Suggestion: allow users to appeal bans

Zaph0d

As boards grows in active members, perhaps a simple system for dealing with appeals from banned users should be introduced.

The feedback forum seems to receive daily threads from users complaining about their bans. These threads then follow a pattern of aggressive and dismissive replies from other mods and sycophants, trolling of the OP, defensive comments from the mod responsible for the ban and a descent into in-jokes and nonsense. Predictable clutter that makes boards feel like an unfair place.

In natural justice, people are judged by a third party with no bias towards one side or another. Each party is given a fair hearing. The punishment fits the crime.

So, what about nominating a couple of mods or other boards members to be appeal judges? When a user is banned they get the chance to make an appeal in an appeal forum. Only the banning mod, the banned and the appeal judge should post in the appeal thread. The appeal judge, who should have no connection with either party, then decides whether the ban should be quashed, reduced or sustained. As a disincentive to spurious appeals, sustained bans would be doubled in duration (similar system to penalty points).

You only get one appeal. System only open to users with >50 posts. No witnesses or legal reps allowed.

Benefits:

• No more 'Why was I banned?' threads
• Fairer
• Less trouble for admins
• Scales better with growth in member numbers
• Dissuades mods from arbitrary banning

ARGINITE

But would this not require quite an amount of time for it to work and not solve the problem of "why am I baned" threads in feedback.

Tar.Aldarion

In my ever so not humble opinion, No.

WhiteWashMan

.

Orion

How many "why was I banned' threads have resulted in a ban being lifted. I can't remember one. So why would an appeals system be any more lenient. Anyone banned has a right to appeal to the mod that banned them and then, if they must, to the admins. But mods are made mods because they're trusted and I'd say it's rare, if ever at all, that an admin would overrule a mods decision.

Besides I like these threads and the abuse they spawn

Zaph0d

ARGINITE wrote:

But would this not require quite an amount of time for it to work and not solve the problem of "why am I baned" threads in feedback.

users would be informed of their right to appeal at time of banning or sign-up. 'Why am I banned?' threads would be deleted from feedback.

The system should take less time than the status quo. There would be less appeals given the potential for an extended ban. Appeal threads could be locked following a decision.

WhiteWashMan

Zaph0d wrote:

As boards grows in active members, perhaps a simple system for dealing with appeals from banned users should be introduced.

why?

Zaph0d wrote:

In natural justice, people are judged by a third party with no bias towards one side or another. Each party is given a fair hearing. The punishment fits the crime.

the 'justice' system here is organic and natural. it has evolved over 9 years of experience.


youre talking about completely re-inventing the wheel, and there is absolutely no need for the 2 people that complain here every week.
2 people a week out of 60,000.
and its usually the same 2 people.
and they usually get banned for the same stupid things.

Zaph0d wrote:

So, what about nominating a couple of mods or other boards members to be appeal judges? When a user is banned they get the chance to make an appeal in an appeal forum. Only the banning mod, the banned and the appeal judge should post in the appeal thread. The appeal judge, who should have no connection with either party, then decides whether the ban should be quashed, reduced or sustained. As a disincentive to spurious appeals, sustained bans would be doubled in duration (similar system to penalty points).

??????????
wtf are you talking about?


'oh, i got banned for being a twat, i insist i get a fair trial', waste a lot of peoples time.

when you pay me or anyone else, then you can demand that i spend my time on stupid kangaroo courts. but until then, i dont think many people will be bothered.
and you know why?

becuase they system that is currently in place works.

the people that mod are there because they are trusted by the admins to carry out a role that they give freely and happily.
when i start being accountable for banning someone, then you start paying me a cheque every month. when you start demanding my time for some idea that will not work, then you better have pound signs before me.

Zaph0d wrote:

You only get one appeal. System only open to users with >50 posts. No witnesses or legal reps allowed.

why?
are people with over 50 posts more responsible?

why are you talking about a fair trial, and yet you have just disallowed people the right to contribute.
is that on purpose or just an ironic side effect?

Zaph0d wrote:

Benefits:

• No more 'Why was I banned?' threads

no. we still get the 'i hate mods they are all wrong' threads, and then we will get the 'everyone is biased against me' threads.

Zaph0d wrote:

Benefits:

• Fairer

what makes you think its not fair now?
anyway, when did fair even enter into it?

Zaph0d wrote:

[*]Less trouble for admins[/LIST]

have you seen your own idea?
its an adminstraion nightmare.
its 10 times more work for twice as much trouble...

Zaph0d wrote:

Benefits:[*]Scales better with growth in member numbers
[/LIST]

well, we manage ok with 60,000 users.....

Zaph0d wrote:

[*]Dissuades mods from arbitrary banning[/LIST]

how? what are you suggesting we do to mods that give out arbitrary bannings?
smack them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and shout 'bad mod' at them?


as for arbitrary, what strict rules do you feel we have in place that will accomodate some sort of law and court system.
i mean, if people cannot make decisinos based on experience, instinct and common sense, then they must be based on hard black and white rules.

are you going to right those up.
are you going to enforce them?
are you going to remove every semblence of interest and fun from this website.
i certainly am not.

while i appluade the thought that has gone into your idea, and im all for improving the site, this is far too big a change and it will change everything about this site.
and i suspect you have not been around here long enough to understand where this site and community has come from. there is a thing which i call 'the spirit of boards.ie'.
its a special thing. a delicate thing, but its something that all the mods share, whether they are aware of it or not. its not a strict thing, or a rule thing. its just a thing. but it rules what we do as mods.
and sometimes we are wrong. i admit it. but you know what, we are right far far far more times than we are wrong. and i think we can put up with the odd thread on the feedback forum form someone that has been banned for stupidity.

Gordon

We could just make a big sticky thread for them like the SIGPO thread.

Hagar

And poke them with pointy sticks...

flogen

There are very few bans that occour that should be repealled; far far less than is complained about on Feedback.
Giving users a dedicated space to appeal bans will just enourage them; they may as well throw in an appeal request every time they're banned, no harm done. Besides, I doubt people would stop moaning here about being banned, we'd just see a rise in the following:
"I was banned from a forum, I appealed it and it was rejected... what gives? The appeal judge mods are corrupt with powar!!!"

The admins are and should be the only ones allowed to counteract the actions of a mod or smod... what gives me the right to force another mod to repeal his decision, and vice versa?

The last thing we need on boards.ie is a rise in empty bureaucracy.

BuffyBot

Seems needlessly complex to be honest.

Beruthiel

No
Non
Nein
do you seriously think any of us have that kind of time to spend

RE*AC*TOR

While I think the idea as a whole is a non-starter, I agree with the impression that these threads normally follow, with the old-boys club & sychophants all jumping in. It strikes me as petty.

Zaph0d

WhiteWashMan wrote:

why? are people with over 50 posts more responsible?

No, but it would be impractical to allow spammers and instant trollers to make appeals.

what makes you think its not fair now?

It's unfair to allow a person to judge a case to which he or she is part.

what are you suggesting we do to mods that give out arbitrary bannings?

Nothing. In judicial and quasi-judicial systems, judges are motivated to make fair judgements partly for fear of having their verdicts overruled which reflects badly on them but has no other effect.

Would this be a large overhead in time? Is it more complicated than say the prison forum?

Doctor J

No. Just no to this.

You're just increasing the workload of moderators who do this for free. If my enjoyment of Boards was compromised by having to trawl through ****e like this I don't think I'd remain a moderator for too much longer. If people are acting the bollix they get a temp ban. Simple. You have to trust that the moderators in place were made moderators for a good reason and that, overall, the other moderators and smods keep the moderators in line. Of course there will be the odd error of judgement but on the whole the system works.

WhiteWashMan

Zaph0d wrote:

No, but it would be impractical to allow spammers and instant trollers to make appeals. ?

and would they not just be ignored like they are now?

Zaph0d wrote:

It's unfair to allow a person to judge a case to which he or she is part.

there is no judging of cases now.

and again, who said anything about things being fair? if i ban someone then its becuase i think someone needs a ban.

Zaph0d wrote:

Nothing. In judicial and quasi-judicial systems, judges are motivated to make fair judgements partly for fear of having their verdicts overruled which reflects badly on them but has no other effect.?

but im talking about moderators that makes these arbetrary decisions you talk of....

judges, judicial systems, verdicts?

Zaph0d wrote:

Would this be a large overhead in time? Is it more complicated than say the prison forum?.?

yes. it would be. who is going to set it up. whos going to administer it?
who is going to pay me to take part? who is going to enforce it? who is going to take it seriously?

and whats complicated about the prison forum?

it takes about 15 seconds to put someone in there and not allow them to post anywhere else.
how is that complicated?


let me ask you a simple question.

why do you think your 'idea' is needed?

Steveire

If you want fairness, I think it would be a better idea for you to write a few guidlines on what to do when you get banned.

I don't think there is any advice set out to tell banned users how to react when they get banned. Common sense in relied on, unreliably.

There's plenty of posts in the many threads here which would tell the users exactly what do to, but people who get banned are not the people reading the feedback forum or the people that use the search function.

It would help if you wrote it coherently. You could even put it in the biki and make a community project out of it.

The guidelines could be as simple as:
If you get banned, don't be abusive, or react straight away.

Step 0: Find out why you were banned. nologin.boards.ie if neccessary.

Step 1: PM the Mod. If you don't know who the mod is, there's a handy biki page for each forum on this website with a PM link to each of the dedicated mods of the forum. Just because it's topical (and it's a better page than most board pages), I'll link you to [wiki]Board:UL[/wiki] as an example.

Step 2: If you weren't abusive in the PM and the mod still didn't unban you, and it's a ban for a short length of time, take it on the chin. It's probably only a week.

Step 3: If you were ignored, or you still think the ban is unjustified, consider a feedback thread.
Don't make it abusive.
Don't demand anything or expect the ban to be lifted.
Don't make generalisations about 'all mods', or 'some mods'.
Don't accuse the banning mod of anything without linking to where s/he 'locks threads for no reason', 'bans users for having an opinion' etc.
Don't mention Dutch Gold.

Do say you already PMed the mod.
Do say what you did wrong ('allegedly' if you want)
Do a search on previous simliar threads. Link to them, and say how your case is similar or how you bring something new to the table.
Do be prepared to have pointed out to you in plain terms why you deserved your ban. Try to accept it.
Do understand that boards is deliberately non-democratic. You have no rights, only privileges.

I'm just brainstorming a bit. It could be put a lot better.

Here's a thread from a user who got unbanned: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054894983

There are others if you look around, but that one is a good guideline for a feedback thread anyway.

Others have suggested the need for changes in this forum, but I think guidelines are all that's really needed.

GoneShootin

This problem of "why was I banned" would be reduced if mods took the 2 minute to tell the user why they were banned.

When you ban someone, modutils.php allows you to pm the banned person directly. So all you have to do is something like:

a recent ban pm wrote:

Banned from FS Mobiles

For not giving a guideline price in your sale you have been banned for a period of 2 weeks.

That way all furthur conversation will hopefully be between mod and user. I suppose it doesn't prevent the banned person asking for his people to be set free in Feedback, but it would probably cut down on quite a bit of the ****e in Feedback wrt "why was I banned". At the moment it is left open to mod discretion as to whether to inform the user or not. I'd prefer it was made mandatory.

A cleaner form based banning system with tracability would be ideal, but that's a seperate development project of it's own.

RuggieBear

Zaph0d wrote:

So, what about nominating a couple of mods or other boards members to be appeal judges? When a user is banned they get the chance to make an appeal in an appeal forum. Only the banning mod, the banned and the appeal judge should post in the appeal thread. The appeal judge, who should have no connection with either party, then decides whether the ban should be quashed, reduced or sustained. As a disincentive to spurious appeals, sustained bans would be doubled in duration (similar system to penalty points).

I nominate Amp.

Fighting Irish

How about only banning people for breaking the rules?

If a rule isn't broken then they can't be banned, most "why am i banned" threads happen because the user pisses off a mod but hasn't actually broke any rules so the user comes to feedback.......

Fighting Irish

GoneShootin wrote:

This problem of "why was I banned" would be reduced if mods took the 2 minute to tell the user why they were banned.

Very well said, i asked about that before and said it should be made a rule, but i got flamed as usual

Zaph0d

WhiteWashMan wrote:

why do you think your 'idea' is needed?

I'm going to expand on the benefits I listed in the first post. I have a tendency to be too brief sometimes.

• No more 'Why was I banned?' threads
  These threads are repetitive and clutter the feedback forum. They lead nowhere and are at times cruel to the posters who tend to be juvenile or unwise.
• Fairer
  I had presumed that a fair forum was a good thing. I may be wrong.
• Less trouble for admins
  Only one admin has judged these threads in the past 6 weeks. A large workload for one person.
• Scales better with growth in member numbers
  There were 8,000 members who posted in the last month. A few months ago that number was 5,000. The number of banned users and appeal threads will presumably rise in proportion to the growth in active users, making the current system less sustainable.
• Dissuades mods from arbitrary banning
  Absolute power corrupts. While mods and admins may privately deal with other mods who cross the line, justice is more credible when it is seen to be done. Mods will be more respected when seen as members of a fair authority.

As for the overhead in setting this up - I may be missing something but does this not require simply the creation of a new forum and the allocation of some calm, volunteer mods with the power to revoke or extend bans?

WhiteWashMan

can you go back and put up links to all the threads where people have been banned without good reason?

id be interested to see.

Doctor J

Zaph0d wrote:

some calm, volunteer mods with the power to revoke or extend bans?

They already exist, they're called SMods... dunno about the calm bit though

Zaph0d

WhiteWashMan wrote:

can you go back and put up links to all the threads where people have been banned without good reason?

id be interested to see.

I imagine that bans are most often justified. I am not suggesting otherwise. However mods are not infallible. Steveire has posted a link to a thread where a user's ban was revoked.

RuggieBear

Zaph0d wrote:

I imagine that bans are most often justified. I am not suggesting otherwise. However mods are not infallible. Steveire has posted a link to a thread where a user's ban was revoked.

In that example, it was a justified ban but somebody had simply forgotten to unban julep...no?

WhiteWashMan

Zaph0d wrote:

I'm going to expand on the benefits I listed in the first post.

first off, there is a huge difference between benefits and why you feel its a good reason.

its a good reason if there are issues that need addressing. i dont see that there are those issues tbh.

but lets go through your 'benefits'

Zaph0d wrote:

• No more 'Why was I banned?' threads
  These threads are repetitive and clutter the feedback forum. They lead nowhere and are at times cruel to the posters who tend to be juvenile or unwise.?

well, i wouldnt really say they clutter up the place. and after all, the feedback forum is the place for them.
besides, people will always complain for the cimple reason that you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
regardless of the how these threads degenerate into drivel, they areally are no different thatn anything that goes on in an AH thread. perhaps we should clear AH up as well while we are at it. although, thats an anwufl lot of banning...

Zaph0d wrote:

[*]Fairer
I had presumed that a fair forum was a good thing. I may be wrong.?

do you think that boards.ie is unfair?
in what way?
why do you feel that a fair forum is a good thing?

fairer isnt really a benefit, and it is subjective at best. after all, my idea of fairer is vastly different to yours.
i find that most people are banned for breaking rules. is it not fair that they receive the crime that fits the punishment. the fact that they come complaining here may be a failure to tell them why they are banned. mostly its just sheer bloody mindedness, or it passes the time until they are unbanned.

Zaph0d wrote:

[*]Less trouble for admins
Only one admin has judged these threads in the past 6 weeks. A large workload for one person..

if the admins wanted to have some input here, they would have some input.
believe it or not, these forums are pretty self sufficient. we dont actually need to call down form on high to get gods own judgement. we are all pretty good at working things out for ourselves and as such devine (read: admin) intervention is often not required.

all i see with your idea is more effort and more work and more time for everyone becusae someone who broke a rule and was banned thinks they should get heard.
well, they get heard. they put up a thread, we debate. at what point is their point not heard?

Zaph0d wrote:

I'm [*]Scales better with growth in member numbers
There were 8,000 members who posted in the last month. A few months ago that number was 5,000. The number of banned users and appeal threads will presumably rise in proportion to the growth in active users, making the current system less sustainable.?

why dont you go back and count the number of threads that complain about bans over the last 5 years.
your snapshot view does not include any figures for bannings or threads, so i fail to see how you can offer a solution when you dont even know what the
numbers are.

as for scales better, how do you know?
your rules and judges idea is untested.

how is an untested idea better than a working option that we have right now?

Zaph0d wrote:

[*]Dissuades mods from arbitrary banning
Absolute power corrupts. While mods and admins may privately deal with other mods who cross the line, justice is more credible when it is seen to be done. Mods will be more respected when seen as members of a fair authority. [/LIST]

do you actually think i give a monkeys how i am viewed?
ive been on these boards for 8 years. i ve been a mod for all 8 of those years. i was here before there was a boards.ie.

i wouldnt think i am corrupted. i ban people who break rules. i ban users, and i ban other mods. i have even tried to ban an admin once. it was never going to happen, but it was a point i wanted to make.

and what power do you feel that i have?
and you keep going on about justice.
what is this justice?
yours?

becuase there is already justice being done.
its mine. its the mods. its the admins. just becuase you dont agree with some of it, does not mean its wrong. it doesnt mean its right, but you know what, it works.
really, it works.

and again, if we cant make decisions based on our experience and the situation, which is really what yo umean by arbitrary, then what do we base our bannings on?

rules?

hey, i forsee a whole host of threads on feedback with the title 'x rule fúcking sucks!' or 'i got banned becuase y rule is really stupid'.

and so round and round we go....

Zaph0d wrote:

As for the overhead in setting this up - I may be missing something but does this not require simply the creation of a new forum and the allocation of some calm, volunteer mods with the power to revoke or extend bans?

i dont know dude. its your baby. what, are you just going to suggest something and then wait for some other fúcker to set it up.

come on, you tell us.

as for volunteer mods with the power to revoke ot extend bans, hey, thats what smods are for.
or are they all punch drunk of the dark power of boards.ie modship as well, and therefore too untrustworth for you?



there is no compelling event for it to change.
there is no support for it to change.

and i am still unsure why you feel it needs to be changed!

Terry

Macros42 wrote:

How many "why was I banned' threads have resulted in a ban being lifted. I can't remember one.

yay for me.

WhiteWashMan

Zaph0d wrote:

I imagine that bans are most often justified. I am not suggesting otherwise. However mods are not infallible. Steveire has posted a link to a thread where a user's ban was revoked.

that was actually aimed at fighting irish

Steveire

RuggieBear wrote:

In that example, it was a justified ban but somebody had simply forgotten to unban julep...no?

My point was more that the OP was not abusive, gave information that others would have asked for anyway (previous ban), didn't make demands (did the opposite in fact), etc. WWM unbanned someone after a feedback thread too recently. I don't remeber which one that was.

RuggieBear

Zaphod could request a hosted forum called "Ban Appeals" and be the Appeal Mod.

You could judge for yourself how many bans were unjust and bannees treated unfairly.

Steveire wrote:

My point was more that the OP was not abusive, gave information that others would have asked for anyway (previous ban), didn't make demands (did the opposite in fact), etc.

oops. I see your point now. Yeah, that's a good way to inquire about a ban

Fighting Irish

I frequent a different site that runs the same software as boards and on that site each user is givin their ban, for example a ban of 2 weeks is givin and when that is up the user is automatically unbanned. How come on boards the mod has to unban the user? Is that not putting more work on the mods?

Hobbes

As I understand it the appeals process is as such...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30
or
Admins.
or
Prison.

Smods ban across a spectrum of boards in one go and if your banned in that format odds on your just waiting to be banned forever. If it is in err the moderator of a particular forum will unban you but they will check up to see why you were banned to begin with.

Nearly all bans relate to not reading the charter, or ignoring the charter. All permanent bans are generally based on history in said forum. Odds on when someone comes on here screaming "why was I banned" it is because of that. They tend not to see beyond thier last post.

Incidently, if your banned you really should use the helpdesk (I will stop putting feedback in my PM from now on). Only admins can respond in there afair. In feedback your basically open to a "peoples court" where no one has any real power but you will get a textual kicking by the bystanders.

WhiteWashMan

well, contrary to popular belief, its not against some unwritten law that you cant question a ban.

people question me all the time. but i have started copying and pasting what they said to get them banned, so they see immediately why they have been banned.

some people still complain, and i tell them i understand their point, and sometimes i agree with it, but the fact is that whatever they did was unacceptable.
and 99 times out of 100 thats it. they get reinstated a week later, no one cares, no ones hurt.

except some bloke who is currently stalking me, but thats another matter.

the point is, that most bans can be sorted out via PM discussion.
yes, sometimes mods are averly abusive and abrasive, but you know what, sometimes we have bad days too.
and i apologise on behalf of all my brothers and sisters for that.

but if you read the rozie thread where she says that she only gets scathing becuase thats how shes treated, then the same goes for mods. occassionally i ahve been known to get a bit snippity at people who continue to be abusive, or just refuse to read what is written.

we all make mistakes, but usually, we corret them and we are all happy. some epeople complain on here. sometimes we get over it, sometimes we go down the spiral of rubbish talk.

but mostly it means we dont need to change anything.

i mean, its not as if we are marching users in chains up to a judge before we cut thier fingers off! a weeks ban does not contitute a compelling event to change something that works, has been in place for 8 years, and that we all understand.

Time Magazine

Timely. I expect this topic might have been discussed on Mods so maybe I'm missing out on something but I'll post it anyway.

On Saturday night I was talking to a mod of the TCD forum, Crash_000. I'm currently in the middle of exams (and thus shouldn't be posting, but you know the way it is) and I had a particularly important and difficult one on Monday morning. I'm a sucker for boards, and I knew I'd come posting for some reason on the Sunday when I really needed to be studying.

To that end I decided the only way I would avoid boards was that if I was banned. I couldn't post, and given I have cookies saved on my computer at home I'd have to sign-out and then go through the whole niggly thing of deleting cookies to get them to work again I couldn't really read the board either. (I now realise pie.boards.ie doesn't access those cookies.)

So I asked Crash what would warrant a one day ban and said I'd go out with a bit of style (read humour). I was told to not make it too offensive; fair enough. Barry Aldwell suggested I'd say Crash was having an affair with.... Barry Aldwell. New-found doubts about our Barry's sexuality temporaily put aside, I thought it'd be less disturbing to suggest the same of Cillit Bang's own Barry Scott. (My old favourite). Crash himself then suggested to say he's shagging the rule-enforcer in college, something that could start a rumour. Grand so.

So I posted, explained that I was going to go out in style but be back on Monday after the exam to say how it went, made the comment and was promptly banned. There were a couple of silly jokes, including a photo being posted up, and then all of them were deleted, no harm done. I presume they were deleted just in case herself stumbled upon boards wasn't too impressed and thus the assumption it's been discussed on Mods.

About 30 seconds after the comment appears on boards, Nietzschean (another TCD mods) wakens in the chatroom and says "So that's a 2-week ban then Crash?". Crash agreed. I thought they were joking, so I said goodnight and left. [Just for the record I'm paraphrasing all this - I'm in college so don't have the exact logs on me].

So anywho I sign into boards on Monday afternoon and I'm still banned. Fair enough, probably forgot, so I send Neil a PM. I check back at 8:36pm and Crash_000 is on boards. I send him a text. At 8:36pm he replies "I'm in USI - i have feck all access [to the web]". The same minute he also posts on boards, on the very thread that the comment was made, clearing up any (presumably potentially dangerous) posts. The penny drops.

Knowing fine well that there's a bit of a joke going on I didn't rant and bitch and moan. I let it go on. I've sent a PM and a text at this stage, neither of which were anyway rude etc. so I thought this is a good test-case as if the moderation is fair. Previously I've had trouble before with the TCD board, and I was wondering if/when this would sort itself out. I was given a one day ban for "annoying me [the mod] - and that's like rule number one" before, and also got a two-weeker for a comment that was deemed offensive. The latter was removed after a day upon condition of saying sorry to the subject of the joke, who then told me in real life that he knew it was a joke and wasn't offended. That said, maybe he was being polite. But anyway, the point was I wanted to see how the modding panned out. I had a bit of a suspicion that it was a little bit more than just a joke given that I don't get on well with Nietschean.

Today's Tuesday, and I was still banned. After another mod, who I get on well with, mentions that "You can unban enda now though I think (should he want to be unbanned)".

The responses were:

Crash_000 wrote:

eh, i've been telling enda i didnt have any web access

and

Nietzschean wrote:

i thought we decided a 2 week ban?

Now I get on well with Crash, and I've successfully avoided Nietzschean for the last six months or whatever so I've no massive problem with this and I'm not complaining, not least because I know nothing will be done. Hell, the ban might even have been in my interest if I got some study done.

It was a little thing. But it shows something bigger. It shows that mods do act, well, "improperly" and had I not known the other mod in real life he perhaps would not have commented on it. Could it have ended up being a two-week ban? Well yeah, it could have. And even if not, it would take a good 24 hours to get sufficient Smod/Admin/Feedback approval and that's usually having given the mod 24/48 hours to reply to a message. As I said, I get on with Crash in real life so I don't think it's a major problem, but it shows a bit of a flaw in the system. If I didn't get on with Crash, he could have easily pulled it on me.

And how does this relate to the OP? Well, to quote WWM's "can you go back and put up links to all the threads where people have been banned without good reason". I was banned for a good reason - I bloody requested it. But I didn't ask to be banned up until about 2pm today. Just because they're weren't overturned doesn't mean they shouldn't have been, it's not worth anyone's while fighting a one-day ban. But I could have posted this six hours ago, for example, and I think it would have been upheld (albeit I assume Crash/Nietszchean would say "ah would you take a joke", which, as it happens, could be a defence for anything).

I think the point I'm trying to get across is that the indifference in moderation varies. Had I posted the comment up without consent I would have deserved (let's say) a one-week ban. Therefore it would have been harsh to get (let's say) a two weeker, but it still would not seem poor form by the mods. I think (non-idiotic, non-trolling) people who complain on feedback try to argue this, albeit with about as much grace as Noel Ahern on Questions and Answers last night. I'm sure there are cases where people got sitebanned when, say a three-month ban would have had them scared sh*tless enough to hardly ever post again nevermind break the rules.

To the OP, I don't think the appeals thing would work because it would be a bit bureaucratic for a non-professional setup and would be as prone to unfairly upholding appeals as mods are to unfairly ban. I think there are unfair bans, but the system works well. Of course there are errors, quite a few, but the system is a good best-fit equilibrium between admins/mods and posters. I think maybe what would suit the "appeals process" better is if there was a ban on the jokes and realised that mods can subtly overstep the mark but still remain comfortably innocuous, as above. Although the ban on the responses like "I'm not joking. I really like pie." might be too much of a loss .

PS How long until I'm called "the one who went moaning on Feedback about a joke"?! This fact in itself shows a problem.

Zaph0d

WhiteWashMan wrote:

do you think that boards.ie is unfair?

On the contrary, I think it is mostly very fair.

why do you feel that a fair forum is a good thing?

Unjust places are unpleasant places to be.

fairer isnt really a benefit, and it is subjective at best. after all, my idea of fairer is vastly different to yours.

This is why I referred to the principles of Natural Justice which are very widely accepted in this part of the world. The basic idea is that you treat people in the same manner that you would like them to treat you. These principles are used to establish judicial systems in everything from sports associations to colleges and workplaces- communities of all kinds. It makes no sense to have to appeal a decision to the person who made the decision in the first place - no more than the police should be allowed to try the people they arrest.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

why dont you go back and count the number of threads that complain about bans over the last 5 years.

In the past year there were 59 threads in Feedback including the word 'Banned' in the title. In the previous year there were 23 such threads. This is much lower than I had imagined but still shows a pretty clear trend.

WhiteWashMan

listen, when someone puts up an objection, you actually have to answer them, not just put up things like 'Unjust places are unpleasant places to be'

ive answered every single point you have made, and ive explained why ive given that answer.

the least you can do is answer my objections.

i can do a search on subjects with the word banned in the subject. it means nothing.
youre trying to implement something that isnt needed.

you have failed to provide any evidence that its needed. youve failed to answer any objections as to why it would improve boards.ie,and you have failed to get buy in from a single person.

with regards to angry banana, whatever plot you cooked up with the mods of the forum and then backfired, is hardly an issue about unfair banning.

it may be an issue with regards to poor communications, the mods playing silly buggers, or just being ignorant, but you were banned on your own request.

oscarBravo

Fighting Irish wrote:

How about only banning people for breaking the rules?

If a rule isn't broken then they can't be banned, most "why am i banned" threads happen because the user pisses off a mod but hasn't actually broke any rules so the user comes to feedback.......

Oh FFS.

STFU!!!

Boston

Zaph0d wrote:

In the past year there were 59 threads in Feedback including the word 'Banned' in the title. In the previous year there were 23 such threads. This is much lower than I had imagined but still shows a pretty clear trend.

And how many more users are there now, as apposed to a year ago? In the time I've been here (like four years) the number of users have gone from 2000 to what it is today. Don't twist things.

Angry banananam It's a sad day when we realise moderators are people to. Their not perfect, and they won't treat every situation the same.

seamus

Fighting Irish wrote:

If a rule isn't broken then they can't be banned, most "why am i banned" threads happen because the user pisses off a mod but hasn't actually broke any rules so the user comes to feedback.......

Point out one thread in the last six months on Feedback where a user was banned without breaking any rules, or without cause. You're not allowed to post any threads which you have posted in.

casanova_kid

It will just end up like the real legal system then, people getting off on stupid technical loopholes. Oh how i miss the third reich.

aidan_walsh

...

Wtf!?!

Hobbes

Angry Banana wrote:

...

Maybe next time you will just PM an admin or Smod to ban you for a set time. If an Smod or admin had seen your post might of got the wrong end of the stick and banned you for good. Its all fun and games until you put someones eye out and all that.

As for removing posts. Moderators as a general rule are not supposed to modify other peoples posts. They delete or copy/delete and modify. So that admins can read them, although its likely admins can read even if its been wiped up to a point. Although its not an enforced rule.

Fighting Irish

oscarBravo wrote:

Oh FFS.

STFU!!!

Suggest something and get flamed :eek:


That shows we need a proper feedback where mods will stay calm and listen to users even if they are wrong

Fighting Irish

seamus wrote:

Point out one thread in the last six months on Feedback where a user was banned without breaking any rules, or without cause. You're not allowed to post any threads which you have posted in.

You think im gonna go through all the locked threads and find out if any dodgy bans were givin out?

I mean rules as in charter rules btw

seamus wrote:

You're not allowed to post any threads which you have posted in.

Why? Because it happened to me, and you know i couldn't be arsed looking for anyone else that it happened to?

God i love Feedback

Even if you guys don't like me i never abuse flame people, i just try get my point across, unlike some mods around here who never listen and just flame(not you seamus :cool: )

WhiteWashMan

Fighting Irish wrote:

Even if you guys don't like me i never abuse flame people, i just try get my point across, unlike some mods around here who never listen and just flame(not you seamus :cool: )

Fighting Irish wrote:

How about only banning people for breaking the rules?

If a rule isn't broken then they can't be banned, most "why am i banned" threads happen because the user pisses off a mod but hasn't actually broke any rules so the user comes to feedback.......

was that your point?

and yet, it couldnt be, becuase....

Fighting Irish wrote:

You think im gonna go through all the locked threads and find out if any dodgy bans were givin out?

i mean, if you cant back up your point, you cant really be making any point.

in fact you never make any points. you just píss and moan. didnt we cover this in a nother recent thread?

Fighting Irish wrote:

God i love Feedback

youre dull now. bring a new shiney complaint to the party will you. this one has become old and worn.

WhiteWashMan

Fighting Irish wrote:

Suggest something and get flamed :eek:


That shows we need a proper feedback where mods will stay calm and listen to users even if they are wrong

you havent suggested anything that isnt already done.

Time Magazine

Hobbes wrote:

Maybe next time you will just PM an admin or Smod to ban you for a set time. If an Smod or admin had seen your post might of got the wrong end of the stick and banned you for good. Its all fun and games until you put someones eye out and all that.

. I would have just pm'd an Smod, but I was just being playful and thus why I went to the mod in advance etc. Like I said I'm not complaining, I'm just using this as a case where mods could and probably do (not did, I reckon Crash did it light-heartedly) overstep the mark.

Boston wrote:

Mods are people too

Yep I know, see above, I'm just suggesting that this be taken into account! Humans can be subtle.

WWM wrote:

with regards to angry banana, whatever plot you cooked up with the mods of the forum and then backfired, is hardly an issue about unfair banning.

it may be an issue with regards to poor communications, the mods playing silly buggers, or just being ignorant, but you were banned on your own request.

I think you picked me up wrong, so maybe my point wasn't clear. I was using this to show an example (which has a bit of empirical backing as opposed to a purely theoretical case that could be scoffed at) that mods could, just as you said, be silly buggers or ignorant.

I wasn't trying, explicitly or implicitly, to suggest unfair banning .

Fighting Irish wrote:

You think im gonna go through all the locked threads and find out if any dodgy bans were givin out?

No, but if you're suggesting that things are so rife at least provide a couple of examples that are acceptable to you, to the mods, and to the impartial user. The fact that you're not willing to search through a few posts but are willing to post a lot on this forum doesn't help your case man.

Boston

FFS Fighting fish, Go do a search for Gladiator & Boston to see how you actually go about fighting the powers.

Zaph0d

LiouVille wrote:

Zaph0d wrote:

In the past year there were 59 threads in Feedback including the word 'Banned' in the title. In the previous year there were 23 such threads. This is much lower than I had imagined but still shows a pretty clear trend.

And how many more users are there now, as apposed to a year ago? In the time I've been here (like four years) the number of users have gone from 2000 to what it is today. Don't twist things.

Sorry, I didn't mean to twist things. Rather I meant to say that the increase in threads complaining about banning has matched the increase in users and is likely to do so in the future.

WhiteWashMan wrote:

the least you can do is answer my objections.

I thought I had! I didn't answer any points I thought were rhetorical, nonsensical, or that I just didn't understand. If you want to point out any objections I missed I'd be happy to answer them.

Zaph0d

For comparison, here is the Wikipedia policy on banning and blocking. Wikipedia has a higher number of active users than boards.ie and could not deal with all bannings via one admin.