The Automated Ban List - Page 162
Forum Index > TL Community |
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil. NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ | ||
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
| ||
Kiante
Australia7069 Posts
heyoka closes a thread because a previous thread exists http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=162866 but the previous thread is alread closed LOL http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=155748 | ||
meathook
1289 Posts
thelittleplunger was just banned by Chill. That account was created on 2010-10-22 23:59:41 and had 2 posts. Reason: Your two posts are "test" and "hi". I can't imagine a world where this is acceptable. Ha ha ha! This is kind of funny. I am here to officially sign up for the thelittleplunger-fanclub! Such an awesome name, too.. hahahaha | ||
BrownBear
United States6894 Posts
| ||
aidnai
United States1159 Posts
RTLstarcraft was just temp banned for 30 days by Aesop. That account was created on 2010-08-04 14:53:20 and had 36 posts. Reason: On October 23 2010 02:46 RTLstarcraft wrote: Idiot admins Whining like little virgins DUR DUR we're retard Nice haiku man! Ignore two warnings Thirty days in Disneyland Really quite simple. From the Haiku thread (i've been loling all morning at some of the 'poetry' in there!) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=162895 Warnings + ban on pages 3/4. | ||
seRapH
United States9706 Posts
jibba thread closing bonjwa? he's on a 5-thread streak, would be 7 if mahnini didn't get a fluke close. | ||
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
On October 24 2010 06:17 seRapH wrote: jibba thread closing bonjwa? he's on a 5-thread streak, would be 7 if mahnini didn't get a fluke close. It's funny how many of the new threads are the result of people: 1.) Not knowing what the blog section is for... 2.) Not knowing how to use the search function... 3.) Being retarded. To stem the influx of the first two, I recommend the Ten Commandments to: a.) Bold this part: + Show Spoiler + Before you create a new thread, make sure to use the search function to make sure there isn't already a thread about the topic. Only bump old threads if you have something new and significant to add to them. Use the search function. It's better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we've already discussed it before ad-nauseam. Did a search already and you still don't know? Ask politely! b.) Add a line under: + Show Spoiler + Post your topics in the appropriate forum. If you can't find a topic you created, it might have been closed (Closed Forum). that delineates which forums are for what and links to the pages that describe this. (i.e. SC2 strategy forum sticky page) c.) Super bolded colored link to R1ch's thread on the updated search system that explains how to use it. + Show Spoiler + The irony here is that this post actually belongs in the website feedback forum. | ||
Spazer
Canada8028 Posts
On October 24 2010 06:23 Gummy wrote: It's funny how many of the new threads are the result of people: 1.) Not knowing what the blog section is for... 2.) Not knowing how to use the search function... 3.) Being retarded. To stem the influx of the first two, I recommend the Ten Commandments to: a.) Bold this part: + Show Spoiler + Before you create a new thread, make sure to use the search function to make sure there isn't already a thread about the topic. Only bump old threads if you have something new and significant to add to them. Use the search function. It's better than Google and it works because whatever questions you may have, chances are we've already discussed it before ad-nauseam. Did a search already and you still don't know? Ask politely! b.) Add a line under: + Show Spoiler + Post your topics in the appropriate forum. If you can't find a topic you created, it might have been closed (Closed Forum). that delineates which forums are for what and links to the pages that describe this. (i.e. SC2 strategy forum sticky page) c.) Super bolded colored link to R1ch's thread on the updated search system that explains how to use it. + Show Spoiler + The irony here is that this post actually belongs in the website feedback forum. This only works if new users actually bother to read the ten commandments in their entirety, which many won't. It's not like the bad posters care anyways. | ||
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
We take vector u to be a duple ut<u1,u2> where u1 is the number of good posters and u2 is the number of bad posters at time t. Suppose each time step applies a matrix transformation A [A1 A2] [A3 A4] to this vector u with the entries of the vector A listed s.t. the resulting vector after performing Au is given by U1(next) = A1 * U1(previous) + A2 * U2(previous) U2(next) = A3 * U1(previous) + A4 * U2(previous) This model then presumes that some combination of the following things can happen... 1.) The number of good users/bad users increase/decrease at an exponential rate. 2.) Good users can become bad users, vice versa, at an exponential rate. These behaviors are consistent with the aims of the site, so I'll propose a concrete example of an A that applies a desired transformation over a given time step. I will define the following variables, G = growth rate of TL's poster base. K = proportion of new posters that are good posters. P = proportion of bad users permabanned. T = proportion of bad users temp-banned. (presumed to become good users afterwards) D = proportion of good posters who defect to the dark side. The following 2 equations basically say, the number of good users in the next time step is a function of a.) the number of new good users that have joined (KG) plus b.) the number of bad posters that have been reformed by temp bans (T) minus c.) the number of good users that defect to the dark side (D). A1 = 1 - D + KG A2 = T The following set of equations says that the number of bad users in the next time step is a function of: a.) The number of good users that defect to the dark side (D) plus b.) The number of bad users that join the site ((1-K)G) minus c.) The number of bad users that are banned permanently or temporarily (P+T) A3 = D A4 = 1 - (P+T) + (1-K)G The resulting equations that summarize the matrix transformation are given by the substitution of the above definitions into the previous equations: U1(next) = A1 * U1(previous) + A2 * U2(previous) U2(next) = A3 * U1(previous) + A4 * U2(previous) The reason why I'm using matrix multiplication for this is that we can now do diagonal decomposition into eigenvalues to observe equilibrium behavior. Since there are only two entries in our vector, however, it's simple enough just to observe that in order for the number of bad posters to go to 0, the ban rate has to be greater than the weighted sum of the defection rate and the growth rate of bad users. The point of all of this is that to reduce the number of bad posters at any given time, there are 3 options: 1.) Give out more bans to bad users. 2.) Decrease the growth rate of the site. 3.) Increase the proportion of new users that are good posters. Of these options available, 1.) Costs a lot of time and energy. And I don't think there is any way you can really motivate banlings to do regular, comprehensive purges of, say, the HoN/DotA subforums where garbage posters dwell and multiply. 2.) Is not desirable to the well-being of the site. 3.) Is easy and only takes a constant amount of time. Even if we can change the proportion of new users who are good posters by a few percent, it will be a huge difference over the long haul. In the end, my argument comes down to the opinionated assertion that updating the 10 commandments will at least increase that proportion of new users that are good posters by a little at the cost of virtually nothing. | ||
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
On October 24 2010 07:54 Gummy wrote: Consider the model of TL as a markovian process: We take vector u to be a duple ut<u1,u2> where u1 is the number of good posters and u2 is the number of bad posters at time t. Suppose each time step applies a matrix transformation A [A1 A2] [A3 A4] to this vector u with the entries of the vector A listed s.t. the resulting vector after performing Au is given by This model then presumes that some combination of the following things can happen... 1.) The number of good users/bad users increase/decrease at an exponential rate. 2.) Good users can become bad users, vice versa, at an exponential rate. These behaviors are consistent with the aims of the site, so I'll propose a concrete example of an A that applies a desired transformation over a given time step. I will define the following variables, G = growth rate of TL's poster base. K = proportion of new posters that are good posters. P = proportion of bad users permabanned. T = proportion of bad users temp-banned. (presumed to become good users afterwards) D = proportion of good posters who defect to the dark side. The following 2 equations basically say, the number of good users in the next time step is a function of a.) the number of new good users that have joined (KG) plus b.) the number of bad posters that have been reformed by temp bans (T) minus c.) the number of good users that defect to the dark side (D). The following set of equations says that the number of bad users in the next time step is a function of: a.) The number of good users that defect to the dark side (D) plus b.) The number of bad users that join the site ((1-K)G) minus c.) The number of bad users that are banned permanently or temporarily (P+T) The resulting equations that summarize the matrix transformation are given by the substitution of the above definitions into the previous equations: The reason why I'm using matrix multiplication for this is that we can now do diagonal decomposition into eigenvalues to observe equilibrium behavior. (I'll add the calculations for this part later since it's even more nerdy than what I've already listed...) The point though is that to reduce the number of bad posters at any given time, there are 3 ways: 1.) Give out more bans to bad users. 2.) Decrease the growth rate of the site. 3.) Increase the proportion of new users that are good posters. Of these options available, 1.) Costs a lot of time and energy. And I don't think there is any way you can really motivate banlings to do a comprehensive purge of, say, the HoN/DotA subforums where garbage posters dwell and multiply. 2.) Is not desirable to the well-being of the site. 3.) Is easy and only takes a constant amount of time. Even if we can change the proportion of new users who are good posters by a few percent, it will be a huge difference over the long haul. In the end, my argument comes down to the opinionated assertion that updating the 10 commandments will at least increase that proportion of new users that are good posters by a little at the cost of virtually nothing. Cool stuff, although I only loosely understand it D: | ||
Ciryandor
United States3735 Posts
On October 23 2010 03:15 BrownBear wrote: Can we stop talking about having sex with bears? It's weirding me out. Haha, does it make you feel bad inside? IdrA was just temp banned for 2 days by Plexa. That account was created on 2004-07-31 20:59:50 and had 10740 posts. Reason: On October 24 2010 20:34 IdrA wrote: damn them all wearing the werra tag was a good way to know when you were gonna get allin'd Completely inappropriate for the thread Oh goodness the connotations of that. I laughed then... oh why could I be laughing at such a serious thread. | ||
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
TheGeo was just temp banned for 2 days by H. That account was created on 2010-07-24 06:57:16 and had 40 posts. Reason: I understand that you're keen on SC2, but jesus christ don't come to the BW forum for the sole reason of telling people that you hope their favourite game dies. Then just four bans later... Meriones was just temp banned for 2 days by KwarK. That account was created on 2010-10-11 17:23:33 and had 43 posts. Reason: We get you don't think much of sc2 of Blizzard. That's cool, you're allowed your opinions. I myself don't much care for sc2. However you don't have to bring it up in every topic you post in, regardless of context. The combination made me smile. Can't we all just get along... | ||
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
I think there are levels we can all agree on that that are over the line (the one person calling the disabled sc2 kid a parasite, etc...), but I think this one was nowhere near the line. | ||
Alphaes
United States651 Posts
On October 25 2010 02:56 I_Love_Bacon wrote: IdrA's ban seems ultra sketchy to me. There was nothing sexual to his post or extremely insulting. It was a fairly lighthearted joke that maaaaaybe wasn't in the best spot. But if now a ban can be handed out for a joke in a serious thread, whose is going to be the one determining "serious" threads that there can be no jokes in? Isn't the seriousness of a thread too subjective to start banning people for making jokes (especially ones that aren't malicious in any way)? I guess a mod warning will have to be put at the start of a thread that explicitly states: "NO HUMOR ALLOWED!" I think there are levels we can all agree on that that are over the line (the one person calling the disabled sc2 kid a parasite, etc...), but I think this one was nowhere near the line. I'm not sure he's completely joking, since IdrA has shown time and time again that he has next to no respect for WeRRa at all. | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
| ||
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
| ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
damn them all wearing the werra tag was a good way to know when you were gonna get allin'd This seems to mean that whenever IdrA met a member of WeRRa on ladder, he could prepare for an all-in. But now that WeRRa is disbanding, he won't be able to use the WeRRa tag to his advantage anymore. | ||
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
On October 25 2010 04:54 motbob wrote: This seems to mean that whenever IdrA met a member of WeRRa on ladder, he could prepare for an all-in. But now that WeRRa is disbanding, he won't be able to use the WeRRa tag to his advantage anymore. Well yeah weird ban, as much as the thread was about the incident it was just as much about WeRRa disbanding. I dont get Plexa sometimes, there were more vulgar and provocating than that in the thread. Maybe I should reread thread to check for banhammers, probally cba. | ||
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On October 25 2010 04:54 motbob wrote: This seems to mean that whenever IdrA met a member of WeRRa on ladder, he could prepare for an all-in. But now that WeRRa is disbanding, he won't be able to use the WeRRa tag to his advantage anymore. I think that's the only way to interpret it if you don't go into it thinking of a sexual joke. While using "all-in" as a sexual joke could work, it clearly wasn't meant that way given the actual wording and phrasing. However, my post is mostly about if Plexa did interpret it as merely a joke about their play style and still banned simply because he thinks the thread can have no jokes in it... and that's what worries me. | ||
Whole
United States6046 Posts
| ||
| ||