What happened to the Banned User Log?

[LeGeNd-1]

I rarely venture to the Site Feedback section, so I can't remember when was the last time I saw it, but there used to be a huge stickied thread listing users who have been banned and the (sometimes) humorous reasons why. I noticed today that it's missing? I searched the site and found a couple of old threads linking to it, but the links just show error. Wayback machine doesn't have it archived either. Has the whole thread been removed in its entirety? For privacy reasons? To make the site look more professional? It's a shame as it used to give me quite a few chuckles.

 

[Sonygamer455]

It's been removed from public view for a while now, last I heard the staff can still see it, but we can't. I recommend reading here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/members/furinkazen.146628/#profile-post-396896

Wayback machine doesn't have it archived either.

Actually it does and it's up to date too!

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Wow so it is a pretty recent "deletion". Pretty vague reason by Famine as well. Hopefully it means they're just experimenting and it'll come back in the future.

I only tried copy pasting the direct link from the other thread to WBM, guess I should've tried manually searching there. Thanks for the link

This one has always been my favourite (points for persistence at least)

Sakiale - 8th November 2007 - Ran out of chances. Spam, obscenities, spam, abuse, spam, multiple registration, spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, chips, spam and spam.

papoose - 10th November 2007 - Sakiale again.

SuddenDeath - 13th November 2007 - Sakiale again.

Rocket Punch - 26th November 2007 - 2 day ban for IBTL-style post.

AKJK/FCUK - 30th November 2007 - Sakiale. Again. Twice.

-emo-/evil! - 6th December 2007 - As above. Perhaps there's a message not getting through.

ZondaCCX - 15th December 2007 - Guess who?

IMissGTP - 26th December 2007 - Merry Christmas, Sakiale.

Icanhazaccount? - 30 January 2008 - No.

AK47brrapp - 01 February 2008 - banned before he even finished registering

 

[BobK]

I knew it was missing but I wasn't really surprised, updates had been coming less and less frequently.

 

[Famine]

Wow so it is a pretty recent "deletion".

Not really. It happened on April 24th. Two people noticed within a day or two, and another within a couple of weeks. This is the first I've heard of it since then.

Pretty vague reason by Famine as well.

Not really. We're always tickling the look of the forums - sticking and unsticking threads, messing with tags, reordering forums and subforums (and even collapsing them) - just to see how they look and how they're received. Most of the time nobody notices. This is just one of those tickles.

It's not like anything is ever truly gone; I can see the Banned User Log in this forum, just above this thread, right now. It's only two clicks to bring it back again, unchanged, so it's not like there's any major harm or permanence.

Some of the comments both in favour of and against the change have merit. The same things came up when we were discussing it.

 

[polysmut]

I liked it.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Not really. It happened on April 24th. Two people noticed within a day or two, and another within a couple of weeks. This is the first I've heard of it since then.

Not really. We're always tickling the look of the forums - sticking and unsticking threads, messing with tags, reordering forums and subforums (and even collapsing them) - just to see how they look and how they're received. Most of the time nobody notices. This is just one of those tickles.

It's not like anything is ever truly gone; I can see the Banned User Log in this forum, just above this thread, right now. It's only two clicks to bring it back again, unchanged, so it's not like there's any major harm or permanence.

Some of the comments both in favour of and against the change have merit. The same things came up when we were discussing it.

2 months ago is still pretty recent in my book Maybe not by internet times, but it's not >1 year or something.

Not a lot of people venture into site feedback, and most people don't really look at stickied threads. Plus the BUL probably is more relevant to older members than newer ones since the pool of forums users were smaller back then, so whenever someone gets banned it's more noticeable. These days no one cares is some new offensive user is gone. I guess all those factors lead to not a lot of people noticing.

Personally if it ain't broke or it ain't hampering the site performance, I'd just leave forum formats alone. It just kinda feels like you're changing things for the sake of changing things. Especially in the older forums, if you collapse a subforum some of the threads in there doesn't make sense in the context anymore. But hey, I'm not the one in charge of the most successful GT website on the internet, so what do I know?

Anyway, it's not truly gone like you said. As long as I can still use WBM to read it from time to time for nostalgia all is good 👍

 

[daan]

I liked it.

I didn't.

 

[XJ40]

I liked the dry humour to explain why the recently ejected member was jettisoned.

"Apparently the idiot wasn't done, well he is now" (not exact words) is a favourite as I can picture Jack Dee saying that.

It just appeals to my sense of humour.

 

[polysmut]

I liked the dry humour to explain why the recently ejected member was jettisoned.

"Apparently the idiot wasn't done, well he is now" (not exact words) is a favourite as I can picture Jack Dee saying that.

It just appeals to my sense of humour.

I liked the wording of the reasons and the fact that it served as advice to the rest of us for how (not) to behave.

 

[daan]

I liked the wording of the reasons and the fact that it served as advice to the rest of us for how (not) to behave.

The bar was set so high by others that I didn't fill it in half the time.

 

[TB]

The bar was set so high by others that I didn't fill it in half the time.

Agreed. It ended up being a chore for me instead of something enjoyable.

 

[photonrider]

I didn't.

Neither did I, one reason being that it is never wise, let alone tasteful, to wash one's dirty laundry in public.

I liked the wording of the reasons and the fact that it served as advice to the rest of us for how (not) to behave.

I can understand the entertainment and information value - but when it comes to using this site successfully I find that the AUP is the best guide. It is our Constitution here, the one we use to dress the roles we play, and therefore adhering to it as best as possible (while leaving enforcements and changes to those who uphold it) unites us as a stable community on the internet.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Neither did I, one reason being that it is never wise, let alone tasteful, to wash one's dirty laundry in public.

Well, it is public disclosure. I do it all the time in my Facebook groups, and everything is up to snuff.

Though I understand one reason why the admins did remove the BUL, and that is the recent EU law.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Though I understand one reason why the admins did remove the BUL, and that is the recent EU law.

That seems astonishingly unlikely. The AUP already protects non-voluntary personal identification and open moderation and remains in line with recent changes in the law.

The only thing that has changed for GTP is that it can no longer use advertising or tracking cookies for any user in the EU until they specifically opt-in again.

 

[Famine]

Though I understand one reason why the admins did remove the BUL, and that is the recent EU law.

That seems astonishingly unlikely. The AUP already protects non-voluntary personal identification and open moderation and remains in line with recent changes in the law.

Indeed, and had that been the reason (or a reason), I'd have said that.

 

[photonrider]

Well, it is public disclosure.

The metaphor 'dirty laundry' has nothing to do with what has to be legally disclosed publicly (within the context of my post.)

You missed the boat and are now caught with your pants down (not literally, I hope. )

 

[cnd01]

I liked it not just for entertainment. It shows that we have active moderation which I am sure the people on the forum (other than those who have been banned) appreciate.

My suggestion for the question of whether it's right/ethical to have a banned user log: Update the AUP to say that you're agreeing to it being shown that you've been banned on the banned user log in the event you breach the AUP to the point of being banned by the mods.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

On the subject of rearranging the forums just for the sake of it, I just noticed the Movies & TV and Music sections have been combined together now. Whyyyy? It was perfectly fine the way it was. Maybe if we could make the main forum "Other Media" and the subforums separate Movies/Music that would be better. I don't really like using tags. The Motorsport forum for example always looks like a Christmas tree showered with a bag of M&Ms.

 

[Jordan]

On the subject of rearranging the forums just for the sake of it, I just noticed the Movies & TV and Music sections have been combined together now. Whyyyy? It was perfectly fine the way it was. Maybe if we could make the main forum "Other Media" and the subforums separate Movies/Music that would be better. I don't really like using tags. The Motorsport forum for example always looks like a Christmas tree showered with a bag of M&Ms.

I don't have time to make changes like that "for the sake of it"; the goal is always to make the site better and increase participation.

In general, with any forum, you want to have as few sub-forums as possible while maintaining organization and usability. With fewer sub-forums, more people are exposed to more topics and more users, which in turn fosters more discussion and a greater sense of community. Conversely, if there's not enough sub-forums, users can be discouraged from discussing particular things or going in-depth on a specific topic.

While an experienced, long-term user like yourself might prefer a more organized structure and claim that it was "perfectly fine the way it was", you don't really know that. Music, movies, and TV are very closely related (if you're interested in talking/reading about one of those subjects, you're probably going to be interested in talking about one of the other ones, too), and more users may be more likely to find some interesting discussions here they otherwise would not have seen. I'm happy to trade organization for activity, and the only way to find that out is to try it out.

It's a delicate balancing act, of course. There is no real right answer, but the hard data can help you get close. So far, traffic in the newly combined forum is up over 33% from the traffic totals of the two separate forums.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Well, more activity means more ad revenue from traffic I suppose. Which is always a good thing (and believe me, there's no site I want to succeed more on the 'net than GTP). But in my humble opinion I still prefer the 2 forums separated, even if it means a slight loss of traffic. Anyway, I guess it's just human nature to resist change and stick with what we are familiar with. I'll get used to it soon enough 👍

 

[DesertPenguin]

As someone that took mostly media and communications classes in college before switching to music, I'd definitely say TV, movies, and music all fit together under the "media" umbrella term.

 

[rono_thomas]

I don't have time to make changes like that "for the sake of it"; the goal is always to make the site better and increase participation.

In general, with any forum, you want to have as few sub-forums as possible while maintaining organization and usability. With fewer sub-forums, more people are exposed to more topics and more users, which in turn fosters more discussion and a greater sense of community. Conversely, if there's not enough sub-forums, users can be discouraged from discussing particular things or going in-depth on a specific topic.

While an experienced, long-term user like yourself might prefer a more organized structure and claim that it was "perfectly fine the way it was", you don't really know that. Music, movies, and TV are very closely related (if you're interested in talking/reading about one of those subjects, you're probably going to be interested in talking about one of the other ones, too), and more users may be more likely to find some interesting discussions here they otherwise would not have seen. I'm happy to trade organization for activity, and the only way to find that out is to try it out.

It's a delicate balancing act, of course. There is no real right answer, but the hard data can help you get close. So far, traffic in the newly combined forum is up over 33% from the traffic totals of the two separate forums.

Just out of curiosity is it possible to have an option that allows users to show more search results per page, or increase the ammount of threads listed rather than having to move back and forth through pages?

Is there a technical limit or other such reason that restricts the amount shown per page?

I only ask because Ive been away for eight months and the rate that threads pop up and move along makes it a chore it to move through pages, albeit a petty request, it just meant that I marked all as read and started afresh.

 

[Jordan]

Unfortunately, that's probably not something that will be an option.