Suggestion: allow users to appeal bans

Fighting Irish

I frequent a different site that runs the same software as boards and on that site each user is givin their ban, for example a ban of 2 weeks is givin and when that is up the user is automatically unbanned. How come on boards the mod has to unban the user? Is that not putting more work on the mods?

Hobbes

As I understand it the appeals process is as such...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30
or
Admins.
or
Prison.

Smods ban across a spectrum of boards in one go and if your banned in that format odds on your just waiting to be banned forever. If it is in err the moderator of a particular forum will unban you but they will check up to see why you were banned to begin with.

Nearly all bans relate to not reading the charter, or ignoring the charter. All permanent bans are generally based on history in said forum. Odds on when someone comes on here screaming "why was I banned" it is because of that. They tend not to see beyond thier last post.

Incidently, if your banned you really should use the helpdesk (I will stop putting feedback in my PM from now on). Only admins can respond in there afair. In feedback your basically open to a "peoples court" where no one has any real power but you will get a textual kicking by the bystanders.

WhiteWashMan

well, contrary to popular belief, its not against some unwritten law that you cant question a ban.

people question me all the time. but i have started copying and pasting what they said to get them banned, so they see immediately why they have been banned.

some people still complain, and i tell them i understand their point, and sometimes i agree with it, but the fact is that whatever they did was unacceptable.
and 99 times out of 100 thats it. they get reinstated a week later, no one cares, no ones hurt.

except some bloke who is currently stalking me, but thats another matter.

the point is, that most bans can be sorted out via PM discussion.
yes, sometimes mods are averly abusive and abrasive, but you know what, sometimes we have bad days too.
and i apologise on behalf of all my brothers and sisters for that.

but if you read the rozie thread where she says that she only gets scathing becuase thats how shes treated, then the same goes for mods. occassionally i ahve been known to get a bit snippity at people who continue to be abusive, or just refuse to read what is written.

we all make mistakes, but usually, we corret them and we are all happy. some epeople complain on here. sometimes we get over it, sometimes we go down the spiral of rubbish talk.

but mostly it means we dont need to change anything.

i mean, its not as if we are marching users in chains up to a judge before we cut thier fingers off! a weeks ban does not contitute a compelling event to change something that works, has been in place for 8 years, and that we all understand.

Time Magazine

Timely. I expect this topic might have been discussed on Mods so maybe I'm missing out on something but I'll post it anyway.

On Saturday night I was talking to a mod of the TCD forum, Crash_000. I'm currently in the middle of exams (and thus shouldn't be posting, but you know the way it is) and I had a particularly important and difficult one on Monday morning. I'm a sucker for boards, and I knew I'd come posting for some reason on the Sunday when I really needed to be studying.

To that end I decided the only way I would avoid boards was that if I was banned. I couldn't post, and given I have cookies saved on my computer at home I'd have to sign-out and then go through the whole niggly thing of deleting cookies to get them to work again I couldn't really read the board either. (I now realise pie.boards.ie doesn't access those cookies.)

So I asked Crash what would warrant a one day ban and said I'd go out with a bit of style (read humour). I was told to not make it too offensive; fair enough. Barry Aldwell suggested I'd say Crash was having an affair with.... Barry Aldwell. New-found doubts about our Barry's sexuality temporaily put aside, I thought it'd be less disturbing to suggest the same of Cillit Bang's own Barry Scott. (My old favourite). Crash himself then suggested to say he's shagging the rule-enforcer in college, something that could start a rumour. Grand so.

So I posted, explained that I was going to go out in style but be back on Monday after the exam to say how it went, made the comment and was promptly banned. There were a couple of silly jokes, including a photo being posted up, and then all of them were deleted, no harm done. I presume they were deleted just in case herself stumbled upon boards wasn't too impressed and thus the assumption it's been discussed on Mods.

About 30 seconds after the comment appears on boards, Nietzschean (another TCD mods) wakens in the chatroom and says "So that's a 2-week ban then Crash?". Crash agreed. I thought they were joking, so I said goodnight and left. [Just for the record I'm paraphrasing all this - I'm in college so don't have the exact logs on me].

So anywho I sign into boards on Monday afternoon and I'm still banned. Fair enough, probably forgot, so I send Neil a PM. I check back at 8:36pm and Crash_000 is on boards. I send him a text. At 8:36pm he replies "I'm in USI - i have feck all access [to the web]". The same minute he also posts on boards, on the very thread that the comment was made, clearing up any (presumably potentially dangerous) posts. The penny drops.

Knowing fine well that there's a bit of a joke going on I didn't rant and bitch and moan. I let it go on. I've sent a PM and a text at this stage, neither of which were anyway rude etc. so I thought this is a good test-case as if the moderation is fair. Previously I've had trouble before with the TCD board, and I was wondering if/when this would sort itself out. I was given a one day ban for "annoying me [the mod] - and that's like rule number one" before, and also got a two-weeker for a comment that was deemed offensive. The latter was removed after a day upon condition of saying sorry to the subject of the joke, who then told me in real life that he knew it was a joke and wasn't offended. That said, maybe he was being polite. But anyway, the point was I wanted to see how the modding panned out. I had a bit of a suspicion that it was a little bit more than just a joke given that I don't get on well with Nietschean.

Today's Tuesday, and I was still banned. After another mod, who I get on well with, mentions that "You can unban enda now though I think (should he want to be unbanned)".

The responses were:

Crash_000 wrote:

eh, i've been telling enda i didnt have any web access

and

Nietzschean wrote:

i thought we decided a 2 week ban?

Now I get on well with Crash, and I've successfully avoided Nietzschean for the last six months or whatever so I've no massive problem with this and I'm not complaining, not least because I know nothing will be done. Hell, the ban might even have been in my interest if I got some study done.

It was a little thing. But it shows something bigger. It shows that mods do act, well, "improperly" and had I not known the other mod in real life he perhaps would not have commented on it. Could it have ended up being a two-week ban? Well yeah, it could have. And even if not, it would take a good 24 hours to get sufficient Smod/Admin/Feedback approval and that's usually having given the mod 24/48 hours to reply to a message. As I said, I get on with Crash in real life so I don't think it's a major problem, but it shows a bit of a flaw in the system. If I didn't get on with Crash, he could have easily pulled it on me.

And how does this relate to the OP? Well, to quote WWM's "can you go back and put up links to all the threads where people have been banned without good reason". I was banned for a good reason - I bloody requested it. But I didn't ask to be banned up until about 2pm today. Just because they're weren't overturned doesn't mean they shouldn't have been, it's not worth anyone's while fighting a one-day ban. But I could have posted this six hours ago, for example, and I think it would have been upheld (albeit I assume Crash/Nietszchean would say "ah would you take a joke", which, as it happens, could be a defence for anything).

I think the point I'm trying to get across is that the indifference in moderation varies. Had I posted the comment up without consent I would have deserved (let's say) a one-week ban. Therefore it would have been harsh to get (let's say) a two weeker, but it still would not seem poor form by the mods. I think (non-idiotic, non-trolling) people who complain on feedback try to argue this, albeit with about as much grace as Noel Ahern on Questions and Answers last night. I'm sure there are cases where people got sitebanned when, say a three-month ban would have had them scared sh*tless enough to hardly ever post again nevermind break the rules.

To the OP, I don't think the appeals thing would work because it would be a bit bureaucratic for a non-professional setup and would be as prone to unfairly upholding appeals as mods are to unfairly ban. I think there are unfair bans, but the system works well. Of course there are errors, quite a few, but the system is a good best-fit equilibrium between admins/mods and posters. I think maybe what would suit the "appeals process" better is if there was a ban on the jokes and realised that mods can subtly overstep the mark but still remain comfortably innocuous, as above. Although the ban on the responses like "I'm not joking. I really like pie." might be too much of a loss .

PS How long until I'm called "the one who went moaning on Feedback about a joke"?! This fact in itself shows a problem.

Zaph0d

WhiteWashMan wrote:

do you think that boards.ie is unfair?

On the contrary, I think it is mostly very fair.

why do you feel that a fair forum is a good thing?

Unjust places are unpleasant places to be.

fairer isnt really a benefit, and it is subjective at best. after all, my idea of fairer is vastly different to yours.

This is why I referred to the principles of Natural Justice which are very widely accepted in this part of the world. The basic idea is that you treat people in the same manner that you would like them to treat you. These principles are used to establish judicial systems in everything from sports associations to colleges and workplaces- communities of all kinds. It makes no sense to have to appeal a decision to the person who made the decision in the first place - no more than the police should be allowed to try the people they arrest.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

why dont you go back and count the number of threads that complain about bans over the last 5 years.

In the past year there were 59 threads in Feedback including the word 'Banned' in the title. In the previous year there were 23 such threads. This is much lower than I had imagined but still shows a pretty clear trend.

WhiteWashMan

listen, when someone puts up an objection, you actually have to answer them, not just put up things like 'Unjust places are unpleasant places to be'

ive answered every single point you have made, and ive explained why ive given that answer.

the least you can do is answer my objections.

i can do a search on subjects with the word banned in the subject. it means nothing.
youre trying to implement something that isnt needed.

you have failed to provide any evidence that its needed. youve failed to answer any objections as to why it would improve boards.ie,and you have failed to get buy in from a single person.

with regards to angry banana, whatever plot you cooked up with the mods of the forum and then backfired, is hardly an issue about unfair banning.

it may be an issue with regards to poor communications, the mods playing silly buggers, or just being ignorant, but you were banned on your own request.

oscarBravo

Fighting Irish wrote:

How about only banning people for breaking the rules?

If a rule isn't broken then they can't be banned, most "why am i banned" threads happen because the user pisses off a mod but hasn't actually broke any rules so the user comes to feedback.......

Oh FFS.

STFU!!!

Boston

Zaph0d wrote:

In the past year there were 59 threads in Feedback including the word 'Banned' in the title. In the previous year there were 23 such threads. This is much lower than I had imagined but still shows a pretty clear trend.

And how many more users are there now, as apposed to a year ago? In the time I've been here (like four years) the number of users have gone from 2000 to what it is today. Don't twist things.

Angry banananam It's a sad day when we realise moderators are people to. Their not perfect, and they won't treat every situation the same.

seamus

Fighting Irish wrote:

If a rule isn't broken then they can't be banned, most "why am i banned" threads happen because the user pisses off a mod but hasn't actually broke any rules so the user comes to feedback.......

Point out one thread in the last six months on Feedback where a user was banned without breaking any rules, or without cause. You're not allowed to post any threads which you have posted in.

casanova_kid

It will just end up like the real legal system then, people getting off on stupid technical loopholes. Oh how i miss the third reich.

aidan_walsh

...

Wtf!?!

Hobbes

Angry Banana wrote:

...

Maybe next time you will just PM an admin or Smod to ban you for a set time. If an Smod or admin had seen your post might of got the wrong end of the stick and banned you for good. Its all fun and games until you put someones eye out and all that.

As for removing posts. Moderators as a general rule are not supposed to modify other peoples posts. They delete or copy/delete and modify. So that admins can read them, although its likely admins can read even if its been wiped up to a point. Although its not an enforced rule.

Fighting Irish

oscarBravo wrote:

Oh FFS.

STFU!!!

Suggest something and get flamed :eek:


That shows we need a proper feedback where mods will stay calm and listen to users even if they are wrong

Fighting Irish

seamus wrote:

Point out one thread in the last six months on Feedback where a user was banned without breaking any rules, or without cause. You're not allowed to post any threads which you have posted in.

You think im gonna go through all the locked threads and find out if any dodgy bans were givin out?

I mean rules as in charter rules btw

seamus wrote:

You're not allowed to post any threads which you have posted in.

Why? Because it happened to me, and you know i couldn't be arsed looking for anyone else that it happened to?

God i love Feedback

Even if you guys don't like me i never abuse flame people, i just try get my point across, unlike some mods around here who never listen and just flame(not you seamus :cool: )

WhiteWashMan

Fighting Irish wrote:

Even if you guys don't like me i never abuse flame people, i just try get my point across, unlike some mods around here who never listen and just flame(not you seamus :cool: )

Fighting Irish wrote:

How about only banning people for breaking the rules?

If a rule isn't broken then they can't be banned, most "why am i banned" threads happen because the user pisses off a mod but hasn't actually broke any rules so the user comes to feedback.......

was that your point?

and yet, it couldnt be, becuase....

Fighting Irish wrote:

You think im gonna go through all the locked threads and find out if any dodgy bans were givin out?

i mean, if you cant back up your point, you cant really be making any point.

in fact you never make any points. you just píss and moan. didnt we cover this in a nother recent thread?

Fighting Irish wrote:

God i love Feedback

youre dull now. bring a new shiney complaint to the party will you. this one has become old and worn.

WhiteWashMan

Fighting Irish wrote:

Suggest something and get flamed :eek:


That shows we need a proper feedback where mods will stay calm and listen to users even if they are wrong

you havent suggested anything that isnt already done.

Time Magazine

Hobbes wrote:

Maybe next time you will just PM an admin or Smod to ban you for a set time. If an Smod or admin had seen your post might of got the wrong end of the stick and banned you for good. Its all fun and games until you put someones eye out and all that.

. I would have just pm'd an Smod, but I was just being playful and thus why I went to the mod in advance etc. Like I said I'm not complaining, I'm just using this as a case where mods could and probably do (not did, I reckon Crash did it light-heartedly) overstep the mark.

Boston wrote:

Mods are people too

Yep I know, see above, I'm just suggesting that this be taken into account! Humans can be subtle.

WWM wrote:

with regards to angry banana, whatever plot you cooked up with the mods of the forum and then backfired, is hardly an issue about unfair banning.

it may be an issue with regards to poor communications, the mods playing silly buggers, or just being ignorant, but you were banned on your own request.

I think you picked me up wrong, so maybe my point wasn't clear. I was using this to show an example (which has a bit of empirical backing as opposed to a purely theoretical case that could be scoffed at) that mods could, just as you said, be silly buggers or ignorant.

I wasn't trying, explicitly or implicitly, to suggest unfair banning .

Fighting Irish wrote:

You think im gonna go through all the locked threads and find out if any dodgy bans were givin out?

No, but if you're suggesting that things are so rife at least provide a couple of examples that are acceptable to you, to the mods, and to the impartial user. The fact that you're not willing to search through a few posts but are willing to post a lot on this forum doesn't help your case man.

Boston

FFS Fighting fish, Go do a search for Gladiator & Boston to see how you actually go about fighting the powers.

Zaph0d

LiouVille wrote:

Zaph0d wrote:

In the past year there were 59 threads in Feedback including the word 'Banned' in the title. In the previous year there were 23 such threads. This is much lower than I had imagined but still shows a pretty clear trend.

And how many more users are there now, as apposed to a year ago? In the time I've been here (like four years) the number of users have gone from 2000 to what it is today. Don't twist things.

Sorry, I didn't mean to twist things. Rather I meant to say that the increase in threads complaining about banning has matched the increase in users and is likely to do so in the future.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

the least you can do is answer my objections.

I thought I had! I didn't answer any points I thought were rhetorical, nonsensical, or that I just didn't understand. If you want to point out any objections I missed I'd be happy to answer them.

Zaph0d

For comparison, here is the Wikipedia policy on banning and blocking. Wikipedia has a higher number of active users than boards.ie and could not deal with all bannings via one admin.

amp

A whole thread dedicated to a problem we don't have. I wub Feedback.

Victor

I propose a 25 euro administration fee for appealing bans, refundable if successful.

amp

Hobbes wrote:

Its all fun and games until you put someones eye out and all that.

And then it's a new game called "Find the eye!"*





*DeVore thought of this first.

WhiteWashMan

Zaph0d wrote:

If you want to point out any objections I missed I'd be happy to answer them.

read amps last reply.

i think he says it in about 1000 lines less than i have.

Rozie

Better suggestion:

Don't ban so much.

I'm aware that there aren' a lot of bans set compared with some forums but the ones that are(I'm not just talking about the 2 or 3 I've gotten) are usually silly.

Intelligent moderators solve problems using their brains instead of their ban.

I think it would be good if moderators tried to diffuse a situation instead of just shouting threats and banning people. Actually gettng involved in the arguments in an unbiased manner and helping both sides to reach a resolution would be, well, the intelligent thing to do.

Of course, that might mean you need new moderators.

Isn't that what moderators were originally meant to do?

I know most people hate me but I can help solve arguments as much as I can add fuel to them. I'd love to give it a try and prove to people I can fix things as well as break them, and that I don't complain entirely without knowing some form of solution. I wouldn't need any privs or anything but I would like mods to take notice and make sure I don't entirely get swamped if I were to try this. I'm only ever angry if I'm personally involved. I don't have a lot of free time lately but I'd still be willing to give it if I think it could improve the boards.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

Zaph0d wrote:

These threads then follow a pattern of aggressive and dismissive replies from other mods and sycophants, trolling of the OP, defensive comments from the mod responsible for the ban and a descent into in-jokes and nonsense. Predictable clutter that makes boards feel like an unfair place.

Very much llike this thread, sadly. Same old usernames, same old excuses, same old jokes. It's pathetic. The fact that these people are unable to perceive their own predictability makes it all the more pathetic. I'd provide some kind of award for the first person to break the mould, but what would be the point? They're incapable.

Rozie

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't want to get into the last part but I didn't ask to be a moderator(read the part where i mention privs). I said that if you had people to go into arguments and try to diffuse them so moderators wouldn't have to "remove" people it would be great. I was just asking the mods to take note of what I was doing and for some official recogntion of what I was doing if it actually turned out I was good at it.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

WhiteWashMan

Ken Shabby wrote:

Very much llike this thread, sadly. Same old usernames, same old excuses, same old jokes. It's pathetic. The fact that these people are unable to perceive their own predictability makes it all the more pathetic. I'd provide some kind of award for the first person to break the mould, but what would be the point? They're incapable.

if you have answers to anything that has been said here, then feel free to actually add to the conversation instead of some píss ant piece of remark passing for the sake of it.

their own predicatability?

come on, did you just read a dictionary? if you have something to say, then say it, but trying to sound intelligent (and failing) just makes you sound, well, stupid.