Questions Regarding Bans

[kavan]

Well , I do not think its fair to judge everyone on lookism.net as the same.

I just interacted with Boyo. He seems like a helpful chap and his posts here are relevant. Maybe he assumed the name in a subversive/sarcastic way?

Without encroaching on privacy , extractionsruinsfaces is going through some very harsh stuff in his life. Again , his posts here are relevant.

Lookism is a symptom of the human condition not some independent evil. While I totally get why GJ is circumspect of the overlap between the 2 forums , I do not think there should a blanket prejudice against lookism posters here.

In terms of statistical correlation of members from other boards who kick up the most trouble, lookism has the highest risk profile. The best way not to have a blanket policy against all lookism members and to weed out the ones that wish to hide they are lookism members would be to entertain the ones who DON'T wish to hide they are that.


How about a litmus test where lookism members wanting entry to JSF were requested to  tell the mod their screen name there and either use same here or have a good reason to use a different one?



" Dear Applicant for JSF entry,

If you have a screen name that you have established elsewhere, you are requested to use same here.

If there is a reason you would like to use a different one than established elsewhere, please disclose the screen name you use elsewhere and why you wish to use a different one here.

If you are an active member of lookism, entry to JSF is contingent on either
using the same screen name you use there or disclosing it to the mod and with explanation as to why you want a different screen name here."

[kavan]

Oh I know extractionsruinsfaces is going through awful circumstances, I gave him some very good advice as my father suffers from the same illness but he didn't thank or even acknowledge me for that. Boyo has acted like a decent chap but you know most people are intelligent enough to act in accordance to their surroundings.

I am usually very open minded but sorry that site should be shut down and we can't trust anyone who comes from there IMO

I don't think it should be shut down. I think it should remain there as a leper colony.

[needadvancement]

To those of you wanting to post pictures but are worried, just block out your eyes(and possibly other parts of your face if we're just gonna zero in on your jaws anyway) you can do that with the most basic software that every computer has like ms paint. I don't know why someone would post uncensored photos of his face online especially on websites like this.

[girl]

I can’t help thinking that the doctors themselves are partially responsible for contributing to this collective disease of thought. A lot has changed since 2012 because surgeons, too, are being influenced by Lookism - they have even been known to attract patients from there, as we all now know. There is something wrong when the measurements given for my recessed class II case are far less than those given to a young person who looks like they've just come off the runway, but this is now a reality. The legitimate cases are being half-arsed and poorly conceived as jaw surgeons now concentrate on tweaking rather than coming up with the best aesthetic (and functional) solutions to real problems.

[kavan]

IDK, I think the question about lookism is WHY can't they just stay there as to not 'import' the mentality elsewhere. You know, let 'Lord of the Flies' on there stay there with his little maggots.

Not sure and GJ can correct me if I'm wrong but I think he prefers people who are interested in balancing out thier jaws, those with jaw imbalances and add other bone alterations. Maybe more people who have cephs to show and those who can do a basic ceph reading. What he's getting is an influx of people with good jaw balance wanting to 'looksmax' so they can look more like a model or people whining that they are 'ugly' because they don't look like a model. Where do you think THAT mentality comes from?

I think he's just wanting a better population that has flown in here following the path of SJ and I think he needs more people supportive of what he's doing (or trying to undo like having his board used as a 'name drop' landing strip for SJ's doctors.)

Ultimately, that's what the bans are about.

[girl]

I'm dying to post my cephs and questions as I received some plans, but I'm put off posting them anywhere public due to the aforementioned reasons (stealing pics). I'm sure many would post if, at a minimum, they could be assured that their stuff wouldn't get transported to the other forum.

I think they just import that mentality as for them it's intrinsically related to everything else. Some prob don't realise they're doing it.   

[kavan]

Cephs are fairly 'anon' as most people don't associate them with your face and of course, they narrow down the advice to jaw balance. They also 'up' the level of discussion because they prompt people who make suggestions to make them with reference to the angles and planes applicable to max fax displacements.

[GJ]

IDK, I think the question about lookism is WHY can't they just stay there as to not 'import' the mentality elsewhere. You know, let 'Lord of the Flies' on there stay there with his little maggots.

Not sure and GJ can correct me if I'm wrong but I think he prefers people who are interested in balancing out thier jaws, those with jaw imbalances and add other bone alterations. Maybe more people who have cephs to show and those who can do a basic ceph reading. What he's getting is an influx of people with good jaw balance wanting to 'looksmax' so they can look more like a model or people whining that they are 'ugly' because they don't look like a model. Where do you think THAT mentality comes from?

I think he's just wanting a better population that has flown in here following the path of SJ and I think he needs more people supportive of what he's doing (or trying to undo like having his board used as a 'name drop' landing strip for SJ's doctors.)

Ultimately, that's what the bans are about.

Well said.
It's partially my fault because I slacked off on keeping tabs on what was going on, and then I also had open/user-validated (via email) registration. The idea was that the place would self-police so I wouldn't have to be involved. A few bad personalities ruined that experiment.

[kavan]

Well said.
It's partially my fault because I slacked off on keeping tabs on what was going on, and then I also had open/user-validated (via email) registration. The idea was that the place would self-police so I wouldn't have to be involved. A few bad personalities ruined that experiment.

Not really your fault. But open sign up fly in gives more sign ups but they could be multis or just coming from the wrong places and then you got a bunch of flies that have been eating s**t somewhere. Think, SCREEN.

[GJ]

Wanted to run this by people for feedback, but I'm considering requiring a one-time $20 Bitcoin donation for all new registered accounts from certain Countries (UK, Australia, Denmark, Germany, and Italy are the main culprits of dupe accounts from banned members).

Reason being if the user has invested in their account, they are much more likely to behave on the forum. The problem right now is that users are being banned for legit reasons, then creating new accounts once banned. Some use a proxy to do this. Given I have a background in IT, I can spot them easily and just re-ban them. But it's annoying, and I can't always be 100% sure I'm not banning a legit new user. I think if people have a vested interest in keeping their account in good standing they will then police themselves so I don't have to it.

Does the forum offer enough value to do this? That's the question.
We have some of the most knowledgeable patients in the world, so I think so. An exception could be made to the rule that if a user here in good standing vouches for you, you get a free account. I'm not looking to gouge people but rather find a solution and create incentive for civil behavior.

Thoughts?

I'm open to other suggestions. I tried the "Libertarian" model of a free market/anything goes/no censorship for several years, and people abused it. It didn't work. People can't police themselves, and a small few wound up destroying a good thing for the larger whole.

[kavan]

I would say there is value and more value to a board when a mod takes action to cut down on people taking out multi accounts when the ethical standard is just one. The value is to those using one screen name. The modest request is basically 'nothing' when you consider that many are up to spending lots of $$ on surgery. If they don't appreciate that the request is being made for the greater good, then they are stupid.

[tdawg]

Honestly I(and I think a lot of others) probably would have been like "screw this" if we had to pay for an account. I would have made that determination before I did any mental cost/benefit analysis. I think the forum is worth it but I think most people naturally pass when asked to pay for things that they expect to be free.

A possible alternative is maybe to make a volunteer with an IT background(or at least an understanding to spot what you are talking about) who can spot that type of thing a mod who can ban those users, to ease the workload on you. I am sure somebody will be able and willing.

[kavan]

Honestly I(and I think a lot of others) probably would have been like "screw this" if we had to pay for an account. I would have made that determination before I did any mental cost/benefit analysis. I think the forum is worth it but I think most people naturally pass when asked to pay for things that they expect to be free.

A possible alternative is maybe to make a volunteer with an IT background(or at least an understanding to spot what you are talking about) who can spot that type of thing a mod who can ban those users, to ease the workload on you. I am sure somebody will be able and willing.

Good idea but it would depend on if the software here allows a mod who is NON-admin to check IPs and do bans. I'm not sure it does.

[GJ]

Good idea but it would depend on if the software here allows a mod who is NON-admin to check IPs and do bans. I'm not sure it does.

Not by default, but I can make it show IPs, etc. I gave you those permissions, Kavan.

Tdawg, et al...what about this: all accounts remain free, but if you're banned, you have to email me, state your username, and then make a donation in order to remove the ban? This gives the incentive to behave yet no costs upfront.

[kavan]

Not by default, but I can make it show IPs, etc. I gave you those permissions, Kavan.

Tdawg, et al...what about this: all accounts remain free, but if you're banned, you have to email me, state your username, and then make a donation in order to remove the ban? This gives the incentive to behave yet no costs upfront.

OK, I can see the ips now.