marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
[personal profile] marahmarie

Title:
Show poster is banned from quickreply

Area:
quickreply

Summary:
In quickreply there is nothing stating a user's ban status. If a user types a comment in a journal or community from which they have been (perhaps unknowingly) banned, if they use quickreply to do so they won't realize (or recall, if they've forgotten) their ban status until they try to post their comment or else if they click through to the "more options" full-size comment box before posting.

Description:
Quickreply (the instant comment box you get on the reading page under each entry if you click "reply" from the entry linkbar) doesn't currently show relationship status to other users or communities. While kludging in the entire relationship status functionality might be a bit much for a simple reply box, it would be helpful to know if you're wasting your time writing the Gettysburg address in reply to someone, only to realize at the last second, when you try to post, that you've been banned from the journal or community in question.

While I'm not sure how it might be done, my thought is to make ban status (if applicable) visible so it can be seen before you try to post from a quickreply box. While I don't see a lot of room for it as I look at a quickreply box as I type this up, I'm thinking in addition to* the JS usericon-picker saying "Browse" in big, bold letters when you hover over it, it could say "You have been banned from this community/journal" as well.

*An earlier version of this said "While I don't see a lot of room for it as I look at a quickreply box as I type this up, I'm thinking instead of the JS usericon-picker saying "Browse" in big, bold letters when you hover over it, it could say "You have been banned from this community/journal" instead", then I realized, after posting, that "in addition to" would be better than "instead of".

Poll #18125 Show poster is banned from quickreply
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 31


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
15 (48.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
3 (9.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
11 (35.5%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (6.5%)

ninetydegrees: Drawing: a girl's face, with a yellow and green stripe over one eye (Default)
[personal profile] ninetydegrees

Title:
Profiles: message box if I've banned this user

Area:
profiles, relationships

Summary:
If you go to the profile page of a user you've banned, nothing indicates you've done so. I think a message box telling you you've banned this user, with the reason you've banned them (if you've filled it out) and an 'unban this user?' link would be useful. It could be displayed at the top of the profile.

Description:
Something could be added to the Navigation Strip as well?

Poll #18052 Profiles: message box if I've banned this user
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 53


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
42 (79.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
6 (11.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (1.9%)

(I have no opinion)
4 (7.5%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

teaotter: (Default)
[personal profile] teaotter

Title:
Add an "are you sure?" dialog to the ban user process

Area:
comments

Summary:
Right now, it is easy to hit "Ban User" unintentionally and not know it. A dialog asking if you're sure would be helpful.

Description:
Right now, "Ban user" is one of the options that appears when you hover your cursor over a user's icon. The option is right above "View Journal," which makes it easy to hit accidentally.

If you click "Ban user," the option changes to "Unban user" -- but no other changes happen on the screen. It is easy to assume you just missed the "View Journal" button and click again without noticing the dialog change.

Right now, it is way too easy to ban someone unintentionally and never find out. If the banned person is polite about the ban and leaves you alone -- you'll never know why they unfriended you and went away.

An "are you sure?" dialog would make sure you didn't leave a user banned by accident. It would only add one step to banning people, so hopefully it wouldn't impair the usefulness of the feature for people who actually want to ban someone.

I think the extra dialog would be easier than sending a notification that you've banned so-and-so, although that's another option. I just don't want to ban someone and not know about it.

Poll #12915 Add an "are you sure?" dialog to the ban user process
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 80


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
68 (85.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
1 (1.2%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (1.2%)

(I have no opinion)
10 (12.5%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)
[personal profile] azurelunatic

Title:
Demi-ban: screen all future comments from specific user

Area:
comments, comment screening

Summary:
Force-screen comments from one particular user, when it's just that user whose comments warrant screening.

Description:
Occasionally there is a user who may be commenting in a particular journal or community in such a way that they do not quite warrant a ban, but fully warrant review from the admins/owner just to make sure their comments are productive.

Everybody else is commenting all right, it's just that one person.

Setting [class that includes commenter] to have their comments screened (whether that class be everyone, non-Access/Members, or anonymous) would be overkill for this situation, because they haven't brought along friends, it's just them. Turning on screened comments tends to dampen discussion and can be a lot of work to unscreen.

A demi-ban which makes all that user's future comments screened, but leaves everybody else's alone, would solve this problem on a technical level.

On a social level, this person could then use another account to evade the demi-ban and not be subject to screening. That's something that is likely to be noticed, and then the admins/owner would have to decide how to handle it. (The admins/owner may well decide that it's time to actually ban both accounts.)

Evading a demi-ban should not be a ToS-able offense. Evading an actual ban still should be.

Poll #10464 Demi-ban: screen all future comments from specific user
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 84


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
67 (79.8%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (8.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
10 (11.9%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

ninetydegrees: Drawing: a girl's face, with a yellow and green stripe over one eye (Default)
[personal profile] ninetydegrees

Title:
Manage Circle: mark and set apart users you've banned

Area:
circle management

Summary:
In the People section, mark in some way, group together and set apart the users you've banned.

Description:
It would be awesome if it could also display the note you added or at least a link to Ban/Unban.

Edit: it would also be awesome if this section could be collapsible.

Poll #8848 Manage Circle: mark and set apart users you've banned
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 60


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
35 (58.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
4 (6.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
3 (5.0%)

(I have no opinion)
16 (26.7%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (3.3%)

ninetydegrees: Drawing: a girl's face, with a yellow and green stripe over one eye (Default)
[personal profile] ninetydegrees

Title:
Profiles: mark banned users in some way

Area:
profiles

Summary:
While users you've banned are hidden from other users on your profile, they're still visible to you and are displayed the same way other users are. I'd like a way to know I've banned them.

Description:
It could be thanks to a different/muted color or a different format... Or they could simply be displayed in a separate list or only visible on the extended profile view.

Poll #5128 Profiles: mark banned users in some way
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 75


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
58 (77.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
4 (5.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
13 (17.3%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

sofiaviolet: drawing of three violets and three leaves (Default)
[personal profile] sofiaviolet

Title:
Add note when banning user

Area:
journal administration, community administration

Summary:
When banning a user from a journal or community, allow the person doing the banning to add a note about why the account is being banned.

Description:
We're already planning to implement the "Notes about your friends" feature (http://bugs.dwscoalition.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1468 and http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/31726.html), and I'd like a similar feature on the Ban and Unban Accounts page (http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/banusers), possibly with a higher character limit.

It would probably be most useful for communities with multiple maintainers (banned by mod1 for $reason, banned by mod2 for $other_reason), but I would also find it helpful in my own journal because my memory is crappy.

EDIT: This feature would be separate from Notes. I referenced Notes as a similar feature with page arrangement that I thought would make sense for this reason-for-ban feature. The feature proposed here would be managed and visible only on the Ban and Unban Accounts page. One could still set a Note for a user, separate from the ban-note.

The text-entry area for the proposed feature should probably be headed Reason for Banning or something along those lines. These notes would be visible only to users with the authority to ban other users from the account in question: only the journal owner for personal journals, and only administrators for communities.

Poll #2707 Add note when banning user
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 52


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
47 (90.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
2 (3.8%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
3 (5.8%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)
[personal profile] zvi

Title:
Community polls should not be affected by personal journal bannings

Area:
Polls, banning, interpersonal interaction

Summary:
If someone posts a poll in a community, anyone they have banned from their personal journal is unable to respond to the poll, even if they are full member of the community and able to respond to the entry in which the poll is posted.

Description:
If you ban someone from your personal journal and you post an entry in a community, the person you have banned from your personal journal is still able to comment on the community entry.

In the same way, a person you have banned from your personal journal should not be able to vote on polls in your personal journal, but should still have access to polls in a community journal. This is especially important as paid communities often use polls for administrative business, and this penalizes community members for disputes elsewhere, without any notice at all.

The only real drawback would be that someone from whom you didn't wish communication could write something you didn't like in a text response in the poll, but, since they could already write something displeasurable in the comments of any entry you made in the community for which commenting was available, this is not much of a drawback.

Poll #2122 Community polls should not be affected by personal journal bannings
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 51


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
47 (92.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (2.0%)

(I have no opinion)
2 (3.9%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.0%)

zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)
[personal profile] zvi

Title:
Ban page accepts OpenID url account name as account to ban

Area:
ban page, journal administration

Summary:
http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/banusers only accepts the ext_#### form of an OpenID account as an account to ban. It should also except the url name (e.g. example.net) as an account name.

Description:
We've had a couple of support requests and a suggestion about managing deleted accounts. One of the things one can do to change how/where a deleted account appears in relationship to you is to ban it.

However, if the account in question is an OpenID account, there is no way of which I am aware for a user to discover the ext_#### account name, in order to actually do the banning. (Even if the OpenID account is active, DW has done a lot to make it unnecessary for users to be aware of that form of the account name, so I'm not sure how many users would know how to ban an active OpenID account through the ban page.)

So, I think this would make the ban page more effective with OpenID account users.

Poll #1685 Ban page accepts OpenID url account name as account to ban
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 38


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
38 (100.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
0 (0.0%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

cesy: "Cesy" - An old-fashioned quill and ink (Default)
[personal profile] cesy

Title:
Bulk-screen all comments by exampleusername

Area:
banning, screening, comments

Summary:
An option to automatically screen all comments made in a journal under my control (personal journal or community) by any given user.

Description:
(Original LJ Suggestion: http://community.livejournal.com/suggestions/884592.html)

There are times when there is someone who has either provided so much grief in a journal or community over however long that they need to be completely gone from it, or they have had a falling-out with the journal owner or community maintainer and their presence is vigorously no longer desired. Screening their comments in one fell swoop would be really spiffy. Sometimes this person has also been suspended if a spammer, but sometimes it is just a conflict between two or more users in which Abuse really can't take a side other than to say that there should really be no contact.

This springs from discussion on a suggestion to delete all comments from a single user (http://community.livejournal.com/suggestions/881181.html), as a friendlier, more easy to reverse alternative.

This would be presented as a banning option, but I see no reason that it should not also be available separately. It would also be nice to have a quick reversal (in case of bulk-screening by accident), but not necessary.

An ordered list of benefits

* Unwanted comments being removed from view
* Not needing to search each comment down and screen it manually
* Screened comments can be unscreened if really needed after all; deleted comments cannot
* Peace of mind for someone who does not want comments from exampleusername visible on their journal or community
* Comments would still be able to be deleted by the original poster of the comments
* Comments would still be viewable by the journal owner/maintainer, entry owner (if community), and original poster

An ordered list of problems/issues involved

* Could be seen as a drama-enablement tool
* Developer time to actual user benefit ratio if this is not of use to a wide range of users
* Could be easy to do accidentally and difficult to reverse if no undo option is present
* (if an undo option is present) A tool to unscreen all screened comments by exampleusername could result in manually-screened comments becoming available
* Comments would still be able to be deleted by the original poster of the comments
* Comments would still be viewable by the journal owner/maintainer, entry owner (if community), and original poster

Personally, I would also suggest this as a paid feature.

Poll #1306 Bulk-screen all comments by exampleusername
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 32


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
11 (34.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
3 (9.4%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
6 (18.8%)

(I have no opinion)
12 (37.5%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)
[personal profile] azurelunatic

Title:
Per-journal ban of anonymous comments from specified IP

Area:
comments, bans

Summary:
Allow bans within a journal or community for anonymous comments from specific IP addresses, while allowing other anonymous comments, and also allowing logged-in comments from that IP, and not affecting that IP's ability to comment in other journals from which they have not been banned.

Description:
Allow a journal owner to prohibit a certain IP address from making anonymous comments in their journal. All people using that IP address would be prohibited from leaving an anonymous comment in that journal, even if they were not the individual who had originally offended; if the individual who originally offended were to connect with another IP address, then they would still be able to comment anonymously until the new IP was banned or anonymous commenting was disabled. The ban would only affect the journal on which it was set, and would need to be set separately in a community to which the user posts, or in a second account belonging to that person. The ban would only affect anonymous comments; someone connected from that IP address could comment while logged in.

There are valid reasons in assorted journals to allow anonymous comments, but one anonymous commenter not playing by the ground rules can spoil the fun for everyone.

Individuals being jerks do not really fall under the oversight of anti-spam efforts: it's not a commercial activity, it's not automated, and it's not the site's responsibility to get in the middle of personal disputes even if one of the parties is acting anonymously.

Giving the journal owner the power to ban anonymous comments from the offending IP would at least stop the journal owner from having to clean up after that particular IP, with a greater precision than disallowing any and all anonymous comments.

This is not going to stop a particularly determined jerk who knows how to get a new IP address (contrary to popular belief, most residential internet customers are not assigned a single IP address that is theirs forever and ever: power cycling your cable modem usually lands you a new one; there are also anonymizing services, et cetera). In a battle with a determined jerk, you may wind up blocking hundreds of IP addresses individually before either they give up out of boredom or you give up and block all anonymous comments.


Pros:
May allow some degree of have-your-cake-and-eat-it too with regard to anonymous comments.
Could be reasonably effective in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.
Users who know what they're doing could theoretically use it in connection with a blacklist more severe than the ones Dreamwidth uses
Less work cleaning up after one or two characters who are attempting to spoil things.
Potentially fewer non-spam items in the antispam team's queue
Being competitive with self-hosted blogging solutions
Would not block logged-in users


Cons:
The technically naive believe that an IP address is magical and 100% accurately identifying, and this could help further that belief.
D is against it (see con #1)
Innocent parties who have a) got the same IP assigned to them, and b) are trying to anonymously comment in the user's journal would not be able to do so.
Incredibly trivial to evade if a guilty party knows what they are doing.
As demonstrated in the "M. the Webmaster is still unpopular" scenario, a ban list can be ridiculously large and still ineffective against unpleasantness; a ban list cannot be increased beyond a certain point or else it will start to affect site performance.



Terms of service enforcement: ToS should not even attempt to enforce ban evasion from anonymous IP-based banning, as this is laughable; it would be provided as a preemptive cleanup convenience only, and to halt anonymous abuse, one should screen or disable anonymous comments entirely.

Poll #928 Per-journal ban of anonymous comments from specified IP
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 43


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
19 (44.2%)

Should be implemented with changes.
3 (7.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
15 (34.9%)

(I have no opinion)
4 (9.3%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (4.7%)

Profile

Dreamwidth Suggestions

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
23456 7 8
9 101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom