{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/4/2008 9:17:06 PM
63
Bans not as significant in Member Ranks as we think?
I came on to Bnet yesterday to find out I recieved a message from one of my many friends. The message was to tell me that he had been "promoted" to Heroic Member status, which greatly suprised both him and myself. He has had many bans, more than the both of us can remember, his most recent being about 2 months ago. His join date is mid-2005, and does have an attached GT. The only thing that I could see that would get him the title, other than the fact that his account is getting old, is that over the past month he has been posting more constructively than usual.
So if anyone out there has a potential explanation for this, it would be greatly appreciated.
-
Very strange indeed. It has been stated that the member title system is automated, based on how long you've gone without many bans. My only guess is that it isn't completely automated and he was promoted the title by a bungie.net staff member.
-
Beats me. In this kind of situation, I would normally be of the opinion that we should not take guesses as to how the Member Titles system works. But since the titles system is designed to award people based on how much they are trusted by Bungie.net, and since we have always assumed that titles go to longtime users with relatively good behavior, this is a curious anomaly. Are you sure that your friend is actually a Heroic Member? I'm sure you checked up on the account and verified that it is indeed listing him as a Heroic Member, but perhaps it was a system error?
-
He told me yesterday that he was promoted. I checked again today to make sure it was indeed right. He is still listed as Heroic. If it was a system error, I don't think it would take over a day to fix. Achronos wouldn't implement such a system without rigorously testing it for bugs first. EDIT: I can't spell today. [Edited on 02.04.2008 1:33 PM PST]
-
Hm odd. Well here's a potential scenario (this is just speculation, by the way): A milder ban might only reduce your Member Title by one "rank," while a severe ban might reduce it by two. Perhaps this person, with a 2005 account, might otherwise be a "Legendary" member if he had behaved well for the past year. Perhaps he had a severe ban about a year ago that had previously reduced him to regular "Member" status, and that ban was removed from his Trust Rating because it is now old. Maybe now, the only ban on his account is the relatively mild one that occurred about two months ago. Therefore, with the older, more severe ban gone, the Trust System now bumps him back up to the "Legendary" title, and then immediately reduces his title by one rank due to his more recent, less severe ban. To us, it appears to be a promotion, when it is actually a demotion. Get what I mean? Or maybe I have no idea at all how the system works :-D [Edited on 02.04.2008 1:45 PM PST]
-
when was that member banned? Back before the trust system started collecting data?
-
That makes sense Foman, except for one little thing. He has had many bans,enough that I'm surprised his account hasn't been blacklisted yet. Your theory only accounts for a previous major one and the recent one I mentioned. I wish I could give you a more concrete number to work with, but I cannot contact him in any way right now.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 when was that member banned? Back before the trust system started collecting data?[/quote]He did have some while the trust system was collecting data. As I said in my previous post, I cannot get any exact numbers at the moment.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 when was that member banned? Back before the trust system started collecting data?[/quote]That wouldn't matter right? If it does I don't know how we'd have Mythic members so early.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SK CRISIS [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 when was that member banned? Back before the trust system started collecting data?[/quote]That wouldn't matter right? If it does I don't know how we'd have Mythic members so early.[/quote] Since I don't know what data is used or how it is weighted, there isn't a clear answer. But if someone were banned and the ban expired all prior to the the implementation of the history tracking system, the negative effect (if any, I recall hearing that it lessens over time) could not be applied to an account. But other potential data (such as the join date) is never "lost" so it would consistently be seen, applied and calculated according to whatever formula the system uses. There are other potential variables, differences between accounts, all of which may or may not feed into the trust system at an unknown weight..... comparing two examples would only work if they were identical except for a single feature. Then that features influence would be known, but not how it interacts or is countered calculated against other factors. This system is unlikely to be black boxed if it has more than 3-5 influences. Because it would be too difficult to come up with test subjects and conclusively say, this is the only way they differ and it has the following effect.
-
Without the actual username, it is impossible to tell. But ranks are assigned based on where your trust rating falls within the range of possible trust ratings for that day. Bans affect trust by applying a negative influence for a period of time after the ban takes place. The amount of that influence and the length of it are directly proportional to the severity (length) of the ban. So, basically, if he got a few short bans, it is easily possible for you to get back into positive status after a sufficient amount of time. But, again, without the login name of the account, I can't do anything other than speculate.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SK CRISIS [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Recon Number 54 when was that member banned? Back before the trust system started collecting data?[/quote]That wouldn't matter right? If it does I don't know how we'd have Mythic members so early.[/quote] All information regarding disciplinary etc, etc was lost when Bungie.net migrated to the New, new hotness, the one prior to the one prior to the one prior to this. Any bans and warnings accumulated before one year ago, and likely more recent than that, have been lost to the sands of time. We have Mythic members, Legendary and Heroic as well, because join dates and post counts were maintained, while the previously mentioned records were lost.
-
Wait, so my ban that was a couple days before the new layout (I am not adding whatever hotness it was, the one when groups went down was it.) wouldn't count against me? Edited for stupidity. [Edited on 02.04.2008 2:09 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos Without the actual username, it is impossible to tell. But ranks are assigned based on where your trust rating falls within the range of possible trust ratings for that day. Bans affect trust by applying a negative influence for a period of time after the ban takes place. The amount of that influence and the length of it are directly proportional to the severity (length) of the ban. So, basically, if he got a few short bans, it is easily possible for you to get back into positive status after a sufficient amount of time. But, again, without the login name of the account, I can't do anything other than speculate.[/quote] [url=http://www.bungie.net/Account/Profile.aspx?memberID=1290073]This[/url] is the account I am speaking of.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos So, basically, if he got a few short bans, it is easily possible for you to get back into positive status after a sufficient amount of time. But, again, without the login name of the account, I can't do anything other than speculate.[/quote] Assuming that the effect of bans last longer than the bans themselves, how do the effects add up? Let's say, Johnny -blam!- trolls a bit, receives a three day, ten days after coming back, he receives a seven day-er. For examples sake, suppose a ban causes ten times the length of negative effects as the bans themselves. Since the first ban's effect hadn't expired yet, is the subsequent effect of the second ban added to the original thirty days, for a total of 100 days of justly received negative stats, or does it start on the issue date, for a total of eighty days (twenty days of overlap) with double+ the amount of negative effect during that overlap period? Just curious.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Master Chef Wait, so my ban that was a couple days before the new layout (I am not adding whatever hotness it was, the one when groups went down was it.) wouldn't count against me? Edited for stupidity.[/quote] I believe that's correct. The update that was in early/mid-2007, where we lost that techno-navi-bar thing, took all ban and warning records with it. [Edited on 02.04.2008 2:13 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] prometheus25 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Master Chef Wait, so my ban that was a couple days before the new layout (I am not adding whatever hotness it was, the one when groups went down was it.) wouldn't count against me? Edited for stupidity.[/quote] I believe that's correct. The update that was in early/mid-2007, where we lost that techno-navi-bar thing, took all ban and warning records with it.[/quote] I'd need official word on it, since I find this all very strange especially since I'd never heard of lost information such as that during the transition. I'm more curious than anything.
-
So the new hotness 2.0?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Master Chef [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] prometheus25 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Master Chef Wait, so my ban that was a couple days before the new layout (I am not adding whatever hotness it was, the one when groups went down was it.) wouldn't count against me? Edited for stupidity.[/quote] I believe that's correct. The update that was in early/mid-2007, where we lost that techno-navi-bar thing, took all ban and warning records with it.[/quote] I'd need official word on it, since I find this all very strange especially since I'd never heard of lost information such as that during the transition. I'm more curious than anything.[/quote] I gathered that from talking to one of the Mods. The Moderators have access to each member's "career record," which shows, among other things, the warnings and bans members have received. I had asked what I had against me (which should have been, admittedly, something I'm not particularly proud of), but was told that all bans prior to the update couldn't be seen as they weren't recorded with the same system, if recorded at all. Now, unless he's lying to me or there are some other resources available to [i]'chronos[/i], no records there mean no records for the trust system, so anything prior is, often regrettably, not able to be taken into consideration for Member rankings.
-
I don't think we should be poking for answers on how exactly the member title system works. Think about it, we could be killed if we find out too much! We wont, but it's not likely that we'll get a solid grasp of how it works other than "Be a good member and we'll see what happens." Or something similar.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos Without the actual username, it is impossible to tell. But ranks are assigned based on where your trust rating falls within the range of possible trust ratings for that day. Bans affect trust by applying a negative influence for a period of time after the ban takes place. The amount of that influence and the length of it are directly proportional to the severity (length) of the ban. So, basically, if he got a few short bans, it is easily possible for you to get back into positive status after a sufficient amount of time. But, again, without the login name of the account, I can't do anything other than speculate.[/quote]That makes sense... I'm glad I was pretty much on the right track before. Beyond that, I don't think it's a good idea for us users to speculate on the inner workings of the trust system -- if people are able to figure it out, there will be inevitable attempts to "game" the system. The basic rule of "behave and stick around" in order to gain member titles is good enough for me. [Edited on 02.04.2008 2:24 PM PST]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CorvetteHalo3 So the new hotness 2.0?[/quote] From my understanding, anything before or during [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20051231225033/http://www.bungie.net/]this[/url] build was lost to some degree or another.
-
Okay so everything from the March 2007 update and on isn't lost.
-
So. Can I ask why a dear member of mine has ranked up to a Heroic member while being ON a ban?
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] l0calh0st So. Can I ask why a dear member of mine has ranked up to a Heroic member while being ON a ban?[/quote] o.O Now I'm lost again.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] l0calh0st So. Can I ask why a dear member of mine has ranked up to a Heroic member while being ON a ban?[/quote]The potential reasoning follows the same logic as above. If the current ban is not very severe, and an older, more severe ban has become too old and dropped out of consideration by the trust rating system, then the user will appear to gain a member title even while being punished.
-
I've been a plain member forever. What is going on here?
