Sitebanning of XYZ123ABC

copacetic

I have a complaint/query on the sitebanning of this user, although a bit
ignorant at times he was giving a useful insight and posting high quality
opinion on this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055061654&page=2


It appears he was sitebanned for ever for saying he had re-regged. I'd like to
see a record on this to see did he actually re-reg and what the original ban
was for. It appears a way over the top response but I can't tell for sure due to the unclear way bannings like this are done. Is there anyway to see a record of who reported his posts, to whom and who decides the severity of the action taken by the mods? Is re-regging a sitebanning offence? I didn't realise this, where is this outlined in the charter?

In my opinion inconsistency of application of rules is rife on boards and we do see a lot of unfair treatment of certain individuals if their opinion/attitude is not enjoyed by the mod in question.

seamus

daveym wrote:

Is re-regging a sitebanning offence?

I'm only going to answer this point. The answer is yes. Re-registering in order to circumvent a ban, will usually result in both accounts (the original account and the new account) being sitebanned. Any attempts to re-register in future will yield the same result.

The reason for this is obvious - if a person is banned from an individual forum, or the entire site, and we allowed them to get around it by re-registering, then the entire point of banning someone would be useless.

I'm not familiar with this particular case, but if someone says, "I was banned before, but have re-registered now", then we're going to site-ban them. I don't believe it requires further investigation or verification.

copacetic

Thanks for the reply, just a clarification, you say it will usually result in a sitban. My query was really is it an 'offence', what I meant was is it something that a user would/could know about. I've never seen it in any charter, now I'm sure it could be there somewhere but would like to know where.

I don't agree the reason is obvious, I could understand keeing any re-regs banned from the forum they were banned from. However a siteban seems over the top if the user was only previously banned from a certain forum, especially if there is no way to know that re-regging is a siteban offence.

Now I may be way off and maybe he re-regged to avoid a siteban, but that wasn't clear in what he said and what was in the banlist so there is no way to tell. Also there is no way of finding out.

Beruthiel

daveym wrote:

I could understand keeing any re-regs banned from the forum they were banned from.

Sorry, but if you cannot take the ban in the first place and re reg just to get around it then you're acting the maggot and are wasting our time, none of us will pander to that sort of carry on.

However a siteban seems over the top if the user was only previously banned from a certain forum, especially if there is no way to know that re-regging is a siteban offence.

It's common knowledge I would have thought. Even if it's not, do you think that you are not going to pay for the fact that you have no intention of taking the ban on the chin and ignore it.
This guy freely admits that he had re regged more than once and has every intention of doing it again. Infact, he's re regged again since and been sitebanned again.
If he was sincere and had pleaded his case in the Prison forum, it would have been looked into and considered.
We're not here to babysit trouble makers. Follow the rules or go elsewhere.

seamus

daveym wrote:

However a siteban seems over the top if the user was only previously banned from a certain forum, especially if there is no way to know that re-regging is a siteban offence.

The problem is that someone who has received a ban is not going to re-reg, except to attempt to circumvent a forum ban. So, "I didn't know" isn't really a valid excuse, because they knew exactly what they were doing. If they were banned once from a forum, what do they expect is going to happen if they try to get around it.

Often, we will simply warn a user about doing it, particularly if they are well established. That is, if they re-reg we will ban the new account and warn the old account. Other times, particularly for new users just acting the prick, it's just ban on sight.

copacetic

Ok, fair enough, myself I would do it the other way around, be harder on people who are around a while and easier on new people. I'm sure if can be frustrating for a user who may be banned for 'off-topic' posting or similar when everyone else is doing the exact same thing with no consequences, often the intial ban seems random and on the whim of a mod. I can understand why a user might re-reg to get around what might appear an unfair and arbitrary ban.

I'm guessing there isn't anywhere that there is a rule on this and I don't think it is fair to say it is 'common knowledge'. How could it be, there isn't even somewhere to read it. Also only people who have been here for a while would even know there is a prison forum.

Anyway thanks for the replies, I know we are a benevolent dictatorship but I'd like to see it as benevolent as possible.

seamus

daveym wrote:

I'm sure if can be frustrating for a user who may be banned for 'off-topic' posting or similar when everyone else is doing the exact same thing with no consequences, often the intial ban seems random and on the whim of a mod. I can understand why a user might re-reg to get around what might appear an unfair and arbitrary ban.

Well, this is really a per-forum thing. The grievance process would be to contact the mod in question, and if you're getting no success, to post on the help desk. Re-registering is never a valid step if you feel arbitrarily banned.

I'm guessing there isn't anywhere that there is a rule on this and I don't think it is fair to say it is 'common knowledge'. How could it be, there isn't even somewhere to read it. Also only people who have been here for a while would even know there is a prison forum.

Well, it does actually exist but in the wiki. Which isn't back up at the moment
Directing people to particular types of information is an art all of itself and something that marketeers pay big money to research. There's no way to make people see or read the rules.

Think of it as a stupidity filter. If someone thinks that they can get around their ban by re-registering and going on to do the exact same thing they got banned for, then they'll be banned again, and permanently.

In this particular case, accusations of "Moderator disagreement" and "Vendettas" are unfounded. All we have so far is a user who has admitted to having been previously banned. In order for the case to be otherwise investigated, we'll need to be provided with examples where the individual was banned because a moderator disagreed with them.

myself I would do it the other way around, be harder on people who are around a while and easier on new people.

You're right on one thing, in that often it is arbitrary. Almost every case is taken differently. You can get newbies who are actually just here to post crap and act the prick. Bye bye. On the other hand, you'll often get new people who are new to the whole bulletin boards thing, and seem to have made genuine, honest mistakes. We'll be less harsh on them. By the same token, many well established posters have been site banned for their actions. The decision on the severity of the action is usually down to the moderator who took it. As sitebans are only given out by Smods (or Admins), a person will have to be spotted by an Smod, or reported to an Smod. Then the Smod will decide on whether a siteban is required.
If there are appeals on the severity of the action taken by Mods or Smods, then the matter will be investigated by the Smods. Bans are rarely (if ever) forcibly recinded, but the issue will be discussed with the Mod who took the action.

copacetic

seamus wrote:

In this particular case, accusations of "Moderator disagreement" and "Vendettas" are unfounded. All we have so far is a user who has admitted to having been previously banned. In order for the case to be otherwise investigated, we'll need to be provided with examples where the individual was banned because a moderator disagreed with them.

I will admit that what I am going on here is what the poster said about having had previous issues with the mod over there. With no easy way to track the history of the user I couldn't say if that is true or not. It does seem that as soon as he mentioned re-regging he was banned in a flash, I don't know how it happened so quickly. I also don't know whether he was actually under a ban and if he did re-reg or just say he did to wind the mod up.
The mod over there then mentioned the user was going to be banned for off-topic posting anyway. As soon as he re-regged another mod was along to act juvenille and report the post and say if he was running things the guy would have been gone already.

Now, possibly I am seeing conspiracy theories were there are none and I actually amn't trying to ally myself with this user. He said some stuff I totally disagreed with and some stuff I thought was interesting. My main gripe is he added something to a discussion that was important and having users who have a wider view and maybe more mature than the average poster can only be good for boards. Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!

I guess this isn't really a helpdesk query anymore as I am just yammering on, feel free to reply or lock..