Reason for bans/infractions

davoxx

When a user receives a ban/infraction and if the mod in question gives a reason, they and cmods/admins should not be allowed to uphold that same ban/infraction for a different reason.

It seems that changing the reason and then standing behind the new reason is now a common practice in certain forums by certain mods.

Also another nice idea might be to only look at the previous track record of a poster in determining the punishment, not in deciding whether they committed an offense.

As far as I am aware, there is no way to undo an infraction or ban given by error. Nor is there anyway to add a note regarding the mod's and users comments regarding a ban/infraction. Therefore the issue clearly arises when incorrect moderation, either accidental or deliberate, affects the users reputation, which as from previous point, ensures that they are always guilty regardless of fact.

Spear

davoxx wrote: »

As far as I am aware, there is no way to undo an infraction or ban given by error.

There is, admins can do this.

davoxx

Spear wrote: »

There is, admins can do this.

I could have sworn that a mod said that there was no way to remove it.

Gordon

Correct, mods can't remove them. They ask admins to do this.

davoxx

Gordon wrote: »

Correct, mods can't remove them. They ask admins to do this.

Do mods know this? And does it ever happen?

Oryx

davoxx wrote: »

Do mods know this? And does it ever happen?

Yes and it happens sometimes when mistakes are made.

Insect Overlord

davoxx wrote: »

When a user receives a ban/infraction and if the mod in question gives a reason, they and cmods/admins should not be allowed to uphold that same ban/infraction for a different reason.

The templates for infractions include "being naughty/breach of forum charter/being a dick", among others. Sometimes these are used to cover multiple breaches or to describe a general kind of behaviour. Obviously these reasons will be expanded upon when bans/infractions are examined in greater detail, but it's not always possible to give the exact wording you want when moderating a poster.

davoxx wrote: »

Do mods know this? And does it ever happen?

Yes, and it happens a few times a day (on average).

Steve

Infractions can't actually be completely removed - they can be reversed / nullified but afaik the user and mod can still see this.
It's part of the transparancy of the moderation system and while the user ends up with a reversed infraction on their profile permanently, it also serves as a history that said mod either made a mistake or had the decision overturned.
If mods (or even admins) were able to delete infractions without trace then the system would be open to abuse and accountability would be lost.

MadsL

I've just had a back and forth with a mod. That mod can see that I received a ban from FH&H on 4 May 2011; now I posted in DR as the ban was for shilling which I vehemently denied and the ban was lifted. I cannot find that thread now (is search disabled on DR?)

I was told at the time that only an Admin could remove that from my 'record'.

Why is there no 'system' to expunge wrongly awarded bans?

Boards.ie: Danny

MadsL wrote: »

(is search disabled on DR?)

Yes, searching is disabled on DRP.

davoxx

Boards.ie: Danny wrote: »

Yes, searching is disabled on DRP.

What is the reason for this?

Boards.ie: Danny

davoxx wrote: »

What is the reason for this?

I don't know, I only know it's there. I suspect a decision was taken by the non-tech side of the house though, so feel free to raise it as an issue with hello@ or in another thread

davoxx

Boards.ie: Danny wrote: »

I don't know, I only know it's there. I suspect a decision was taken by the non-tech side of the house though, so feel free to raise it as an issue with hello@ or in another thread

Coolio.

MadsL

My DR thread actually appears to have been deleted, which if I put my tin foil hat on is rather strange (eerie music)

Boards.ie: Danny

MadsL wrote: »

My DR thread actually appears to have been deleted, which if I put my tin foil hat on is rather strange (eerie music)

No, no, no. You can take it off again

I also used the filters at the top of the forum to find your thread using my regular account, sorting by thread start time ascending and looking for DRP threads started on or after May 4th 2011. You're there, on page 3.

MadsL

Thanks Danny,

Did you read the thread? How do you think this should be handled. Ban 'manually lifted' is not quite the same as 'not guilty'

Cheers...

Boards.ie: Danny

MadsL wrote: »

Thanks Danny,

Did you read the thread? How do you think this should be handled. Ban 'manually lifted' is not quite the same as 'not guilty'

Cheers...

Oh, so now I'm to contribute an opinion? One that'll be construed as the "word of boards"? Nah, I don't think so

I'm just here to point out there was no DRP-deleted thread conspiracy :pac:

MadsL

Boards.ie: Danny wrote: »

Oh, so now I'm to contribute an opinion? One that'll be construed as the "word of boards"? Nah, I don't think so

I'm just here to point out there was no DRP-deleted thread conspiracy :pac:

Sorry, you picked me up wrong. I wasn't looking for an official boards.ie 'explanation' or policy - (wisely dodged though I have to say - Well done!)

Just wondering if 'manually lifted' tells the whole story of a reversed ban?

Boards.ie: Danny

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, you picked me up wrong. I wasn't looking for an official boards.ie 'explanation' or policy - (wisely dodged though I have to say - Well done!)

You'll never take me alive....

MadsL wrote: »

Just wondering if 'manually lifted' tells the whole story of a reversed ban?

Nope, but then again manually lifting a ban is really only done for reversals in my experience. Even my own personal account has a forum ban from 2009 when a mod picked a post of mine up the wrong way, thinking I was attacking a poster. A quick PM and the ban was lifted the next day. All it says for me is "Ban manually lifted" too. Yet it's still there for all to see, even the Admins gave me a little o_O about it in October (in jest, of course ) but yes, it doesn't really tell the whole story outright.

Of course, in an ideal world with ample development time what could we use as an alternative? Would we have disciplinary notes on a user? Perhaps some sort of action log or ticketing system? Maybe this is on the cards for the future, I honestly don't know but it's an issue for the community side of the house (Feedback, Feedforward, Nicolav [Nicola/Dav], members etc) and not for me to come in and give you the "Boards.ie: Danny" version of how this will all play out :P

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

It seems that changing the reason and then standing behind the new reason is now a common practice in certain forums by certain mods.

I see that no mod/admin has a problem with mods/admins changing the reason behind an infraction or ban.

This is quite disgraceful and only highlights the silent support for certain mods/admins who are not fit to be mods/admins.

Sully

davoxx wrote: »

I see that no mod/admin has a problem with mods/admins changing the reason behind an infraction or ban.

This is quite disgraceful and only highlights the silent support for certain mods/admins who are not fit to be mods/admins.

Can you give examples?

davoxx

Sully wrote: »

Can you give examples?

I can.

I know I'm not the only one to notice this, hence why I raised the issue of whether mods/admins had an issue with this practice.

I know the broad all encompassing "don't be a dick" rule is vague enough that it might just work, but some mods/admins give reasons that change once the are shown to be incorrect.

Sully

davoxx wrote: »

I can.

I know I'm not the only one to notice this, hence why I raised the issue of whether mods/admins had an issue with this practice.

I know the broad all encompassing "don't be a dick" rule is vague enough that it might just work, but some mods/admins give reasons that change once the are shown to be incorrect.

Can I see the examples..

As an aside "Don't be a dick" was scrapped following heavy lobbying by mods. Just fyi. A lot of the reasons have been revised lately, following discussions with mods & the Boards Team. Some of the ban reasons are not specific, such as "Breach of Forum Charter" may cover any charter line you breached up to and including the Boards.ie Charter/Rules.

davoxx

Sully wrote: »

Can I see the examples..

Sure thing: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77157043&postcount=1

Here I was originally banned for persistent refusal to "debate specifics" yet not a single example was provided, instead it was answered with a hand wavy mis quotation by an admin. Which I can only assume meant it was actually posting style or "don't be a dick". Admin in question was not very forthcoming in pms.

Sully wrote: »

As an aside "Don't be a dick" was scrapped following heavy lobbying by mods. Just fyi. A lot of the reasons have been revised lately, following discussions with mods & the Boards Team. Some of the ban reasons are not specific, such as "Breach of Forum Charter" may cover any charter line you breached up to and including the Boards.ie Charter/Rules.

And I'm glad the whole 'don't be a dick' rule was removed. It was too ambiguous to be helpful.

TouchingVirus

davoxx wrote: »

And I'm glad the whole 'don't be a dick' rule was removed. It was too ambiguous to be helpful.

It's my understanding the wording was revised because it can be inflammatory (nothing like somebody being told they're banned for being a dick to get them riled up), but the general rule remains. It's a perfectly fine rule, not everything is black & white and mods don't have the time to write every possible breach of every charter down explicitly in order to back up their decisions.

Sully

davoxx wrote: »

Sure thing: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77157043&postcount=1

Here I was originally banned for persistent refusal to "debate specifics" yet not a single example was provided, instead it was answered with a hand wavy mis quotation by an admin. Which I can only assume meant it was actually posting style or "don't be a dick". Admin in question was not very forthcoming in pms.




And I'm glad the whole 'don't be a dick' rule was removed. It was too ambiguous to be helpful.

My understanding is that you were banned for "Trolling or serious obtuseness". You didn't think you were, and asked to be shown what part of the charter you broke. The admins pointed out that you don't need to be shown one specific charter area but its at a mods discretion (basically).

The reason didn't change. You were banned for one reason, the admins checked and upheld the ban. They gave examples of where they felt you were trolling. That's pretty much how things work. Not everything is covered under the charter, but trolling is a site-wide guideline that isn't accepted regardless of where you are. Falls under a bit of a "Common Sense" approach.

Either way, you gave one example only. Where else is this problem?

davoxx

Sully wrote: »

My understanding is that you were banned for "Trolling or serious obtuseness". You didn't think you were, and asked to be shown what part of the charter you broke. The admins pointed out that you don't need to be shown one specific charter area but its at a mods discretion (basically).

The reason didn't change. You were banned for one reason, the admins checked and upheld the ban. They gave examples of where they felt you were trolling. That's pretty much how things work. Not everything is covered under the charter, but trolling is a site-wide guideline that isn't accepted regardless of where you are. Falls under a bit of a "Common Sense" approach.

I thought I was banned for persistent refusal to "debate specifics" that long since passed the point of trolling, well that was Scofflaws original excuse.

This is different to "trolling or obtuseness", and I was not shown my supposed refusal to debate specifics, as claimed as in the reason.I was shown that my reflective posting style, which is different to trolling and avoiding specifics (whatever that means) was the apparent issue, though it can be clearly seen that others on the thread (namely those I replied to) posted in the same manner.

So therefore it appears to me that the reason has changed.

I asked for what part of the charter so that I could better see what was meant by this so called reason. It was not in the charter, because it was an excuse.

I'm not too sure why its at a mods discretion, that just leads to abuse and the perception of abuse. Are charters just guidelines, and enforced based on who you know?

Sully wrote: »

Either way, you gave one example only. Where else is this problem?

I only gave one example as I wanted to see the response, based on the response, is there any point in presenting any more examples?

RoundyMooney

I think that was a textbook example of the DRP process, tbh. Both CMod and admin actually conducted their business thoroughly, and came to the same ultimate conclusion-not based on anything specific in the charter, because it simply cannot cover everything-that you were impacting negatively on the flow of discussion in the forum, and required sanction.

Cordially Scofflaw was actually being consistent from what I can see (and I'm not reading 23 pages because it seems I wouldn't enjoy it, and I don't have to!)

He said that you refused to debate specifics, and referred to you as obtuse thereafter in the PM.

Nothing personal, but his reasoning appears to be fairly linear on this.

And yes, if you want to build a case, then you should most certainly present more examples of what you feel is a pattern.

coffee_cake

your ban was well deserved and dealt with consistently

Sully

davoxx wrote: »

I thought I was banned for persistent refusal to "debate specifics" that long since passed the point of trolling, well that was Scofflaws original excuse.

This is different to "trolling or obtuseness", and I was not shown my supposed refusal to debate specifics, as claimed as in the reason.I was shown that my reflective posting style, which is different to trolling and avoiding specifics (whatever that means) was the apparent issue, though it can be clearly seen that others on the thread (namely those I replied to) posted in the same manner.

So therefore it appears to me that the reason has changed.

That wasn't the reason you were banned. You said so yourself in Help Desk the reason was "Trolling or serious obtuseness". This was the official ban reason.

I asked for what part of the charter so that I could better see what was meant by this so called reason. It was not in the charter, because it was an excuse.

I'm not too sure why its at a mods discretion, that just leads to abuse and the perception of abuse. Are charters just guidelines, and enforced based on who you know?


I only gave one example as I wanted to see the response, based on the response, is there any point in presenting any more examples?

I don't know the Politics Mods at all and that is a very clear cut example of a standard ban. There was no ifs or buts. You did exactly what was said in the forum ban reason, which goes against the whole principal of Boards.ie. Also remember the "Charter" is including the Boards.ie Charter. Nothing unusual, very clear cut and well handled tbh.

Mods discretion applies just like the managers discretion applies in a shop or pub. If you wish to question that discretion where applied- the DRP is there for you to appeal right up to the Admins who have the final say.

If your only going to give one example than the point in the original post is invalid as it suggests its a widespread problem when you can only point to one example which you have been told here your interpretation was incorrect.