"Do not post in this thread again"

super_furry

Something I've noticed creep into the modding style in several forums recently is this threat/warning from moderators. It just strikes me as slightly aggressive and confrontational and something that's as likely to inflame a situation as to calm it. Has there been a discussion as to whether this threat is an acceptable tool for moderators and is it justified that this warning is the final say? If a poster was to reply with a non-hostile and/or inoffensive post or rebuttal after the "Do not post in this thread again" warning, is a ban automatic?

Overheal

super_furry wrote: »

If a poster was to reply with a non-hostile and/or inoffensive post or rebuttal after the "Do not post in this thread again" warning, is a ban automatic?

I should think so. I'd regard it as violating a thread ban. Which is an interesting new soft-option to banning a user entirely from a forum and all of its discussions and contents. I happen to like it, as it is.

The first thread ban I saw was done last year by Terry to a pretty inflammatory poster in a yank bash thread. Fair play!

It seems to be done as a stop gap between not being bad enough to merit a complete ban from the forum. For example, being hostile and inflammatory in a particular thread [not specifically crossing the line into outright Trolling or Personal Abuse, etc.], but behaving normally in most other threads. Kinda like what happens when an Abortion thread pops up in After Hours.

Giblet

I used to do that, simple and to the point.

Dudess

I think it's a fair enough tactic if the person has post after post of muppetry on the thread in question and it's plain as day they're only trying to wind people up, and they've already been warned... but being told to refrain from posting on the thread after only one muppety post - much too severe.

FlutterinBantam

Yep, I'd agree with you on that .

5starpool

I think it would be better if it were sometihng like "Don't post in the same agressive/rude/trollish/annoying (delete as appliicable) manner in this thread again" as it is entirely possible that people can post in a manner that is not breaking rules again.

K-9

super_furry wrote: »

Something I've noticed creep into the modding style in several forums recently is this threat/warning from moderators. It just strikes me as slightly aggressive and confrontational and something that's as likely to inflame a situation as to calm it. Has there been a discussion as to whether this threat is an acceptable tool for moderators and is it justified that this warning is the final say? If a poster was to reply with a non-hostile and/or inoffensive post or rebuttal after the "Do not post in this thread again" warning, is a ban automatic?

I think it may have been wanted from a feedback thread before. Basically, moderators listened to user concerns.

IIRC, posters wanted "do not post on this thread again" warnings to avoid getting bannings/infractions without warnings.

Usually when it gets to this stage, its at a "stop being a muppet" stage. Posting after that warning confirms you are a muppet, even if for one thread!

There ill be exceptions to the rule but there comes a stage, you can't cater for every exception to the rule.

What is your alternative OP? Its a good idea but would the muppets take advantage of another loophole?

K-9

5starpool wrote: »

I think it would be better if it were sometihng like "Don't post in the same agressive/rude/trollish/annoying (delete as appliicable) manner in this thread again" as it is entirely possible that people can post in a manner that is not breaking rules again.

But I wasn't aggressive/rude/trollish/annoying etc.

Don't argue a mods decision on thread.

5starpool

K-9 wrote: »

I think it may have been wanted from a feedback thread before. Basically, moderators listened to user concerns.

IIRC, posters wanted "do not post on this thread again" warnings to avoid getting bannings/infractions without warnings.

Usually when it gets to this stage, its at a "stop being a muppet" stage. Posting after that warning confirms you are a muppet, even if for one thread!

There ill be exceptions to the rule but there comes a stage, you can't cater for every exception to the rule.

What is your alternative OP? Its a good idea but would the muppets take advantage of another loophole?

It should be about using the best way possible to get people to stop doing what they shouldn't be. The most authoritarian a mod is, the worse it gets generally. Give people some leeway, if they abuse it and can't bring themselves to stop after a warning, then they have shown they don't deserve being given some leeway and respect. More common sense, less hard and fast rules imo.

K-9 wrote: »

But I wasn't aggressive/rude/trollish/annoying etc.

Don't argue a mods decision on thread.

I'm guessing there is a joke here that I don't get?

Victor

5starpool wrote: »

I think it would be better if it were sometihng like "Don't post in the same agressive/rude/trollish/annoying (delete as appliicable) manner in this thread again" as it is entirely possible that people can post in a manner that is not breaking rules again.

I suspect I was one of the first people to use in - in Personal Issues. Sometimes on a thread with say 30 posts, you might have two people with 5-8 posts each, mostly having a go at each other / not agreeing to disagree. The problem is hogging the thread which is no use to the person who is trying to solve a problem.

TheZohanS

Myself and some of the other mods use it over in After Hours a bit. Sometimes I'd use it rather than ban a poster. We were asked for less bannings in AH and this is a good solution, along with using the yellow/red card for infractions.

Posters can cross the line when posting and it's a softly, softly approach and generally a way of dealing with a very "passionate" poster who's lost the run of themselves on a subject but are otherwise decent posters.

It can also be used for trolls and muppets; carrot rather than ban stick approach.

Spiritoftheseventies

super_furry wrote: »

Something I've noticed creep into the modding style in several forums recently is this threat/warning from moderators. It just strikes me as slightly aggressive and confrontational and something that's as likely to inflame a situation as to calm it. Has there been a discussion as to whether this threat is an acceptable tool for moderators and is it justified that this warning is the final say? If a poster was to reply with a non-hostile and/or inoffensive post or rebuttal after the "Do not post in this thread again" warning, is a ban automatic?

any examples?

Irish Halo

K-9 wrote: »

But I wasn't aggressive/rude/trollish/annoying etc.
Don't argue a mods decision on thread.

I'm guessing there is a joke here that I don't get?

I think he is just saying that someone could start arguing that they weren't being aggressive/rude/trollish/annoying etc so just saying "Don't post again" is easier.

stovelid

I think it's a OK way of warning somebody because it avoids having to issue an infraction or ban. Sometimes I do think issuing that bans with (subsequently thanked) smart comments can look a little condescending though although I can sympathize with people that are tested into doing so.

seamus

For a long time people have been asking for a way of banning people from individual threads.

This is in recognition that otherwise good posters can sometimes get wound up by particular threads or posters and a forum ban should really only be used in cases where people are causing a serial nuisance across the forum. Ideally if someone is derailing or disrupting a topic, they could be removed from the discussion to let it get back on track.

However, this isn't possible in vBulletin, so unfortunately in order to remove someone from a discussion, even temporarily, you have to ban them from the forum.

I think this measure is a good balance between the two. You're simply saying, "Look, you and this thread aren't getting along, so go away, chill out, forget about this discussion and enjoy another thread. If you come back into this thread, I don't have any other option but to ban you from the forum".

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

For a long time people have been asking for a way of banning people from individual threads.

This is in recognition that otherwise good posters can sometimes get wound up by particular threads or posters and a forum ban should really only be used in cases where people are causing a serial nuisance across the forum. Ideally if someone is derailing or disrupting a topic, they could be removed from the discussion to let it get back on track.

However, this isn't possible in vBulletin, so unfortunately in order to remove someone from a discussion, even temporarily, you have to ban them from the forum.

I think this measure is a good balance between the two. You're simply saying, "Look, you and this thread aren't getting along, so go away, chill out, forget about this discussion and enjoy another thread. If you come back into this thread, I don't have any other option but to ban you from the forum".

I assume the OP is talking about the manner in which the "warning" is put, as opposed to the mechanics of the intent behind it.

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I assume the OP is talking about the manner in which the "warning" is put, as opposed to the mechanics of the intent behind it.

Partially perhaps, he did ask:

Has there been a discussion as to whether this threat is an acceptable tool for moderators and is it justified that this warning is the final say?

The problem with text-based media is that tone and intent are impossible to get across.

"Do not post in this thread again", can sound snotty if you read it snotty. But so too can, "Please do not post in this thread again".

At the same time if you go too far and say, "I would be most humbly gracious if you could please refrain from adding any further content to this discussion", then a poster is going to think that's sarcasm or they're going to ignore it.

It's a command from the moderator, it's not a request. It should be phrased as such. "Do not post in this thread again" is a command. If someone wishes to take umbrage that a moderator would dare to moderate then you know where they can go. There's no "threat" there, the consquences are implicit in the fact that it's a command from the moderator.

Spiritoftheseventies

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I assume the OP is talking about the manner in which the "warning" is put, as opposed to the mechanics of the intent behind it.

Have never seen that warning before. Which mod posted it?

Fajitas!

5starpool wrote: »

I think it would be better if it were sometihng like "Don't post in the same agressive/rude/trollish/annoying (delete as appliicable) manner in this thread again" as it is entirely possible that people can post in a manner that is not breaking rules again.

Why?

If someone's been acting the d*ck in a thread and/or breaking the charter, why should they be allowed to keep on posting in it? I remember Terry bringing it back in quite a while ago, and thought it was a great idea.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

Partially perhaps, he did ask:


The problem with text-based media is that tone and intent are impossible to get across.

Socrates highlighted that issue many moons ago, refPhaedrus.

However the OP places some effort on highlighting this type of warning as "aggressive and confrontational" and I tend to agree with him, but I may have a thicker skin than most.

The "tool" the OP refers to, is a notional one, and references the actual warning, as opposed to some non-existent VB hack.

IITYWYBMAD

Fake Locke wrote: »

Have never seen that warning before. Which mod posted it?

No Idea.

5starpool

Fajitas! wrote: »

Why?

If someone's been acting the d*ck in a thread and/or breaking the charter, why should they be allowed to keep on posting in it? I remember Terry bringing it back in quite a while ago, and thought it was a great idea.

Someone can be arguing a particular pointless argument and be told not to post about it again, but if they want to add constructively to the topic in general, then they should be allowed to if it is not in the manner or topic that got them the warning in the first place.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

It's a command from the moderator, it's not a request. It should be phrased as such. "Do not post in this thread again" is a command. If someone wishes to take umbrage that a moderator would dare to moderate then you know where they can go. There's no "threat" there, the consquences are implicit in the fact that it's a command from the moderator.

Well that's the issue I would have. It of course depends on the particular incident and the history if any behind it, but I would work on the principle of avoiding "commands". It smacks way to much of respect my authouritaaay bolloxology. Which in my humble can cause as much bad feeling in a community as a short lived troll.

As I see it my role as a moderator is to moderate discussion, for everyone, including someone getting out of line. People get out of line for a few reasons. Sometimes they just dont know the score and the vibe of a forum, or the site(very common). Sometimes because it's an emotive subject for them and they need to step back. In these cases a "ah here ted/tedess, chill the beans" or firing off that in a PM works far better than jumping in with the size 9's.

IMHO a mod should not issue "commands", unless absolutely required. And defo not as a first response. If it comes down to a command either the person has gone too far off the bat or frankly Ive fcuked up in my role or moderating the discussion(common enough too).

That said Ive made this error before on quite a few occasions. I put my paw up and say mea culpa.

That's going to happen with the best of intentions, but I do have some issue with this "I love my banhammer" nonsense that does come into some methods of doing things. It's not all mods. Its not even the vast majority of mods IME, but there can be a touch of that culture at times.

The problem with text-based media is that tone and intent are impossible to get across.

Tell that to any number of writers and poets. It's actually quite simple in most cases. How you put it across is everything. Dont post in this thread again = bad or at least escalating the intent. Ok folks lets step back here and think before you post = better and more on a level with the users who are actually generating the thread for good or ill(hopefully the former).


As I say I've been guilty of this too.

Spiritoftheseventies

Wibbs wrote: »

Well that's the issue I would have. It of course depends on the particular incident and the history if any behind it, but I would work on the principle of avoiding "commands". It smacks way to much of respect my authouritaaay bolloxology. Which in my humble can cause as much bad feeling in a community as a short lived troll.

As I see it my role as a moderator is to moderate discussion, for everyone, including someone getting out of line. People get out of line for a few reasons. Sometimes they just dont know the score and the vibe of a forum, or the site(very common). Sometimes because it's an emotive subject for them and they need to step back. In these cases a "ah here ted/tedess, chill the beans" or firing off that in a PM works far better than jumping in with the size 9's.

IMHO a mod should not issue "commands", unless absolutely required. And defo not as a first response. If it comes down to a command either the person has gone too far off the bat or frankly Ive fcuked up in my role or moderating the discussion(common enough too).

That said Ive made this error before on quite a few occasions. I put my paw up and say mea culpa.

That's going to happen with the best of intentions, but I do have some issue with this "I love my banhammer" nonsense that does come into some methods of doing things. It's not all mods. Its not even the vast majority of mods IME, but there can be a touch of that culture at times.

Tell that to any number of writers and poets. It's actually quite simple in most cases. How you put it across is everything. Dont post in this thread again = bad or at least escalating the intent. Ok folks lets step back here and think before you post = better and more on a level with the users who are actually generating the thread for good or ill(hopefully the former).


As I say I've been guilty of this too.

Really glad this had been brought up because I think it needs to be addressed. There have been instances I have seen of posters telling others to get the **** off or GTFO. And they have gone unpunished for it. Is this back modding?

WindSock

Fake Locke wrote: »

Really glad this had been brought up because I think it needs to be addressed. There have been instances I have seen of posters telling others to get the **** off or GTFO. And they have gone unpunished for it. Is this back modding?

Telling someone to STFU or GTFO is not a bannable offence. It's uncivil yes, but shouldn't be bannable.

Spiritoftheseventies

WindSock wrote: »

Telling someone to STFU or GTFO is not a bannable offence. It's uncivil yes, but shouldn't be bannable.

Is it up to poster to tell someone to get off a thread. Thats surely a mod's job and even then it should come with a polite but stern warning if poster is acting up.

WindSock

The poster saying it doesn't mean jack tbh. It is ultimately up to the mod who gets to post on the thread. The poster saying something like that will probably stir things up a little, things are often said in anger or the heat of the moment, but it's nothing a civil on thread warning from a mod can't fix. However if it does get out of hand again then things might need to be stepped up a bit.

There is something that irritates mods a bit called 'backseat modding' I wouldn't consider GTFO to be that, but everyone is different. If a post annoys someone it is best to report it and let the mods deal with it. Bare in mind a reported post won't always get acted on.

bonkey

Wibbs wrote: »

How you put it across is everything. Dont post in this thread again = bad or at least escalating the intent. Ok folks lets step back here and think before you post = better and more on a level with the users who are actually generating the thread for good or ill(hopefully the former).

While I agree with this, I'd make a couple of observations.

This proposed alternate is (deliberately?) worded less specifically. It avoids targeting any individual, which is perhaps a good thing.

If whatever was which gave cause for the warning continues, however, what does the moderator do?

They can use a polite-but-directed request, so that its clear who they feel are disrputive.
If that doesn't work, they may choose to issue warnings (yellow cards) or infractions (red cards).

So, having gone through these options, what does a mod do if things still aren't calming down?

There are two options left, that I see:

1) Ban the user from the forum, for continued disruptive behaviour, despite being given every chance.
2) "Soft-Ban" the user from the thread, for continued disruptive behaviour, but allow them to continue elsewhere in the forum.

It strikes me that option 2 here is the lesser reaction, and that there are certain situations where it could/should be valid and reasonable.

That said...I'm still pretty sure that in most cases anyone instructed by a moderator not to post in a thread again would be more put out if the mod banned them from the entire forum instead. Maybe I'm wrong on that...and if a user came to me to question my moderation on such an issue and said "I'd rather a weeks ban from the forum then a ban from a thread", I'd be willing to consider accommodating them.

The main issue I see with it, is that its a "soft" ban. There's nothing in the system to prevent the user from ignoring it, nor any way of ensuring that they've actually read your warning before they post again. So if a user came to me to say that they had posted and hadn't seen my instruction, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt....but obviously as of that point, they'd have to be aware of the instruction, and so would have no excuse.

Spiritoftheseventies

bonkey wrote: »

While I agree with this, I'd make a couple of observations.

This proposed alternate is (deliberately?) worded less specifically. It avoids targeting any individual, which is perhaps a good thing.

If whatever was which gave cause for the warning continues, however, what does the moderator do?

They can use a polite-but-directed request, so that its clear who they feel are disrputive.
If that doesn't work, they may choose to issue warnings (yellow cards) or infractions (red cards).

So, having gone through these options, what does a mod do if things still aren't calming down?

There are two options left, that I see:

1) Ban the user from the forum, for continued disruptive behaviour, despite being given every chance.
2) "Soft-Ban" the user from the thread, for continued disruptive behaviour, but allow them to continue elsewhere in the forum.

It strikes me that option 2 here is the lesser reaction, and that there are certain situations where it could/should be valid and reasonable.

That said...I'm still pretty sure that in most cases anyone instructed by a moderator not to post in a thread again would be more put out if the mod banned them from the entire forum instead. Maybe I'm wrong on that...and if a user came to me to question my moderation on such an issue and said "I'd rather a weeks ban from the forum then a ban from a thread", I'd be willing to consider accommodating them.

The main issue I see with it, is that its a "soft" ban. There's nothing in the system to prevent the user from ignoring it, nor any way of ensuring that they've actually read your warning before they post again. So if a user came to me to say that they had posted and hadn't seen my instruction, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt....but obviously as of that point, they'd have to be aware of the instruction, and so would have no excuse.

I agree with most of your points but on two points highlighted on bold. Can a mod ban a poster totally from the boards or just the forum they are posting on. Also not sure how valid an excuse it is when poster says they had not seen a mod instruction.

bonkey

Fake Locke wrote: »

I agree with most of your points but on two points highlighted on bold. Can a mod ban a poster totally from the boards or just the forum they are posting on.

You may have misread what I wrote. I said that the mod would ban them from the forum...not from boards (the site)

Mods ban from forums. Admins do site-bans.

Also not sure how valid an excuse it is when poster says they had not seen a mod instruction.

People don't always read everything to the end of the thread before replying to a post.

So it could be that someone last posted on (say) post 100. They come back, see post 105, and reply to it. they have replied without noticing that post 110 was the mod telling them not to post to the thread. Maybe they don't read after post 105. Maybe they do, but aren't aware as to how they can edit/delete their own posts.

I'd give them the benefit of the doubt if they made such a case. If nothing else, it shows I'm giving them every chance. If they abuse that trust, though...say, by continuing to post in the thread with an "I know I'll get banned, but its worth it", then I'd treat them more harshly...say a two-week ban rather than a one-week.

Spiritoftheseventies

bonkey wrote: »

You may have misread what I wrote. I said that the mod would ban them from the forum...not from boards (the site)

Mods ban from forums. Admins do site-bans.


People don't always read everything to the end of the thread before replying to a post.

So it could be that someone last posted on (say) post 100. They come back, see post 105, and reply to it. they have replied without noticing that post 110 was the mod telling them not to post to the thread. Maybe they don't read after post 105. Maybe they do, but aren't aware as to how they can edit/delete their own posts.

I'd give them the benefit of the doubt if they made such a case. If nothing else, it shows I'm giving them every chance. If they abuse that trust, though...say, by continuing to post in the thread with an "I know I'll get banned, but its worth it", then I'd treat them more harshly...say a two-week ban rather than a one-week.

I think there is a very simple way around this. Posters debate the post not the poster. For me its the number one rule. Otherwise threads get derailed totally and I have seen it happen. Posters should be allowed to debate a point if slightly off topic if it adds to the quality of the debate. But i have seen examples of mods stepping in (which is their prerogative) and kill off a discussion which is not doing any harm. Can see their need to keep the thread on topic but discretion should be used here.