Suggestion: Formalising the ban process

seamus

Right, prompted from this thread, I propose a small overhaul of the forum-ban system to make life easier for mods and users alike. I've got both my business analyst and programmer hats on now, but I'll try not get boring or technical.

What I see as the main problems, purely in the context of bans from specific forums:

1. Keeping track of who was banned from where, why, for how long and by whom. This applies both to users finding out what the story is, and to Co-mods, Cmods and Smods finding out what the story it.

2. Giving reasons for banning people. "Why was I banned?" is a familiar cry.

3. Notifying users of forum bans.

I propose a more defined process that must be followed in order to ban users. At the moment, the mod enters the modutils, enters the name of the user to be banned, and clicks OK. They are then prompted to PM them, but they can just close the window.

My process would just alter modutils slightly. The mod enters the user (or users) to be banned, and is then prompted with an input box (not a textarea) for a reason, and another input box for the duration. Neither box can be empty.

The mod clicks OK, and the user gets banned as normal.

The user then gets an automated PM;

<username>,

You have been banned from <forum_name> by <mod_name_with_pm_link> for the following reason:
<reason>

The duration of this ban is: <duration>

It is your responsibility to PM the above moderator when your ban has expired, and request that the ban be lifted.

Regards

To aid in the accountability process, an additional table is added to the database. This table contains the user who was banned, the mod who banned them, the date of the ban, the duration (entered above), the reason (entered above), and an identifier that links it to the access mask in question. I'm not privy to the structure of the vB database, so I'm not sure how bans are registered.
Once the ban is lifted, the details are deleted from the above table.

Users can access this table (via a page, obviously) to view their own bans.
Moderators can access this table to see either all bans that they've put in place, or all bans for a specific forum.

Cmods and Smods can see all bans for forums which they have control over (Smods obviously can see bans from all forums and for all users).

As part of said page, there'll also be some text as regards what to do about bans, what to do in the event of a grievance, etc etc.

Comments?

I can do this. I can't say I have tonnes of time to do it, but I can definitely write it, my offer is on the table.

r3nu4l

That sounds like a really good and fair process.

I'd say that in the automated PM a small note be added that abusive PM's to the mod in question may result in a ban extention but that reasonable PM's will be entertained.

That might stop some of the stupidity that goes on when people are banned in terms of PM wars and feedback threads.

Fair play to you Séamus!

( . )( . )

vBulletin® Version 3.6.7 ?

monkeyfudge

Looks good.

The automated nature of the PM will also possibly discourage abusive PMs being sent back to the moderator.

Tom Dunne

Support++

6th

This sounds great, fair play Seamus.

Cuddlesworth

Seamus

You have been banned from Feedback by God for the following reason:
Yer MA!

The duration of this ban is: till I rot in hell

It is your responsibility to PM the above moderator when your ban has expired, and request that the ban be lifted.

Regards

We all know this is going to be how it goes down. Good idea regardless.


Maybe some bullet points at the bottom,

ie;
*do not re-register to get around the ban

unkel

I'm all for a more formalised banning procedure

seamus wrote:

an additional table is added to the database. This table contains the user who was banned, the mod who banned them, the date of the ban, the duration (entered above), the reason (entered above)

Good idea. Plus a link to the offending post? All mods should have access to that table. Personally, I prefer to warn a user rather than banning them depending on the circumstances, but if I can see they've misbehaved elsewhere on boards.ie, it would help making a decision

seamus wrote:

Once the ban is lifted, the details are deleted from the above table

Or kept on the table for a certain duration, perhaps a year? A bit like penalty points on a driving license

seamus

krazy_8s wrote:

We all know this is going to be how it goes down. Good idea regardless.

This is the purpose of the table - accountability.

If a mod decides that they're going to ban on a whim, and for stupid reasons, the admins, Smods, and their Co-mods will be able to see them acting the prick.

With that in mind, perhaps we should retain the ban details for a few months (to stop a mod deleting the ban as soon as they realise they've been reported).

Karl Hungus

Too long, didn't read...

So, basically, mods should wear ties?

I can totally see myself wearing this suit:

oscarBravo

Nice idea. I'd suggest leaving the table entries there for a while; a ban history could be a very useful thing to have when assessing how big a muppet someone has been.

Mr Magnolia

I think it's a great idea if it's workable.

A CMod, SMod or Admin could review relative bannings as they wanted, perhaps on a regular basis deciding if it was fair or acquiring more information on the reason for the ban. Maybe this information is already sought from the banlists

A lot of users banned (for one reason or another) don't want to start a thread in feedback if they're not happy with a mod's response.

This would mean that bannings don't go unnoticed.

A link to the post or thread would be a must IMO.

Nice wan seamus

Mr Magnolia

seamus wrote:

With that in mind, perhaps we should retain the ban details for a few months (to stop a mod deleting the ban as soon as they realise they've been reported).

Similar set up to reported posts maybe?

tba

I think the ban history should be there forever

User45701

hmm i was expecting something else, well it will stop some of the why was i banned posts but would it not be better to formalise the rules behind banning, meaning some mods would be accused more often than others about a ban for no reason, different mods have different standers but i thought you where suggesting a boards wide set of banning rules for mods, to stop some of the accused power hungry mods who will ban or lock a topic even if its not against the forum rules, i fell victim to it once about 2 year ago

Beruthiel

Karl Hungus wrote:

I can totally see myself wearing this suit

I just can't picture it meself.
I won't be wearing a tie either, hate anything near my neck, feels like I'm choking.

seamus, won't that require a lot of work from an Admin?

I already send PM's to everyone I ban.
Except if you've got 5 posts or under, I couldn't be arsed PMing someone who acts the maggot 10 seconds after getting here.

Mr. Presentable

My thoughts, for what they are worth:

Mods notify subscribers of bannings (perk).

Feedback restricted to subscribers to eliminate "WAIB?" threads.

Ban list as public forum

Non-subscribers who find themselves banned check ban list and PM Mod directly.

Pighead

Beruthiel wrote:

I already send PM's to everyone I ban.
Except if you've got 5 posts or under, I couldn't be arsed PMing someone who acts the maggot 10 seconds after getting here.

Well If its too much work for you maybe its time you hung up your Mod boots then Bru. Lets face it you're no spring chicken anymore.

Pighead hasn't read Seamus' suggestion but as its from Seamus there is no doubt that its a brilliant and very workable suggestion. If you're a mod and your name is not Seamus, look away now.
Seamus you're the best Mod on boards by a country mile. You're Baileys Irish Cream, the rest are flat soda stream.
Support ++

Karl Hungus

Beruthiel wrote:

I just can't picture it meself.

Well obviously I won't look like that clean shaven guy in the pic. I'll probably have to buy a cane aswell, and wax my mustache, curling it up. Maybe some overly ornate pendant too. Yes, that'll be awesome.

seamus

User45701 wrote:

hmm i was expecting something else, well it will stop some of the why was i banned posts but would it not be better to formalise the rules behind banning, meaning some mods would be accused more often than others about a ban for no reason, different mods have different standers but i thought you where suggesting a boards wide set of banning rules for mods, to stop some of the accused power hungry mods who will ban or lock a topic even if its not against the forum rules, i fell victim to it once about 2 year ago

Well, while it would be nice to have rules that say, "You may only ban if X", in practice it's not workable if mods don't have discretion and can't choose to ban for something that's not specifically against the rules.
In fact, this is key. Time and time again, we have seen here that if a hard rule is made, someone will attempt to fight their ban on a technicality. If the rules are flexible and general, then you can't really argue points of technicality. This is not a country with a justice system. It's a club with general rules of conduct.
Besides that, many forums have completely opposing rules. Posting about soccer on AH will earn you a ban for example, whereas you're expected to post about soccer on the Soccer forum.

What I'm attempting to do is to halfway redress the fairness of the system. If mods are asked to justify their ban, then they may either reconsider it, or the user may get a better idea of why they've been banned. As part of this, we could issue guidelines to mods, e.g. "Acting the muppet" is not a valid reason for a ban, whereas "Trolling others users and disrupting discussions with offtopic crap" is.

Beruthial wrote:

seamus, won't that require a lot of work from an Admin?

That depends on the Admins.
If one of them wanted to develop it, then yes it would be a lot of work for them. If on the other hand, they left it to one or a group of us to develop, then it's little or no work to an Admin. The problem with giving it to us to develop is that I (for example), would need access to, or a copy of the database, and access to, or a copy of the vBulletin software.

There could be huge implications there.

Asiaprod

seamus wrote:

With that in mind, perhaps we should retain the ban details for a few months (to stop a mod deleting the ban as soon as they realise they've been reported).

I like the idea of a checkable Ban history.
Support +++

ecksor

My ban script can be modified for this. It shouldn't be a massive job, although I'm not fully aware of what is involved in sending a PM (though I don't think tha'ts a big job). I just cringe at changing the vbulletin database.

Beruthiel

ecksor wrote:

I just cringe at changing the vbulletin database.

Just please don't break anything in the process!

Pipe down Piggie and get back to AH.

seamus

ecksor wrote:

I just cringe at changing the vbulletin database.

Yes indeedy. Without knowing the specifics of the DB, I'm kind of hoping that we could just add a new table without modifying any of the vB tables. Theoretically then this shouldn't be affected by vB upgrades, so we don't have to add it to the "Pile of things we need to add back into the software after an upgrade".

That is of course assuming that vB doesn't drop or truncate the database when upgrading. I would be surprised.

oscarBravo

seamus wrote:

"Acting the muppet" is not a valid reason for a ban...

What? What? What?

Evil Phil

I particularly like being able to review why somebody was banned, who banned them and for how long. I'm voting seagull.


<edit>
It would be nice if the pm explained that the ban can be queried on Helpdesk where only Admins, SMods and the banned user can discuss it, or on Feedback where its open to public discussion. I *generally* include that in the pm myself.

Cuddlesworth

seamus wrote:

Yes indeedy. Without knowing the specifics of the DB, I'm kind of hoping that we could just add a new table without modifying any of the vB tables. Theoretically then this shouldn't be affected by vB upgrades, so we don't have to add it to the "Pile of things we need to add back into the software after an upgrade".

That is of course assuming that vB doesn't drop or truncate the database when upgrading. I would be surprised.

Don't worry, should anything go wrong the admins can replace the mainpage with the following message,

Seamus broke boards.ie

Please send all complaints to "joe.schmo@whatever.com"


Obviously it would be your real email address. Everybody agree?

Owen

It's like you entered my head, extracted all 3 brain cells, and posted them on boards. Well done Seamus, a great idea, and exactly what I've been trying to promote for months now.

aidan_walsh

Evil Phil wrote:

It would be nice if the pm explained that the ban can be queried on Helpdesk where only Admins, SMods and the banned user can discuss it

Not so sure on that one myself, as it discounts the input of the mod from the "appeal" without the direct intravention of one of the other "postable" parties acting as a proxy. As a mod, I would prefer these discussions to be held either over PM, or if they wanted to have a public discussion in Feedback.

amp

seamus wrote:

I propose a more defined process that must be followed in order to ban users. At the moment, the mod enters the modutils, enters the name of the user to be banned, and clicks OK. They are then prompted to PM them, but they can just close the window.

My process would just alter modutils slightly. The mod enters the user (or users) to be banned, and is then prompted with an input box (not a textarea) for a reason, and another input box for the duration. Neither box can be empty.

I have serious problems with the parts in bold. If I am forced to write text in a box when I ban people then you can bet your arse it's going to be along the lines of "I like cake" or "Stuff your stupid text box up your arse".

Trying to formalize a banning process for the wide and varied fora boards hosts of is a dangerous thing to try. Trying to make all mods behave in the same way is not a good idea at all. I am completely against this.

No mercy for the banned.

nesf

User45701 wrote:

hmm i was expecting something else, well it will stop some of the why was i banned posts but would it not be better to formalise the rules behind banning, meaning some mods would be accused more often than others about a ban for no reason, different mods have different standers but i thought you where suggesting a boards wide set of banning rules for mods, to stop some of the accused power hungry mods who will ban or lock a topic even if its not against the forum rules, i fell victim to it once about 2 year ago

Not workable simply because we don't run a common set of rules. AH for instance is far less strict than Politics if you want an obvious example. Part of the charm/curse of boards is it's variety of forums and them catering to slightly different audiences. The rules, naturally, have to be somewhat mutable in order to achieve this.

Though a debate could be had on just how "independent" individual forums should be, which might coincide with what you are talking about. Personally I think of each forum as a relatively independent entity with it's own community etc. Boards as a site is a bit like a "meta community" or something.

BrianCalgary

Love the ideas on the OP Seamus.

seamus

amp wrote:

I have serious problems with the parts in bold. If I am forced to write text in a box when I ban people then you can bet your arse it's going to be along the lines of "I like cake" or "Stuff your stupid text box up your arse".

Is that purely because you're naturally rebellious though?

In reality, I'm looking for discussion on this. I'm not trying to say, "This is the way it should be done", rather, "Here are the problems as I see them, and some possible solutions to that problem". If you or anyone else doesn't agree that the problems I've pointed out are actually problems, or otherwise doesn't believe that my solution is valid, I'd love to hear corrections and suggestions on the same.

Trying to formalize a banning process for the wide and varied fora boards hosts of is a dangerous thing to try. Trying to make all mods behave in the same way is not a good idea at all. I am completely against this.

Agreed completely. Coming to a decision on banning someone is something that every moderator does differently, and it's not something that we can formalise or otherwise "standardise". However, the specific process of applying that ban is a simple process which can (and I feel should - reasons outlined in the OP) be standardised.

No mercy for the banned.

While that used to be fine, given the size of boards and the number of moderators, I don't think we can fly with this much longer. It's getting to the point where policing of moderators by Admins and other moderators is simply unfeasible. A very small minority of abuses are taking place, and the claims of abuse (valid or not) are slowly on the rise. Either way, we have no way of verifying these claims, or at the very least it requires some intensive investigation. If we can make the whole thing more transparent then it may make users think twice before claiming oppression, or make mods think twice before banning on a whim.

Anti

I think a formal banning procedure is a great idea. Might even sto some of the banned users postign threads in here wondering whats going on!

ecksor

One the one hand I agree with amp completely, but on the other hand I don't at all.

Basically I find that some bans are definitely "click and forget" where I don't feel like wasting my time, but then sometimes I ban someone and I do feel it needs a bit more communication. I suppose that's consistent with his basic point that it's difficult to standardise.

A standardised appeals process is more interesting to me.

zAbbo

not sure how you're managing forumbans, but you can get a vB mod to automate the PM and unbanning, which seems to be some peoples gripe.

aidan_walsh

Rather than one text box where you have to fill in a reason, what about a number of options. For example, a default text box like seamus says, and some quick options for more specific offences like spamming (provide a link to the post\thread), etc. One of these must be filled in, but in the case of "click and forget" bannings the process can be sped up that much more and still be as effective.

aidan_walsh

zabbo wrote:

not sure how you're managing forumbans, but you can get a vB mod to automate the PM and unbanning, which seems to be some peoples gripe.

Can you provide a link, so that we can see what its capable of and whether it would fit in with what people (users and mods alike) would want?

5starpool

Sounds like a good idea to me.

amp

seamus wrote:

Is that purely because you're naturally rebellious though?

No, unless you see yourself as a higher authority than I. Which to the best of my knowledge you aren't. I answer to the Admins.

In reality, I'm looking for discussion on this. I'm not trying to say, "This is the way it should be done", rather, "Here are the problems as I see them, and some possible solutions to that problem". If you or anyone else doesn't agree that the problems I've pointed out are actually problems, or otherwise doesn't believe that my solution is valid, I'd love to hear corrections and suggestions on the same.

You see problems. I don't see a problem. I see you pandering to the stupid. Holding the hand of people who cannot read charter or simply ignore them. I have no interest in making these morons lives easier. I see threads complaining about moderators in Feedback to be a good thing, a wanted thing.

Agreed completely. Coming to a decision on banning someone is something that every moderator does differently, and it's not something that we can formalise or otherwise "standardise". However, the specific process of applying that ban is a simple process which can (and I feel should - reasons outlined in the OP) be standardised.

I don't see the need for standardisation.

While that used to be fine, given the size of boards and the number of moderators, I don't think we can fly with this much longer. It's getting to the point where policing of moderators by Admins and other moderators is simply unfeasible. A very small minority of abuses are taking place, and the claims of abuse (valid or not) are slowly on the rise.

Really? I'd love to see your stats on this. I'd also love to see those stats graphed to the growth in users.

Either way, we have no way of verifying these claims, or at the very least it requires some intensive investigation. If we can make the whole thing more transparent then it may make users think twice before claiming oppression, or make mods think twice before banning on a whim.

Well that's a nice, if naive sentiment. It's my firm belief that there will always be those that take their crusade to Feedback believing that they can somehow bullshít their way out of being banned. Why? Because some peoples ego's demand it. Often Feedback is an excellent way of teaching these people and publicly warning others.

No mercy for the banned.

Mr Magnolia

amp wrote:

You see problems. I don't see a problem. I see you pandering to the stupid. Holding the hand of people who cannot read charter or simply ignore them. I have no interest in making these morons lives easier. I see threads complaining about moderators in Feedback to be a good thing, a wanted thing.....

Well that's a nice, if naive sentiment. It's my firm belief that there will always be those that take their crusade to Feedback believing that they can somehow bullshít their way out of being banned. Why? Because some peoples ego's demand it. Often Feedback is an excellent way of teaching these people and publicly warning others.

No mercy for the banned.

You seem to be assuming that all bans are justified and that all Mods do no wrong? Is this always the case?

Hobbes

Some links may not work for non-mods of certain areas. I apologise.

The idea is a good one. I recommend getting something like the Wiki Blocking process page.

http://wiki.boards.ie/wiki/Special:Blockip/SomeRandomUser

It has a list of common bans so that the moderator can just pick a generic one or add their own if they so feel. It also allows you to set a timetable as to when they can return. Saves having to do the work after or having an irate user who demands you unban them exactly when you said you would.

As for a table that shows who is banned and why. I would have to say this needs to be limited. Tried this on the Islam forum where we kept all ban information public but you ended up with the following type of people.

a) Those seeing it as a status symbol that they are fighting the pow-wa.
b) Those who feel they are being unfairly treated after a ban.

So only see themselves why they are banned and it goes away for user/s once the ban is recinded. Mods should still be able to see a history though.

So for now we have a mini-ban list at the end of the charter.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3201675&postcount=1

and a hidden ban list (which is a pain to maintain).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3201868

Its a pain as you have to undelete, edit, delete.

amp

Mr Magnolia wrote:

You seem to be assuming that all bans are justified and that all Mods do no wrong? Is this always the case?

Of course not, but Mod error doesn't happen frequently enough to warrant the changes Seamus suggests.

seamus

amp wrote:

No, unless you see yourself as a higher authority than I. Which to the best of my knowledge you aren't. I answer to the Admins.

That's not what I meant at all. What I meant that if this was put into place by the Admins, would you fill the boxes with nonsense because that's what you do, or because you would feel the need to fight any attempt to force you into doing something?

You see problems. I don't see a problem. I see you pandering to the stupid. Holding the hand of people who cannot read charter or simply ignore them. I have no interest in making these morons lives easier. I see threads complaining about moderators in Feedback to be a good thing, a wanted thing.

Well, that's the point of the discussion.

Really? I'd love to see your stats on this. I'd also love to see those stats graphed to the growth in users.

This isn't politics.
I've personally spent more time dealing with this stuff recently. That's all the evidence I need. That said though, your point of the userbase is well taken - given the growth of the userbase, I don't believe that the number of user issues has risen at the same rate.

Well that's a nice, if naive sentiment. It's my firm belief that there will always be those that take their crusade to Feedback believing that they can somehow bullshít their way out of being banned. Why? Because some peoples ego's demand it. Often Feedback is an excellent way of teaching these people and publicly warning others.

Again, agreed. I didn't imply otherwise

Of course not, but Mod error doesn't happen frequently enough to warrant the changes Seamus suggests.

I'm not suggesting it though purely to catch Mod error. It's probably something that me and you won't agree on. If someone appeals a ban, you're more likely to give them the short shrift than I am. This is perhaps why you don't see the need for this

irlrobins

Right, can't read the second page of this thread due to the word 'Slút' triggering the web filter. but what I did was enough to lend my support.

I always PM a user that I'm banning, explaining why, how long for and what to do to appeal/discuss. Having this process automated will reduce the effort required. The history table will also allow past bans to be reviewed and a user ban profile to be observed.

So support++ here. I'm surprised this feature hasn't been implemented to date tbh.

Owen

Well, to answer amp's apparent lack of time to fill in the text boxes with a reason for the ban, wouldn't it be easier to have default text in the box that's the Mod could leave for the stanard bans? Something like "User disregarded Charter, banned for ..." and then a drop down box for the time period? It couldn't possibly take any more time than what he/she is doing at the moment.

seamus

I have actually mulled over this a bit more, and it's definitely still workable, even if the boxes remain blank, and the user still gets PMed.

As it is, when sitebanning a user, we're not required to insert a reason. What the user sees is "You were banned for the following reason: None".

Which I personally think is hilarious, I don't know why.

If the mod leaves the boxes blank, then the user gets banned anyway, and the duration is set to "Permanent".

Which may or may not satisfy everyone - I completely agree that there are some people for whom the ban is a no-brainer and requires no justification, and there are other for whom you'd like to put in some info.

After all, if we can siteban people permanently and without reason, then why not the same from individual forums?

Interstingly, even though we don't have to give a reason to siteban, now that we're in the habit (and we're aware that the banlis exists), I think we all now put in reasons for every ban.

Although the absence of a reason may annoy some people, I don't actually think it affects the idea all that much.

Gordon

Hobbes wrote:

and a hidden ban list (which is a pain to maintain).
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3201868

Its a pain as you have to undelete, edit, delete.

You can create a new thread and soft delete it and then you can reply or edit it as you need.

amp

ned78 wrote:

Well, to answer amp's apparent lack of time to fill in the text boxes with a reason for the ban,

At no point have I ever stated that I wouldn't do this due to lack of time or my willingness to put effort in. I simply believe that banned users do not deserve any help whatsoever.

If the proposed changes are optional then I have no problem with them.

Sully

I worked on a large(sh) site - nothing compared to Boards - running IPB. They have a warn system, which basically increases a warn level and there is a limit and when its reached the user is then banned for a given reason you enter into a box. Probably wouldnt work on Boards, as on that site we gave 3 warnings (on second, you got suspended account) before a ban was implemented. Obviously more serious offenses gave rise to immediate suspension / bannings, and no warnings given.

All I can suggest on Boards is that indeed, a proper policy is implemented for banning. A script should be created so when banning a user, you select the person, the reason and the length of the ban. It should by right, auto-remove a ban when the time is up. The policy just states you must give a reason, besides "muppet".

Obviously there are concerns of time wasting and those who dont want to spend time filling it all in. So here is something I suggest being coded;

A system where posts can be "tagged". I click 5 posts, go to the mod utils page and see a section "Pending" showing the users (Whose posts I just taged) and when I click there name im presented with different options including banning, and the list of the links to offending posts.

If I click ban, im brough to the banning page. On this page, auto filled in is;
Banned by, Date, Offending Posts.

Other fields need to be filled in;
Reason*, Expiry**

Above reason is a checkbox, with the top 5 banning reasons (Spamming, Muppetry, etc). Clicking one, will enter a detailed message in the reason box "User X you have been banned from boards.ie for Y reason and will remain banned until Z date. The offending posts have been listed below".

As for date, a calendar box - selecting the year, month, day it will expire (Never is an option to).

Job done. All that was done was, selected offending posts, clicked ban, selected reason by checkbox and expiry data by calendar and submitted.

Hobbes

Gordon wrote:

You can create a new thread and soft delete it and then you can reply or edit it as you need.

Cool Mucho better!!

[edit]

Actually you can't add to it without first undeleting it.

ONOZ I BROKE IT!! Won't let me fix the thread at all.

Clean up on Isle three.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055113733