Suggestion: Formalising the ban process

BrianCalgary

Love the ideas on the OP Seamus.

seamus

amp wrote:

I have serious problems with the parts in bold. If I am forced to write text in a box when I ban people then you can bet your arse it's going to be along the lines of "I like cake" or "Stuff your stupid text box up your arse".

Is that purely because you're naturally rebellious though?

In reality, I'm looking for discussion on this. I'm not trying to say, "This is the way it should be done", rather, "Here are the problems as I see them, and some possible solutions to that problem". If you or anyone else doesn't agree that the problems I've pointed out are actually problems, or otherwise doesn't believe that my solution is valid, I'd love to hear corrections and suggestions on the same.

Trying to formalize a banning process for the wide and varied fora boards hosts of is a dangerous thing to try. Trying to make all mods behave in the same way is not a good idea at all. I am completely against this.

Agreed completely. Coming to a decision on banning someone is something that every moderator does differently, and it's not something that we can formalise or otherwise "standardise". However, the specific process of applying that ban is a simple process which can (and I feel should - reasons outlined in the OP) be standardised.

No mercy for the banned.

While that used to be fine, given the size of boards and the number of moderators, I don't think we can fly with this much longer. It's getting to the point where policing of moderators by Admins and other moderators is simply unfeasible. A very small minority of abuses are taking place, and the claims of abuse (valid or not) are slowly on the rise. Either way, we have no way of verifying these claims, or at the very least it requires some intensive investigation. If we can make the whole thing more transparent then it may make users think twice before claiming oppression, or make mods think twice before banning on a whim.

Anti

I think a formal banning procedure is a great idea. Might even sto some of the banned users postign threads in here wondering whats going on!

ecksor

One the one hand I agree with amp completely, but on the other hand I don't at all.

Basically I find that some bans are definitely "click and forget" where I don't feel like wasting my time, but then sometimes I ban someone and I do feel it needs a bit more communication. I suppose that's consistent with his basic point that it's difficult to standardise.

A standardised appeals process is more interesting to me.

zAbbo

not sure how you're managing forumbans, but you can get a vB mod to automate the PM and unbanning, which seems to be some peoples gripe.

aidan_walsh

Rather than one text box where you have to fill in a reason, what about a number of options. For example, a default text box like seamus says, and some quick options for more specific offences like spamming (provide a link to the post\thread), etc. One of these must be filled in, but in the case of "click and forget" bannings the process can be sped up that much more and still be as effective.

aidan_walsh

zabbo wrote:

not sure how you're managing forumbans, but you can get a vB mod to automate the PM and unbanning, which seems to be some peoples gripe.

Can you provide a link, so that we can see what its capable of and whether it would fit in with what people (users and mods alike) would want?

5starpool

Sounds like a good idea to me.

amp

seamus wrote:

Is that purely because you're naturally rebellious though?

No, unless you see yourself as a higher authority than I. Which to the best of my knowledge you aren't. I answer to the Admins.

In reality, I'm looking for discussion on this. I'm not trying to say, "This is the way it should be done", rather, "Here are the problems as I see them, and some possible solutions to that problem". If you or anyone else doesn't agree that the problems I've pointed out are actually problems, or otherwise doesn't believe that my solution is valid, I'd love to hear corrections and suggestions on the same.

You see problems. I don't see a problem. I see you pandering to the stupid. Holding the hand of people who cannot read charter or simply ignore them. I have no interest in making these morons lives easier. I see threads complaining about moderators in Feedback to be a good thing, a wanted thing.

Agreed completely. Coming to a decision on banning someone is something that every moderator does differently, and it's not something that we can formalise or otherwise "standardise". However, the specific process of applying that ban is a simple process which can (and I feel should - reasons outlined in the OP) be standardised.

I don't see the need for standardisation.

While that used to be fine, given the size of boards and the number of moderators, I don't think we can fly with this much longer. It's getting to the point where policing of moderators by Admins and other moderators is simply unfeasible. A very small minority of abuses are taking place, and the claims of abuse (valid or not) are slowly on the rise.

Really? I'd love to see your stats on this. I'd also love to see those stats graphed to the growth in users.

Either way, we have no way of verifying these claims, or at the very least it requires some intensive investigation. If we can make the whole thing more transparent then it may make users think twice before claiming oppression, or make mods think twice before banning on a whim.

Well that's a nice, if naive sentiment. It's my firm belief that there will always be those that take their crusade to Feedback believing that they can somehow bullshít their way out of being banned. Why? Because some peoples ego's demand it. Often Feedback is an excellent way of teaching these people and publicly warning others.

No mercy for the banned.

Mr Magnolia

amp wrote:

You see problems. I don't see a problem. I see you pandering to the stupid. Holding the hand of people who cannot read charter or simply ignore them. I have no interest in making these morons lives easier. I see threads complaining about moderators in Feedback to be a good thing, a wanted thing.....

Well that's a nice, if naive sentiment. It's my firm belief that there will always be those that take their crusade to Feedback believing that they can somehow bullshít their way out of being banned. Why? Because some peoples ego's demand it. Often Feedback is an excellent way of teaching these people and publicly warning others.

No mercy for the banned.

You seem to be assuming that all bans are justified and that all Mods do no wrong? Is this always the case?

Hobbes

Some links may not work for non-mods of certain areas. I apologise.

The idea is a good one. I recommend getting something like the Wiki Blocking process page.

http://wiki.boards.ie/wiki/Special:Blockip/SomeRandomUser

It has a list of common bans so that the moderator can just pick a generic one or add their own if they so feel. It also allows you to set a timetable as to when they can return. Saves having to do the work after or having an irate user who demands you unban them exactly when you said you would.

As for a table that shows who is banned and why. I would have to say this needs to be limited. Tried this on the Islam forum where we kept all ban information public but you ended up with the following type of people.

a) Those seeing it as a status symbol that they are fighting the pow-wa.
b) Those who feel they are being unfairly treated after a ban.

So only see themselves why they are banned and it goes away for user/s once the ban is recinded. Mods should still be able to see a history though.

So for now we have a mini-ban list at the end of the charter.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3201675&postcount=1

and a hidden ban list (which is a pain to maintain).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3201868

Its a pain as you have to undelete, edit, delete.

amp

Mr Magnolia wrote:

You seem to be assuming that all bans are justified and that all Mods do no wrong? Is this always the case?

Of course not, but Mod error doesn't happen frequently enough to warrant the changes Seamus suggests.

seamus

amp wrote:

No, unless you see yourself as a higher authority than I. Which to the best of my knowledge you aren't. I answer to the Admins.

That's not what I meant at all. What I meant that if this was put into place by the Admins, would you fill the boxes with nonsense because that's what you do, or because you would feel the need to fight any attempt to force you into doing something?

You see problems. I don't see a problem. I see you pandering to the stupid. Holding the hand of people who cannot read charter or simply ignore them. I have no interest in making these morons lives easier. I see threads complaining about moderators in Feedback to be a good thing, a wanted thing.

Well, that's the point of the discussion.

Really? I'd love to see your stats on this. I'd also love to see those stats graphed to the growth in users.

This isn't politics.
I've personally spent more time dealing with this stuff recently. That's all the evidence I need. That said though, your point of the userbase is well taken - given the growth of the userbase, I don't believe that the number of user issues has risen at the same rate.

Well that's a nice, if naive sentiment. It's my firm belief that there will always be those that take their crusade to Feedback believing that they can somehow bullshít their way out of being banned. Why? Because some peoples ego's demand it. Often Feedback is an excellent way of teaching these people and publicly warning others.

Again, agreed. I didn't imply otherwise

Of course not, but Mod error doesn't happen frequently enough to warrant the changes Seamus suggests.

I'm not suggesting it though purely to catch Mod error. It's probably something that me and you won't agree on. If someone appeals a ban, you're more likely to give them the short shrift than I am. This is perhaps why you don't see the need for this

irlrobins

Right, can't read the second page of this thread due to the word 'Slút' triggering the web filter. but what I did was enough to lend my support.

I always PM a user that I'm banning, explaining why, how long for and what to do to appeal/discuss. Having this process automated will reduce the effort required. The history table will also allow past bans to be reviewed and a user ban profile to be observed.

So support++ here. I'm surprised this feature hasn't been implemented to date tbh.

Owen

Well, to answer amp's apparent lack of time to fill in the text boxes with a reason for the ban, wouldn't it be easier to have default text in the box that's the Mod could leave for the stanard bans? Something like "User disregarded Charter, banned for ..." and then a drop down box for the time period? It couldn't possibly take any more time than what he/she is doing at the moment.

seamus

I have actually mulled over this a bit more, and it's definitely still workable, even if the boxes remain blank, and the user still gets PMed.

As it is, when sitebanning a user, we're not required to insert a reason. What the user sees is "You were banned for the following reason: None".

Which I personally think is hilarious, I don't know why.

If the mod leaves the boxes blank, then the user gets banned anyway, and the duration is set to "Permanent".

Which may or may not satisfy everyone - I completely agree that there are some people for whom the ban is a no-brainer and requires no justification, and there are other for whom you'd like to put in some info.

After all, if we can siteban people permanently and without reason, then why not the same from individual forums?

Interstingly, even though we don't have to give a reason to siteban, now that we're in the habit (and we're aware that the banlis exists), I think we all now put in reasons for every ban.

Although the absence of a reason may annoy some people, I don't actually think it affects the idea all that much.

Gordon

Hobbes wrote:

and a hidden ban list (which is a pain to maintain).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3201868

Its a pain as you have to undelete, edit, delete.

You can create a new thread and soft delete it and then you can reply or edit it as you need.

amp

ned78 wrote:

Well, to answer amp's apparent lack of time to fill in the text boxes with a reason for the ban,

At no point have I ever stated that I wouldn't do this due to lack of time or my willingness to put effort in. I simply believe that banned users do not deserve any help whatsoever.

If the proposed changes are optional then I have no problem with them.

Sully

I worked on a large(sh) site - nothing compared to Boards - running IPB. They have a warn system, which basically increases a warn level and there is a limit and when its reached the user is then banned for a given reason you enter into a box. Probably wouldnt work on Boards, as on that site we gave 3 warnings (on second, you got suspended account) before a ban was implemented. Obviously more serious offenses gave rise to immediate suspension / bannings, and no warnings given.

All I can suggest on Boards is that indeed, a proper policy is implemented for banning. A script should be created so when banning a user, you select the person, the reason and the length of the ban. It should by right, auto-remove a ban when the time is up. The policy just states you must give a reason, besides "muppet".

Obviously there are concerns of time wasting and those who dont want to spend time filling it all in. So here is something I suggest being coded;

A system where posts can be "tagged". I click 5 posts, go to the mod utils page and see a section "Pending" showing the users (Whose posts I just taged) and when I click there name im presented with different options including banning, and the list of the links to offending posts.

If I click ban, im brough to the banning page. On this page, auto filled in is;
Banned by, Date, Offending Posts.

Other fields need to be filled in;
Reason*, Expiry**

Above reason is a checkbox, with the top 5 banning reasons (Spamming, Muppetry, etc). Clicking one, will enter a detailed message in the reason box "User X you have been banned from boards.ie for Y reason and will remain banned until Z date. The offending posts have been listed below".

As for date, a calendar box - selecting the year, month, day it will expire (Never is an option to).

Job done. All that was done was, selected offending posts, clicked ban, selected reason by checkbox and expiry data by calendar and submitted.

Hobbes

Gordon wrote:

You can create a new thread and soft delete it and then you can reply or edit it as you need.

Cool Mucho better!!

[edit]

Actually you can't add to it without first undeleting it.

ONOZ I BROKE IT!! Won't let me fix the thread at all.

Clean up on Isle three.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055113733

Gordon

Bah. Ok, I have created a thread that is in your validation queue. You can leave it unvalidated and stickied and reply to it now. This happens on a few fora, although I can't remember how they initially created it to be unvalidated.

One thing I ask is that you leave all replies on your thread as validated but the initial post must be unvalidated. This is because myself and Bru check the validation queue for PI but as we are smods we see all unvalidated posts sitewide so have to trudge through all posts.

/on topic..

Hobbes

Cool!! Actually this is really good as it can be a mini forum within the forum.

Karoma

And then we have the other side:

Banned Muppet wrote:

Do me a favour will you?

Don't contact me - I'm not interested in this kind of crap, banning me from this, that and the other...i've no time for it and I don't care about it.

Some just don't want a PM or the ban to be lifted I guess.