Ban Process - the big debate!

Goodshape

ned78 wrote:

This thread is slowly moving away from the original post. What I had intended was for the ordinary users of boards to look at my suggestions, critique the process I laid out, and hopefully come up with a concise, and fair list we could present to the site owners.

Instead, it's become a soap box for Mods. Each Mod with a few exceptions on this thread has posted with - I do this, I don't do that, I don't bother with PMs, etc. This doesn't exactly paint you in a shining light. If I was a Mod at this point, I would be thinking "What's best for boards in the public's eyes?", not "What's best for boards, but easiest for me?".

How do you type with your hands over your eyes like that?

Owen

oscarBravo wrote:

For a troll who wades into the forum and ridicules all the serious participants: instant ban, no PM. I've done this on Archery, for example.

That's disgraceful, and you seem proud of it. Troll or not, you should act professionally. You've been given a job to do, so do it. You should have PM'd the individual involved, and told them what not to do.

I don't seem to remember getting an eMail when I registered with boards telling me to read the Charter in each forum before I post. Perhaps newbies don't understand the rules fully, and as a consequence, rather than educating them on their mistake, you choose the heavy handed route, and ban them, leaving them bitter.

There are better ways!

oscarBravo

CiaranC wrote:

:rolleyes:

Well, I guess that's me told.

oscarBravo

ned78 wrote:

That's disgraceful, and you seem proud of it. Troll or not, you should act professionally. You've been given a job to do, so do it. You should have PM'd the individual involved, and told them what not to do.

Professional? Job? You seem to misunderstand the relationhship.

Allow me to quote a couple of the thread titles that I deleted this evening from Politics: "Why <a moderator> is a fat Twat"; "Why did <another moderator> shag a sheep?". Are you really suggesting I should have sent a PM politely pointing out that these threads are in contravention of the Politics charter?

ned78 wrote:

I don't seem to remember getting an eMail when I registered with boards telling me to read the Charter in each forum before I post. Perhaps newbies don't understand the rules fully, and as a consequence, rather than educating them on their mistake, you choose the heavy handed route, and ban them, leaving them bitter.

I've been here since 2001, and - to the best of my recollection - I've never been banned from a forum. It's really not that hard to read the thread that says ***READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!!*** at the top of each forum.

Talliesin

Sorry, but if someone comes along and causes difficulties for the users then they owe boards.ie, boards.ie doesn't owe them

You aren't being professional either, so STFU.

Owen

oscarBravo wrote:

Professional? Job? You seem to misunderstand the relationhship.

You signed up to represent boards in your chosen forum. That's the relationship.

oscarBravo wrote:

It's really not that hard to read the thread that says ***READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!!*** at the top of each forum.

Unfortunately, a website is only as good as it's lowest common denominator. If, for example, Sex and Sexuality was an open Forum, do you think a newbie would even see the ***READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!!*** at the top of the page if the words "My breasts are too big", etc are the subject title of a thread below? An extreme example yes, but people don't always do the logical thing, and you as Mods must be prepared for that eventuality.

I'm not saying do this in every situation, and not one where a user is constantly flooding a forum with nonsensical comments, but give every user the benefit of the doubt. After all, innocent until proven guilty!

_blank_

ned78 wrote:

That's disgraceful, and you seem proud of it. Troll or not, you should act professionally. You've been given a job to do, so do it. You should have PM'd the individual involved, and told them what not to do.

What?

Are you seriously suggesting that people who mod on this website should waste their time on time-wasters who troll the forums they mod?

The job of a mod is akin to a janitor, to clean up the mess created by trolls, Spammers and general idiots who can't read the rules.

Owen

Talliesin wrote:

You aren't being professional either, so STFU.

How is trying to improve the ban process being unprofessional?

CiaranC

OscarBravo wrote:

I've been here since 2001, and - to the best of my recollection - I've never been banned from a forum. It's really not that hard to read the thread that says ***READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!!*** at the top of each forum.

lol, you are a true paragon of virtue. Notwithstanding the fact that you are trolling and dragging the thread off-topic with reference to some nonsensical post from elsewhere.

Surely theres some rule against that sort of thing.

Owen

seansouth wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that people who mod on this website should waste their time on time-wasters who troll the forums they mod?

If you took the time to read the post above yours, you'd see I agree with banning people who flood forums, etc. It's the first timers who should be shown consideration. All are being tarred with the same brush, and that's not fair. Everyone deserves a chance.

Gordon

I just want to pick up on a couple of small points:

ned78 wrote:

The helpdesk forum is full every day with people asking "Am I banned?"

No it's not.

I propose the following :

• A Mod discovers a questionable post and PM's the Poster with why it's in breach of the Charter of that Forum, and asking for the user to edit it.

• If the user at this stage is unruly, the mod can edit the post themselves, and ban the user for 1 week. At this point the user must be PM'd to let them know they're banned - communication is vital, and the PM should be business like, and pleasant. After all, being a Mod is a priviledge, and should be treated as such.

• If after the week's temporary ban, the user is still unruly, they should be given once last chance to redeem themselves via PM, or on the thread itself, or face a permenant ban from that forum.

So:
- Warning
- Temp ban
- Perm ban.
- All stages using private messages

That seems to be your suggestion. Tbh that's roughly how I think it is here. I think that some mods will not PM people all of the time, some of them some of the time. It really depends. Obviously, this is the best case scenario though, yes.

It really can be a waste of a mods time trying to warn a user when they are obviously trolling. The time wasted with pointless PMs from an obviously abusive and troublesome poster could be put to better use. Why should a mod have to explain to an obvious troll why they are in contravention of article 9 sub paragraph b(ii) of the charter when the user comes back and retorts "FASCIST MODDZ STFU". For example. A mod will use their discretion based on what the user has written and how they have acted and will moderate the user as they think best - best for the forum, the site, and their own sanity. If the user is acting a muppet then the mod will not act in the users best interests - which is to provide the muppet with a platform for their muppetry.

And Mods, for the record, the majority of you guys do a great job! I'm an Admin of 2 sites, so I know the burden you bear.

/vom

If you really know what it's like to mod a large forum then you should know that comments like that will undoubtedly cause some friction, and at the very least mild nausea which is not beneficial to the users and mods of most web forums.

So - to summarise:
Warning, temp ban, perm ban is (imo) how it works here. However, the severity of the case may lead to the user not being PMd. You may not think it is right but the mod may not think that the user is right by causing friction on the forum they moderate.

oscarBravo

CiaranC wrote:

lol, you are a true paragon of virtue. Notwithstanding the fact that you are trolling and dragging the thread off-topic with reference to some nonsensical post from elsewhere.

Surely theres some rule against that sort of thing.

I'm sorry - were you making a point, or flinging around baseless accusations and refusing to back them up?

CiaranC

Good lad, keep trolling away there. Do you expect me to rise to it?

Owen

Gordon wrote:

I just want to pick up on a couple of small points:

Thanks Gordon. You make some excellent points, the most important of which is that the majority of Mods try their hardest. No one is disputing that.

Unfortunately, some don't. Look at oscarbravo in this thread for example taking what was an impartial matter with CiaranC and making it personal. These are the things that upset users, and that I would not allow happen on my sites. Granted, my sites don't have the traffic that boards do, but the principals remain the same.

With regard to my comment on the Helpdesk being full of messages where people don't know why they were banned, it is a common occurrence. It doesn't necessarily mean it happens every hour of every day, but as a regular boardsie, I do see it quite often enough to see that communication between Mods and what seem to be users making stupid mistakes, isn't happening.

Gordon

ned78 wrote:

Unfortunately, some don't. Look at oscarbravo in this thread for example taking what was an impartial matter with CiaranC and making it personal. These are the things that upset users, and that I would not allow happen on my sites. Granted, my sites don't have the traffic that boards do, but the principals remain the same.

There's theory and there's practice though.

I agree that oscarbravo and CiaranC are giving us a good show of Thunderdome material (which you are wrong about - users love getting the popcorn out) that is best left to the Thunderdome but maybe this is a great way of understanding Mod Vs User mentality - on the base level? After all, this is a discussion board..

With regard to my comment on the Helpdesk being full of messages where people don't know why they were banned, it is a common occurrence. It doesn't necessarily mean it happens every hour of every day, but as a regular boardsie, I do see it quite often enough to see that communication between Mods and what seem to be users making stupid mistakes, isn't happening.

Please just get your facts straight. The Helpdesk is not full of messages where people don't know why they are banned. I just want to clarify that as you still seem to be implying it.

However, there are occasionaly threads on Feedback about this, much less popular is a thread on the Helpdesk. I think each case should be looked at though, they are all different. Just because you have 5 or 6 threads on Feedback (this month, very few in December iirc) doesn't mean that the bans are badly handled.

And also, considering the traffic of this site and the sheer amount of people that are sitebanned (with no PM or warning) - it's a surprisingly small amount of users compared to the overall userbase imo.

We'd all like it to be a perfect world but all sides have to be taken into consideration to create our garden of love, beauty and hookers.

oscarBravo

ned78 wrote:

Look at oscarbravo in this thread for example taking what was an impartial matter with CiaranC and making it personal.

Excuse me? He threw the same type of unfounded remark - which he's unprepared to back up - into this thread as he did in the previous thread I referenced. Did you feel he had contributed something of value to this thread?

Owen

Gordon wrote:

However, there are occasionaly threads on Feedback about this, much less popular is a thread on the Helpdesk.

My bad - I got the two Forums confused, I've never had to use them before. You've made some excellent points, and given me quite a bit to think about. I still think some Mods are a little cavalier, and that whatever internal forum you guys use should have clearer guidelines in place, but what is very clear indeed is that hard working Mods like yourself keep the place afloat.

Gordon wrote:

We'd all like it to be a perfect world but all sides have to be taken into consideration to create our garden of love, beauty and hookers.

I find your ideas intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter of love, beauty, and hookers.

Owen

oscarBravo wrote:

Excuse me? He threw the same type of unfounded remark - which he's unprepared to back up - into this thread as he did in the previous thread I referenced. Did you feel he had contributed something of value to this thread?

No, but your taunting him is a bit much imo.

GuanYin

You see, there is a flaw in this thread - as there is with many threads of this ilk.

You seem to think the topic of this thread is to "improve the ban process" - suggesting that there is a problem with it.

Your suggestion comes from a sample size of 1. Which, isn't going to actually reflect anything but your experience in this case.

Your experience in the case, which you feel is separate from the topic, came about because you were, by your own admission, acting the muppet.

But you want to remove the particulars of how this thread came about - ie. the circumstances of your behaviour, and suggest there is an overall problem.

The fact is, if we remove, as you suggest, reference to your particular case - where is the evidence that users who are banned, don't get PMs and warnings?

You don't have any evidence so what *this* thread is about is a **** stirring soapbox for your case - but you're avoiding discussing your case so you don't get called on it.

So your left with two options.

1) Show that there is a problem with the banning process that merits an overhaul or review.

or, in the absence of that, (2) mount a name and shame campaign of those mods who deviate from what appears to be, on the basis of this thread, the accepted norm of communicating with users who are banned.

Owen

My case is indeed from a poorly managed (On both sides) case of 1, but that's not the issue here. As Gordon pointed out in his thread, in agreement with me, there are cases where threads are popping up, and users are asking "Why was I banned". So there's obviously an issue.

The self promotion of the mods on this thread compound the issue, and build my case further. We've had Mods such as Gordon setting an example, listing what they feel is the correct process in each case, and then we have Mods who do what they want, when they want, and owe nothing to the users - apparently.

I'd love for this to be me, and only me, but the evidence stacking up indicates otherwise.

sceptre

ned78 wrote:

It is impressive to see so many Mods posting on one thread though.

Often happens with Feedback, most of the people who bother are either long-term users (most mods tend to be long-term users) who care enough for whatever reason to read Feedback and occasionally write in it or those who feel they have been most greviously wrong'd.

ned78 wrote:

The self promotion of the mods on this thread compound the issue, and build my case further.

See above.

Gordon

ned78 wrote:

I'd love for this to be me, and only me, but the evidence stacking up indicates otherwise.

Not really true though, a good indication is percentages.

Gordon wrote:

considering the traffic of this site and the sheer amount of people that are sitebanned (with no PM or warning) - it's a surprisingly small amount of users compared to the overall userbase imo.

Don't forget that on this forum we have also had one user wanting to be banned. So by your logic - the amount of people that want to be banned are piling up. And if you counter that by saying "Well, he wanted to be banned because of his studies being jeapordised" then I would counter that by saying that you should take each banning thread on its own merit, individually for the individuals they are.

sceptre

If after the week's temporary ban, the user is still unruly, they should be given once last chance to redeem themselves via PM, or on the thread itself, or face a permenant ban from that forum.

That's a slacker system than the one that exists on Politics. Where someone isn't a complete peanuthead obviously acting like a complete peanuthead they often get two redeeming chances before they get marked off as a lost cause.

Owen

Gordon wrote:

Not really true though, a good indication is percentages.

Is it though ... because in my job, 1 dissatisfied customer is a failure, not a percentage.

Gordon wrote:

I would counter that by saying that you should take each banning thread on its own merit, individually for the individuals they are.

Something I would agree with. Each case should be looked at individually. If someone isn't an obvious troll, Mods should go to the trouble of looking at their previous posts for a minute or two before rushing to a decision. It would still be beneficial if they had a framework to work off of.

tallaght01

I've said before that I'm at peace with being banned. No worries. Doesn't phase me. But what makes me laugh everytime is the moderator PMing me. They always come at me with a line like something out of a Dirty Harry movie. LIke some bigman chat.
Now I'm disputing me bannings, coz there's no one who could argue that they were correct, but I'm just saying to the mods, for the sake of ur pride, just send a professional PM. Not something that sounds like it has come from the comic book bloke in the Simpsons.

I think some of the postings on this thread from some of the mods are very comic book guy-esque.

Original poster makes some excellent suggestions though. Good on him.

Faith

/sigh

I do love Feedback, but sometimes it gets stupid.

Ned, to answer your original question, my opinion is this:

It is common courtesy to PM a user when you've banned them from a forum. The PM should contain details of what post(s) caused the problem, why, and when the ban is up.

I don't think the offending post should be edited unless it's extremely offensive. At the very least, when the banned user comes complaining to Feedback, there is no post left for the mod to defend his/her position.

If someone posted a rude, condescending message on one of my fora, I'd immediately ban them, with the explanation on thread. I'd also PM them, briefly letting them know why. If I got a decent apology in return, with an explanation, I'd rethink the ban, maybe having a look through their previous posts. If the user started getting huffy and abusive, I'd lenghten the ban. The more polite and well mannered someone is, the more amicable I feel towards them.

If someone posted a borderline message, I'd warn them on thread and tell them not to do it again. If they offended again, then they would get banned.

I agree that communication is important. I think that any mods here who feel that they are too busy to send a PM to a banned user shouldn't bother modding at all, if it's that much of an imposition.

_blank_

ned78 wrote:

Is it though ... because in my job, 1 dissatisfied customer is a failure, not a percentage.

But ordinary users are not customers of Boards. They don't pay for anything. It is a privilege to post here, given by the site owners, not a right.

Gordon

ned78 wrote:

Is it though ... because in my job, 1 dissatisfied customer is a failure, not a percentage.

But this isn't a business. It's a privately owned website.

Something I would agree with. Each case should be looked at individually. If someone isn't an obvious troll, Mods should go to the trouble of looking at their previous posts for a minute or two before rushing to a decision. It would still be beneficial if they had a framework to work off of.

Mods have the ability to check back to the previous 20 posts of a user, they use this in their modding role, I'm not sure how many, but it is used. The warn-tempban-permban framework is probably the most popular framework on boards for the mods iirc.

Owen

seansouth wrote:

But ordinary users are not customers of Boards. They don't pay for anything. It is a privilege to post here, given by the site owners, not a right.

:rolleyes: This is why I said "In my job". It is also a priviledge here to be a Mod. Faith has summed up in 1 post what I've been trying to say all night.

GuanYin

ned78 wrote:

My case is indeed from a poorly managed (On both sides) case of 1, but that's not the issue here.

That is your opinion (on the managing) - and lets not try fool anyone here, the only reason you have brought up this "issue" is because of your banning.

As Gordon pointed out in his thread, in agreement with me, there are cases where threads are popping up, and users are asking "Why was I banned". So there's obviously an issue.

How do you define something as an issue? How many boards users are there? How many get banned in any one week? How many on average post in feedback.

I know I can say that of the forums I mod, you're the only one banned this month to start a feedback thread. In soccer, there are alot of bannings.

I only cover 2 forums out of how many? So if you have a very very small minority of the banned, who are after all, people who have been too lazy or inconsiderate to follow the rules to begin with, how do you see it as an obvious problem?

The self promotion of the mods on this thread compound the issue, and build my case further. We've had Mods such as Gordon setting an example, listing what they feel is the correct process in each case, and then we have Mods who do what they want, when they want, and owe nothing to the users - apparently.

You're putting words in people's mouths. What people are saying (and I should point out, that a mod is a user too) is that their duty is to oversee the smooth running of the forum for the community as a whole. If this means that one user out of 1000 is dis-satisfied, that is an acceptable loss.

I'd love for this to be me, and only me, but the evidence stacking up indicates otherwise.

Which evidence is this? You have pointed out that there are a few "why have I been banned" threads but you have no idea of the circumstances around them or what percentage of the amount of bannings they make up.

I've had to post asking why I've been banned before. But I see it down to a case of bad individual moderation in that case rather than an overall problem. It was resolved fairly quickly too, because a mature case was made (and in that case, the ban was a mistake on their part).

I'll tell you what, I'll go look at how many people are banned from forums I mod, and you go see how many "why have I been banned" threads you can find - and lets see if we even manage 2%.