[Perfectionist]

This post was spurred on by the banned of yet another long term member of this board this weekend.

There are many reasons why a member might be permabanned, but the one that seems to cause the most controversy is when the member seems to have "not learned their lesson" since they have accumulated a large number of infractions/warnings over a period of months or many, many years. In this case, it seems they hit this invisible bar where they are suddenly deemed too disruptive, and instead of being temp banned, are permabanned.

My comment is this: In this case, could a permaban require approval from more than one mod?

For example, lets say I had 5 warnings and 8 infractions. I post a comment that Mod 1 sees as a personal attack. They delete it, send me an infraction, and a 2 week temp ban.

Now with 9 infractions, Mod 1 thinks I am a pain in the butt and wants to permaban me. At this point, I think it would show a unified front of all the management team if Mod 1 had to run this by Mod 2 and Mod 3 before permabanning. If Mod 2 or 3 disagrees, no permaban. Temp ban me all you want, but no permaban.

I think this would lessen the feelings many members have of one mod or the other being too controlling and trigger happy on the permaban button. It might also cut the mods some slack, if they have other mods knowledgable and supporting of their permaban decisions when all the WHERE DID USER X GO HE WAZ AWESUM threads come out of the woodwork.

Just my two cents.

 

[Neptunus]

^ What she said, or eliminate the policy altogether in exchange for lengthier bans!!!!

Please write Drew everyone!!!!

 

[Just Lurking]

Perma-bans should be reserved for spammers and trolls, and only used on longterm, proven, loyal members in extreme cases.

All others should only be temporary with increasing durations as needed.

Speaking of temporary bans, a one or two-week suspension is pretty big as a starting point. The site I work for starts at 24-48 hours which is typically long enough to make a point to the frequent user.

I've never really understood why this heavy-handed banning policy has stayed in place here for so long. It's just not good business to toss your users aside so freely like this, especially when there are alternative methods of handling it.

I kind of just broadened the topic there, Perfectionist, excuse me~ I agree too that permanent bans involving longterm members should be reviewed by multiple mods (if not Drew as well).

 

[Perfectionist]

^Yeah, I think permabans are fine in lots of cases like the ones you mentioned. It has been shown on this site many many times that being a longterm, proven, loyal member does not make you any less at risk for a permaban. In fact I think you are more at risk, since the longer you are here the most warnings and infraction you might have even if you are a relatively uncontroversial poster.

I suggest this change because it is relatively small. I have not seen moderation open to much change over the years, so I imagine calls for drastic change such as eliminating permabans are not going to make that much of an impact. I think this is an adjustment that will be small enough for mods to adapt to, while still going a long way towards fairness and keeping members around on this site.

 

[Sunshine009]

Perma-bans should be reserved for spammers and trolls, and only used on longterm, proven, loyal members in extreme cases.

All others should only be temporary with increasing durations as needed.

Speaking of temporary bans, a one or two-week suspension is pretty big as a starting point. The site I work for starts at 24-48 hours which is typically long enough to make a point to the frequent user.

I've never really understood why this heavy-handed banning policy has stayed in place here for so long. It's just not good business to toss your users aside so freely like this, especially when there are alternative methods of handling it.

I kind of just broadened the topic there, Perfectionist, excuse me~ I agree too that permanent bans involving longterm members should be reviewed by multiple mods (if not Drew as well).

Yes, I completely agree.

 

[matty]

I think these are fair points and something worth looking into. I know that the mod team may not agree with this approach but it will make things a lot more easy to swallow. I would prefer my case be judged by a panel of mods as opposed to one which may or may not be having an off day or any other things which could affect their decision.

Because we all know how close I am to a permaban :afr

 

[millenniumman75]

I didn't even know who was banned until just now.

Normally, it's three bans in a 30 day period - first time two week ban, second time month ban.
There are some who like to "bend things", like timing their infractions just right so they can get away with the infraction thing and not get banned. I have seen this happen, too.

Some people, unfortunately, just don't show any improvement whatsoever. I am not sure that the length of time makes any difference. Although, veterans should know the rules and the vast majority of them have not changed.

I am not sure how effective the multi-mod is given the scattered online times of the moderation as it is. Sometimes, the decision cannot wait for more than one mod.

 

[millenniumman75]

I think these are fair points and something worth looking into. I know that the mod team may not agree with this approach but it will make things a lot more easy to swallow. I would prefer my case be judged by a panel of mods as opposed to one which may or may not be having an off day or any other things which could affect their decision.

Because we all know how close I am to a permaban :afr

oh so close. :b :duck

How does that tomato appear to come out of that emoticon's head? :con :stu

 

[Neptunus]

^Yeah, I think permabans are fine in lots of cases like the ones you mentioned. It has been shown on this site many many times that being a longterm, proven, loyal member does not make you any less at risk for a permaban. In fact I think you are more at risk, since the longer you are here the most warnings and infraction you might have even if you are a relatively uncontroversial poster.

I suggest this change because it is relatively small. I have not seen moderation open to much change over the years, so I imagine calls for drastic change such as eliminating permabans are not going to make that much of an impact. I think this is an adjustment that will be small enough for mods to adapt to, while still going a long way towards fairness and keeping members around on this site.

Well, I guess I'm going primarily by my own feelings. It would seriously bother me to be banned for a long time! (Yes, I need to get more of a life, lol!)

You bring up a good point, though. I'd settle for the panel idea.

 

[matty]

oh so close. :b :duck

How does that tomato appear to come out of that emoticon's head? :con :stu

I just time my infractions perfectly. I love flirting with death.

 

[Perfectionist]

I didn't even know who was banned until just now.

Some people, unfortunately, just don't show any improvement whatsoever. I am not sure that the length of time makes any difference. Although, veterans should know the rules and the vast majority of them have not changed.

I am not sure how effective the multi-mod is given the scattered online times of the moderation as it is. Sometimes, the decision cannot wait for more than one mod.

This is what I mean: there seems to be little discussion between mods on something as huge as banning someone who is a daily, longterm poster. Also, the moment at which a poster might be deemed a "lost cause", just never learning their lesson, might differ between mods by weeks or months.

I realize timing might be scattered and a permaban might take longer this way, but in the situation I am discussing I think it would be doable. I am only talking about when a mod decides a temp ban is not enough: the poster is too disruptive. In this case, temp ban them as you usually would, and discuss the permaban while they are temp banned. This is usually at least two weeks. I do not see why it is essential to permaban a user for this reason immediately. If the permaban was justified today, it will be justified three days from now when the mods have discussed it, all while the person is under temp ban.

 

[MichaelWesten]

What's the deal with 2 weeks for the first ban? I'm on a much larger forum than this and they do like 3 day bans. 2 weeks seems pretty harsh.

 

[coldsorehighlighter]

I think if the owner of the site was actually an active member of the forum, a lot of these issues would be solved.
He should have the last decision, but he's an absentee "landlord"(as is his right, that's his choice, not knocking him), but by him not being active here, it allows for different applications of the "rules" by different moderators, not to mention personally biased decisions.

 

[Typical Guy]

It has been shown on this site many many times that being a longterm, proven, loyal member does not make you any less at risk for a permaban. In fact I think you are more at risk, since the longer you are here the most warnings and infraction you might have even if you are a relatively uncontroversial poster.

This is true, and we've lost far too many longtime members. The place still doesn't seem the same to me without Nubly or WineKitty, among others. We also deserve an explanation when someone is permanently banned. I don't think it's fair for a mod to give a curt, one sentence reply that it was "due to x number of infractions," for example. We deserve to know the real reason. On other forums, there is a section where you can find out exactly what a person did to get banned. This also helps other members understand the guidelines, which can be a little unclear at times. I think we need a similar system here.

 

[Perfectionist]

I agree with Sunshine on this one, many times it is too personal.

However, I think knowing more than one mod agreed to the permaban might allow people more trust in the both the process and an individual's ban.

 

[Classified]

This is true, and we've lost far too many longtime members. The place still doesn't seem the same to me without Nubly or WineKitty, among others. We also deserve an explanation when someone is permanently banned. I don't think it's fair for a mod to give a curt, one sentence reply that it was "due to x number of infractions," for example. We deserve to know the real reason. On other forums, there is a section where you can find out exactly what a person did to get banned. This also helps other members understand the guidelines, which can be a little unclear at times. I think we need a similar system here.

I would like to know what they did. But I probably wouldn't agree with the mods most of the time. To the normal user who only reads the censored posts, it seems like there was nothing wrong with them, until poof, they're gone for no reason at all.

I also think once you reach 1,000 posts, you shouldn't be able to be permanently banned. Well, maybe you should be banned from certain groups or S&C or Relationships if you are causing lots of trouble there and are doing it on purpose.

 

[Neptunus]

I would like to know what they did. But I probably wouldn't agree with the mods most of the time. To the normal user who only reads the censored posts, it seems like there was nothing wrong with them, until poof, they're gone for no reason at all.

I also think once you reach 1,000 posts, you shouldn't be able to be permanently banned. Well, maybe you should be banned from certain groups or S&C or Relationships if you are causing lots of trouble there and are doing it on purpose.

I still think we should get rid of permabans. Or, like Classified said, reserve them for members under a certain post count. I really like that idea, actually!

 

[Scrub-Zero]

Members with over 9000 posts should be safe from infraction or bans. :b

 

[Neptunus]

:lol @ the tags for this thread, btw!

 

[Classified]

Those tags are pretty funny.