Since it’s unintended behavior I would file an issue directly to discourse staff.
if not 3 flags I’d suggest at least bumping the minimum to 2 flags, 1 is way to unforgiving.
I understand moderators can review and make decisions on the go, but I personally would prefer you guys focus your time and energy on other things (best case: actually enjoying your time and partecipating without even needing to moderate)
It is not unintended behaviour though. it is by design. - It even says it on the regular badge. and in the discourse help files. It is how I know it takes 1 flag from a regular to flag a level 1 account. A level 3 account cannot autohide another level 3 or above. that takes multiple level 3 flags (3 I think) or 9 level 1 flags. - I might be wrong on the 9 level 1’s.
The function should be used to hide posts that obviously violate TOC or whatnot. - note @shawn said “abuse” of this feature. - i.e. a flagging war between level 3’s or a level 3 flagging consistently mis flagging posts of lower rank.
So things with dodgy urls. I flagged one post where a user accidently doxed himself. because I put a custom thingy on it and said he doxed himself it got deleted really quickly.
if you want to have a play with this feature and see how it interacts with posts, I suggest we head over to meta - you and I can start a thread and flag each others posts. (with admin approval of course).
The only other type of post I would flag would be those that have URL’s in them from new accounts.
Or a directly abusive message (but they are normally flagged by others first)
remember it only hides the post (you can still read it if you click) and highlights it to moderators for attention.
It is a two line change. Yes many on the forum could do the change.
@Autotunafish can confirm it: if you wish I can flag your post right now and prove it once again.
Care to show me the exact “two lines”?
If discourse is not self hosted you cannot change the source code.
1 Like
A L3 account can hide another L3 account just with his own flag as you said. I can confirm this as well not only in theory but witnessed it in practice as well.
1 Like
For everyones information: 5 days ago I wasn’t aware of this issue and I always read guidelines and do the proper research before contribuiting. The flag abuse happend to me literally yesterday and I’ve posted about it only after testing it out and confirm such bug.
2 Likes
I stand corrected. I agree this would seem to be unintended behaviour. (there is only 29 people with this power tho)
Fair point, I get what you are saying. No I haven’t actually checked. I am just imagining changing an <= into < and then the check on the check.
I will dig through when I get time. (I know this is not what you were asking, but I want to check for myself now, and I am pretty comfortable with perl.)
One thing that does interest me though is if you flag one of my posts, can the rest of the people just click on it to show it still? - I read all hidden posts that I see. I will start a thread in either meta or the lounge that we can play further.
edit: @shawn thanks for splitting this off. - now I can see what @johnwisdoms original post was. I will leave my stupid reply up as well as my correction. Sorry @johnwisdom - I didn’t see the start of the conversation.