Permabanning points system or something?

strobe

Hey I was just wondering how you decide to permaban someone from the site? I've noticed a few long time posters over the last while in the prison forum that were banned for clocking up X(?) number of bans/infractions over the course of their time here. It seem to come a bit out of the blue (from their point of view). So what's the deal there? Do you have a points system whereby a ban = 6 points, a red card = 4 points etc and once some hits 31 points or something you permaban them?

How's that work? Is the nature of the infractions and/or bans taken into account? I mean if someone has 3 bans for calling someone a cvnt is that worse than having three bans (in terms of eventually getting permabanned) than having three bans for something other than personal abuse? Is the frequency of the bans/infractions a factor? Like, if someone gets X bans in two years is that considered worse or equivalent to someone getting X bans over 5 years?

I mean there is a lad there in Prison now who has ~7000 posts and posting since 2006 and he seemed a but blind sided by the ban. Maybe some kind of automated warning for people that have racked up a certain amount of bans/infractions/points or however you work it would be a good idea saying "Warning you have accumulated X Y's in Z amount of time. Stop acting the maggot or you are gone pal" would be a good idea? Rather than just landing on them one day flash bang style.

Thoughts?

FlutterinBantam

strobe wrote: »

Hey I was just wondering how you decide to permaban someone from the site? I've noticed a few long time posters over the last while in the prison forum that were banned for clocking up X(?) number of bans/infractions over the course of their time here. It seem to come a bit out of the blue (from their point of view). So what's the deal there? Do you have a points system whereby a ban = 6 points, a red card = 4 points etc and once some hits 31 points or something you permaban them?

How's that work? Is the nature of the infractions and/or bans taken into account? I mean if someone has 3 bans for calling someone a cvnt is that worse than having three bans (in terms of eventually getting permabanned) than having three bans for something other than personal abuse? Is the frequency of the bans/infractions a factor? Like, if someone gets X bans in two years is that considered worse or equivalent to someone getting X bans over 5 years?

I mean there is a lad there in Prison now who has ~7000 posts and posting since 2006 and he seemed a but blind sided by the ban. Maybe some kind of automated warning for people that have racked up a certain amount of bans/infractions/points or however you work it would be a good idea saying "Warning you have accumulated X Y's in Z amount of time. Stop acting the maggot or you are gone pal" would be a good idea? Rather than just landing on them one day flash bang style.

Thoughts?

Been there pal, got a perma from AH from some newbie Mod.

Had a bit of 'form' in fairness.

No warning, no nothing,so my advice is to just post things like "Love that post man" "great post, I agree completely" or "Fantastic! of course we should pay for all this"

You will get up to 50,000 posts no problem:D

LoLth

The idea of the infractions and forum/category bans are to show the user where they are going wrong. Thats their warning. If, after a period of time the user is obviously not "getting it" or is deliberately being troublesome but not enough to warrant a straight out site ban, we do take their history into account.

A user that gets a string of infractions and minor bans from a range of forums for insulting other users over a period of a year or so for example just isnt getting the message that that behaviour is not acceptable. eventually we just have to decide that enough chances have been given and htat keepign the user around not only creates more work for the mods/cmods and admins as we try to get them to see the light, it also detracts from the enjoyment of other users. The site is better off without their input.

There is no hard and fast formula for when the scales finally tip. A point based system would remove the human element from the process and you need that element to make exceptions and take context and circumstances into account. So, its a manual process. If a user turn up on our radar, we always look at their posting history. If that raises an eyebrow, the admin can ask for a second opinion on borderline cases or impose the siteban for the obvious ones (the ones who have had "form" ).

At some stage, even just for sanity's sake, we have to say enough is enough and its not us, its you.

and no, you dont have to agree with every post or even praise boards.ie in all that you do. you just have to know how to disagree properly and not resort to being a dick when some anonymous internet person dares to disagree.

FlutterinBantam

LoLth wrote: »

The idea of the infractions and forum/category bans are to show the user where they are going wrong. Thats their warning. If, after a period of time the user is obviously not "getting it" or is deliberately being troublesome but not enough to warrant a straight out site ban, we do take their history into account.

A user that gets a string of infractions and minor bans from a range of forums for insulting other users over a period of a year or so for example just isnt getting the message that that behaviour is not acceptable. eventually we just have to decide that enough chances have been given and htat keepign the user around not only creates more work for the mods/cmods and admins as we try to get them to see the light, it also detracts from the enjoyment of other users. The site is better off without their input.

There is no hard and fast formula for when the scales finally tip. A point based system would remove the human element from the process and you need that element to make exceptions and take context and circumstances into account. So, its a manual process. If a user turn up on our radar, we always look at their posting history. If that raises an eyebrow, the admin can ask for a second opinion on borderline cases or impose the siteban for the obvious ones (the ones who have had "form" ).

At some stage, even just for sanity's sake, we have to say enough is enough and its not us, its you.

and no, you dont have to agree with every post or even praise boards.ie in all that you do. you just have to know how to disagree properly and not resort to being a dick when some anonymous internet person dares to disagree.

:eek:

strobe

LoLth wrote: »

The idea of the infractions and forum/category bans are to show the user where they are going wrong. Thats their warning. If, after a period of time the user is obviously not "getting it" or is deliberately being troublesome but not enough to warrant a straight out site ban, we do take their history into account.

A user that gets a string of infractions and minor bans from a range of forums for insulting other users over a period of a year or so for example just isnt getting the message that that behaviour is not acceptable. eventually we just have to decide that enough chances have been given and htat keepign the user around not only creates more work for the mods/cmods and admins as we try to get them to see the light, it also detracts from the enjoyment of other users. The site is better off without their input.

There is no hard and fast formula for when the scales finally tip. A point based system would remove the human element from the process and you need that element to make exceptions and take context and circumstances into account. So, its a manual process. If a user turn up on our radar, we always look at their posting history. If that raises an eyebrow, the admin can ask for a second opinion on borderline cases or impose the siteban for the obvious ones (the ones who have had "form" ).

At some stage, even just for sanity's sake, we have to say enough is enough and its not us, its you.

and no, you dont have to agree with every post or even praise boards.ie in all that you do. you just have to know how to disagree properly and not resort to being a dick when some anonymous internet person dares to disagree.

Yeah that all sounds fair enough I guess. I still think actually making a point of telling someone "this is your last chance to turn your ways around" or something prior to implementing an absolutely irreversible ban would be a good idea rather than hoping the infractions etc click for them at a certain point. Everyone deserves one last chance and all that. If after that they still act the bollix then they have no right to feel hard done by as they clearly knew what the result would be. Just think the out of the blue aspect of it seems a bit harsh.

Odaise Gaelach

I can see where you're coming from, but one would hope that a poster gets the idea after the first ban.

It'd very difficult to determine what would be the fixed limit, and having one would proabably only encourage more posters to "see how far they can push it" instead of the staff dealing each poster on a case-by-case basis, which is what they do now (I believe).

And from what I can see in various DRP and Prison threads a lot of the staff are quite patient with how many bans a poster can accumulate before handing out a siteban.

strobe

Odaise Gaelach wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from, but one would hope that a poster gets the idea after the first ban.

It'd very difficult to determine what would be the fixed limit, and having one would proabably only encourage more posters to "see how far they can push it" instead of the staff dealing each poster on a case-by-case basis, which is what they do now (I believe).

And from what I can see in various DRP and Prison threads a lot of the staff are quite patient with how many bans a poster can accumulate before handing out a siteban.

I'm not even really suggesting a fixed limit though. Just that at the point they reach the decision (however they reach it) to permaban, well, one degree before that, say to someone "you are on thin ice here, unless your attitude towards the rules changes is a big way you are gone permanently next ban, no discussion" or something to that effect. Like how a court can issue a suspended sentence, tell them they are now on a 'suspended permanent site ban' that will be activated for any serious future transgressions.

Just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration.

FlutterinBantam

strobe wrote: »

I'm not even really suggesting a fixed limit though. Just that at the point they reach the decision (however they reach it) to permaban, well, one degree before that, say to someone "you are on thin ice here, unless your attitude towards the rules changes is a big way you are gone permanently next ban, no discussion" or something to that effect. Like how a court can issue a suspended sentence, tell them they are now on a 'suspended permanent site ban' that will be activated for any serious future transgressions.

Just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration.

yes, I would agree with that.

Ickle Magoo

strobe wrote: »

I'm not even really suggesting a fixed limit though. Just that at the point they reach the decision (however they reach it) to permaban, well, one degree before that, say to someone "you are on thin ice here, unless your attitude towards the rules changes is a big way you are gone permanently next ban, no discussion" or something to that effect. Like how a court can issue a suspended sentence, tell them they are now on a 'suspended permanent site ban' that will be activated for any serious future transgressions.

Just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration.

At what point during the amassing of multiple warnings, infractions and bans can a poster not know they are on thin ice? Surely multiple on-thread warnings, yellows, reds and temp bans is already shouting loud and clear that a poster must change their posting style or they risk a longer and more permanent solution to their disrupting the forum/site for others?

There are posters who have been posting on Boards for years who haven't picked up as much as an on-thread warning and cause zero crap for the mods/admins to clean up. How do you justify even more explicit hand-holding than the collection of warnings & ban systems already in place for those who are seemingly incapable of doing likewise? Surely the onus should be on posters to read rules and not insist on being a dick rather than on mods/admins to try every avenue to save chronic problem posters from themselves...?

strobe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

At what point during the amassing of multiple warnings, infractions and bans can a poster not know they are on thin ice? Surely multiple on-thread warnings, yellows, reds and temp bans is already shouting loud and clear that a poster must change their posting style or they risk a longer and more permanent solution to their disrupting the forum/site for others?

There are posters who have been posting on Boards for years who haven't picked up as much as an on-thread warning and cause zero crap for the mods/admins to clean up. How do you justify even more explicit hand-holding than the collection of warnings & ban systems already in place for those who are seemingly incapable of doing likewise? Surely the onus should be on posters to read rules and not insist on being a dick rather than on mods/admins to try every avenue to save chronic problem posters from themselves...?

Well no, clearly the bans and things don't automatically let a person know that they are on thin ice. A lot of people wouldn't even be aware that an accumulated amount of bans = a permanent site ban, or where the line lies. It never references anything like that in the ban messages (I think). I just don't see the difficulty with giving someone a heads up and drawing their attention to the fact that they are accumulating a disproportionate amount of infractions and things. Surely if this results in a poster who makes a lot of helpful and good posts along with their not so helpful ones changing their ways and continuing to post but in a much better way then that is better than just telling them to get lost?

Like in the reference to suspended sentences above, most people would agree that if they do actually convince someone who has been committing minor offenses but also contributing positively to society to mend their ways then that would be better than just dropping a life sentence on someone that they weren't aware was coming?

==========
==========

As Paul Fitzgerald said on the decision to sentence Patricia Krenwinkle to the death penalty, “I fail to see how it helps anything—this country, this society. The community that kills its problem children denies itself the access to insights, solutions.”

(Is there a prize for the most out of left field reference of the day?) :pac:

Pace2008

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

No warning, no nothing,so my advice is to just post things like "Love that post man" "great post, I agree completely" or "Fantastic! of course we should pay for all this"

Maybe even try to lose the incessantly insulting tone or have the manners to reciprocate when someone attmepts to debate you on any menaingful level. Just some crazy ideas I'm throwing out there.

Ickle Magoo

strobe wrote:

(Is there a prize for the most out of left field reference of the day?)

It beats Nah, I guess.

strobe wrote:

Well no, clearly the bans and things don't automatically let a person know that they are on thin ice.

I disagree, strobe. They do automatically for many - the issue of permabanning is only relevant to a tiny proportion of posters who have failed to grasp the basics long after everyone else has. The consequences of multiple bans/infractions are given in the FAQ section and for anyone who chooses not to read them, the infraction PMs state in them:

Infractions are a reminder to you that you have broken a rule, but not in a serious way. The rules for every forum can be seen in the Forum Charter which appears at the top of every forum. If you are unsure what rule you have broken or how, please PM the Moderator(s) of the forum and ask them. All forums are moderated differently, so if you made a similar comment on one forum, it doesn't necessarily mean it's ok to post it everywhere else. Remember that our Mods are volunteers and are not always online, so they may not be able to answer you straight away.

This infraction is worth 1 point(s). Earning 9 active infraction points results in an automatic site ban until at least one of them expires (Infractions are active for 10 days) - this is there as a means to keep serious trouble makers or spammers off the site.

and ban PM's state:

Providing your ban is not permanent, it will be lifted automatically after Permanent. You will get an automatic message informing you that the ban is lifted. If you do not receive this message after the allotted time, please PM a moderator to clarify.

Bans occur after a serious rules breach so please keep in mind that Moderators don't just decide to ban people out of the blue. If you wish to appeal this ban, please follow our Dispute Resolution Process here. Your first action should always be to PM the Moderator(s) of the forum to discuss the ban. Remember that our Mods are volunteers and are not always online, so they may not be able to answer you straight away.

So I'm not sure how anyone could fail to understand what the consequences of continuing to rack up infractions and bans is going to be? Unless they choose to ignore it being spelt out and personally delivered to them.

This discussion is really how much effort the site should go to, to accommodate posters who continuously and deliberately disregard rules they are linked to and warned about in every warning/infraction/ban they pick up. Even ignoring the PM's, anyone who has been around long enough to accumulate multiple warnings, infractions and bans is also aware of how Boards operates - that they chose to act in a manner that means their contributions are of less worth than the effort of managing their deliberate transgressions is ultimately their choice...for most posters sweating about whether they've tipped the scales in favour of a permaban is never even a consideration.

I have to say I'm not a great fan of hand-holding and bending over backwards to make life easier for posters who repeatedly choose not to make the same effort for the site and it's other posters.

strobe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It beats Nah, I guess.

I disagree, strobe. [....] other posters.

Well neither of those messages state that a permanent site ban will be innacted at some stage without a warning (I know you say the ban/infractions are the warning but not everyone is aware of that, demonstrability so).

Anyway, like I say I just thought it would be a good idea rather than just springing it on people.

Just think it's better not to lose posters that do make a positive contribution as well when it might not be necessary. Better for them, better for other posters that benefit from the good posts that they do make, better for boards.ie and their associates. Win-win-win all round.

Anyway, I'm off out. I submit the above for the consideration of those assembled etc.

Dudess

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Been there pal, got a perma from AH from some newbie Mod.

But still a mod.

No warning, no nothing

Sure... :rolleyes:
God, you're even pretending to be a victim now...

so my advice is to just post things like "Love that post man" "great post, I agree completely" or "Fantastic! of course we should pay for all this"

You will get up to 50,000 posts no problem:D

And again with the passive-aggressive tripe, yet still the "bemusement" at the mods being mean to you. You always post stuff like "Love that post" and "Great post, I agree completely" and "Fantastic!" to a nauseating level... when it's something you agree with/by someone you like (even if they just post "Purplemonkeydishwasher").
Maybe it's not getting through to you: It ain't what you post, it's the way that you post it.

LoLth wrote: »

and no, you dont have to agree with every post or even praise boards.ie in all that you do. you just have to know how to disagree properly and not resort to being a dick when some anonymous internet person dares to disagree.

Ickle Magoo

strobe wrote: »

Well neither of those messages state that a permanent site ban will be innacted at some stage without a warning.

Anyway, like I say I just thought it would be a good idea rather than just springing it on people.

Just think it's better not to lose posters that do make a positive contribution as well when it might not be necessary. Better for them, for other posters that benefit from the good posts that they do make, better for boards.ie and their associates. Win-win-win all round.

Providing your ban is not permanent

would certainly suggest to me that permanent bans both exist and can be handed out for similar. Charters often state as much as well, I know the PI charter states that infractions/bans are accumulative and can result in a permaban...

At some stage posters have to take personal responsibility for what they post or the state they post in and accept that their worthwhileness (not sure if that's actually a word but you know what I mean) is being severely compromised by their inability to stay within the rules - and it's something only they can choose to change...it shouldn't be that the rest of the community is punished in order to save a poster who only respect a certain forum or certain posters...either they want to be a poster on the site, or they don't.

FlutterinBantam

Pace2008 wrote: »

Maybe even try to lose the incessantly insulting tone or have the manners to reciprocate when someone attmepts to debate you on any menaingful level. Just some crazy ideas I'm throwing out there.

Your perception, my friend, your perception.

I note that you tried to ram some fairly off the wall issues down my throat back awhile.

Sorry, we all don't think like you, and won't fall into line like goats.


Forgive me if I didn't put too much credence in them:cool:

Dudess

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Your perception, my friend, your perception.

Nope. There's perception and there's reality - this one's reality. Surely you're not denying what Pace says is true?

I note that you tried to ram some fairly off the wall issues down my throat back awhile.

Oh he said stuff you didn't agree with was it?

Sorry, we all don't think like you, and won't fall into line like goats. Forgive me if I didn't put too much credence in them:cool:

Again, simply because you don't agree with them/they don't agree with you - even if they put across their points really well. Even agreeing with something you disagree with = "falling into line like goats" in your world. By that logic, someone agreeing with YOU is also falling into line like goats...

It's actually laugable - disliking someone and then harassing them and pretending they have an agenda and exaggerating what they say, simply because they disagree with you/you disagree with them, is the stuff of children. Bless.

Pace2008

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Your perception, my friend, your perception.

I note that you tried to ram some fairly off the wall issues down my throat back awhile.

Sorry, we all don't think like you, and won't fall into line like goats.


Forgive me if I didn't put too much credence in them:cool:

I don't give a **** whether you agree with me or not.

I'd be thinking more along the lines of , say, the constant use of faux-pleasantries (you're doing it right now, by the way) which would be widely construed as being rude.

People disagree with each other all the time; It's the very nature of discussion fora. Funnily enough, 99% of these people don't end up getting banned by virtue of the fact they wouldn't accept each others' point of view.

Pace2008

Oh, and Strobe's suggestion seems pretty reasonable to me.

Zaph

strobe wrote: »

I'm not even really suggesting a fixed limit though. Just that at the point they reach the decision (however they reach it) to permaban, well, one degree before that, say to someone "you are on thin ice here, unless your attitude towards the rules changes is a big way you are gone permanently next ban, no discussion" or something to that effect. Like how a court can issue a suspended sentence, tell them they are now on a 'suspended permanent site ban' that will be activated for any serious future transgressions.

Just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration.

In many of these cases the person has already had one or more temporary sitebans and they haven't solved the problem. Personally I'd have thought that a temporary siteban would be enough of a warning, but it seems not and some people just can't help being asshats.

strobe

Zaph wrote: »

In many of these cases the person has already had one or more temporary sitebans and they haven't solved the problem. Personally I'd have thought that a temporary siteban would be enough of a warning, but it seems not and some people just can't help being asshats.

Ah yeah, I'd actually forgotten about temp sitebans. Well as long as a temp site ban comes first I think that's reasonable enough.

But maybe, for like super clarity or something, include in the wording of the message that accompanies the ban something about a permanent ban being on the horizon.

Whether it's a site ban or a forum ban, if it's going to be permanent and unappealable, I just think making it clear that a permanent unappealable ban is close if things continue as they are would benefit both the site and the posters more than a shoot to kill policy. I don't think it's 'hand holding' or bending over backwards, it's just, ye know, being cool. Be cool.

Overheal

strobe wrote: »

As Paul Fitzgerald said on the decision to sentence Patricia Krenwinkle to the death penalty, “I fail to see how it helps anything—this country, this society. The community that kills its problem children denies itself the access to insights, solutions.”

In all fairness I've seen some people with really colorful histories that were abrasive posters skirt the line before. Boards is actually more than fair about what point it considers someone more of a problem than they are worth. If you're a good contributor that has infractions/bans those contributions can weigh in your favor but sometimes it's just not enough to outweigh the headache involved in accommodating the individual.

starbelgrade

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Your perception, my friend, your perception.

Your perception - or lack of it in this case - is exactly the reason why you got yourself permabanned from After Hours.

Dudess

Oh no, Star - it was them being mean.

strobe wrote: »

I mean there is a lad there in Prison now who has ~7000 posts and posting since 2006 and he seemed a but blind sided by the ban.

If it's the person I think it is, the only surprising thing is that they weren't banned years ago - Stormfront will welcome them with open arms for sure.

FlutterinBantam

Dudess wrote: »

Oh no, Star - it was them, not him.

Hmmm. ....sense a lot of negative vibes here Dudess.

Let's put it up for grabs shall we?

I say it as it is, no decoration, or malleable border, no bating around the bush or couching in diplomatic terms...M'kay

My point of view seems to go against the grain of most of the Boards.ie contributors , who seem to be , in the main, IT students who never paid a red ...sorry... green cent tax in their lives.

I don't take their views too seriously, so forgive me if I seem a tad practical in all this little kerfuffle.

Just deal with the arguments, don't attack the poster.


Tag teams don't mean nothing to me babes.

Dudess

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I say it as it is, no decoration, or malleable border, no bating around the bush or couching in diplomatic terms...M'kay

Your use of stuff like "M'kay", "pal", "buddy", "my friend" and the various smileys in a passive aggressive fashion is snide - and you know it, but pretend to be innocent.
You contribute your point of view. You rarely back it up - you just throw out the same tired soundbites, generalisations and presumptions over and over. You then attack and ridicule people who do a much better job of putting across arguments than you do, simply for not agreeing with you. That is not "saying it as it is" and all the other stuff you say above. That's mean-spirited and obnoxious. It is borderline harassment at times also.

My point of view seems to go against the grain of most of the Boards.ie contributors , who seem to be , in the main, IT students who never paid a red ...sorry... green cent tax in their lives.

I actually share some of your views re privileged kids pontificating about various causes, but you apply it to anyone at all who disagrees with you, rather than taking on board the individual argument. Then you pretend you're a lone voice, a renegade railing against the culture of Boards. There are plenty who spout out the same stuff as you, and in the same unsupported fashion.

I don't take their views too seriously, so forgive me if I seem a tad practical in all this little kerfuffle.

Riling people isn't being practical.

Just deal with the arguments, don't attack the poster.

Something that could have been written for you.

Tag teams don't mean nothing to me babes.

There's no tag team - it's all in your head. Just because lots of people dislike how you rile people and ridicule people for disagreeing with you doesn't mean your views are being used against you. If you put them across in a reasonable fashion, ya wouldn't be permabanned.

FlutterinBantam

:eek:

That's a lot of bile for sure.:eek:

Can't figure out where all this hate came from.Not justified in my opinion.

Look , I'll take a raincheck, the Packers are on the box at 2115 and I have to watch them.

I'll absorb the hate in the meantime and I will study your post to see if I can in someway justify my stance .

Eh... have a good day.

strobe

Well, this wasn't supposed to be the "What's everyone's opinion of FlutterinBantam?" thread and as that's the direction it's going in it might be best just to lock her up.

Thanks for the on topic responses from people though.

strobe

Dudess wrote: »

If it's the person I think it is, the only surprising thing is that they weren't banned years ago - Stormfront will welcome them with open arms for sure.

I'm not aware of how they usually post, just noticed the kick ass username before.

Zaph

Dudess and Flutt, if you two want to continue scoring points against each other please take it to PM and stop derailing this thread. Thanks.

Bottle_of_Smoke

People seem to only get permabanned from the site for really taking the piss. Always multiple forum bans and even forum permabans.

Surely it would be very simple, to at the end of the standard text in a ban PM; include the line:

"Permanent sitebans can be administered to troublesome posters at discretion of site moderators, at any time"

Kinetic^

If the general public weren't a bunch of dribblers then there would be no need for such a system.

Insect Overlord

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

People seem to only get permabanned from the site for really taking the piss. Always multiple forum bans and even forum permabans.

Surely it would be very simple, to at the end of the standard text in a ban PM; include the line:

"Permanent sitebans can be administered to troublesome posters at discretion of site moderators administrators, at any time"

Bit more accurate now. Not a bad idea, but, to paraphrase what Kinetic, it would probably be wasted on the type of poster who would be affected by such a warning.

pickarooney

strobe wrote: »

Yeah that all sounds fair enough I guess. I still think actually making a point of telling someone "this is your last chance to turn your ways around" or something prior to implementing an absolutely irreversible ban would be a good idea rather than hoping the infractions etc click for them at a certain point. Everyone deserves one last chance and all that. If after that they still act the bollix then they have no right to feel hard done by as they clearly knew what the result would be. Just think the out of the blue aspect of it seems a bit harsh.

Isn't the purpose of the prison forum to act as a last-chance saloon? It's like warning a child over and over that they'll get punished but it's not until the Lego is in the bin that they realise it's probably not coming back out unless they do something radical about their attitude.

Kinetic^

pickarooney wrote: »

Isn't the purpose of the prison forum to act as a last-chance saloon? It's like warning a child over and over that they'll get punished but it's not until the Lego is in the bin that they realise it's probably not coming back out unless they do something radical about their attitude.

I thought prison was merely a lulz forum were we can point and laugh at imbeciles who beg for forgiveness.

/rides away on his high horse

Elmidena

Forgive me if my idea sounds daft or has been covered before--if it has I am unaware of it.

In the case of such a person having a high post count, is generally positive, has been here many years and say in five years has gotten 10 bans. Now, say this person is told "you're trouble, out with you!" and they're in shock and run the spiel of how valued/longterm/positive they usually are etc etc....I feel that it would be fair if there was some form of reducing a sentence for "good behaviour" to go with the gaol theme.

Say in three years a user has three bans. In the next three years, they don't receive any bans (of any duration), would it be possible to deduct one or two off the record, or make an admin-only-visible note saying that the user has reformed well and is granted a bit of reprieve. I know most people will now be thinking "but everyone has to follow the don't be a dick rule from the start, why adorn a convict with praise and say how good they are?". I have never been banned and am not an admin, so if such a thing already exists fair enough.

A little niceness goes a long way. Something like that would make a user appreciate the benefits of not being a wild card in discussion more often, and would hopefully make them embrace the positive angle all the more. "It's been a year since my last ban, another year and I'll be able to deduct one of the marks off my name". I know it sounds like an AA meeting, but a little incentive can make even the fieriest of souls a little meeker.

Of course it's better to not be a dick in the first place, but acknowledging reform instead of after so many years of a handful of bans the user gets kicked out the door. Maybe the penalty points system I suggested will work, maybe it won't, but it's the best idea I've got right now anyway.

Cheers for your time

Zaph

I think we're pretty tolerant and it generally takes a lot of infractions and bans for someone to come to our attention. However we have noticed recently that a disproportionately small number of posters have been accumulating a disproportionately high number of infractions and bans and have been creating an awful lot of work for the mods and spoiling Boards for many posters. Consequently we have lowered our tolerance level a little and decided that enough is enough. These people generally have had multiple forum bans and many, although not necessarily all, have had previous temporary sitebans. If we thought that there was any chance of rehabilitation we'd certainly consider another chance, but we're talking about a very tiny percentage of Boards members who just can't help getting themselves into trouble and it eventually comes back to bite them in the ass.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

The idea of the infractions and forum/category bans are to show the user where they are going wrong. Thats their warning. If, after a period of time the user is obviously not "getting it" or is deliberately being troublesome but not enough to warrant a straight out site ban, we do take their history into account.

A user that gets a string of infractions and minor bans from a range of forums for insulting other users over a period of a year or so for example just isnt getting the message that that behaviour is not acceptable. eventually we just have to decide that enough chances have been given and htat keepign the user around not only creates more work for the mods/cmods and admins as we try to get them to see the light, it also detracts from the enjoyment of other users. The site is better off without their input.

There is no hard and fast formula for when the scales finally tip. A point based system would remove the human element from the process and you need that element to make exceptions and take context and circumstances into account. So, its a manual process. If a user turn up on our radar, we always look at their posting history. If that raises an eyebrow, the admin can ask for a second opinion on borderline cases or impose the siteban for the obvious ones (the ones who have had "form" ).

At some stage, even just for sanity's sake, we have to say enough is enough and its not us, its you.

and no, you dont have to agree with every post or even praise boards.ie in all that you do. you just have to know how to disagree properly and not resort to being a dick when some anonymous internet person dares to disagree.

How would a user who only had one infractions over the course of a year end up being permbanned from a forum under these guidelines?

DOC09UNAM

The Muppet wrote: »

LoLth wrote: »

The idea of the infractions and forum/category bans are to show the user where they are going wrong. Thats their warning. If, after a period of time the user is obviously not "getting it" or is deliberately being troublesome but not enough to warrant a straight out site ban, we do take their history into account.

A user that gets a string of infractions and minor bans from a range of forums for insulting other users over a period of a year or so for example just isnt getting the message that that behaviour is not acceptable. eventually we just have to decide that enough chances have been given and htat keepign the user around not only creates more work for the mods/cmods and admins as we try to get them to see the light, it also detracts from the enjoyment of other users. The site is better off without their input.

There is no hard and fast formula for when the scales finally tip. A point based system would remove the human element from the process and you need that element to make exceptions and take context and circumstances into account. So, its a manual process. If a user turn up on our radar, we always look at their posting history. If that raises an eyebrow, the admin can ask for a second opinion on borderline cases or impose the siteban for the obvious ones (the ones who have had "form" ).

At some stage, even just for sanity's sake, we have to say enough is enough and its not us, its you.

and no, you dont have to agree with every post or even praise boards.ie in all that you do. you just have to know how to disagree properly and not resort to being a dick when some anonymous internet person dares to disagree.

How would a user who only had one infractions over the course of a year end up being permbanned from a forum under these guidelines?

Probably because they're not worth the hassle they bring to the forum, and by trolling by not strictly breaking the rules.

LoLth

The Muppet wrote: »

How would a user who only had one infractions over the course of a year end up being permbanned from a forum under these guidelines?

The user would have the opportunity to resolve the issue by following the dispute resolution procedure.

The permabans being discussed in this thread are site wide bans imposed by the admins when a user has racked up an unusual amount of lesser infractions/forum bans. The the user can appeal the decision in the prison forum.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

The user would have the opportunity to resolve the issue by following the dispute resolution procedure.

The permabans being discussed in this thread are site wide bans imposed by the admins when a user has racked up an unusual amount of lesser infractions/forum bans. The the user can appeal the decision in the prison forum.

Could you answer my question please , after all you invited me to contribute to this thread.

Perhaps the user has no intention of appealing the ban as he has no interest in contributing to the soccer forum for the reasons being discussed elswhere on this forum.

That aside I would like to know how a user with one infraction in one year can find himself perm banned from a forum. I would like you and zaph to square that with the comments you have made here regarding how the system currently operates?

What is the point in putting in place a process of warning, infracting and then banning users if it not applicable to all users? Who choses which users are subject to which set of rules?

Gordon

The Muppet wrote: »

How would a user who only had one infractions over the course of a year end up being permbanned from a forum under these guidelines?

Are you getting your feedback threads mixed up? This thread is about multiple bans and warnings leading to a site wide ban, not "one infraction resulting in a forum ban".

The Muppet

Gordon wrote: »

Are you getting your feedback threads mixed up? This thread is about multiple bans and warnings leading to a site wide ban, not "one infraction resulting in a forum ban".

Perhaps, I initally posted on the soccer thread and lolth invited me to contribute to the thread about perm bans , I assumed he meant this one, is there another?

LoLth wrote: »

@theMuppet :





and if the permabans werent given the admins would be accused of pandering to the troublemakers and making life impossible for the mods by letting consistent low level trolling slide by unpunished. This is currently being discussed in another feedback thread. your opinion and any further discussion would be welcome there.



.

Gordon

The Muppet wrote: »

Perhaps, I initally posted on the soccer thread and lolth invited me to contribute to the thread about perm bans , I assumed he meant this one, is there another?

Ah right, no this is the one, I'm not sure what you're talking about relates to the initial post in this thread though, but maybe Lolth can join the dots..

LoLth

sorry, I was getting confused between the two topics myself.

Permanent sitebans --> this thread

Soccer moderation concerns --> other thread

questioning a permaban from the soccer forum from several months ago that you didnt object to at the time ---> possibly DRP, though its not really a dispute as its a good while later or maybe a pm to the mod/cmod to review and possibly reduce it.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

sorry, I was getting confused between the two topics myself.

Permanent sitebans --> this thread

Soccer moderation concerns --> other thread

questioning a permaban from the soccer forum from several months ago that you didnt object to at the time ---> possibly DRP, though its not really a dispute as its a good while later or maybe a pm to the mod/cmod to review and possibly reduce it.

I'm not disputing or appealing a ban at this time, I know this isn't the proper forum for that . I realise it's not a sitewide perm ban I'm asking about but it is a perm ban from my main forum of interest and you invited me raise my questions here. Surely this is not way off topic on this thread and could be addressed here.

Considering the comments yourself and zaph have made in this thread regarding about how bans are issued I would be interested in having my questions answered.

You say that there needs to be a progression of warnings and infractions before a ban would be issued. This is not my experience of how the system works so I would like further clarification of how a user can be perm banned form a forum or indeed the site when that user has only had one infraction in the year previous to his perm banning?

LoLth

The Muppet wrote: »

I'm not disputing or appealing a ban at this time, I know this isn't the proper forum for that . I realise it's not a sitewide perm ban I'm asking about but it is a perm ban from my main forum of interest and you invited me raise my questions here. Surely this is not way off topic on this thread and could be addressed here.

as I posted, this is not the thread to discuss bans from indicidual forums. its a thread for discussing sitewide bans issued as the culmination of user behaviour on the site. Neither is the soccer moderation thread the place for discussion of your particular issue. Your issue should be discussed with the moderator or co-moderator of the soccer forum. It wont get resolved by popular opinion or any form of kangaroo court.

Considering the comments yourself and zaph have made in this thread regarding about how bans are issued I would be interested in having my questions answered.

why? why now? what does it matter? you didnt question it when it was issued. How should I, or anybody other than the moderator, know what a mod was thinking when you got banned X months ago? Have you perhaps tried asking the mod who banned you with the hope that they remember the thought process that lead up to your banning?

You say that there needs to be a progression of warnings and infractions before a ban would be issued. This is not my experience of how the system works so I would like further clarification of how a user can be perm banned form a forum or indeed the site when that user has only had one infraction in the year previous to his perm banning?

A permanent site ban does not require progression. Some have been banned, permenently, from the site after just one post. However, if a user has a history of racking up minor infractions and bans and wasting moderator time to the detriment of other users' experience of boards then they can, and will, receive a permanent site wide ban at the discretion of the admins, completely seperate to the mods and cmods. It is not something that can be requested or demanded, it is a decision solely in the hands of the admins and it is the admins who will deal with any interaction with the user from then on.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

as I posted, this is not the thread to discuss bans from indicidual forums. its a thread for discussing sitewide bans issued as the culmination of user behaviour on the site. Neither is the soccer moderation thread the place for discussion of your particular issue. Your issue should be discussed with the moderator or co-moderator of the soccer forum. It wont get resolved by popular opinion or any form of kangaroo court.

Why did you invited me to enter this discussion if you are unwilling to engage with me ? Perhaps it was a Kangaroo court that issued the ban I speak of, it certainly appears that way does it not?

LoLth wrote: »

why? why now? what does it matter? you didnt question it when it was issued. How should I, or anybody other than the moderator, know what a mod was thinking when you got banned X months ago? Have you perhaps tried asking the mod who banned you with the hope that they remember the thought process that lead up to your banning?

Is there a time scale in which issues must be raised? You must know as well as I do that this decision was not taken at moderator level, there was admin involvement. I have no intention of appealing the ban at the moment, my intention here is to highlight discrepancies between what you say is procedure which is followed before a ban is issued and the reality which from personal experience I know to be different.

LoLth wrote: »

A permanent site ban does not require progression. Some have been banned, permenently, from the site after just one post. However, if a user has a history of racking up minor infractions and bans and wasting moderator time to the detriment of other users' experience of boards then they can, and will, receive a permanent site wide ban at the discretion of the admins, completely seperate to the mods and cmods. It is not something that can be requested or demanded, it is a decision solely in the hands of the admins and it is the admins who will deal with any interaction with the user from then on.

There is no history of racking up minor infractions in this instance. I can post a screen shot of the infractions if you want.

You say there is a system of warning, infracting and banning users .What is the point in having a procedure for warning, infracting and then banning users if it' not to be adhered to. I assume the system was put in place to let users know if they were causing a problem , How does a user know to change his posting habits without the warnings and infractions?

LoLth

The Muppet wrote: »

Why did you invited me to enter this discussion if you are unwilling to engage with me ? Perhaps it was a Kangaroo court that issued the ban I speak of, it certainly appears that way does it not?

yes. its a conspiracy against you. thats it. you caught me red handed. I already posted to say that I was mistaken in pointing you to this thread and I have posted your options above. I'm not going to discuss your forum ban here, just like I wouldnt discuss a users siteban anywhere except prison. You were banned after careful discussion and deliberation between ALL of the soccer mods and the sports Cmod at the time. Thats not a kangaroo court, thats mods doing what they've been asked to do.

Is there a time scale in which issues must be raised? You must know as well as I do that this decision was not taken at moderator level, there was admin involvement.

The ban was given by the mods. I participated in the discussion to advise on procedure but was not "involved" with the decision making. Neither was any other admin. I was the only admin , at the time, to post on the soccer mods forum. You were advised at the time of the ban to start a thread in the DR forum if you wished to contest it. You were also advised of the reason for the ban . In the period leading up to your ban you were the subject of a Feedback thread on low level trolling in the soccer forum, which is why I was aware of the mod discussion. Is there a time scale? no. not really, but common sense would dictate that if you did not agree with an action and were advised on how to rectify it or voice your concerns then sooner rather than later would be best. The mods have told you to take it to the DRP, I have asked you to take it to the DRP. This will not be discussed in feedback nor will you be allowed to use it as a stick to beat the mods with. Either appeal it or accept it. If the forumer, then do it in the correct place.

There is no history of racking up minor infractions in this instance. I can post a screen shot of the infractions if you want.

the ban reason was "low level trolling". by definition, low level trolling does not rack up infractions. If you want to see what effect low level trolling does have, there is a feedback thread on such actions in the feedback forum where you are mentioned more than once. You were told in your ban PM that you were deemed to be deliberately riling Liverpool supporters in your most recent posts and there have been examples of previous posts that followed the same vein. You were considered a detriment to other users' enjoyment of the forum serious enough to be considered a drain on mod time.

You say there is a system of warning, infracting and banning users .What is the point in having a procedure for warning, infracting and then banning users if it' not to be adhered to. I assume the system was put in place to let users know if they were causing a problem , How does a user know to change his posting habits without the warnings and infractions?

Have you been sitebanned? Do you deserve a siteban? nope? then the system , in your case, is working. I said there is a system of warnings that lead to a SITE BAN. please read that word again. SITE ban. can you see the operative word there? your issue is with a ban from one forum. DRP or PM the mods.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

yes. its a conspiracy against you. thats it. you caught me red handed. I already posted to say that I was mistaken in pointing you to this thread and I have posted your options above. I'm not going to discuss your forum ban here, just like I wouldnt discuss a users siteban anywhere except prison. You were banned after careful discussion and deliberation between ALL of the soccer mods and the sports Cmod at the time. Thats not a kangaroo court, thats mods doing what they've been asked to do.

There's no need for the sarcasm, I'm being perfectly civil with you. If this is not the thread from this discussion perhaps we could have a dedicated thread to discuss the process of how forum perm bans are issued.

I really don't want to discuss my own Ban here my enquiry stems from my own experience but is of a general nature as to how such decisions are reached considering all the facts

LoLth wrote: »

The ban was given by the mods. I participated in the discussion to advise on procedure but was not "involved" with the decision making. Neither was any other admin. I was the only admin , at the time, to post on the soccer mods forum. You were advised at the time of the ban to start a thread in the DR forum if you wished to contest it. You were also advised of the reason for the ban . In the period leading up to your ban you were the subject of a Feedback thread on low level trolling in the soccer forum, which is why I was aware of the mod discussion. Is there a time scale? no. not really, but common sense would dictate that if you did not agree with an action and were advised on how to rectify it or voice your concerns then sooner rather than later would be best. The mods have told you to take it to the DRP, I have asked you to take it to the DRP. This will not be discussed in feedback nor will you be allowed to use it as a stick to beat the mods with. Either appeal it or accept it. If the forumer, then do it in the correct place..

You say you 're not going to discuss my ban here in one sentence and then go on in the next paragraph and do exactly that. For the final time I don't agree with the ban but I'm not appealing it at the moment, I have my own reasons for that and that's my decision.

LoLth wrote: »

the ban reason was "low level trolling". by definition, low level trolling does not rack up infractions. If you want to see what effect low level trolling does have, there is a feedback thread on such actions in the feedback forum where you are mentioned more than once. You were told in your ban PM that you were deemed to be deliberately riling Liverpool supporters in your most recent posts and there have been examples of previous posts that followed the same vein. You were considered a detriment to other users' enjoyment of the forum serious enough to be considered a drain on mod time. .

Why should the crime of low level trolling (what ever that is) be treated differently than the other rule breaches? What is the purpose of having a process if it is not adhered to? Are no warning perm bans Fair on the user?

LoLth wrote: »

Have you been sitebanned? Do you deserve a siteban? nope? then the system , in your case, is working. I said there is a system of warnings that lead to a SITE BAN. please read that word again. SITE ban. can you see the operative word there? your issue is with a ban from one forum. DRP or PM the mods.

I'd argue I didn't deserve the forum ban but lets leave my own personal situation aside in the interest of this discussion. There is no mention of site ban in the thread title, perhaps you could split our exchanges from this thread and start a new thread dealing specifically with forum perm bans. I think there might well be interest in that discussion too.

Oranage2

I think Strobes suggestion is a good one - recently it looks like posters have been 'baited' to come to dispute resolution and then permabanned from there.

I dont think it's fair that if you think you've been wronged that you then face the risk of a permaban should you dispute it -


So a simple message saying - one more ban and you're permabanned - Atleast thats a fair warning.