[Discussion] Overturning Delete-on-Sight Designations

[Cormac Stark]

It's my understanding that the player previously known as Milograd has had his delete-on-sight designation overturned, and is once again playing NationStates under a new puppet. I'm not sure which puppet, but that isn't really relevant to this discussion. As far as I know, this is the first time a delete-on-sight designation has ever been revisited and overturned, excluding by appealing the rules violation that led to the delete-on-sight designation and Moderation finding in favor of the appeal. It's my understanding that was not the case in this situation.

EDIT: It appears I was misinformed, in a pretty epic way, and I'm really embarrassed, so a moderator can lock this if they'd like.

[USS Monitor]

I don't think that is the only case of a DOS being allowed back on-site.

[Stalker Queen]

I don't think that is the only case of a DOS being allowed back on-site.

Indeed. There was Beeker and, IIRC, American California (don't know about this one).

[Milograd X]

I don't think it's even a case at all, actually.

I would love to return, but I believe final decisions are still final here. Both mine and the moderators'.

[Cormac Stark]

It appears I may have been misinformed. I will just go crawl under a rock now.

[Reploid Productions]

Oooh boy.

1) Milograd's DOS has not been overturned, we sighted and nuked a puppet of his just barely two weeks ago just now. If he's allegedly back under a new puppet, all that means is that he's slipped under the radar and has not exhibited the problem/identifying behaviors that led to the DOS. If you suspect a puppet is him, we would appreciate it if you let us know. Given he was DOSed in late 2014, he's still got a good few years before we'd consider letting it lapse.

2) DOS have been allowed to lapse. (DOSes have never been overturned, merely allowed to lapse.) The most well-known instance was Beeker, who was DOSed in either late 2003 or early 2004, who slipped back on probably around 2007 or 2008. There have been a handful of others who were DOSed, and snuck back years later, no longer exhibiting the problem behaviors that got them DOSed in the first place that we have opted to turn a blind eye to. Others have attempted to appeal DOSes through proper channels, and their cases are considered; albeit by the time someone HAS earned a DOS given it takes an awful lot of problem behavior and a consensus among the team to get one, the odds of a successful appeal approach zero. Some attempt extortion, hacking threats or legal threats to try and get us to lift it, and in those cases we have not given them the leeway of a lapsed DOS order.

3) DOSes are less about eliminating a problem player as they are about eliminating problem behaviors- when all other avenues (warns, bans, DEATs) of convincing a user to cease in their rulebreaking behavior fail, we have to eliminate the source. If they sneak back and evade our detection, then the odds are that they are no longer exhibiting the problem behavior, in which case the DOS has still succeeded at its intended purpose. To use another example you bring up, Tweedy's original DOS was also in 2004. Unlike the above Beeker example, however, he has continued to demonstrate problem behaviors in his interactions with site staff that have vastly surpassed the original DOS, the most recent being in August 2015. Without going into details, these interactions have been sufficiently serious and have proven that the problem behavior has not been eliminated and so we will not turn a blind eye to his slipping back.

4) Much like old warnings, we're much less likely to pounce on years-old DOS orders without evidence that the problem behavior is ongoing. For one thing, it's not very practical as our tracking data becomes outdated; the punk kid who got himself booted ten years ago for posting porn everywhere probably isn't going to be coming from the same IP address he was using back then. People move, go to school, and so on. Plus, over time, most people mature; the idiotic behavior of some bored kid one summer may not be the behavior they're going to demonstrate if they happen to rediscover the site five, six, ten years later. (We've had some who were DOSed, forgot the site existed, rediscovered it years later, and became rules-abiding, constructive members of the game.)

tl;dr version: Milo's still DOS, DOSes have never truly been permanent, some DOS players have been allowed back, DOS isn't about getting rid of the person as much as it is the rulebreaking behavior, and really old DOSes are really hard to enforce for practical reasons which is why they can be allowed to lapse.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Cormac Stark]

Thanks for the incredibly comprehensive and informative post, Reppy. At least something good came out of me being incredibly wrong.

I will ask the people who told me he wasn't delete-on-sight anymore if they knew which puppet was allegedly his, just in case it's a ban evasion, but I think it was probably just a misunderstanding and somewhere along the line someone made an assumption that got passed along until several people believed it.

[Reploid Productions]

Thanks for the incredibly comprehensive and informative post, Reppy. At least something good came out of me being incredibly wrong.

Hey, not your fault you got some bad intel.

[The Blaatschapen]

With the initiator of the thread now being informed; Reppy having written a lengthy post and nobody else actually pursuing the discussion. I lock.