Rule 4 and 6 are just bad in combo

[Daimonin]

Rule 4 makes sense for people avoiding bans, or rightly earned negative reputations, and rule 6 makes sense if your database was not designed well.

But honestly they are a problem for privacy when combined. So the moment you make an account here, one possibly using a same name with other accounts on other sites across the net, you are locked in for life.
Didn't figure you'd ever want to actually write anything here, but after a few years changed your mind and want to write a story? Well fuck you, either write on the account you made that can be linked to personal information elsewhere (or even here if you weren't careful years ago), or avoid posting your story here ever. Or break the rules, and hope nobody notices, until someone does and the story gets terminated by mod action.

Yes deleting accounts is bad for database integrity, and user experience if there's posts just missing...
Which is why any properly made database would have the option to DISABLE an account. It's still there, fully visible, all posts present, but no longer accepts logins, and isn't checked for email uniqueness, so a new account can be made with the same email. Irreversible of course, so people can't just bounce back and forth. A proper database would also make it easy for mods/dB admins to check if someone is leaving a trail of disabled accounts, and deal with that particular offender. Frankly I would be shocked and deeply disappointed if the xenforo database didn't already have that.
I can't really see any reason why anyone would need to disable an account more then once. And that's pretty much just to transition from a 'lurker/reader/not concerned with anonymity-privacy' account to a 'writer' account, but I'm sure people could have all kinds of valid reasons.

Because blanket rules to curb a handful of problem individuals are never a good idea.

Requesting a name change, if those are honoured, helps alleviate the problem, but leaves aside the issue of old posts made incautiously years ago. You know what else is bad for database/viewers? Users getting a name change, then going through and manually deleting every post they ever made.

 

[wasprider]

Rule 4 makes sense for people avoiding bans, or rightly earned negative reputations, and rule 6 makes sense if your database was not designed well.

But honestly they are a problem for privacy when combined. So the moment you make an account here, one possibly using a same name with other accounts on other sites across the net, you are locked in for life.
Didn't figure you'd ever want to actually write anything here, but after a few years changed your mind and want to write a story? Well fuck you, either write on the account you made that can be linked to personal information elsewhere (or even here if you weren't careful years ago), or avoid posting your story here ever. Or break the rules, and hope nobody notices, until someone does and the story gets terminated by mod action.

Yes deleting accounts is bad for database integrity, and user experience if there's posts just missing...
Which is why any properly made database would have the option to DISABLE an account. It's still there, fully visible, all posts present, but no longer accepts logins, and isn't checked for email uniqueness, so a new account can be made with the same email. Irreversible of course, so people can't just bounce back and forth. A proper database would also make it easy for mods/dB admins to check if someone is leaving a trail of disabled accounts, and deal with that particular offender. Frankly I would be shocked and deeply disappointed if the xenforo database didn't already have that.
I can't really see any reason why anyone would need to disable an account more then once. And that's pretty much just to transition from a 'lurker/reader/not concerned with anonymity-privacy' account to a 'writer' account, but I'm sure people could have all kinds of valid reasons.

Because blanket rules to curb a handful of problem individuals are never a good idea.

Requesting a name change, if those are honoured, helps alleviate the problem, but leaves aside the issue of old posts made incautiously years ago. You know what else is bad for database/viewers? Users getting a name change, then going through and manually deleting every post they ever made.

Click to shrink...

You can request a name change. It happens fairly often.

 

[michaelb958]

I have been wondering what spurred Rule 4's explicit ban on having more than one account for dissociation purposes. Is it (understandably) too difficult for staff to ensure those accounts aren't also doing standard scummy sockpuppet things?

You can request a name change. It happens fairly often.

Click to shrink...

Read the last paragraph again, it had more to say. A name change would also leave references to the old name anywhere a post is quoted - e.g. this very post will forevermore contain your current (12 May 2022) name in the quote header.

 

[wasprider]

I have been wondering what spurred Rule 4's explicit ban on having more than one account for dissociation purposes. Is it (understandably) too difficult for staff to ensure those accounts aren't also doing standard scummy sockpuppet things?


Read the last paragraph again, it had more to say. A name change would also leave references to the old name anywhere a post is quoted - e.g. this very post will forevermore contain your current (12 May 2022) name in the quote header.

Click to shrink...

Fair.

Nothing will do much about that. But generally, people aren't going to be looking back at old posts, not even quoted ones. I think I've noticed once or twice, but don't really keep it in mind.

Yes, determined ones can and will do it. Yes, it is easier than other methods.

It only really matters if you posted long form stories under the old name.

Disabled accounts would be nice. But that's at earliest a XF2 feature. XF1 is pretty old at this point.

 

[Daimonin]

Fair.

Disabled accounts would be nice. But that's at earliest a XF2 feature. XF1 is pretty old at this point.

Click to shrink...

Really? Huh. It's been a while since I worked in tech, but I recall having a safe way to disable records/accounts without having to delete them was like... Well not the first rule of a well made dB, but definitely in the top 10. I am rather surprised that it got missed in xf1.

Well can't blame the site mods for that, though quite disappointing of the xf1 dev team, especially since it wasn't there first project, or even their first forum software.

 

[magic9mushroom]

You know what else is bad for database/viewers? Users getting a name change, then going through and manually deleting every post they ever made.

Click to shrink...

Not bad for database, because users can't actually delete posts in XenForo. The "delete" button user-side is actually a "hide this post from non-mods" button.

This is basically designed so that in this exact scenario where a user wants to wipe his posts, he can't do it unilaterally; the staff, if they object, can just ban him and undelete the posts. Whether you think this is good or not is a separate question, but since the admin's the one paying it's a "feature" that's unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon.

I have been wondering what spurred Rule 4's explicit ban on having more than one account for dissociation purposes. Is it (understandably) too difficult for staff to ensure those accounts aren't also doing standard scummy sockpuppet things?

Click to shrink...

QQ takes a hard line on sockpuppets because of the heavy quest focus of the site; sockpuppets let you cheat at votes.

The "on user's request, permaban user and let him make a new account" procedure avoids that problem, though, and I'm not entirely sure whether that's just a "we don't want the hassle" or something else.

 

[alethiophile]

This is basically designed so that in this exact scenario where a user wants to wipe his posts, he can't do it unilaterally; the staff, if they object, can just ban him and undelete the posts. Whether you think this is good or not is a separate question, but since the admin's the one paying it's a "feature" that's unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon.

Click to shrink...

Preventing users from unilaterally and irrecoverably deleting their own content is important for accountability. We don't want people to be able to make rule-breaking posts, then delete them before staff can take action.

It's also potentially legally required, as in the (rare) case where a post has evidence we're required to preserve.

 

[magic9mushroom]

Preventing users from unilaterally and irrecoverably deleting their own content is important for accountability. We don't want people to be able to make rule-breaking posts, then delete them before staff can take action.

It's also potentially legally required, as in the (rare) case where a post has evidence we're required to preserve.

Click to shrink...

I mean, since I started modding Yandere^2 and being continually frustrated by ProBoards' lack of the feature, I've developed quite a bit of sympathy for the pro-XenForo position. But there are two sides to that question, and I just wanted to note that and put it to the side.

 

[Daimonin]

Preventing users from unilaterally and irrecoverably deleting their own content is important for accountability. We don't want people to be able to make rule-breaking posts, then delete them before staff can take action.

It's also potentially legally required, as in the (rare) case where a post has evidence we're required to preserve.

Click to shrink...

Has the evidence thing actually come up before?

Fair about people making rule breaking posts and deleting them before mods can act. I'd like to believe that would only happen because they didn't realise it was rule breaking and deleted on one they did... But yeah, I can see people using it to intentionally break the rules and get away with it.

I would like to know why the stance against asking for a permaban for the purpose of creating a new account. Only two reasons I can think of is
A. To much work to keep track of who's allowed to make a new account and whose banned for real, or
B. Legal requirements to keep track of users and make tracking/identifying them easier.
I really hope it's not B, but the paranoid pessimist in me says it definitely is.

 

[alethiophile]

Has the evidence thing actually come up before?

Click to shrink...

No, but in certain situations we do need to. For instance, if someone were to post unambiguous (real) child porn.

I would like to know why the stance against asking for a permaban for the purpose of creating a new account. Only two reasons I can think of is
A. To much work to keep track of who's allowed to make a new account and whose banned for real, or
B. Legal requirements to keep track of users and make tracking/identifying them easier.
I really hope it's not B, but the paranoid pessimist in me says it definitely is.

Click to shrink...

We don't have any legal requirement to track users, but we prefer not to let people sever themselves from their history too easily. Some people accumulate a bad reputation through genuinely bad behavior, and if it were easy to create a new account a lot of them would do so frequently (and bypass other people's ignores, etc.).

You can still largely erase your history by asking for a name change and then manually deleting old posts. But this takes a lot of work and would hopefully inspire a bit more self-reflection.

 

[magic9mushroom]

You can still largely erase your history by asking for a name change and then manually deleting old posts.

Click to shrink...

It erases your QQ history, but not your identity. The account number's still the same (and I think the old userpage URL redirects to the new?), and that means things can still be linked if you were doxxed under your old name.

Lots of QQ fic could get the fic author in trouble - not always legal trouble, but at least rendered unemployable - if linked to real identity. Non-idiots who want to post such fic on QQ but already have a doxxed account on QQ don't settle for this kind of half-measure; they make a second account and risk permaban, because a QQ permaban is less of a downside than "whoops, there goes my career".