>>101826
Can 4chan ban...MAC addresses?

>>101842

not everyone uses a mac retard

>>101849
I wanted to make this troll but resisted the urge.

>>101849
He was probably joking.

ever-cookie bans

All bans for tripcode users should actually ban the tripcode.

There is no way to effectively ban anonymous users. To do so would require tracking someone on the internet without their consent.

>>101925
>All bans for tripcode users should actually ban the tripcode.

Make tripcode shitposters (you know who you are) actually fear for their identities? I like it. That would encourage some proper behavior.

>>101940
The whole reason why bans are effective on other websites is because you're banning an identity, not an IP which can change. 4chan's problem is that most people don't have an identity to ban.

>>101980
Actually, it's just as easy on any other site as long as you don't tell anyone with the inclination to get you banned that you also had x other account. It's mostly the userbase that makes 4chan shitposters...well, not harder to ban, but more likely to evade.

moot ## Admin
08/16/12(Thu)03:18
No.101999

moot ## Admin 08/16/12(Thu)03:18 No.101999

>>101842
No, MAC addresses are stripped at your network border and never make it into transit.

Cookie bans?

>>102003

basically how exhentai works

>>101881
>>102003
Easily defeated by your browser's 'private browsing' mode. You don't even need to reach for your router.

>>102009
Neat. It'd filter out the less-tech savy dudes that only know how to restart routers to get around them.

These bans are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people who spammed and trolled in 2011 and 2012, many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of banning has in fact been imposed. My concurring Brothers have demonstrated that, if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to banning, it is the impermissible basis of butthurt.

Moot, please tell us that at least you are researching into solutions for the ban-evaders. The fact that they are now constantly gloating about the fact that they are circumventing bans has got to be a major frustration for yourself and the mods/janitors.

When some of them are spamming multiple threads, including attempts to derail legitimate discussion here in /q/, it gets increasingly difficult to merely hide the threads and report the offending posts.

>>102096
One time 4chan access fee.

/thread

Sadly, there really is not really a way to improve this without accounts. It's just an issue that must be put up with I'm afraid.

Although I hope I am wrong about all that, I doubt I am. I don't want to put words in moots mouth, but I seem to remember him saying something similar.

>>102119
So the site that is known for not needing registration kicks it up several hundred notches and asks for a credit card to post?

That's retarded.

>>102119
congratulations, you just turned us into Something Awful

>>102119
>Pay fee
>Get banned for whatever reason
>Need to pay to get an account again
>Everyone becomes too afraid that they might get banned and waste their money and 4chan dies

>>102119

No. This goes directly against two things moot has specifically said he is dead set against, taking money for services, and user anonymity.

File: 1345104568444.jpg-(57 KB, 780x791, 1344194050396.jpg)

>>102096
Maybe he could add a cooldown function where an IP that hadn't accessed 4chan in the last 10 days would need to wait 10 minutes after first pageview before being allowed to post.

>>102148
Users can be anonymous to each other without being anonymous to the site. If they were completely anonymous to the site, bans would be impossible.

Taking money for services is dumb though. Who in their right mind would pay to post on a forum?

Use the password for deleting posts as a pseudo-account. This avoids stupid things like registration for actual accounts, which ruins the obvious spirit and anonymity of this place. Place posting limits for new passwords for a certain amount of time. Not only will this make bans more effective, but it will also help curb spamming attempts.

>>102154
Actually, guilty as charged here on one, possibly two fronts.

There's a rather small discussion group (under 100 people) that I'm a member of where we pay small upkeep costs for site hosting - comes out to roughly five bucks every six months. It's not anonymous either, and is quite topic-specific.

The other possible one would be the money I pay for USENET access and have done so for at least the last 20-odd years (yeah, I'm an oldfag). Strangely enough, I still periodically post in a few of the various text-based newsgroups there, more out of habit than anything, I suppose.

>>102150
That's very inventive. I think it's too much of an inconvenience for too little gain, but it's still an interesting idea.

how boring would 4chan be if permabans were actually permanent.

>>102150
Another idea would be after banning a particular user more than once, a Class C subnet range-ban (which only catches a maximum of 255 addresses). The possibility of collateral damage to legitimate users is less likely - and have the range-ban only last a day or so. This won't catch the proxy users, and might not be feasible for areas like college campuses, but at least it will curb the "reset my router" group, since most ISPs DHCP renewals are within the same IP block.

>>102119

This has been officially shot down by moot.
>>101819

I think I remember moot talking before about allowing banned users to see the site but not allowed to post. Maybe they will be more inclined to be good and sit out their posting ban since they would still be given access to viewing the site content? This could lessen that hassle of having to deal with ban evasions.

I am strongly against IP range bans because I have been an innocent victim of those for a couple of times (on another chan which seems to have a persistent troll who lives in my town/region and gets banned at least once per month).

I guess there's no feasible way to prevent ban evasion. In fact I believe that is a good thing because it is widely known that now and then mods like to abuse their powers.

But I never understood why certain tripfags who are permabanned (park ranger comes to mind) don't get their tripcode blacklisted. It's like you WANT that they come back and continue the drama.

File: 1345107163335.gif-(28 KB, 350x400, breaking.gif)

>>102219
implemented for months bro

Every other site solves it by making users register, banning, then checking the ip to see if any other accounts match that ip. Unfortunately 4chan would become a shit hole with registered accounts.

File: 1345107390368.jpg-(113 KB, 580x600, 1344563131697.jpg)

>mfw i unplug my Ethernet cable and plug back in a second to get unbanned

>>102233
I wouldn't really mind registering as long as it's only stored as browser cookie or whatever and I could still post anonymously to the public here.

>>102160
this is an interesting idea, and I wonder if it would work

>>102240
>>102251
The problem with any kind of registration is that spammers and trolls could make several accounts ahead of time.

>>102258
That's why if there were a FEE it would solve EVERYTHING.

>>102265
If there was a FEE, people would LEAVE.

>>102268
>people would leave
good

Quality of posts > quantity of posts and users.

I'd much rather LEL SEKRIT CLUB XDDDDD-like posting than the current shit.

>>102272
Sites where people have to pay to post are doomed to become as terrible as SA.

>>102258
Agreed. There will always be ways to circumvent any measures against trolling. But it would help to get rid of "casual" shitposters who are not dedicated enough to create a shitload of accounts and/or email adresses, clear their browser cookies to toggle between accounts etc. If the situation were really that bad *everybody* would already be using scripts and spambots and whatnot. Turns out it isn't, it's just a minority of users who *really* want to fuck with the site. Most others just do it because it's literally as easy as unplugging your router. I say make it a bit harder and many of them will give up.

>>102265
I'm poor and don't even have a credit card. A fee would kill 4chan for me. Also imagine the tantrum people who pay for access will throw when they get banned for shitposting, feel entitled to do what they want because they are paying customers, lawsuits everywhere. Not a good idea.

https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Would it be possible to use information gathered like this to ban someone? Pretty rare to not be unique in that, and if it's good enough to get people paranoid it's probably good enough for bans.

>pay for 4chan
hilarious

>>102309
>people can just switch browsers
>most detection methods rely on javascript
Not feasible

Someone in a previous thread suggested evercookies.

Whilst not completely insurmountable, they would make ban evading far more difficult.

>>102236
>voluntarily disconnecting the internet for your entire house even for a second

File: 1345112695083.gif-(1.7 MB, 257x150, 1339352082095 (1).gif)

>>101842
>>101999

>implying you can't just change the MAC address
>implying that's not how most people evade ban

>>102309
>Pretty rare to not be unique in that
So rare that I am unique every time I check it.

It's not such an easy problem.

>>102362
Evercookies are evil, but I think it's the kind of evil we need.

>>102398

What? Sounds like you're confusing MAC and IP addresses.

>>102409
not really, if you change your MAC address by one digit then your IP changes too

>>102411
That's only sometimes true, it does not change that nobody ever implied anything you said they did.

>>102148
>>102142
>>102129
>>102125

The only people who'd actively oppose a one time pay fee are underage kiddies. That's it. It would cut the number of kids on this site drastically. What could be better? The only reason this site has gone downhill is because the average age has dropped from about 20-23 in '06 to 15 now.

>>102411

huh? NO ONE changes their MAC address to bypass a ban. They just reset their router

>>102435
Actually those "underage kiddies" tend to have an allowance and/or just would make their parents pay this fee.

File: 1345114662616.png-(183 KB, 890x633, fe-littlepip-rofl.png)

I find that IP range bans are very effective.

>>102447

Imagine a one off payment of $50. If it cuts down the number of underage faggots on this site by 50% it would be an absolute success.

>>102435
>The only people who'd actively oppose a one time pay fee are underage kiddies
Also, you know, moot himself. Probably because he is aware of SomethingAwful and is not under the delusion that paywalls would accomplish what you want them to.

>>102463
But it would cut down the number of users by at least 99.99%, and the remaining population would be entirely composed of idiots who would pay to post on an anonymous forum.

>>102463
It also cuts down the number of legit users by 99%.

Personally I couldn't afford it. I live from welfare and on a really tight budget.

>>102463
>"SomethingAwful? Never heard of it."

>>102435
>The only people who'd actively oppose a one time pay fee are underage kiddies.

No. I actively oppose it, but it's primarily because I've been enjoying 4chan for free for nearly 8 years now and am not about to decide between 4chan and paying my electric bill.

Kiddies don't care because Mommy foots the bill. I care because I earn my own money and have rent to pay.

No mandatory user fees. Ever.

>>102470

>But it would cut down the number of users by at least 99.99%, and the remaining population would be entirely composed of idiots who would pay to post on an anonymous forum.

No it wouldn't. The large majority of people who'd pay would be the oldfags, people who have been here the longest. I've been here since '06 and I'd happily pay it. Could you imagine some 17 year old who joined in 2010 paying it? Of course they wouldn't.

Silent bans are the best. But incompatible with the software.

>>102154
>Who in their right mind would pay to post on a forum?

http://www.somethingawful.com/

Everybody on that site.

>>102474

SA is still going strong. After here its probably the most active English speaking forum on the internet. Everyone there is an oldfag too.

>>102476
> The large majority of people who'd pay would be the oldfags, people who have been here the longest
The people who have been here the longest are probably the most aware of how quick and painless the transition to another futaba clone would be compared to shelling out money because someone is absolutely convinced that people who have disposable income are less likely to act like retards.

>>102272

I really don't understand why people bother suggesting shit like this when it's obviously not going to happen, at least as long as moot is the site administrator. You obviously have NO idea what kind of damage it would do to this site to make people pay to post.

>>102485

>to some futaba clone

99% of oldfags either hate the transition of this site in the last few years or have left yet I don't see an oldfag version of 4chan popping up

>>102491
>I don't see

Because if you don't see it, it doesn't exist, right?

Mmmmm ... your delusion is delicious. Just keep telling yourself that the Sun rises and sets on your ass and maybe someday it'll be true.

Also, just let i go. There will never be mandatory user fees on 4chan. Period. End of discussion.

>>102487

What damage? This site has deteriorated so quickly in the space of 4 years. Look at the shitposting over every board. Even the niche and smaller boards have been taken over. It's been taken over by 16 year olds who just completely shit the site up. The best way to screen that is for a one time payment

>>102491
>yet I don't see an oldfag version of 4chan popping up
I'm sure if we find a cheap and easy way to generate nostalgia that's the first thing you'll find.

>>102496

>Because if you don't see it, it doesn't exist, right?
>he thinks he's part of a secret chan

>>102497
You're making some interesting assumptions:

1] That adults can't be shitposters.
2] That oldfags can't be shitposters.
3] That your opinion of "deteriorated" and "shit" matters.

If you don't like it, leave. It's not your website. Just ... go. Nobody will miss you.

>>102504
I said nothing of the sort, but you did assume that just because you haven't seen something, it cannot exist.

YOUR words:
>yet I don't see an oldfag version of 4chan popping up

How do you know they aren't out there? PROTIP: They are. You cannot see all 800 billion websites that exist on the internet.

Your unwarranted sense of self-importance is powerful.

Why not have some kind of ghost ban?
- Banned users can still see the board.
- Banned users can still post (but their posts would get some kind of flag in the database so only they could see them)
- Posts on each board would be specificaly ordered so that they would think they are bumping their threads.

They wouldn't even know they were banned.

>>102506

>he doesn't want to improve the site

That's what this board is for, isn't it? Are you implying newfags aren't responsible for the large majority of shitposting and deterioration of the site?

>>102509
Because 4chan isn't set up to serve dynamic content. The html is generated once, when a new post is made, not whenever someone requests a page.

>>102510
Another assumption.

I do want to improve the site, however, I also listen to the owner and creator of the site, who specifically said in no less than 5 recent stickies "There will be no user fees."

That means I'm not going to go full retard and suggest "user fees", like you did.

Which means, my friend, that YOU shit posted by not paying attention and posting when you should have lurked.

Congratulations. YOU are what is wrong with 4chan.

>>102517
It would be a matter of generating the html twice (one with the original site and one with every banned post) and serving the right pages to the right IPs

>>102491
>yet I don't see an oldfag version of 4chan popping up

There hasn't been a reason for people to leave the site en masse is why, but if something like paid posting access happened then you would see several clone sites pop up immediately to catch all the people leaving forever.

>>102497

Your idea for paid access wouldn't solve anything because every single person that contributes anything worthwhile would just leave and not pay a fucking cent just to post on some anonymous imageboard while edgy teenager faggots would dig out their mom's credit card and bury the site in shit even more.

As far as shitposting everywhere the way it is now, the site grew significantly more popular is what happened but for some reason the moderation team didn't really grow with it. Probably the biggest complaint I've seen on /q/ is that mods suck at doing their jobs and have sucked at it for the past while.

Janitor applications are supposed to open up again soon so hopefully that will curb some of the shitposting in not too long.

>>102509

This has been covered and is known as "hellbanning" which isn't possible unless 4chan gives you dynamic pages, which they're not and moot has stated they're a nightmare to deal with and to not count on it happening.

>>102510

Your idea of improving the site is fucking garbage though and you have your head too far up your ass to see why.

ITT: No-one has heard of 7chan.

7chan is old-oldfag central. Well, it was. It's just furry scum now. There was a large migration there a few years back, when moot started reporting people to the Feds for posting CP and a load of /b/tards (Non-pedo and pedo alike) took offense, because back then the "no rulez" thing was a big deal.

One of the admins of 7chan got v& though, and then it got overrun by furry scum. And now it sucks.

>>102442
lots of times you have to change your mac address to get a new ip, idiot.

>>102497
>implying worthwhile users would bother paying to post on a *chan

>>102509
That would take a lot of work, just for the users that moot doesn't care about. Also, what post numbers are you going to show for the shadowbanned posts? Would be kind of awkward to see someone else's post with the same number.

>>102507
>800 billion
My good sources inform me that there are at least a quadrillion websites on the Internet.

>>102520
If all banned users saw each other's posts, then it would just be an exclusive club that people would want to get into to see more posts. I think the idea of shadowbanning is supposed to be that a banned user is the only one that sees their own posts.

>>102552
>at least a quadrillion websites on the Internet
I'd believe it.

>a banned user is the only one that sees their own posts
That's always hilarious. I know it leads to a lot of "why the fuck is nobody paying attention to me?!?!" ghost posts.