Banned Users Using Proxies

[Mr. Bambu]

I also disagree with Agnaa.

I don't think that we should ban members who are just trying to help out by posting conversations for others though. We should give them warnings first.

As with all rules, yes. A warning before a ban. This is the case for all but the most extreme instances of rule breakages.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So are the rest of you fine with my compromise solution?

 

[AKM sama]

• Using other users to circumvent bans or topic bans is strongly prohibited. This includes sending unblocked users arguments to post onto the forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment and that punishment being extended to proxy users. Exceptions may be given to genuinely helpful users- this will be considered before any action is taken.

Thinking about it now, I am fine with this rule.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we should mitigate the wording, so helpful messages may still be sent via others, but not entire conversations, and unbanned members who just try to help out should initially get warnings, not be banned on the spot. That needs to be clarified as well.

 

[Axxtentacle]

I discussed this on discord with others a while ago, and this definitely shouldn't apply to people who talk to banned users off-site and just agree with them and use their arguments, though I doubt you all are saying it will. Might want to give that a note?

 

[Antvasima]

I discussed this on discord with others a while ago, and this definitely shouldn't apply to people who talk to banned users off-site and just agree with them and use their arguments, though I doubt you all are saying it will. Might want to give that a note?

Yes, strongly agreed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I discussed this on discord with others a while ago, and this definitely shouldn't apply to people who talk to banned users off-site and just agree with them and use their arguments, though I doubt you all are saying it will. Might want to give that a note?

Of course. The wiki cannot control who you associate with outside of the wiki, though I don't think the rule actually implies this as of right now.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we need to clarify that we should generally avoid punishing members who simply use useful arguments from banned other members, and initially give them comparatively mild instruction warnings instead.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Small question, because I don't know if this was already asked or not.

What if the banned user you are getting arguments from to post here are users who requested their ban? As in, they were not in any actual trouble of their own merits but they asked to be banned for an x amount of time to take a break from the site, not be tempted to return so fast, or other reasons that have nothing to do with actually being troublesome?

 

[Antvasima]

Then there shouldn't be any problems with doing so in my view.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That should be fine, Kukui. Maybe an addendum could be added to the current phrasing.

 

[First_Witch]

Small question, because I don't know if this was already asked or not.

What if the banned user you are getting arguments from to post here are users who requested their ban? As in, they were not in any actual trouble of their own merits but they asked to be banned for an x amount of time to take a break from the site, not be tempted to return so fast, or other reasons that have nothing to do with actually being troublesome?

That sounds super counterintuitive, why would you request a self ban (Which most likely is to prevent yourself from spending time on the wiki for various reasons), but then circumvent that by meddling with the wiki by proxy?

 

[Antvasima]

Because they want to reduce the time spent on this hobby presumably.

 

[First_Witch]

I mean, thats obvious and nothing is wrong with that, but like, maybe discourage that? Life must clearly be more important in that very moment if one thinks a self ban is needed, but there is no point in a self ban if you just go back to discussing via proxy. Openly discourage proxying in general is my opinion, so i agree with Bambis proposal.

 

[Starter_Pack]

Nothing wrong with that for me.

On Witch's exclamation, maybe someone just wants to make a quick statement on a current topic without returning fully. Seems like a valid reason to me.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Reviving this thread a bit.

Can we make a rule against interacting with banned individuals for the express purpose of regurgitating their points and ideas onto the wiki? While we may not be able to enforce it behind the scenes, having it out in writing would definitely dissuade anyone from taking the word of banned members, and it will especially stop banned members from doing stuff like this.

Like besides how egregiously he's skirting this ban, Weekly is also using other people to do his work for him in broad daylight. At the very least we can make it harder for him to do this in front of us for all to see. You can't say looking at the above doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth even if it isn't outright illegal.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I personally do not see the harm, as long as somebody is genuinely helpful and only interferes very occasionally, but I may be mistaken.

 

[Antvasima]

I feel like that any banned users who has any quick, valid, and helpful things to post through another member should be fine to an extent.

But doing any full-on debates off-site past that is definitely a big no-no. This all should be judged on a case-by-case scenario, but in general, most anything like this should be disallowed and any banned users who try to puppeteer their way into discussions like this should be punished accordingly.

This still seems like the most balanced solution to me.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I'm in agreement with that if only so we can reach an end with tangible results.