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.

 

[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.

So this is that unfinished thread (we did discuss the rule but completed it). I know this is very late to bump this but I agree that people can still help if they are banned for other reasons but are generally helpful. But if it is proven that someone is using a proxy to copy-paste their exact arguments throughout an entire thread, that's a problem. If someone has better suggestions to word the rule, please be my guest (can also make a new thread if required).

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

So this is that unfinished thread (we did discuss the rule but completed it). I know this is very late to bump this but I agree that people can still help if they are banned for other reasons but are generally helpful. But if it is proven that someone is using a proxy to copy-paste their exact arguments throughout an entire thread, that's a problem. If someone has better suggestions to word the rule, please be my guest (can also make a new thread if required).

Sorry for commenting here without permission, but I have a question that is related to the subject, so feel free to delete this if it is inappropriate.

Should this be a general thing for every banned member or only for people who have been banned for issues related to CRTs? Also how much would be "just copy paste"?

 

[Antvasima]

How about something like the following for a hopefully more balanced solution?

"Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes sending unblocked members arguments to secretly post in our forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment and that a punishment may also be applied to proxy members. Exceptions can be given for posting genuinely helpful revisions while openly admitting where they came from, but this should be considered by our staff before any arguments are posted."

 

[AKM sama]

Shouldn't it be "exceptions can be given to genuinely helpful people" or "exceptions can be given for genuinely helpful revisions"?

But yes, your suggestion looks good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I have slightly updated the text in my post above. Is it acceptable now?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I personally find it fine, though I may add something more explicitly laying out that you need to ask a staff member before posting the arguments of a banned person, if that is indeed the policy proposed by that last line.

 

[Antvasima]

That is what I intended, yes. Suggestions for improved clarity of wording are always appreciated.

 

[Agnaa]

Maybe instead of "should be considered" say "needs to be evaluated"?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

Here is my adjusted text:

"Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes sending unblocked members arguments to secretly post in our forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment and that a punishment may also be applied to proxy members. Exceptions can be given for posting genuinely helpful revisions while openly admitting where they came from, but this needs to be evaluated by our staff before any arguments are posted."

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Sounds great to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. Do you think that we can add it to our Discussion Rules now, or should we wait for further input?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Await further input- at least explicit input from Agnaa, given he is still contributing to the conversation (and may have more tweaks he believe necessary).

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[AKM sama]

Seems fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

 

[Damage3245]

Looks fine to me though best to wait to see if Agnaa has any further suggestions.

 

[Agnaa]

I meant that "like" to be approval, but I'll make that more explicit here.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. Is somebody willing to add my rule text above to our Discussion Rules page please?

 

[Agnaa]

Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much to you and all other members who helped out here. I will close this thread then.