Yes, I think it's necessary. That way you don't have to wonder if someone's still going to be able to scam/spam/farm or if they're gone. Obviously it'll only apply to their one account or possibly an IP ban but still, it's necessary!

Yes,  yes, yes.  Do something.   Anything!  I'd be all for bringing the old SCAMMER tag back, but I'm sure that's not going to happen.

I can't find it at this time as I've also seen it quoted by someone else not long ago. There is some discussion here.

Most likely for all banned accounts (including temporary and permanent), yes. Theymos has some concerns for both temporary and permanent bans (although less for the latter) which I do not necessarily need to specify here. However, if there is sufficient demand, backed up by decent reasoning, I'm almost positive that it could be a thing of the *near* future.

A btctalk staff/mod note on the signature will work also ( not just blank ). So, people would not guess if this users are already banned or not.
As for the current ban system, I wouldn't be surprise if another user mistakenly pm'ed an already banned user.

It won't because the tag was manually updated by admins, and with the amount of scam accusations occuring, and half of them not having solid proof, it would be a huge hassle of theymos/others' time. Getting a team to do it would also be a waste.

---

Is it? I just went to the log, and while I'm sure bans are rare, all I see on modlog (with a HTML title of deletion log) is nuking, post/threads being deleted and auto bans.

I think you should make a poll instead of making us to reply in this thread.

Anyway, This a very good idea. +1

I'm also a big fan of both the "banned" and "temp banned" status. It would make it a lot easyer for allmost everyone (with the possible exeption of the person being banned in the first place).

If you have an ongoing business deal and your partner stops replying => check his status, if it's "temp banned" you at least know why he/she doesn't respond.
If you run a sig campaign, you can filter out the banned users in a heartbeat.
...

I know with the new forum software around the corner, chances are slim of this being applied to the current SMF tough, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a nice to have feature (imho)

I think BadBear's argument against it was just along the lines of why does anybody else need to know? I don't think showing that users are banned is a bad thing. Showing only users that are perma banned won't help much though. I think there needs to be more punishment or negative consequences to being banned especially for spam. If you are banned currently the worst that happens is you don't post for a week or two and resume activities after. At least if people are essentially publicly marked as banned it will be a shameful thing to be tarnished with so people might put more effort into avoiding this. If it has consequences for their ability to join a signature campaign this would also help.

Then it's largely pointless. Not sure how the couple of people who are trying to find account farmers or spammers will benefit greatly from it. If an account is perma banned what does it matter to them?