User banning

an idea...

[moltar]

Many people have complaint about annoying users and asked questions about ways to block them.

I just had an idea.

We all know that most of the browsers are very buggy. I was thinking that instead of blocking the user completely, site owner can exploit user's browser with some known bug.

This way user just won't get access, period.

I don't mean to cause any harm to user's computer (viruses and such), i mean those peacefull bugs that will just crash the browser. I remember there was a piece of code that could open one's CD-ROM.

Based on IP, site owner can server a specific page (or just a piece of JS) and crash user's browser.

Also maybe we could write some JS code that will annoy user in return. Like scroll the page somewhere a little bit once in a while. Or hide some text from time to time. Something random that the user does not expect.

What do you think?

[Marketing Guy]

Seems like a bit of a can of worms TBH! :)

Anything based on IP address will generally run the risk of impacting innocent users as well as offenders.

Plus, the definition of "annoying user" would have to be clearly defined. I would say there are a lot of users about the place who are annoying, but not disruptive. Start messing with their ability to post and "CENSORSHIP!" would be screamed....LOUD! ;)

I agree with taking pro-active action to prevent spamming for example (however your forum may define spamming), but moving into the realms of effecting "annoying" people is a whole big grey area!

Plus, if you are going to implement a tech method of effecting a user's browser, you kinda (IMO anyway) raise the stakes of the "game". If indeed you effect a troublesome user, what if they then take it to the next level?

-Legal action against you (?)
-Campaign against you (bad publicity)
-Illegal action against you (DOS attacks, multiple user registration / spamming, flames, illegal material posting...)

An annoyed indiviudal can be very dangerous for a site - particularly for forums which offer them a media to express their anger.

Best case scenario - they don't come back.

Worst case scenario - they cost you time, money, visitors, credibility, etc etc!

IMO as a forum admin you do need control over your forum, and provoking anger in people means you lose a large element of control, because those people are unpredictable.

All that aside, im not sure, but there may be some legal issues with exploiting bugs (allbeit benign ones).

Scott

[uncle_bob]

I've found blocking them often can cause them to become more disruptive (in the short term) as they try to find ways around the block.

Flagging their posts so only they can see them (or existing members can't see them) seems to work faster as they get bored quickly, especially if you use a few dummy accounts to add the occasional dull reply so they don't become suspicious.

[encyclo]

peaceful bugs that will just crash the browser

If they're running IE (about 90%), there's no such thing: crash IE and you crash the OS. I know it's tempting, but it's verging on the criminal: I would keep well away from that kind of trick if you don't want to be sued.

If you know the IP, why not just quietly block them or silently redirect them, rather than trying the vigilante approach? Trolls are trying to annoy you, and taking direct action is a huge sign to say to them that they've won.

[Marketing Guy]

Here's an older thread on what to do with annoying members:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Scott

[rogerd]

I agree that crashing the user's browser isn't a great idea. Something along those lines, though, that is a lot more benign is a "slowdown" hack. For selected users, it will take a loooong time to load each page, plus throw out the occasionial 404 error. If you are lucky, the member doesn't realize he's been penalized and attributes the issues to server overload or software problems. After crawling around at a snails pace for a short while, he'll likely leave.

[FourDegreez]

I've done something similar to what rogerd suggested: Return a fake scripting error message made to look real. The unwanted user tries a couple times, thinks he is experiencing a server error, and gives up.

[ogletree]

Serve them a page that says you went out of business or an asp/php error.

[rogerd]

One thing that is true is that it is virtually impossible to ban a persistent user. Hence, solutions like ogletree's, the slowdown hack, global ignore by all other users are often more effective than straight banning. At least for a period of time, the bad user won't realize that he is in the penalty box. This will give you a breather, at least, before he figures it out; in the best case, he'll get bored or frustrated and just go away.

[FourDegreez]

My current solution is to have a truely massive barrier to entry. This is obviously not an option for everyone. But what I have is a questionnaire that must be completed in the process of requesting access. The requests are put in a queue and read by volunteers within the community who can approve or decline them. Any matches based on IP address, cookie, or e-mail address with known current or former members or former applications are flagged for special scrutiny. When any new user is approved, they are cordoned off in a newbie zone and are gradually given access to the real boards over a period of about 10 days (note: not 10 calendar days, but 10 distinct days of logging in). I figure if an unwanted user does have the patience to pass through this barrier the brief glimmer of satisfaction they get from trolling after having gained full access will not linger once their posts are quickly removed and their account deactivated, sending them back to square one. Who would have the patience to keep trying to get back in only to get snuffed out so quickly? The work to reward ratio is simply not in their favor. =)

Like I said, the draconian measures I have taken are not acceptable to many. A steady stream of new users has been reduced to a mere trickle. However, the headaches I am spared makes it worth it to me, not to mention the small amount of new users that do get through tend to be of a higher quality. I don't make money off of forum traffic so thankfully I am not pressured to throw open the flood gates and let in the great unwashed masses. =)

[Rosalind]

My current solution is to have a truely massive barrier to entry.

That's an interesting solution because, depending on the subject, it could make your forum more appealing because of its exclusivity. Like belonging to Mensa or owning a luxury car, not everyone can be in the club. It might not be such a bad plan at all for a lot of forums.

[rogerd]

Most forum operators try to make it as easy as possible for new users to sign up. But, if you are putting up barriers to entry, make one of them a survey to capture member demographics. This will make it MUCH easier to sell forum sponsorships or ads.

[FourDegreez]

it could make your forum more appealing because of its exclusivity

I do advertise that fact on the sign-up page, where I say something like, "Maybe the form below is a turn-off and makes you not want to join, but then again maybe the opposite is true and you realize that we have something you want to be a part of on the other side." Anyone who "gets" it gets in.