Permabanning points system or something?

Kinetic^

If the general public weren't a bunch of dribblers then there would be no need for such a system.

Insect Overlord

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

People seem to only get permabanned from the site for really taking the piss. Always multiple forum bans and even forum permabans.

Surely it would be very simple, to at the end of the standard text in a ban PM; include the line:

"Permanent sitebans can be administered to troublesome posters at discretion of site moderators administrators, at any time"

Bit more accurate now. Not a bad idea, but, to paraphrase what Kinetic, it would probably be wasted on the type of poster who would be affected by such a warning.

pickarooney

strobe wrote: »

Yeah that all sounds fair enough I guess. I still think actually making a point of telling someone "this is your last chance to turn your ways around" or something prior to implementing an absolutely irreversible ban would be a good idea rather than hoping the infractions etc click for them at a certain point. Everyone deserves one last chance and all that. If after that they still act the bollix then they have no right to feel hard done by as they clearly knew what the result would be. Just think the out of the blue aspect of it seems a bit harsh.

Isn't the purpose of the prison forum to act as a last-chance saloon? It's like warning a child over and over that they'll get punished but it's not until the Lego is in the bin that they realise it's probably not coming back out unless they do something radical about their attitude.

Kinetic^

pickarooney wrote: »

Isn't the purpose of the prison forum to act as a last-chance saloon? It's like warning a child over and over that they'll get punished but it's not until the Lego is in the bin that they realise it's probably not coming back out unless they do something radical about their attitude.

I thought prison was merely a lulz forum were we can point and laugh at imbeciles who beg for forgiveness.

/rides away on his high horse

Elmidena

Forgive me if my idea sounds daft or has been covered before--if it has I am unaware of it.

In the case of such a person having a high post count, is generally positive, has been here many years and say in five years has gotten 10 bans. Now, say this person is told "you're trouble, out with you!" and they're in shock and run the spiel of how valued/longterm/positive they usually are etc etc....I feel that it would be fair if there was some form of reducing a sentence for "good behaviour" to go with the gaol theme.

Say in three years a user has three bans. In the next three years, they don't receive any bans (of any duration), would it be possible to deduct one or two off the record, or make an admin-only-visible note saying that the user has reformed well and is granted a bit of reprieve. I know most people will now be thinking "but everyone has to follow the don't be a dick rule from the start, why adorn a convict with praise and say how good they are?". I have never been banned and am not an admin, so if such a thing already exists fair enough.

A little niceness goes a long way. Something like that would make a user appreciate the benefits of not being a wild card in discussion more often, and would hopefully make them embrace the positive angle all the more. "It's been a year since my last ban, another year and I'll be able to deduct one of the marks off my name". I know it sounds like an AA meeting, but a little incentive can make even the fieriest of souls a little meeker.

Of course it's better to not be a dick in the first place, but acknowledging reform instead of after so many years of a handful of bans the user gets kicked out the door. Maybe the penalty points system I suggested will work, maybe it won't, but it's the best idea I've got right now anyway.

Cheers for your time

Zaph

I think we're pretty tolerant and it generally takes a lot of infractions and bans for someone to come to our attention. However we have noticed recently that a disproportionately small number of posters have been accumulating a disproportionately high number of infractions and bans and have been creating an awful lot of work for the mods and spoiling Boards for many posters. Consequently we have lowered our tolerance level a little and decided that enough is enough. These people generally have had multiple forum bans and many, although not necessarily all, have had previous temporary sitebans. If we thought that there was any chance of rehabilitation we'd certainly consider another chance, but we're talking about a very tiny percentage of Boards members who just can't help getting themselves into trouble and it eventually comes back to bite them in the ass.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

The idea of the infractions and forum/category bans are to show the user where they are going wrong. Thats their warning. If, after a period of time the user is obviously not "getting it" or is deliberately being troublesome but not enough to warrant a straight out site ban, we do take their history into account.

A user that gets a string of infractions and minor bans from a range of forums for insulting other users over a period of a year or so for example just isnt getting the message that that behaviour is not acceptable. eventually we just have to decide that enough chances have been given and htat keepign the user around not only creates more work for the mods/cmods and admins as we try to get them to see the light, it also detracts from the enjoyment of other users. The site is better off without their input.

There is no hard and fast formula for when the scales finally tip. A point based system would remove the human element from the process and you need that element to make exceptions and take context and circumstances into account. So, its a manual process. If a user turn up on our radar, we always look at their posting history. If that raises an eyebrow, the admin can ask for a second opinion on borderline cases or impose the siteban for the obvious ones (the ones who have had "form" ).

At some stage, even just for sanity's sake, we have to say enough is enough and its not us, its you.

and no, you dont have to agree with every post or even praise boards.ie in all that you do. you just have to know how to disagree properly and not resort to being a dick when some anonymous internet person dares to disagree.

How would a user who only had one infractions over the course of a year end up being permbanned from a forum under these guidelines?

DOC09UNAM

The Muppet wrote: »

LoLth wrote: »

The idea of the infractions and forum/category bans are to show the user where they are going wrong. Thats their warning. If, after a period of time the user is obviously not "getting it" or is deliberately being troublesome but not enough to warrant a straight out site ban, we do take their history into account.

A user that gets a string of infractions and minor bans from a range of forums for insulting other users over a period of a year or so for example just isnt getting the message that that behaviour is not acceptable. eventually we just have to decide that enough chances have been given and htat keepign the user around not only creates more work for the mods/cmods and admins as we try to get them to see the light, it also detracts from the enjoyment of other users. The site is better off without their input.

There is no hard and fast formula for when the scales finally tip. A point based system would remove the human element from the process and you need that element to make exceptions and take context and circumstances into account. So, its a manual process. If a user turn up on our radar, we always look at their posting history. If that raises an eyebrow, the admin can ask for a second opinion on borderline cases or impose the siteban for the obvious ones (the ones who have had "form" ).

At some stage, even just for sanity's sake, we have to say enough is enough and its not us, its you.

and no, you dont have to agree with every post or even praise boards.ie in all that you do. you just have to know how to disagree properly and not resort to being a dick when some anonymous internet person dares to disagree.

How would a user who only had one infractions over the course of a year end up being permbanned from a forum under these guidelines?

Probably because they're not worth the hassle they bring to the forum, and by trolling by not strictly breaking the rules.

LoLth

The Muppet wrote: »

How would a user who only had one infractions over the course of a year end up being permbanned from a forum under these guidelines?

The user would have the opportunity to resolve the issue by following the dispute resolution procedure.

The permabans being discussed in this thread are site wide bans imposed by the admins when a user has racked up an unusual amount of lesser infractions/forum bans. The the user can appeal the decision in the prison forum.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

The user would have the opportunity to resolve the issue by following the dispute resolution procedure.

The permabans being discussed in this thread are site wide bans imposed by the admins when a user has racked up an unusual amount of lesser infractions/forum bans. The the user can appeal the decision in the prison forum.

Could you answer my question please , after all you invited me to contribute to this thread.

Perhaps the user has no intention of appealing the ban as he has no interest in contributing to the soccer forum for the reasons being discussed elswhere on this forum.

That aside I would like to know how a user with one infraction in one year can find himself perm banned from a forum. I would like you and zaph to square that with the comments you have made here regarding how the system currently operates?

What is the point in putting in place a process of warning, infracting and then banning users if it not applicable to all users? Who choses which users are subject to which set of rules?

Gordon

The Muppet wrote: »

How would a user who only had one infractions over the course of a year end up being permbanned from a forum under these guidelines?

Are you getting your feedback threads mixed up? This thread is about multiple bans and warnings leading to a site wide ban, not "one infraction resulting in a forum ban".

The Muppet

Gordon wrote: »

Are you getting your feedback threads mixed up? This thread is about multiple bans and warnings leading to a site wide ban, not "one infraction resulting in a forum ban".

Perhaps, I initally posted on the soccer thread and lolth invited me to contribute to the thread about perm bans , I assumed he meant this one, is there another?

LoLth wrote: »

@theMuppet :





and if the permabans werent given the admins would be accused of pandering to the troublemakers and making life impossible for the mods by letting consistent low level trolling slide by unpunished. This is currently being discussed in another feedback thread. your opinion and any further discussion would be welcome there.



.

Gordon

The Muppet wrote: »

Perhaps, I initally posted on the soccer thread and lolth invited me to contribute to the thread about perm bans , I assumed he meant this one, is there another?

Ah right, no this is the one, I'm not sure what you're talking about relates to the initial post in this thread though, but maybe Lolth can join the dots..

LoLth

sorry, I was getting confused between the two topics myself.

Permanent sitebans --> this thread

Soccer moderation concerns --> other thread

questioning a permaban from the soccer forum from several months ago that you didnt object to at the time ---> possibly DRP, though its not really a dispute as its a good while later or maybe a pm to the mod/cmod to review and possibly reduce it.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

sorry, I was getting confused between the two topics myself.

Permanent sitebans --> this thread

Soccer moderation concerns --> other thread

questioning a permaban from the soccer forum from several months ago that you didnt object to at the time ---> possibly DRP, though its not really a dispute as its a good while later or maybe a pm to the mod/cmod to review and possibly reduce it.

I'm not disputing or appealing a ban at this time, I know this isn't the proper forum for that . I realise it's not a sitewide perm ban I'm asking about but it is a perm ban from my main forum of interest and you invited me raise my questions here. Surely this is not way off topic on this thread and could be addressed here.

Considering the comments yourself and zaph have made in this thread regarding about how bans are issued I would be interested in having my questions answered.

You say that there needs to be a progression of warnings and infractions before a ban would be issued. This is not my experience of how the system works so I would like further clarification of how a user can be perm banned form a forum or indeed the site when that user has only had one infraction in the year previous to his perm banning?

LoLth

The Muppet wrote: »

I'm not disputing or appealing a ban at this time, I know this isn't the proper forum for that . I realise it's not a sitewide perm ban I'm asking about but it is a perm ban from my main forum of interest and you invited me raise my questions here. Surely this is not way off topic on this thread and could be addressed here.

as I posted, this is not the thread to discuss bans from indicidual forums. its a thread for discussing sitewide bans issued as the culmination of user behaviour on the site. Neither is the soccer moderation thread the place for discussion of your particular issue. Your issue should be discussed with the moderator or co-moderator of the soccer forum. It wont get resolved by popular opinion or any form of kangaroo court.

Considering the comments yourself and zaph have made in this thread regarding about how bans are issued I would be interested in having my questions answered.

why? why now? what does it matter? you didnt question it when it was issued. How should I, or anybody other than the moderator, know what a mod was thinking when you got banned X months ago? Have you perhaps tried asking the mod who banned you with the hope that they remember the thought process that lead up to your banning?

You say that there needs to be a progression of warnings and infractions before a ban would be issued. This is not my experience of how the system works so I would like further clarification of how a user can be perm banned form a forum or indeed the site when that user has only had one infraction in the year previous to his perm banning?

A permanent site ban does not require progression. Some have been banned, permenently, from the site after just one post. However, if a user has a history of racking up minor infractions and bans and wasting moderator time to the detriment of other users' experience of boards then they can, and will, receive a permanent site wide ban at the discretion of the admins, completely seperate to the mods and cmods. It is not something that can be requested or demanded, it is a decision solely in the hands of the admins and it is the admins who will deal with any interaction with the user from then on.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

as I posted, this is not the thread to discuss bans from indicidual forums. its a thread for discussing sitewide bans issued as the culmination of user behaviour on the site. Neither is the soccer moderation thread the place for discussion of your particular issue. Your issue should be discussed with the moderator or co-moderator of the soccer forum. It wont get resolved by popular opinion or any form of kangaroo court.

Why did you invited me to enter this discussion if you are unwilling to engage with me ? Perhaps it was a Kangaroo court that issued the ban I speak of, it certainly appears that way does it not?

LoLth wrote: »

why? why now? what does it matter? you didnt question it when it was issued. How should I, or anybody other than the moderator, know what a mod was thinking when you got banned X months ago? Have you perhaps tried asking the mod who banned you with the hope that they remember the thought process that lead up to your banning?

Is there a time scale in which issues must be raised? You must know as well as I do that this decision was not taken at moderator level, there was admin involvement. I have no intention of appealing the ban at the moment, my intention here is to highlight discrepancies between what you say is procedure which is followed before a ban is issued and the reality which from personal experience I know to be different.

LoLth wrote: »

A permanent site ban does not require progression. Some have been banned, permenently, from the site after just one post. However, if a user has a history of racking up minor infractions and bans and wasting moderator time to the detriment of other users' experience of boards then they can, and will, receive a permanent site wide ban at the discretion of the admins, completely seperate to the mods and cmods. It is not something that can be requested or demanded, it is a decision solely in the hands of the admins and it is the admins who will deal with any interaction with the user from then on.

There is no history of racking up minor infractions in this instance. I can post a screen shot of the infractions if you want.

You say there is a system of warning, infracting and banning users .What is the point in having a procedure for warning, infracting and then banning users if it' not to be adhered to. I assume the system was put in place to let users know if they were causing a problem , How does a user know to change his posting habits without the warnings and infractions?

LoLth

The Muppet wrote: »

Why did you invited me to enter this discussion if you are unwilling to engage with me ? Perhaps it was a Kangaroo court that issued the ban I speak of, it certainly appears that way does it not?

yes. its a conspiracy against you. thats it. you caught me red handed. I already posted to say that I was mistaken in pointing you to this thread and I have posted your options above. I'm not going to discuss your forum ban here, just like I wouldnt discuss a users siteban anywhere except prison. You were banned after careful discussion and deliberation between ALL of the soccer mods and the sports Cmod at the time. Thats not a kangaroo court, thats mods doing what they've been asked to do.

Is there a time scale in which issues must be raised? You must know as well as I do that this decision was not taken at moderator level, there was admin involvement.

The ban was given by the mods. I participated in the discussion to advise on procedure but was not "involved" with the decision making. Neither was any other admin. I was the only admin , at the time, to post on the soccer mods forum. You were advised at the time of the ban to start a thread in the DR forum if you wished to contest it. You were also advised of the reason for the ban . In the period leading up to your ban you were the subject of a Feedback thread on low level trolling in the soccer forum, which is why I was aware of the mod discussion. Is there a time scale? no. not really, but common sense would dictate that if you did not agree with an action and were advised on how to rectify it or voice your concerns then sooner rather than later would be best. The mods have told you to take it to the DRP, I have asked you to take it to the DRP. This will not be discussed in feedback nor will you be allowed to use it as a stick to beat the mods with. Either appeal it or accept it. If the forumer, then do it in the correct place.

There is no history of racking up minor infractions in this instance. I can post a screen shot of the infractions if you want.

the ban reason was "low level trolling". by definition, low level trolling does not rack up infractions. If you want to see what effect low level trolling does have, there is a feedback thread on such actions in the feedback forum where you are mentioned more than once. You were told in your ban PM that you were deemed to be deliberately riling Liverpool supporters in your most recent posts and there have been examples of previous posts that followed the same vein. You were considered a detriment to other users' enjoyment of the forum serious enough to be considered a drain on mod time.

You say there is a system of warning, infracting and banning users .What is the point in having a procedure for warning, infracting and then banning users if it' not to be adhered to. I assume the system was put in place to let users know if they were causing a problem , How does a user know to change his posting habits without the warnings and infractions?

Have you been sitebanned? Do you deserve a siteban? nope? then the system , in your case, is working. I said there is a system of warnings that lead to a SITE BAN. please read that word again. SITE ban. can you see the operative word there? your issue is with a ban from one forum. DRP or PM the mods.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

yes. its a conspiracy against you. thats it. you caught me red handed. I already posted to say that I was mistaken in pointing you to this thread and I have posted your options above. I'm not going to discuss your forum ban here, just like I wouldnt discuss a users siteban anywhere except prison. You were banned after careful discussion and deliberation between ALL of the soccer mods and the sports Cmod at the time. Thats not a kangaroo court, thats mods doing what they've been asked to do.

There's no need for the sarcasm, I'm being perfectly civil with you. If this is not the thread from this discussion perhaps we could have a dedicated thread to discuss the process of how forum perm bans are issued.

I really don't want to discuss my own Ban here my enquiry stems from my own experience but is of a general nature as to how such decisions are reached considering all the facts

LoLth wrote: »

The ban was given by the mods. I participated in the discussion to advise on procedure but was not "involved" with the decision making. Neither was any other admin. I was the only admin , at the time, to post on the soccer mods forum. You were advised at the time of the ban to start a thread in the DR forum if you wished to contest it. You were also advised of the reason for the ban . In the period leading up to your ban you were the subject of a Feedback thread on low level trolling in the soccer forum, which is why I was aware of the mod discussion. Is there a time scale? no. not really, but common sense would dictate that if you did not agree with an action and were advised on how to rectify it or voice your concerns then sooner rather than later would be best. The mods have told you to take it to the DRP, I have asked you to take it to the DRP. This will not be discussed in feedback nor will you be allowed to use it as a stick to beat the mods with. Either appeal it or accept it. If the forumer, then do it in the correct place..

You say you 're not going to discuss my ban here in one sentence and then go on in the next paragraph and do exactly that. For the final time I don't agree with the ban but I'm not appealing it at the moment, I have my own reasons for that and that's my decision.

LoLth wrote: »

the ban reason was "low level trolling". by definition, low level trolling does not rack up infractions. If you want to see what effect low level trolling does have, there is a feedback thread on such actions in the feedback forum where you are mentioned more than once. You were told in your ban PM that you were deemed to be deliberately riling Liverpool supporters in your most recent posts and there have been examples of previous posts that followed the same vein. You were considered a detriment to other users' enjoyment of the forum serious enough to be considered a drain on mod time. .

Why should the crime of low level trolling (what ever that is) be treated differently than the other rule breaches? What is the purpose of having a process if it is not adhered to? Are no warning perm bans Fair on the user?

LoLth wrote: »

Have you been sitebanned? Do you deserve a siteban? nope? then the system , in your case, is working. I said there is a system of warnings that lead to a SITE BAN. please read that word again. SITE ban. can you see the operative word there? your issue is with a ban from one forum. DRP or PM the mods.

I'd argue I didn't deserve the forum ban but lets leave my own personal situation aside in the interest of this discussion. There is no mention of site ban in the thread title, perhaps you could split our exchanges from this thread and start a new thread dealing specifically with forum perm bans. I think there might well be interest in that discussion too.

Oranage2

I think Strobes suggestion is a good one - recently it looks like posters have been 'baited' to come to dispute resolution and then permabanned from there.

I dont think it's fair that if you think you've been wronged that you then face the risk of a permaban should you dispute it -


So a simple message saying - one more ban and you're permabanned - Atleast thats a fair warning.