New Members Brooks Hatlen, Tearfrogs and Devman

They would have PM privileges. If they are assaulting certain users, we need some way to be aware that this happening, since this isn't something that's out in the open for us to see. Either they'll claim they are doing it, or someone has to report it -- either would be a reason to investigate what these guys are doing through our board.

If we clear that they are here to cause problems, that can be a zero tolerance, first offense ban. Tick the appropriate checkmarks while making the warning. This applies to anybody, though, not just confirmed repeat users. (I'm actually not too interested in sussing out whether someone was or wasn't, but it can provide additional justification and is sometimes good to know).

Drop a note here if you're at all unsure, and we'll get a consensus.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have the option of creating a user group that doesn't have PM or Status Update rights. We could create it and move them into it. Or just ban them. They've apparently run out of steam for the day, so we can quietly slip them into the new user group.

The other option is we can check their PMs periodically. They have already abused the system, so we're on notice. I have no compunctions doing that with their history. Not to mention that they are violating the rules by having another account and that their only intent is to harass. In other words I don't consider them members as we would anyone else. But that's more work that none of us need. So, I favor a new user group we stick them in or just ban the accounts.

We also may want to start and pin a new thread called HLR where we add name of all existing sock accounts and all that show up. That would help us keep track of them and quickly move them into the new kind of user group or ban them.

 
Ah, that's a good idea. But, it would also require verifying to make sure that they are all repeat users who were reported for PM violations before (as opposed to users who were banned for other reasons). Right now, I see nothing in the IPs that ties say, Brooks or Tearfrog, to anyone else.

So I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. If they do target someone within the PM system, it will come out.

It's probably good to at least keep a running tab of potential sock accounts, though.

 
Not sure I follow. Read their post and look at who they are +1ing - these three are them without any doubt.

Anyway, I think the best option is a new user group. I've created one called Mombers. Has no right to use the PM system, can't post Status Updates, can't use the reputation system, can't change their sign, etc. I'll stick these three in that. That should be fun. I'll also creat the HLR topic and pin it. If we target new users as being them, post it in that thread and I'll move them to the Mombers user group. This way, we can limit the damage they can do as much as possible.

 
Oh, I guess I mean there of the pool of banned members coming back to gig us, it's greater than just the guys who were busted for PM violations (I may be wrong on that). So the question would be whether it makes sense to start monitoring their PMs.

I sort of expect that's what they want us to do -- exchange rule-breaking PMs among themselves, get banned for it, and then say "SEE???? They're reading everything, all the time."

But I think it makes sense to broadly put them in a group with disabled PM access. Simple and clean. It's WELL merited for these guys and zero work for us.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Makes sense Frank, thanks for doing that. This is going to blow their minds...........
default_laugh.png


 
Yeah, I have zero desire to wade through PMs. If we didn't have any other solution, I would feel that we'd have no choice give their history.

Oh, and if anyone is wondering why "Mombers", it's for fun. Being only one letter off from the standard "Members" I'm wondering how long until they figure out what's happened.

 
default_thumbsup.gif
:

AR Husker Fan said:
Oh, and if anyone is wondering why "Mombers", it's for fun. Being only one letter off from the standard "Members" I'm wondering how long until they figure out what's happened.
Click to expand...
Oh. Sorry! I guess I am no fun. See HLR thread.

I prefer just removing their ability individually.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
If we clear that they are here to cause problems, that can be a zero tolerance, first offense ban. Tick the appropriate checkmarks while making the warning.
Click to expand...
It'sNotAFakeID said:
So...I know this stuff has only been confined to the woodshed, but there's going to be zero tolerance the minute they step foot and flame in the other sub-forums, right? Also, do they have PM privileges? I'd hate for them to be creating new accounts to PM assault certain users.
Click to expand...
Revisiting this.

Even if it's just the Woodshed, if we know they are a former user and they are only here to cause problems, that's enough, right?

I'd vote to keep Brooks, for now. He can criticize, but he's also posting around other places and adding amusing content here, so I'm good with that.

Devman -- huskermike -- needs to go, I think. Unless I missed something, he's only here for one reason and it's not posting. He's also clearly taking a shot at devnet. huskermike has consistently been one of the worst in acting out (i.e, twitter) since he was banned, and leading up to his ban.

Tearfrog, I haven't really seen anything from either way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AR Husker Fan said:
We have the option of creating a user group that doesn't have PM or Status Update rights. We could create it and move them into it. Or just ban them. They've apparently run out of steam for the day, so we can quietly slip them into the new user group.

The other option is we can check their PMs periodically. They have already abused the system, so we're on notice. I have no compunctions doing that with their history. Not to mention that they are violating the rules by having another account and that their only intent is to harass. In other words I don't consider them members as we would anyone else. But that's more work that none of us need. So, I favor a new user group we stick them in or just ban the accounts.

We also may want to start and pin a new thread called HLR where we add name of all existing sock accounts and all that show up. That would help us keep track of them and quickly move them into the new kind of user group or ban them.
Click to expand...
zoogs said:
Ah, that's a good idea. But, it would also require verifying to make sure that they are all repeat users who were reported for PM violations before (as opposed to users who were banned for other reasons). Right now, I see nothing in the IPs that ties say, Brooks or Tearfrog, to anyone else.

So I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. If they do target someone within the PM system, it will come out.

It's probably good to at least keep a running tab of potential sock accounts, though.
Click to expand...
AR Husker Fan said:
Not sure I follow. Read their post and look at who they are +1ing - these three are them without any doubt.

Anyway, I think the best option is a new user group. I've created one called Mombers. Has no right to use the PM system, can't post Status Updates, can't use the reputation system, can't change their sign, etc. I'll stick these three in that. That should be fun. I'll also creat the HLR topic and pin it. If we target new users as being them, post it in that thread and I'll move them to the Mombers user group. This way, we can limit the damage they can do as much as possible.
Click to expand...
The Mombers category with no PM privilege is a good idea. I like the name! But keep in mind that they'll just resort to back-channels. Like a hidden forum at PoloBoard. (Not sure if there is one. But I'd guess, yes.) Or emails, texts, etc. If you keep their PM capability at least we can monitor it. To the extent they use PMs, that is. /my just 2 cents worth

 
saunders45 said:
Well, I guess we know who one of them is.

Devman said:
Its Roto f&%ktard
Click to expand...
http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/17599-douschebag-hall-of-fame/page-148&do=findComment&comment=1547644
Click to expand...
I get the reasons for letting banned members sign up with restricted accounts, and many of them seem to be willing to continue to create new accounts. However, I think we need to ban Roto's new account "Devman" as he has made himself publicly known. I think it would send the wrong message if we don't ban him now.
 
Back
Top