Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Forum permbans points system or something
Options
-
28-10-2011 10:07pm#1I believe the same questions that are being asked about site permbans also apply to Forum permbans. I was discussing this with an admin in the other thread but apparently it's off topic there so I decided to start a dedicated thread dealing with forum permbans.
This is not a ban appeal, nor do I want discussion be be about any specific ban, more a general discussion that will inform users of how the decision to permban a user from a specific forum is reached and if anything can be done to make that process more transparent and fairer for the users.
Here are the relevant quoted posts from the other Thread which include my questions to date.The Muppet 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?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 wrote: »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?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 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.
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?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? 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?
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 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?
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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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 wrote: »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
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.
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?
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.Post edited by Shield on0
Comments
-
If this is supposed to be a general discussion about bans, then why have you quoted posts about a specific ban in a specific forum from a specific Mod?0
-
My opening Post including the quotes are for clarity . They show the context of the conversation to date which has taken place across a number of other feedback threads. I though it best to do that rather than start from a blank page as those post raise questions that will possibly be asked in this thread.
This issue is broader than a single ban, mod, group of mods. admin or forum. It is about Boards.ie policy when issuing no warning permbans from specific forums.
That said obvioulsy I have most information on one single forum ban and will no doubt draw on that experience during my contributions here.0 -
so a permaban from a forum can only be given with prior warning?
what about spammers? do they get a prior warning? I hope not. So all permabans, except those for spammers, must be given warnings in the form of on thread warnings, infractions, red cards, smaller forum bans.
How about people that post porn or advertise or grossly abuse another user or set of users through racism or extreme sexist/unsavoury remarks? Should they be given an infraction or a warning before a permaban? How many warnings should be given? How many times should a user be allowed to abuse another or post disturbing material unsolicited? How many advertisements should we allow before we say "contact sales if you want to advertise your business and make money off a free forum and we can arrange a banner ad so that those who wish dont have to see your ad if they choose not to"
How about users that deliberately try to disrupt a forum through "low level trolling" - ie: posts that are within the ruels technically but are posted in a thread where the user knows they will upset and annoy as many people as possible (like for example a Munster fan posting about how crap leinster Rugby is.. not against the rules per se unless he posts it in a thread discussing the current Leinster squad selection or possibly more obvious, posting about how the british should get out and stay out and any deaths caused up North are their own fault in a thread offering sympathies to the families and friends of people injured or killed in a bomb blast or shooting in Belfast?)
Bans, any bans can be appealed, thats why we have the DRP. If a user feels that a warning or ban was not deserved they can follow the procedure and have it reviewed, by the mod that issued it, by a cmod and ultimately an admin. You really cant get much more transparent than that without severely compromising the experience oand enjoyment of other users. The DRP already impinges on that enjoyment as mods are doing more work to defend bans that they impose and that takes away from their patience and time for other users. Its worthwhile notign that the DRP came abotu as a response to calls for transparency on boards.ie and was considered a workable solution. As teh process has continued we have seen fewer bans overturned which shows that either less bans are being imposed or the mods are taking more care when deciding what is and is not ban-worthy.
Any warning other than the ones contained in the terms and conditions signed up to when a user joins boards.ie and the charter for the individual forum is dependant on the nature of the transgression and the history of the poster in that forum in the past. Not just bans/infractions handed out but also the proportion of mod time spent dealing with issues caused by that poster.0 -
How about users that deliberately try to disrupt a forum through "low level trolling" - ie: posts that are within the ruels technically but are posted in a thread where the user knows they will upset and annoy as many people as possible (like for example a Munster fan posting about how crap leinster Rugby is.. not against the rules per se unless he posts it in a thread discussing the current Leinster squad selection or possibly more obvious, posting about how the british should get out and stay out and any deaths caused up North are their own fault in a thread offering sympathies to the families and friends of people injured or killed in a bomb blast or shooting in Belfast?)
All the above examples are worthy of at least an infraction. You make it sound as if moderators are powerless when it comes to any of the above, they aren't. That is what infractions are for at the end of the day. To let users know that they are posting in a way that is not being appreciated by the forum's mods and users (but just not so much that they are deserving of a temp ban, let alone a permanent one). I get that some moderators don't like to use infractions but imo (and that's all this post is) the infraction system should be used by all public forums on Boards or none at all. It's pointless to have such a system in place otherwise.Bans, any bans can be appealed, thats why we have the DRP. If a user feels that a warning or ban was not deserved they can follow the procedure and have it reviewed, by the mod that issued it, by a cmod and ultimately an admin.
Depends who issues them. If a member of Admin permabans a user from a forum, that user cannot dispute it in the DRP. I know as I raised this issue before and the thread was quickly locked:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73134851You really cant get much more transparent than that without severely compromising the experience oand enjoyment of other users. The DRP already impinges on that enjoyment as mods are doing more work to defend bans that they impose and that takes away from their patience and time for other users.
If anything making sure that moderators infract for minor impingements before issuing permanent bans would mean less DRP threads surely, as users would feel a hell of a lot less confident about starting a DRP thread if they had already received some infractions before hand (and/or temp bans) for the same behavior. The vast majority of bans I see CMods lifting in the DRP are ones that came out of the blue and were clearly ott/unwarranted when users posting history and/or lack of bans/warnings/infractions were taken into consideration.Its worthwhile notign that the DRP came abotu as a response to calls for transparency on boards.ie and was considered a workable solution. As teh process has continued we have seen fewer bans overturned which shows that either less bans are being imposed or the mods are taking more care when deciding what is and is not ban-worthy.
Yes and I applaud Boards for that but this is the one area which I feel needs to be improved upon: just what should warrant permabanning users from forums when they have little or no ban history and/or infractions. Permanently banning a user from a specific forum is something which I don't feel should be taken lightly, which is what I think some mods are guilty of. Consistency is everything and when you see forums like After Hours, TGC (among others) going out of their way to try and be fair and consistent with their users and then see some of the nonsense that other forum's mods get away with in comparison - well quite frankly it's laughable.Any warning other than the ones contained in the terms and conditions signed up to when a user joins boards.ie and the charter for the individual forum is dependant on the nature of the transgression and the history of the poster in that forum in the past. Not just bans/infractions handed out but also the proportion of mod time spent dealing with issues caused by that poster.
Ah, fast becoming a Feedback favourite for many mods (along with 'you just have an axe to grind'). Sure, just throw out a few remarks (aimed at users who may have a complaint) claiming that they are guilty of constantly wasting forum moderator's time and how they're simply not worth the hassle (mods/admin being mere volunteers and all) - sure what can anyone really say in reply to such sanctimonious diversionary nonsense. It works though and if that type of muddying of the water by mods was clamped down on, I think Feedback (and Boards in general) would be all the better for it.
tl;dr
Moderators (of course) should be able to permanently ban users from forums as much and as often as they wish (even if those users have not been infracted and/or received previous temp bans) as there are simply too many occasions when such bans are more than justified. More consistent infracting of users for things which mods tend to later use to excuse subsequent permabans, would go a long way to avoiding threads such as this in future in my view.
Premabans I feel should not be done 'behind the scenes' by Admin either (with the exception of spammers, site-banable offences etc) as it takes away a user's ability to dispute such bans, should they wish to. This loophole, of mods being able avoid any possibility of a DRP thread if they get Admin to permaban a user from a forum rather than do it themselves, should be closed - either that or such bans should not be immune from the DRP. Users should always have the ability to dispute forum permbans, no matter who issues them (even if that means stepping it back to CMod level in the DRF).
That is of course if Admin are completely serious about having transparency in all matters regarding forum bans. If not - sure carry on as is, nah bother.0 -
I'd agree with some of Outlaw Pete's argument. Spam/porn/etc warrant sitebans which are Admin territory and appeal is in Prison.
If an Admin imposes a forum ban then it should be considered to be at the same level as a mod doing it and subject to the DRP as normal. PI would be one case in point where Silverfish is an active mod. A forum ban there should be subject to the normal procedure despite the Admin position. I wouldn't expect an Admin to come in to Parenting (as an example) and forum-ban someone - that's the job of the Parenting mods. This issue only really arises where an Admin is an active mod in a forum - separation of duties is important.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
so a permaban from a forum can only be given with prior warning?
what about spammers? do they get a prior warning? I hope not. So all permabans, except those for spammers, must be given warnings in the form of on thread warnings, infractions, red cards, smaller forum bans.
How about people that post porn or advertise or grossly abuse another user or set of users through racism or extreme sexist/unsavoury remarks? Should they be given an infraction or a warning before a permaban? How many warnings should be given? How many times should a user be allowed to abuse another or post disturbing material unsolicited? How many advertisements should we allow before we say "contact sales if you want to advertise your business and make money off a free forum and we can arrange a banner ad so that those who wish dont have to see your ad if they choose not to"
I believe all users should be treated equally.How about users that deliberately try to disrupt a forum through "low level trolling" - ie: posts that are within the ruels technically but are posted in a thread where the user knows they will upset and annoy as many people as possible (like for example a Munster fan posting about how crap leinster Rugby is.. not against the rules per se unless he posts it in a thread discussing the current Leinster squad selection or possibly more obvious, posting about how the british should get out and stay out and any deaths caused up North are their own fault in a thread offering sympathies to the families and friends of people injured or killed in a bomb blast or shooting in Belfast?)
Posting to annoy people is not within the rules no matter how subtlely it is done. The "dont be a dick rule" covers this. I would expect the outlined behaviour to be treated like all other rule breaches and anyone guilty should rack up infractions and bans as laid down in the various forum charters.Bans, any bans can be appealed, thats why we have the DRP. If a user feels that a warning or ban was not deserved they can follow the procedure and have it reviewed, by the mod that issued it, by a cmod and ultimately an admin. You really cant get much more transparent than that without severely compromising the experience oand enjoyment of other users. The DRP already impinges on that enjoyment as mods are doing more work to defend bans that they impose and that takes away from their patience and time for other users. Its worthwhile notign that the DRP came abotu as a response to calls for transparency on boards.ie and was considered a workable solution. As teh process has continued we have seen fewer bans overturned which shows that either less bans are being imposed or the mods are taking more care when deciding what is and is not ban-worthy.
Any warning other than the ones contained in the terms and conditions signed up to when a user joins boards.ie and the charter for the individual forum is dependant on the nature of the transgression and the history of the poster in that forum in the past. Not just bans/infractions handed out but also the proportion of mod time spent dealing with issues caused by that poster.
I have no issue with the DRP, I have no doubt it works as intended.0 -
No it's not.
It's about yours.
No you could include my month ban from Christianity. I dont want to go into particular circumstances as I reserve the right to appeal such a ban - which came after disputing a single infarction.
Should I start a discussion on moderation in the Christianity forum or resolve the dispute about my individual ban first?
Actually in case the month ban isn't covered you can add in my permanban from politics on the grounds of posting to much and posting things other posters didn't like which resulted in lots of posters complaining. No actual charter rules were broken however.0 -
you can add in my permanban from politics on the grounds of posting to much and posting things other posters didn't like which resulted in lots of posters complaining. No actual charter rules were broken however.
This is the core point of my arguement too. Is it really right to issue no warning permanent forum bans in these cases? imo it's not as it leaves boards wide open to all sorts of accusations.0 -
Mods don't issue permanent bans for fun you know. I would never insist that mods have to issue short term bans or written warnings or anything of the sort to people as some sort of structured system. If a Mod thinks someone has done something to deserve a permanent ban then so be it. It can be appealed and overturned through the DRP channel. Mods don't always get it 100% right.
I refuse to have mods hands tied by some sort of "tiered disciplinary process" that we don't need nor want. Generally speaking, if you've been permanently banned then *you* have done something very wrong to warrant it, so you shouldn't be trying to pin the blame elsewhere.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mods don't issue permanent bans for fun you know. I would never insist that mods have to issue short term bans or written warnings or anything of the sort to people as some sort of structured system. If a Mod thinks someone has done something to deserve a permanent ban then so be it. It can be appealed and overturned through the DRP channel. Mods don't always get it 100% right.
I refuse to have mods hands tied by some sort of "tiered disciplinary process" that we don't need nor want. Generally speaking, if you've been permanently banned then *you* have done something very wrong to warrant it, so you shouldn't be trying to pin the blame elsewhere.
Generally speaking I would agree with you , unfortunately there are the exceptions when this is not the case.
Surely the alledged rule breach has to be a factor when it comes to the seriousness of the punishment . When you have to try justify no warning permbans for users who by your own admission have posted within the rules must set alarm bells ringing and indicates that something hasn't worked as it should.you can add in my permanban from politics on the grounds of posting to much and posting things other posters didn't like which resulted in lots of posters complaining. No actual charter rules were broken however.0 -
The Muppet wrote: »Generally speaking I would agree with you , unfortunately there are the exceptions when this is not the case.
You are not one of those exceptions though.0 -
The Muppet wrote: »I believe all users should be treated equally.The Muppet wrote: »Generally speaking I would agree with you , unfortunately there are the exceptions when this is not the case.
Surely the alledged rule breach has to be a factor when it comes to the seriousness of the punishment
Which is it?0 -
Long time boards poster and i feel you get enough chances to figure out how the system works.
99% of the time if you get a permban for a forum or the site it's deserved.
Don't be a dick.
Don't be a troll.
You'll get on find.
The only change i'd like to see is after a year/time period if the poster requests to return to boards then it's considered.0 -
Mods don't issue permanent bans for fun you know.
That isn't much of an argument. Judges in a Supreme court don't issue the death penalty for fun either. So what?I would never insist that mods have to issue short term bans or written warnings or anything of the sort to people as some sort of structured system.
REally?
So why did you bring in the infarctionsystem?
Why do you have the "first PM mod then try cat mods and admins then try dispute resolution"?
Let us not cod ourselves. You already have a structure! What we are discussing is how fair and reasonable and transparent it is.If a Mod thinks someone has done something to deserve a permanent ban then so be it. It can be appealed and overturned through the DRP channel. Mods don't always get it 100% right.
We are not discussing the appeal possibility. Nor are we discussing someone posting child porn to a discussion on gun control for example. WE are discussing people being infarcted and/or banned without any solid reason because other posters complain about them.I refuse to have mods hands tied by some sort of "tiered disciplinary process" that we don't need nor want.
But you already have one!
And I believe it cam about because of loose cannon and unfair and intransparent moderating. And that is in spite of the fact that mods still have access to secret meetings.Generally speaking, if you've been permanently banned then *you* have done something very wrong to warrant it, so you shouldn't be trying to pin the blame elsewhere.
Okay let me establish a point here. Do boards recognise the "fair play" involved in ne bis in idem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_bis_in_idem
Again I don't want to go into individual cases but moderatords accept I broke no rules. I am not about the business of "doing extreme wrong" on or to anyone.
Telling me or anyone else "it is your own fault that people don't like the style of your posts" isn't really getting us anywhere as regards people who are "very wrong" is it?
And in my discussions I have been accused of being a child abuse enabler among other things which were never withdrawn and which one might well consider "very wrong" yet the people who stated it continue to post and yet have the likes of me banned.
So please don't preach for the high moral ground at least try to see why boards have the policies and procedures and way of operating that they do ( and don't deny they have them) and how we could all work together to improve them.0 -
Generally speaking, if you've been permanently banned then *you* have done something very wrong to warrant it, so you shouldn't be trying to pin the blame elsewhere.
If that is the case, and users must have done something "very wrong" in order for them to get permanently banned from a forum, then there should be nothing to fear in allowing users to dispute permabans in the DRP when they have been issued by members of Admin.
I understand that sometimes there can and will be users that, while they may never have been banned or infracted on a forum, obey it's charter and get on well with the vast majority of it's regulars, could yet still have quite a detrimental effect on it's functioning. They could perhaps start numerous threads in Feedback complaining it, start regular DRP threads in response to every moderation decision that doesn't go their way or generally just bad-mouthing the forum's mods and/or their moderation decisions elsewhere on Boards, resulting in other forum's mods having to moderate them for it.
However, if a Boards member was guilty of much, or even any, of the above, then it would be a mere formality for a CMod (or impartial member of Admin if needs be) to point these instances out a user in a DRP thread (were such bans allowed to be disputed) making it clear to them that their premaban was indeed warranted. Of course, were these reasons found to be bogus, well then the permaban issued by Admin could be lifted, just as it is when standard mods and c-mods make errors of judgement. I see no reasons (beyond the already stated exceptions) why permabans carried out by Admin are immune from being disputed.0 -
I don't think perma-bans are appropriate as there is no comeback for users in this regard. I think a 1 year ban should be the max and if that user is unable to post correctly after that, then give another 1 year ban.
It's manifestly ridiculous to arbitrarily hand out perma-bans out of the blue.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I don't think perma-bans are appropriate as there is no comeback for users in this regard.
Not necessarily true.In the soccer forum we had a period back maybe 18 months ago were we let lads who had been perma banned re apply for access.
I don't see anything wrong with giving most people a second chance,if we can make 50% of them re adjust there posting style and become valued members of the forum again it will be a worthwhile exercise IMO.Worst case scenario it does not work and they are banned again this time for good,thats a good trade off IMO.
We let a few lads back in that time with mixed results,one was out for 3 years and not a prob since he got access again.Others have been banned again.0 -
Then should there be an open procedure for re-application?Not necessarily true.In the soccer forum we had a period back maybe 18 months ago were we let lads who had been perma banned re apply for access.
I don't see anything wrong with giving most people a second chance,if we can make 50% of them re adjust there posting style and become valued members of the forum again it will be a worthwhile exercise IMO.Worst case scenario it does not work and they are banned again this time for good,thats a good trade off IMO.
We let a few lads back in that time with mixed results,one was out for 3 years and not a prob since he got access again.Others have been banned again.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Then should there be an open procedure for re-application?
Its an option but I think its best to just do this kind of thing ad hock,that way lads will not know when/if its been done.The idea been prove yourself on the rest of boards and you may well be given another chance on the soccer forum.
Its all very democratic with each soccer mod getting a vote,even then we had a couple of split decision's IIRC.0 -
Advertisement
-
If someone is a seagull poster then permaban them, they have no interest in the forum or the topic or the community then winy let them wreck the place?0
-
Long time boards poster and i feel you get enough chances to figure out how the system works.
99% of the time if you get a permban for a forum or the site it's deserved.
Don't be a dick.
Don't be a troll.
You'll get on find.
The only change i'd like to see is after a year/time period if the poster requests to return to boards then it's considered.
What if a long time poster has established a point of view, and others with a disproved conflicting point of view who have been temp banned? The others come back and repost their original disproved claims and the established poster is permabanned for reposting the counter argument. The others are allowed back in to post their already disproved and nasty claims on the basis that their spittle is brief but the counter argument is overly lengthy?0 -
Not necessarily true.In the soccer forum we had a period back maybe 18 months ago were we let lads who had been perma banned re apply for access.
I don't see anything wrong with giving most people a second chance,if we can make 50% of them re adjust there posting style and become valued members of the forum again it will be a worthwhile exercise IMO.Worst case scenario it does not work and they are banned again this time for good,thats a good trade off IMO.
We let a few lads back in that time with mixed results,one was out for 3 years and not a prob since he got access again.Others have been banned again.
As I understand it those users were allowed back under the following conditions. Were those conditions adhered to when the perm bans were issued?1. Read the access request mechanism thread here. Make sure you read the soccer forum charter carefully while you're doing that.
2. Bear in mind that all of you will have to serve a 6 month probation period, not the 3 months mentioned in that thread. That means if you pick up one red card or three yellows in your first six months then you will be banned again, although in each of your cases that means a permanent ban again, with no review.0 -
If someone is a seagull poster then permaban them, they have no interest in the forum or the topic or the community then winy let them wreck the place?
Just because a user may not be a regular on a forum, does not make them a "seagull poster" nor does it mean they have "no interest" in the forum or it's community either for that matter.
For example, the Film Forum:
User goes to see The Tree Of Life and she/he incandescent at just how awful it is. Few days later they run a search on Boards for a discussion on the movie and find one in the 'Film' forum. On reading it they are incensed at what they see as the nonsensical opinion that the OP has expressed: that they feel the film was a masterpiece and how it was clearly trying to show us just how extraterrestrial life could in fact live amoung us here on Earth and quite how difficult that would be for them, on an emotional and physical level (in the context of Evolution of course).
So they post a reply to the OP's crazy contention and asks them to further explain how they arrived at such a conclusion. To expand a little on why they feel Sean Penn was in fact telepathically communicating with his home planet, as he was walking around the building glancing out windows and looking up at the sky and also why they feel the beach scene was evidence that Penn's home planet had in fact heard his telepathic cries and how what was really happening at the end on that beach was that all Earth based aliens who wished to head home were just all walking to the rondevu point, for the soon to be landing spaceship.
The OP doesn't take kindly to being asked this question and replies that they have no intention of getting involved in debating Terrence Malick's movie with the user as they had seen on another forum how they weren't a fan of Badlands. User replies again and makes it clear that they had no wish to debate Malick with them, but just that they wanted to know how they arrived at the alien theory of Tree of Life, nothing more. Mods jump in and moderate the user and tell her/him that the question he put to the OP was 'off-topic' and so the user naturally disputes the moderation as being OTT.
Now, according to you, we should just permaban this user, because they are a so called 'segull' poster and are gonna "wreck" the place?
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you here entirely.
For a start, a user can not become a regular if that is how a forum is moderated. Secondly, Boards.ie is a public discussion forum and users have every right to post as little or as often as they wish on each and every forum within it if they choose (as long as they are obeying the relative charters of course). Permabanning users who are trying to contribute and take part in discussions on a forum just because they may not be a regular poster should simply not happen, as it just leads to a cliquish, nepotistic atmosphere. All fine on a private forum (or private sub-forum) if that is what is desired - but again: Boards.ie is a 'public' discussion forum and so it should always be seen to be acting as one.
If moderators make the judgement call that a user is not posting within the spirit of a forum and is just trolling etc, well then they should infract/ban users so that there is a clear build-up of forum behaviour being seen to be officially chastised. Then any subsequent permban handed out, which ends up being disputed in the DRP (assuming of course the permaban has been issued by the moderators and not Admin) will just look a bit rich, considering all the user's past misdemeanour's on the forum.0 -
There is a difference between a poster having controversial opinions and those who ignore the point or ethos of the forum and only post in an acutely inflammatory throw away manner.0
-
There is a difference between a poster having controversial opinions and those who ignore the point or ethos of the forum and only post in an acutely inflammatory throw away manner.
I know, a massive one and I think any user that is posting in a style that is indicative of a person not wishing to take part in discussions (ie: posting inflammatory statements/comments, showing no interest in others opinions, ignoring the ethos of a forum etc) should most certainly be moderated for that (warnings via PM and/or an infraction would seem appropriate).
If such users continue that style of posting after receiving warnings a temp ban would be in order perhaps (they could dispute it in the DRP if they feel it harsh after all) but permabannning a user for what is deemed to be them ignoring the ethos of a forum (or whatever it is that the mods opinion is of that users contribution is) when that user has never received so much as an infraction on the forum, let alone a temp ban on it - is ott and should simply not occur.
If the above steps were carried out, then there would be no need for the moderators of any forum to get a member of Admin to issue a permaban for that user as they would have dealt with the matter themselves, following the correct procedure. Moderators are forever asking (and rightly so) users have they followed the correct procedure when it comes to bans and appealing them. Well perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea if there was also an official procedure for how moderators should deal with users that are posting in a way that they feel contravenes a forum's charter, as some of them (not many mind) could damn sure do with one.0 -
Depends on the post, someone who posts in the pregnancy section of the parenting forum, (who has never posted in any of the parenting forums) in a thread entitled 'we're pregnant' were the op is looking for advice on dr and hospital bookings saying having an abortion or with a picture of a wire clothes hanger and is a member of the site long enough to know better then, permaban them.
They can troll elsewhere and if it was an honest error and they thought they were in a forum where that was acceptable then they can talk it out with the mod or go to the DRP but in most cases those who do that really just want to rile people up and are not interested in contributing to the forum in a constructive manner and in such cases the forum is better off with out them.0 -
Depends on the post, someone who posts in the pregnancy section of the parenting forum, (who has never posted in any of the parenting forums) in a thread entitled 'we're pregnant' were the op is looking for advice on dr and hospital bookings saying having an abortion or with a picture of a wire clothes hanger and is a member of the site long enough to know better then, permaban them.
They can troll elsewhere and if it was an honest error and they thought they were in a forum where that was acceptable then they can talk it out with the mod or go to the DRP but in most cases those who do that really just want to rile people up and are not interested in contributing to the forum in a constructive manner and in such cases the forum is better off with out them.
I (and I think most users that have posted on the thread so far) agree with the above, not sure why you think I or they wouldn't.
As I said earlier in the thread:,OutlawPete wrote: »Moderators (of course) should be able to permanently ban users from forums as much and as often as they wish (even if those users have not been infracted and/or received previous temp bans) as there are simply too many occasions when such bans are more than justified.0 -
What if a long time poster has established a point of view, and others with a disproved conflicting point of view who have been temp banned? The others come back and repost their original disproved claims and the established poster is permabanned for reposting the counter argument. The others are allowed back in to post their already disproved and nasty claims on the basis that their spittle is brief but the counter argument is overly lengthy?
It's very easy to spot the trolls tbh.
It's all well and good having a point of view but when you don't try and engage in debate just prattle on about said opinion, then start a blog cos that ain't discussion.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement