can someone explain to me why ip ban never works.

[Netherlord]

Anyone?

[Adriano Faria]

Because the banned user probably uses dynamic IP address.

[Netherlord]

Because the banned user probably uses dynamic IP address.

No what i meant is if i ban the ip 123.123.123.123. They can still access the site. Its as if they were never banned at all. They can still post. It just does nothing. And they have the same ip.

Does a task exist for this. does it take time to go into effect?

[Adriano Faria]

If you ban an IP and the user still access the board and post, then you have a bug on your install.

Submit a ticket support on Client Area.

[3DKiwi]

Works for me as I get banned users complaining that they can't access my forums. Ditto, submit a support ticket.

[Netherlord]

Works for me as I get banned users complaining that they can't access my forums. Ditto, submit a support ticket.

meh. Banned 9 ip's in last 20 minutes. 2 of them stuck. 7 did nothing. Grahhh will ask support tomorrow. Dont have the time now.

[Netherlord]

Ok one more piece of info if anyone know how to fix it. IF member is logged in ip ban works. If they are a guest ip ban does not work.

Is this a caching issue?

[Daniel F]

Are they now able to post or not? You've said that they are:D

No what i meant is if i ban the ip 123.123.123.123. They can still access the site. Its as if they were never banned at all. They can still post. It just does nothing. And they have the same ip.

 

It is because of the cache. The cached page will be returned to guests, before the ban check happens.

[Netherlord]

Are they now able to post or not? You've said that they are:D

 

It is because of the cache. The cached page will be returned to guests, before the ban check happens.

It seems hit and miss with guest ip bans. Work if your logged in with that ip but can take forever if your a guest. And since i have users being a bunch of ***** i kinda need the bans to be instant. Since they just spam the forum with abuse over and over and all i can do to stop them is delete it as it comes.

What setting would i change regarding caching to make this instant? I have "Cache page output for guests" Disabled btw.

[opentype]

Do you allow guests to make posts? Than that is probably your problem. 

From what I hear this seems to work as intended. Anything that is available to guests, is fully public. The software doesn’t care if it’s a real user who is currently not logged in, a Google crawler, a spam bot or whatever. As long as it’s available for guests, anyone can access it. If you ban someone, you don’t ban him from viewing the public content, but from being active as member, i.e. making posts, writing messages and so on. 

[Netherlord]

Do you allow guests to make posts? Than that is probably your problem. 

From what I hear this seems to work as intended. Anything that is available to guests, is fully public. The software doesn’t care if it’s a real user who is currently not logged in, a Google crawler, a spam bot or whatever. As long as it’s available for guests, anyone can access it. If you ban someone, you don’t ban him from viewing the public content, but from being active as member, i.e. making posts, writing messages and so on. 

Yes i allow guests to post. 

But if a guest is being abusive i cant stop him from doing so on IP.Board? I cant close guest posting because its the majority of my userbase due to the niche. But ip bans still allow guests to post even if the ip is banned. So i guess im screwed. Wow! This is disappointing.

Sounds like a major design flaw for anyone that wants to run an open community with guest posting.

[opentype]

Yes i allow guests to post. 

But if a guest is being abusive i cant stop him from doing so on IP.Board?

You can, but the IP alone is not a good measure for that. If you allow guests to post, then require post moderation first. If you don’t want that additional work, require registration first. It’s just good practice …

An IP address is a terribly unreliable way to stop misuse. If people hit an IP ban, they will just switch their IP in seconds and continue to “attack” you with new IPs over and over again. If you want to keep such users out, you need to crank up your requirements for posting. The IPS software can’t really help you there. 

[Netherlord]

You can, but the IP alone is not a good measure for that. If you allow guests to post, then require post moderation first. If you don’t want that additional work, require registration first. It’s just good practice …

An IP address is a terribly unreliable way to stop misuse. If people hit an IP ban, they will just switch their IP in seconds and continue to “attack” you with new IPs over and over again. If you want to keep such users out, you need to crank up your requirements for posting. The IPS software can’t really help you there. 

In which case i would then lose 50%-70% of my userbase since they are not the type to make accounts. Being conspiracy theorists. Tried this twice before over the years and it killed my other site. It kept the idiots out. But people saw no guest posting complained and left. I dont wish to have to do that again but if i must. I guess i have no choice.

I just thought ip bans to keep the idiots away without annoying the rest of the userbase, Afterall abusive people will just continue to make more accounts. Its not exactly hard. for them. Get banned, Back in 30 seconds on a new account.

Its more a battle of who gets bored first. And ip bans seem to work best for that.

[opentype]

In which case i would then lose 50%-70% of my userbase since they are not the type to make accounts. Being conspiracy theorists.

I see. I will put you on my ignore list now and stop helping you. I run websites to educate people and won’t help people who spread lies. 

[Netherlord]

I see. I will put you on my ignore list now and stop helping you. I run websites to educate people and won’t help people who spread lies. 

Childish but ok.

[Vikestart]

I see. I will put you on my ignore list now and stop helping you. I run websites to educate people and won’t help people who spread lies. 

Regardless of your standpoint, personal attacks are unncessary....  Did you really need to announce that you put someone on your ignore list?

[opentype]

Regardless of your standpoint, personal attacks are unncessary....  

I did not make personal attacks and therefore I don’t like being wrongfully accused this way. 

Did you really need to announce that you put someone on your ignore list?

I didn’t need to, but I wanted to. Just as you wanted to comment my comment. ;-)

[Vikestart]

I did not make personal attacks and therefore I don’t like being wrongfully accused this way. 

I didn’t need to, but I wanted to. Just as you wanted to comment my comment. ;-)

Yes, you did. You called this person a liar and then went on to point fingers by announcing this addition to your ignore list.

Aside from that, you also derailed the topic of this thread with a completely unnecessary and rude reply.

It's fine that you don't like conspiracy theorists, but they have the same right to freedom of speech as you. You should respect that, and that people have different opinions. Moreover, it was completely irrelevant to the topic here, but you decided to take it to a personal level instead.

[3DKiwi]

Personally I think if you allow guests to posts you're going to run into problems. If they won't create an account to post then they aren't worth having as a member. Not exactly hard or that time consuming to create an account on an IPB powered site.

[opentype]

 

Yes, you did. You called this person a liar and then went on to point fingers by announcing this addition to your ignore list.

Aside from that, you also derailed the topic of this thread with a completely unnecessary and rude reply.

It's fine that you don't like conspiracy theorists, but they have the same right to freedom of speech as you. You should respect that, and that people have different opinions. Moreover, it was completely irrelevant to the topic here, but you decided to take it to a personal level instead.

Wow, what a pile of false accusations and statements, I don’t even know where to start. But I try to break this down for you …

 

you also derailed the topic

No, I did not. I took part in this discussion and explained in a simple and short sentence why I will not continue to help this specific user. That’s it. It could have stopped there. But it was then YOU who provoked further discussion by a) making false accusations  and b) asking me an off-topic question. YOU ask me an off-topic question and then complain that I answer it‽ Are you serious? 

 You called this person a liar

This is what is called a straw man argument. You completely misrepresent what I am saying and then you attack this misrepresented version to discredit me as a result. It's really dishonest. I did not make a personal attack and I did not call the user a liar. My post is still there. Read it yourself. Read it again if you didn’t get it the first time.

If you still don’t get it, here is the meaning broken down to its two aspects:

• I made the implied statement that conspiracy theory sites spread lies. That is a factual statement. It can be checked out and proven or disproven. There is no personal attack in there. It’s a general factual statement. 
• I declared that I don’t intent to help people who run such sites. That is a personal statement about ME, and me alone. Again, there is no attack on anyone specifically in there. It’s a statement purely about my personal choices and principles. 

You went from “person A wont help person B with running a website, where content will be published, which person A thinks will contain lies” to “person A calls person B a liar”. Do you get the difference? Can you see how you put words in my mouth which I did not say at all? Do you get that this is dishonest? Do you get that this is wrong?

 

It's fine that you don't like conspiracy theorists, but they have the same right to freedom of speech as you. You should respect that, and that people have different opinions.

Yet another straw man. This time you did not misrepresent me, you completely pulled the straw man out of thin air. I did not made any statements about freedom of speech, not even the slightest suggestions. Yet, you want to lecture me about what I should respect (implying I probably don’t respect it yet), without even knowing what I think about the subject (freedom of speech). 
(By the way: A conspiracy theory is either right or wrong. It’s a matter of fact and not subject to personal opinions. And if something specific is factually wrong, then no, I don’t have to “respect” other opinions about it, because they are simply wrong. But that’s another story …) 

 

P.S. I don’t take such things lightly. I am here in a public forum, in contrast to you with my real (abbreviated) name and my real profile picture. Anything I say here is public and can be saved forever and be connected to me as a person. That’s why I choose my words very carefully and can usually stand by them. But just as don’t like “spreading lies”, I cannot accept all your false accusations in public. If you are not sure what I meant, ask me! It’s simple. But don’t misrepresent me to discredit me. That’s equally bad as spreading lies. 

[Gary_J_Wright]

Ding DING Guys! Getting off topic ..... Lets just drop it and not turn it into a playground battle of he said -she said.