Why wait for an infraction/ban?

6th

So why don't people start feedback threads with their complaints about mods/forums before they get "punished"? I mean once someone gets a ban or whatever they come here and say how <insert mod name> is always treating people unfairly or whatever but why dont the complain before it gets as far as a ban?

Anyone get what I am saying?

Ponster

1. A certain % of members will be unlikely to speak up in feedback pre-ban as they believe that doing so will single them out in the future and lead to a banning.

2. I imagine that most members presume that they should be able to solve any issues with mods directly via PM and not have to resort to feedback.

3. Some do complain here before being infracted/banned.

_blank_

Ponster wrote: »

1. A certain % of members will be unlikely to speak up in feedback pre-ban as they believe that doing so will single them out in the future and lead to a banning.

This is quite true.

Why get a name as a "trouble maker", single yourself out to the mods.

I know one mod who accused me of having "cronies" because I dared participate in a feedback thread. :rolleyes:

6th

Ponster wrote: »

1. A certain % of members will be unlikely to speak up in feedback pre-ban as they believe that doing so will single them out in the future and lead to a banning.

2. I imagine that most members presume that they should be able to solve any issues with mods directly via PM and not have to resort to feedback.

3. Some do complain here before being infracted/banned.

All good answers. I can understand why some would hold off. I've seen people complain when they've seen someone treated unfairly and they get responses such as "it wasnt even you that was banned" and "why are you making a feedback trhead about someone else, is it your other account?"

That said I believe some people dont actually have a problem until they are caught breaking a rule.

This thread might be pointless as I started it bases on something I thought a few days ago and cant really remember all the thought processes

Red Sleeping Beauty

6th wrote: »

So why don't people start feedback threads with their complaints about mods/forums before they get "punished"? I mean once someone gets a ban or whatever they come here and say how <insert mod name> is always treating people unfairly or whatever but why dont the complain before it gets as far as a ban?

Anyone get what I am saying?

There have been threads that have dealt with mods decisions by a third party poster. There was a GAA thread there last week.

This being an internet forum and thus it is rife with sarcasm, plenty of people will reply "why do you care if someone else gets banned; it's none of your business " etc

I think moderating on this board is very strict and very black and white. Of course if I don't like that I should just leave but that sort of negates the purpose of this feedback forum, which I think is a very good idea. However, I'm not quite sure how many bannings have been overturned, or how many moderator's actions have been investigated by those higher up.

A lot of moderating on this forum is definately "nip in the bud" broken windows kinda stuff. Many "hot topic" threads dealing with contentious issues are usually locked and/or bans are given out

On the other hand, there are a lot of knob heads on the internet and on forums, and the bigger your forum the more morons and thus more hassle you get.

There's bans being handed out willy nilly in the Wrestling forum atm for very very minor offences. It's only a week's ban but they're jsut to make examples out of people and establish who's boss.


http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-behave-on-an-internet-forum

faceman

If there is one thing that the site has lots of, its lots of bannings. If there is one thing it needs more of, its posters and mods PM'ing to resolve issues prior to a banning.

Some mods have massive forums to mod like AH and PI which aint going to be easy so they have to make judgement calls at times but lighter traffic forums Im sure could take some time to try resolve something before a banning is issued.

Anytime i see more weathered posters banned from forums (i.e. those around boards for a long time) i can never understand why they get banned when im sure it could have been resolved if they, or the mod drops a PM to say cut it out. Im sure the mods their more regular posters and what they are like. And thats not a dig at mods btw, how often to threads get created here by posters before trying to resolve a situation with a mod? Not often I imagine. Im sure most mods would lift a ban or resind it if a poster apologised and agreed to cool off.

While I have never been banned (Im such a wuss! ), I have had disagreements with mods from time to time which could always be resolved via a PM.

_blank_

faceman wrote: »

Anytime i see more weathered posters banned from forums (i.e. those around boards for a long time) i can never understand why they get banned when im sure it could have been resolved if they, or the mod drops a PM to say cut it out.

What if the mods ignore the PM in the first place?

Red Sleeping Beauty

I agree that a bit more PM communication to resolve issues would make sense.

I posted something questionable in an AH thread and was banned for a week. I would have gladly deleted or edited the post if I was asked. Instead I got a slap on the wrist.
Same with the PW forum post I was banned for, I told the mod I didn't mean to be aggresive or inflammatory and that I would gladly have edited/deleted the post or added a smiley to lighten the tone of the post.

GuanYin

6th wrote: »

So why don't people start feedback threads with their complaints about mods/forums before they get "punished"? I mean once someone gets a ban or whatever they come here and say how <insert mod name> is always treating people unfairly or whatever but why dont the complain before it gets as far as a ban?

Anyone get what I am saying?

I've been making this point on feedback for about 18 months now

Ponster wrote: »

1. A certain % of members will be unlikely to speak up in feedback pre-ban as they believe that doing so will single them out in the future and lead to a banning.

2. I imagine that most members presume that they should be able to solve any issues with mods directly via PM and not have to resort to feedback.

3. Some do complain here before being infracted/banned.

1. That is their issue. I for one have far mroe respect for any complaint made by someone who identifies a problem and engages rather than someone who breaks a rule and then complains that "it was a stupid rule anyway".

I think plenty of fora and rules on boards.ie are plain moronic, I still won't go breaking the rules and if I post in those fora, I'll respect and obey the mods and charter. It isn't rocket surgery.

Des wrote: »

This is quite true.

Why get a name as a "trouble maker", single yourself out to the mods.

I know one mod who accused me of having "cronies" because I dared participate in a feedback thread. :rolleyes:

Everyone gets accused of having cronies. And why care if you're accused of being a troublemaker if what you believe in is worth fighting for.

Des wrote: »

What if the mods ignore the PM in the first place?

Mods sometimes take time to discuss things before responding. The Admins often don't reply to my PMs for weeks, they're busy, I get it.

In any case, the same logic applies. Just because mods don't respond in a fashion timely enough for a poster, it doesn't mean that poster should then ignore rules and take matters into their own hands.

Nerin

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I agree that a bit more PM communication to resolve issues would make sense.

I posted something questionable in an AH thread and was banned for a week. I would have gladly deleted or edited the post if I was asked. Instead I got a slap on the wrist.
Same with the PW forum post I was banned for, I told the mod I didn't mean to be aggresive or inflammatory and that I would gladly have edited/deleted the post or added a smiley to lighten the tone of the post.

agreed, although people can be under time restraints, and sometimes its better to post on thread so everyone can see. but yes, pming is very helpful.

its not up to a mod to ask permission to delete your posts. to be honest, when i see a post and at the end it says "feel free to move/delete if this is the wrong forum/wrong thread/a naughty post mods" it annoys me. its not a disclaimer. i see it on alot of other forums on boards, and to be fair, alot of the posts are ok, but the ones that arent shouldnt see themselves as giving permission.

a mod sees something wrong, i'd see it as better and quicker to delete it instead of asking a user to do it.

sure the user could be gone offline or whatever.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I do think that mods here are a bit ban-happy.
I've seen mods on other forums deliberate for a few days before banning someone(temporary or permanent)

Nerin

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I do think that mods here are a bit ban-happy.
I've seen mods on other forums deliberate for a few days before banning someone(temporary or permanent)

banned!

thats other forums blah blah blah (you probably know the sentence by now)

Red Sleeping Beauty

Nerin wrote: »

banned!

thats other forums blah blah blah (you probably know the sentence by now)

But that's like saying "oh , the UK government do X with how they run their country and we shouldn't pay any attention to how any other countries make decisions and do things so lets stick our head up high and pretend that the only thing that matters is what we do".

I think there's a fair bit to be learned between forums on how stuff is moderated. As I said, if you've got a larger forum and more users, chances are you'll have more trouble. It seems that there's usually less trouble on specialist forums such as a band forum or a specific film forum like the Empire forum.

javaboy

faceman wrote: »

Anytime i see more weathered posters banned from forums (i.e. those around boards for a long time) i can never understand why they get banned when im sure it could have been resolved if they, or the mod drops a PM to say cut it out. Im sure the mods their more regular posters and what they are like.

How do you think that looks to non-regulars? It looks like preferential treatment based on your postcount/join date to me.

The way I'd look at it is that if a posters been around the block long enough, they should know the rules and shouldn't put themselves or the mods in that situation in the first place. If they do something bannable/infractable, the mod has no choice but to take action. If they didn't it would be one rule for some posters and another rule for newbies.

Nerin

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

But that's like saying "oh , the UK government do X with how they run their country and we shouldn't pay any attention to how any other countries make decisions and do things so lets stick our head up high and pretend that the only thing that matters is what we do".

I think there's a fair bit to be learned between forums on how stuff is moderated. As I said, if you've got a larger forum and more users, chances are you'll have more trouble. It seems that there's usually less trouble on specialist forums such as a band forum or a specific film forum like the Empire forum.

im on a fair few forums, i prefer boards tbh. there are some awwwwwwful forums out there. like gamefaqs. seriously. its like thunderdome mated with after hours and then filled the baby with steroids.
and drank heavily while pregnant.

agreed, you can learn lots from other forums. just because you like them and we dont use their policies though, doesnt mean we arent aware of them. theres several reasons why they arent used.

maybe start a thread and share these opinions, think we've taken this off topic

AnimalRights

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I do think that mods here are a bit ban-happy.
I've seen mods on other forums deliberate for a few days before banning someone(temporary or permanent)

Indeed...it's like that they have to reach a certain quota of bannings. :pac:

AckwelFoley

Most bans are warrented, and if you are dumb enough to post something that you think warrants a ban, well, feedback doesnt help.

the only exception to this rule is Almightycusheon. If he doesnt get his buttsekz for any period of time, he turns into a banhappy tart.

:fap:

Red Sleeping Beauty

Nerin wrote: »

im on a fair few forums, i prefer boards tbh. there are some awwwwwwful forums out there. like gamefaqs. seriously. its like thunderdome mated with after hours and then filled the baby with steroids.
and drank heavily while pregnant.

agreed, you can learn lots from other forums. just because you like them and we dont use their policies though, doesnt mean we arent aware of them. theres several reasons why they arent used.

maybe start a thread and share these opinions, think we've taken this off topic

I don't think we've taken it off topic. I think we've widened the topic. Internet forums more or less grew out of game forums. This very forum included. Forums started out as a kind of no holds barred envoironment and there are still loosely moderated boards (4chan or somethingawful for eg.).

stevenmu

I think I speak for at least 90% of the users here when I say we do not want boards.ie to turn into 4chan . And wasn't somethingawful the forums that started charging for access so that people would try harder not to get banned, when you were banned you had to pay up again? There are also forums out there where you get banned if your posts aren't deemed to be of a high enough quality.

I for one think we've got a good mix here.

tallaght01

To my mind, when someone complains about, say, a warning, the stock answer is "you weren't even banned for it, it was just a warning".

That one gets rolled out just slightly slower than the fanboys favourite....."Actually there is no free speech on boards". BUt it gets rolled out nonetheless.

Red Sleeping Beauty

....."Actually there is no free speech on boards".

This is mentioned a lot in these Feedback threads. Kinda makes you wonder what the real point to them is ? Is it for feedback or is it just to let people let off steam.

--amadeus--

Nerin wrote: »

to be honest, when i see a post and at the end it says "feel free to move/delete if this is the wrong forum/wrong thread/a naughty post mods" it annoys me. its not a disclaimer.

Really? I would occasionally do that if I'm not sure where a thread should go - eg I came across an article on a US soldier who has launched a lawsuit against the military based on being bullied. He is atheist, his superiors were christians and he claims they denied him promotions, etc. Now a thread commenting on that could go in Atheism & Agnos. or Christianity so I'd put it in one or the other and put a note on the end to the mods saying to move if it fitted better elsewhere. It's not a disclaimer its a "you know the forums you decide where it should live if I have it wrong"

randylonghorn

I might be wrong, amadeus, but I think he's more referring to people who give the impression that they are magnanimously giving the mods permission to move the post, or who obviously know damn well that they're out of order, but who use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

I do see where you're coming from though, I've used the "Mods, please move if in wrong forum" line once or twice myself, and I suppose what I really mean is "This was my best guess, if I fcuked up, go easy on me!"

tallaght01 wrote: »

To my mind, when someone complains about, say, a warning, the stock answer is "you weren't even banned for it, it was just a warning".

I can kind of understand that one, Tallaght, sometimes at least ... it just puzzles me to hell and back when someone starts a Feedback thread about a borderline infraction and continues to gnaw at it and gnaw at it. You know the type of one:
OP: I don't think it deserved an infraction
Mod: I do.
OP: Well, I don't.
Mod: Well, I do.
... and the majority of other posters are split fairly 50/50, and there are a few of the usual suspects just plain ****-stirring!

Now, where there's some point of principle or something genuinely worth thinking about involved, fair enough ... but otherwise I'm thinking "FFS! it's an infraction ... on the internet ... you have to have a couple of handfuls of them to even get a ban, and it will expire in 7 days ... have you nothing better to do? ... honestly? ... go have a fap or something and stop giving yourself blood pressure!"

tallaght01 wrote: »

That one gets rolled out just slightly slower than the fanboys favourite....." Actually there is no free speech on boards". BUt it gets rolled out nonetheless.

Here I'd be more inclined to take your point ... obviously, it's a fair enough response to those who go on a rant about their "rights" to free speech being abrogated, or claim that they should be allowed to post whatever they like ... but it does seem to have acquired the status of a mantra which is trotted out quite inappropriately at times, and only serves to muddy the waters.

snyper wrote: »

Most bans are warrented, and if you are dumb enough to post something that you think warrants a ban, well, feedback doesnt help.

the only exception to this rule is Almightycusheon. If he doesnt get his buttsekz for any period of time, he turns into a banhappy tart.

:fap:

Just as well we have you around to keep him happy, isn't it?!

RoundyMooney

6th wrote: »

So why don't people start feedback threads with their complaints about mods/forums before they get "punished"? I mean once someone gets a ban or whatever they come here and say how <insert mod name> is always treating people unfairly or whatever but why dont the complain before it gets as far as a ban?

Anyone get what I am saying?

Yes.

But.

6th

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Yes.

But.

Great thread but its from over a year and a half ago... have you changed at all in the last 19 months? I know I have.

muffler

6th wrote: »

Great thread but its from over a year and a half ago... have you changed at all in the last 19 months? I know I have.

Oh shit. I can see a lot of people doing a lot of searching

6th

Pity if that is the case cos this thread has brought up some good points. Hate to see it get derailed.

muffler

Nah, just kidding.

I take your point that it could be useful for people to post up their gripes but sadly there is that fear that they will see themselves in a position of being a nuisance or whatever which wouldn't be the case at all.

Personally Id prefer to deal with all issues by PM but then again the mods of PI and AH wouldn't be able to due to the volumes concerned.

faceman

javaboy wrote: »

How do you think that looks to non-regulars? It looks like preferential treatment based on your postcount/join date to me.

The way I'd look at it is that if a posters been around the block long enough, they should know the rules and shouldn't put themselves or the mods in that situation in the first place. If they do something bannable/infractable, the mod has no choice but to take action. If they didn't it would be one rule for some posters and another rule for newbies.

It would give the impression that effort is made to defuse situations where possible. (which is what happens in most most forums as it is anyway)

Nerin

Yup,thats what i meant,thanks randy gonna have to hire you as my translator

Paulw

I think for some situations, a quick PM by the mod might have more effect than a ban.

The vast majority of people posting are adult enough to know when they're in the wrong, and a simple PM can resolve an issue, allowing the offender to edit/remove something that may have been posted in haste.

Some sections of boards would have a few regular posters, some more, and some sections would have lots. I guess those sections with smaller "communities" would probably benefit more from a gentle touch, rather than a harsh ban.

At the end of the day, there should be respect for the posters (by the mods) and respect for the mods (by the posters). It does work both ways.