Forum permbans points system or something

The Muppet

I believe the same questions that are being asked about site permbans also apply to Forum permbans. I was discussing this with an admin in the other thread but apparently it's off topic there so I decided to start a dedicated thread dealing with forum permbans.

This is not a ban appeal, nor do I want discussion be be about any specific ban, more a general discussion that will inform users of how the decision to permban a user from a specific forum is reached and if anything can be done to make that process more transparent and fairer for the users.

Here are the relevant quoted posts from the other Thread which include my questions to date.

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?

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.

The Muppet wrote: »

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?

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.

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.

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 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? 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?



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 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?




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.



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 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.





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.




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.



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 wrote: »

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




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.





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?




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.

starbelgrade

If this is supposed to be a general discussion about bans, then why have you quoted posts about a specific ban in a specific forum from a specific Mod?

The Muppet

My opening Post including the quotes are for clarity . They show the context of the conversation to date which has taken place across a number of other feedback threads. I though it best to do that rather than start from a blank page as those post raise questions that will possibly be asked in this thread.

This issue is broader than a single ban, mod, group of mods. admin or forum. It is about Boards.ie policy when issuing no warning permbans from specific forums.

That said obvioulsy I have most information on one single forum ban and will no doubt draw on that experience during my contributions here.

LoLth

so a permaban from a forum can only be given with prior warning?

what about spammers? do they get a prior warning? I hope not. So all permabans, except those for spammers, must be given warnings in the form of on thread warnings, infractions, red cards, smaller forum bans.

How about people that post porn or advertise or grossly abuse another user or set of users through racism or extreme sexist/unsavoury remarks? Should they be given an infraction or a warning before a permaban? How many warnings should be given? How many times should a user be allowed to abuse another or post disturbing material unsolicited? How many advertisements should we allow before we say "contact sales if you want to advertise your business and make money off a free forum and we can arrange a banner ad so that those who wish dont have to see your ad if they choose not to"

How about users that deliberately try to disrupt a forum through "low level trolling" - ie: posts that are within the ruels technically but are posted in a thread where the user knows they will upset and annoy as many people as possible (like for example a Munster fan posting about how crap leinster Rugby is.. not against the rules per se unless he posts it in a thread discussing the current Leinster squad selection or possibly more obvious, posting about how the british should get out and stay out and any deaths caused up North are their own fault in a thread offering sympathies to the families and friends of people injured or killed in a bomb blast or shooting in Belfast?)

Bans, any bans can be appealed, thats why we have the DRP. If a user feels that a warning or ban was not deserved they can follow the procedure and have it reviewed, by the mod that issued it, by a cmod and ultimately an admin. You really cant get much more transparent than that without severely compromising the experience oand enjoyment of other users. The DRP already impinges on that enjoyment as mods are doing more work to defend bans that they impose and that takes away from their patience and time for other users. Its worthwhile notign that the DRP came abotu as a response to calls for transparency on boards.ie and was considered a workable solution. As teh process has continued we have seen fewer bans overturned which shows that either less bans are being imposed or the mods are taking more care when deciding what is and is not ban-worthy.

Any warning other than the ones contained in the terms and conditions signed up to when a user joins boards.ie and the charter for the individual forum is dependant on the nature of the transgression and the history of the poster in that forum in the past. Not just bans/infractions handed out but also the proportion of mod time spent dealing with issues caused by that poster.

OutlawPete

LoLth wrote: »

How about users that deliberately try to disrupt a forum through "low level trolling" - ie: posts that are within the ruels technically but are posted in a thread where the user knows they will upset and annoy as many people as possible (like for example a Munster fan posting about how crap leinster Rugby is.. not against the rules per se unless he posts it in a thread discussing the current Leinster squad selection or possibly more obvious, posting about how the british should get out and stay out and any deaths caused up North are their own fault in a thread offering sympathies to the families and friends of people injured or killed in a bomb blast or shooting in Belfast?)

All the above examples are worthy of at least an infraction. You make it sound as if moderators are powerless when it comes to any of the above, they aren't. That is what infractions are for at the end of the day. To let users know that they are posting in a way that is not being appreciated by the forum's mods and users (but just not so much that they are deserving of a temp ban, let alone a permanent one). I get that some moderators don't like to use infractions but imo (and that's all this post is) the infraction system should be used by all public forums on Boards or none at all. It's pointless to have such a system in place otherwise.

LoLth wrote: »

Bans, any bans can be appealed, thats why we have the DRP. If a user feels that a warning or ban was not deserved they can follow the procedure and have it reviewed, by the mod that issued it, by a cmod and ultimately an admin.

Depends who issues them. If a member of Admin permabans a user from a forum, that user cannot dispute it in the DRP. I know as I raised this issue before and the thread was quickly locked:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73134851

LoLth wrote: »

You really cant get much more transparent than that without severely compromising the experience oand enjoyment of other users. The DRP already impinges on that enjoyment as mods are doing more work to defend bans that they impose and that takes away from their patience and time for other users.

If anything making sure that moderators infract for minor impingements before issuing permanent bans would mean less DRP threads surely, as users would feel a hell of a lot less confident about starting a DRP thread if they had already received some infractions before hand (and/or temp bans) for the same behavior. The vast majority of bans I see CMods lifting in the DRP are ones that came out of the blue and were clearly ott/unwarranted when users posting history and/or lack of bans/warnings/infractions were taken into consideration.

LoLth wrote: »

Its worthwhile notign that the DRP came abotu as a response to calls for transparency on boards.ie and was considered a workable solution. As teh process has continued we have seen fewer bans overturned which shows that either less bans are being imposed or the mods are taking more care when deciding what is and is not ban-worthy.

Yes and I applaud Boards for that but this is the one area which I feel needs to be improved upon: just what should warrant permabanning users from forums when they have little or no ban history and/or infractions. Permanently banning a user from a specific forum is something which I don't feel should be taken lightly, which is what I think some mods are guilty of. Consistency is everything and when you see forums like After Hours, TGC (among others) going out of their way to try and be fair and consistent with their users and then see some of the nonsense that other forum's mods get away with in comparison - well quite frankly it's laughable.

LoLth wrote: »

Any warning other than the ones contained in the terms and conditions signed up to when a user joins boards.ie and the charter for the individual forum is dependant on the nature of the transgression and the history of the poster in that forum in the past. Not just bans/infractions handed out but also the proportion of mod time spent dealing with issues caused by that poster.

Ah, fast becoming a Feedback favourite for many mods (along with 'you just have an axe to grind'). Sure, just throw out a few remarks (aimed at users who may have a complaint) claiming that they are guilty of constantly wasting forum moderator's time and how they're simply not worth the hassle (mods/admin being mere volunteers and all) - sure what can anyone really say in reply to such sanctimonious diversionary nonsense. It works though and if that type of muddying of the water by mods was clamped down on, I think Feedback (and Boards in general) would be all the better for it.

tl;dr

Moderators (of course) should be able to permanently ban users from forums as much and as often as they wish (even if those users have not been infracted and/or received previous temp bans) as there are simply too many occasions when such bans are more than justified. More consistent infracting of users for things which mods tend to later use to excuse subsequent permabans, would go a long way to avoiding threads such as this in future in my view.

Premabans I feel should not be done 'behind the scenes' by Admin either (with the exception of spammers, site-banable offences etc) as it takes away a user's ability to dispute such bans, should they wish to. This loophole, of mods being able avoid any possibility of a DRP thread if they get Admin to permaban a user from a forum rather than do it themselves, should be closed - either that or such bans should not be immune from the DRP. Users should always have the ability to dispute forum permbans, no matter who issues them (even if that means stepping it back to CMod level in the DRF).

That is of course if Admin are completely serious about having transparency in all matters regarding forum bans. If not - sure carry on as is, nah bother.

Orion

I'd agree with some of Outlaw Pete's argument. Spam/porn/etc warrant sitebans which are Admin territory and appeal is in Prison.

If an Admin imposes a forum ban then it should be considered to be at the same level as a mod doing it and subject to the DRP as normal. PI would be one case in point where Silverfish is an active mod. A forum ban there should be subject to the normal procedure despite the Admin position. I wouldn't expect an Admin to come in to Parenting (as an example) and forum-ban someone - that's the job of the Parenting mods. This issue only really arises where an Admin is an active mod in a forum - separation of duties is important.

stovelid

The Muppet wrote: »

This issue is broader than a single ban,

No it's not.

It's about yours.

The Muppet

LoLth wrote: »

so a permaban from a forum can only be given with prior warning?

what about spammers? do they get a prior warning? I hope not. So all permabans, except those for spammers, must be given warnings in the form of on thread warnings, infractions, red cards, smaller forum bans.

How about people that post porn or advertise or grossly abuse another user or set of users through racism or extreme sexist/unsavoury remarks? Should they be given an infraction or a warning before a permaban? How many warnings should be given? How many times should a user be allowed to abuse another or post disturbing material unsolicited? How many advertisements should we allow before we say "contact sales if you want to advertise your business and make money off a free forum and we can arrange a banner ad so that those who wish dont have to see your ad if they choose not to"

I believe all users should be treated equally.

LoLth wrote: »

How about users that deliberately try to disrupt a forum through "low level trolling" - ie: posts that are within the ruels technically but are posted in a thread where the user knows they will upset and annoy as many people as possible (like for example a Munster fan posting about how crap leinster Rugby is.. not against the rules per se unless he posts it in a thread discussing the current Leinster squad selection or possibly more obvious, posting about how the british should get out and stay out and any deaths caused up North are their own fault in a thread offering sympathies to the families and friends of people injured or killed in a bomb blast or shooting in Belfast?)

Posting to annoy people is not within the rules no matter how subtlely it is done. The "dont be a dick rule" covers this. I would expect the outlined behaviour to be treated like all other rule breaches and anyone guilty should rack up infractions and bans as laid down in the various forum charters.

LoLth wrote: »

Bans, any bans can be appealed, thats why we have the DRP. If a user feels that a warning or ban was not deserved they can follow the procedure and have it reviewed, by the mod that issued it, by a cmod and ultimately an admin. You really cant get much more transparent than that without severely compromising the experience oand enjoyment of other users. The DRP already impinges on that enjoyment as mods are doing more work to defend bans that they impose and that takes away from their patience and time for other users. Its worthwhile notign that the DRP came abotu as a response to calls for transparency on boards.ie and was considered a workable solution. As teh process has continued we have seen fewer bans overturned which shows that either less bans are being imposed or the mods are taking more care when deciding what is and is not ban-worthy.

Any warning other than the ones contained in the terms and conditions signed up to when a user joins boards.ie and the charter for the individual forum is dependant on the nature of the transgression and the history of the poster in that forum in the past. Not just bans/infractions handed out but also the proportion of mod time spent dealing with issues caused by that poster.

I have no issue with the DRP, I have no doubt it works as intended.

ISAW

stovelid wrote: »

No it's not.

It's about yours.

No you could include my month ban from Christianity. I dont want to go into particular circumstances as I reserve the right to appeal such a ban - which came after disputing a single infarction.

Should I start a discussion on moderation in the Christianity forum or resolve the dispute about my individual ban first?

Actually in case the month ban isn't covered you can add in my permanban from politics on the grounds of posting to much and posting things other posters didn't like which resulted in lots of posters complaining. No actual charter rules were broken however.

The Muppet

ISAW wrote: »

you can add in my permanban from politics on the grounds of posting to much and posting things other posters didn't like which resulted in lots of posters complaining. No actual charter rules were broken however.

This is the core point of my arguement too. Is it really right to issue no warning permanent forum bans in these cases? imo it's not as it leaves boards wide open to all sorts of accusations.

Dav

Mods don't issue permanent bans for fun you know. I would never insist that mods have to issue short term bans or written warnings or anything of the sort to people as some sort of structured system. If a Mod thinks someone has done something to deserve a permanent ban then so be it. It can be appealed and overturned through the DRP channel. Mods don't always get it 100% right.

I refuse to have mods hands tied by some sort of "tiered disciplinary process" that we don't need nor want. Generally speaking, if you've been permanently banned then *you* have done something very wrong to warrant it, so you shouldn't be trying to pin the blame elsewhere.

The Muppet

Dav wrote: »

Mods don't issue permanent bans for fun you know. I would never insist that mods have to issue short term bans or written warnings or anything of the sort to people as some sort of structured system. If a Mod thinks someone has done something to deserve a permanent ban then so be it. It can be appealed and overturned through the DRP channel. Mods don't always get it 100% right.

I refuse to have mods hands tied by some sort of "tiered disciplinary process" that we don't need nor want. Generally speaking, if you've been permanently banned then *you* have done something very wrong to warrant it, so you shouldn't be trying to pin the blame elsewhere.

Generally speaking I would agree with you , unfortunately there are the exceptions when this is not the case.

Surely the alledged rule breach has to be a factor when it comes to the seriousness of the punishment . When you have to try justify no warning permbans for users who by your own admission have posted within the rules must set alarm bells ringing and indicates that something hasn't worked as it should.

ISAW wrote: »

you can add in my permanban from politics on the grounds of posting to much and posting things other posters didn't like which resulted in lots of posters complaining. No actual charter rules were broken however.

5starpool

The Muppet wrote: »

Generally speaking I would agree with you , unfortunately there are the exceptions when this is not the case.

You are not one of those exceptions though.

Gordon

The Muppet wrote: »

I believe all users should be treated equally.

The Muppet wrote: »

Generally speaking I would agree with you , unfortunately there are the exceptions when this is not the case.

Surely the alledged rule breach has to be a factor when it comes to the seriousness of the punishment

Which is it?

lordgoat

Long time boards poster and i feel you get enough chances to figure out how the system works.

99% of the time if you get a permban for a forum or the site it's deserved.

Don't be a dick.

Don't be a troll.

You'll get on find.

The only change i'd like to see is after a year/time period if the poster requests to return to boards then it's considered.

ISAW

Dav wrote: »

Mods don't issue permanent bans for fun you know.

That isn't much of an argument. Judges in a Supreme court don't issue the death penalty for fun either. So what?

I would never insist that mods have to issue short term bans or written warnings or anything of the sort to people as some sort of structured system.

REally?

So why did you bring in the infarctionsystem?
Why do you have the "first PM mod then try cat mods and admins then try dispute resolution"?

Let us not cod ourselves. You already have a structure! What we are discussing is how fair and reasonable and transparent it is.

If a Mod thinks someone has done something to deserve a permanent ban then so be it. It can be appealed and overturned through the DRP channel. Mods don't always get it 100% right.

We are not discussing the appeal possibility. Nor are we discussing someone posting child porn to a discussion on gun control for example. WE are discussing people being infarcted and/or banned without any solid reason because other posters complain about them.

I refuse to have mods hands tied by some sort of "tiered disciplinary process" that we don't need nor want.

But you already have one!

And I believe it cam about because of loose cannon and unfair and intransparent moderating. And that is in spite of the fact that mods still have access to secret meetings.

Generally speaking, if you've been permanently banned then *you* have done something very wrong to warrant it, so you shouldn't be trying to pin the blame elsewhere.

Okay let me establish a point here. Do boards recognise the "fair play" involved in ne bis in idem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_bis_in_idem

Again I don't want to go into individual cases but moderatords accept I broke no rules. I am not about the business of "doing extreme wrong" on or to anyone.

Telling me or anyone else "it is your own fault that people don't like the style of your posts" isn't really getting us anywhere as regards people who are "very wrong" is it?

And in my discussions I have been accused of being a child abuse enabler among other things which were never withdrawn and which one might well consider "very wrong" yet the people who stated it continue to post and yet have the likes of me banned.

So please don't preach for the high moral ground at least try to see why boards have the policies and procedures and way of operating that they do ( and don't deny they have them) and how we could all work together to improve them.

OutlawPete

Dav wrote: »

Generally speaking, if you've been permanently banned then *you* have done something very wrong to warrant it, so you shouldn't be trying to pin the blame elsewhere.

If that is the case, and users must have done something "very wrong" in order for them to get permanently banned from a forum, then there should be nothing to fear in allowing users to dispute permabans in the DRP when they have been issued by members of Admin.

I understand that sometimes there can and will be users that, while they may never have been banned or infracted on a forum, obey it's charter and get on well with the vast majority of it's regulars, could yet still have quite a detrimental effect on it's functioning. They could perhaps start numerous threads in Feedback complaining it, start regular DRP threads in response to every moderation decision that doesn't go their way or generally just bad-mouthing the forum's mods and/or their moderation decisions elsewhere on Boards, resulting in other forum's mods having to moderate them for it.

However, if a Boards member was guilty of much, or even any, of the above, then it would be a mere formality for a CMod (or impartial member of Admin if needs be) to point these instances out a user in a DRP thread (were such bans allowed to be disputed) making it clear to them that their premaban was indeed warranted. Of course, were these reasons found to be bogus, well then the permaban issued by Admin could be lifted, just as it is when standard mods and c-mods make errors of judgement. I see no reasons (beyond the already stated exceptions) why permabans carried out by Admin are immune from being disputed.

FreudianSlippers

I don't think perma-bans are appropriate as there is no comeback for users in this regard. I think a 1 year ban should be the max and if that user is unable to post correctly after that, then give another 1 year ban.

It's manifestly ridiculous to arbitrarily hand out perma-bans out of the blue.

Dub13

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think perma-bans are appropriate as there is no comeback for users in this regard.

Not necessarily true.In the soccer forum we had a period back maybe 18 months ago were we let lads who had been perma banned re apply for access.

I don't see anything wrong with giving most people a second chance,if we can make 50% of them re adjust there posting style and become valued members of the forum again it will be a worthwhile exercise IMO.Worst case scenario it does not work and they are banned again this time for good,thats a good trade off IMO.

We let a few lads back in that time with mixed results,one was out for 3 years and not a prob since he got access again.Others have been banned again.

FreudianSlippers

Dub13 wrote: »

Not necessarily true.In the soccer forum we had a period back maybe 18 months ago were we let lads who had been perma banned re apply for access.

I don't see anything wrong with giving most people a second chance,if we can make 50% of them re adjust there posting style and become valued members of the forum again it will be a worthwhile exercise IMO.Worst case scenario it does not work and they are banned again this time for good,thats a good trade off IMO.

We let a few lads back in that time with mixed results,one was out for 3 years and not a prob since he got access again.Others have been banned again.

Then should there be an open procedure for re-application?

Dub13

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Then should there be an open procedure for re-application?

Its an option but I think its best to just do this kind of thing ad hock,that way lads will not know when/if its been done.The idea been prove yourself on the rest of boards and you may well be given another chance on the soccer forum.

Its all very democratic with each soccer mod getting a vote,even then we had a couple of split decision's IIRC.

Morag

If someone is a seagull poster then permaban them, they have no interest in the forum or the topic or the community then winy let them wreck the place?

ISAW

lordgoat wrote: »

Long time boards poster and i feel you get enough chances to figure out how the system works.

99% of the time if you get a permban for a forum or the site it's deserved.

Don't be a dick.

Don't be a troll.

You'll get on find.

The only change i'd like to see is after a year/time period if the poster requests to return to boards then it's considered.

What if a long time poster has established a point of view, and others with a disproved conflicting point of view who have been temp banned? The others come back and repost their original disproved claims and the established poster is permabanned for reposting the counter argument. The others are allowed back in to post their already disproved and nasty claims on the basis that their spittle is brief but the counter argument is overly lengthy?

The Muppet

Dub13 wrote: »

Not necessarily true.In the soccer forum we had a period back maybe 18 months ago were we let lads who had been perma banned re apply for access.

I don't see anything wrong with giving most people a second chance,if we can make 50% of them re adjust there posting style and become valued members of the forum again it will be a worthwhile exercise IMO.Worst case scenario it does not work and they are banned again this time for good,thats a good trade off IMO.

We let a few lads back in that time with mixed results,one was out for 3 years and not a prob since he got access again.Others have been banned again.

As I understand it those users were allowed back under the following conditions. Were those conditions adhered to when the perm bans were issued?

1. Read the access request mechanism thread here. Make sure you read the soccer forum charter carefully while you're doing that.

2. Bear in mind that all of you will have to serve a 6 month probation period, not the 3 months mentioned in that thread. That means if you pick up one red card or three yellows in your first six months then you will be banned again, although in each of your cases that means a permanent ban again, with no review.

OutlawPete

Sharrow wrote: »

If someone is a seagull poster then permaban them, they have no interest in the forum or the topic or the community then winy let them wreck the place?

Just because a user may not be a regular on a forum, does not make them a "seagull poster" nor does it mean they have "no interest" in the forum or it's community either for that matter.

For example, the Film Forum:

User goes to see The Tree Of Life and she/he incandescent at just how awful it is. Few days later they run a search on Boards for a discussion on the movie and find one in the 'Film' forum. On reading it they are incensed at what they see as the nonsensical opinion that the OP has expressed: that they feel the film was a masterpiece and how it was clearly trying to show us just how extraterrestrial life could in fact live amoung us here on Earth and quite how difficult that would be for them, on an emotional and physical level (in the context of Evolution of course).

So they post a reply to the OP's crazy contention and asks them to further explain how they arrived at such a conclusion. To expand a little on why they feel Sean Penn was in fact telepathically communicating with his home planet, as he was walking around the building glancing out windows and looking up at the sky and also why they feel the beach scene was evidence that Penn's home planet had in fact heard his telepathic cries and how what was really happening at the end on that beach was that all Earth based aliens who wished to head home were just all walking to the rondevu point, for the soon to be landing spaceship.

The OP doesn't take kindly to being asked this question and replies that they have no intention of getting involved in debating Terrence Malick's movie with the user as they had seen on another forum how they weren't a fan of Badlands. User replies again and makes it clear that they had no wish to debate Malick with them, but just that they wanted to know how they arrived at the alien theory of Tree of Life, nothing more. Mods jump in and moderate the user and tell her/him that the question he put to the OP was 'off-topic' and so the user naturally disputes the moderation as being OTT.

Now, according to you, we should just permaban this user, because they are a so called 'segull' poster and are gonna "wreck" the place?

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you here entirely.

For a start, a user can not become a regular if that is how a forum is moderated. Secondly, Boards.ie is a public discussion forum and users have every right to post as little or as often as they wish on each and every forum within it if they choose (as long as they are obeying the relative charters of course). Permabanning users who are trying to contribute and take part in discussions on a forum just because they may not be a regular poster should simply not happen, as it just leads to a cliquish, nepotistic atmosphere. All fine on a private forum (or private sub-forum) if that is what is desired - but again: Boards.ie is a 'public' discussion forum and so it should always be seen to be acting as one.

If moderators make the judgement call that a user is not posting within the spirit of a forum and is just trolling etc, well then they should infract/ban users so that there is a clear build-up of forum behaviour being seen to be officially chastised. Then any subsequent permban handed out, which ends up being disputed in the DRP (assuming of course the permaban has been issued by the moderators and not Admin) will just look a bit rich, considering all the user's past misdemeanour's on the forum.

Morag

There is a difference between a poster having controversial opinions and those who ignore the point or ethos of the forum and only post in an acutely inflammatory throw away manner.

OutlawPete

Sharrow wrote: »

There is a difference between a poster having controversial opinions and those who ignore the point or ethos of the forum and only post in an acutely inflammatory throw away manner.

I know, a massive one and I think any user that is posting in a style that is indicative of a person not wishing to take part in discussions (ie: posting inflammatory statements/comments, showing no interest in others opinions, ignoring the ethos of a forum etc) should most certainly be moderated for that (warnings via PM and/or an infraction would seem appropriate).

If such users continue that style of posting after receiving warnings a temp ban would be in order perhaps (they could dispute it in the DRP if they feel it harsh after all) but permabannning a user for what is deemed to be them ignoring the ethos of a forum (or whatever it is that the mods opinion is of that users contribution is) when that user has never received so much as an infraction on the forum, let alone a temp ban on it - is ott and should simply not occur.

If the above steps were carried out, then there would be no need for the moderators of any forum to get a member of Admin to issue a permaban for that user as they would have dealt with the matter themselves, following the correct procedure. Moderators are forever asking (and rightly so) users have they followed the correct procedure when it comes to bans and appealing them. Well perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea if there was also an official procedure for how moderators should deal with users that are posting in a way that they feel contravenes a forum's charter, as some of them (not many mind) could damn sure do with one.

Morag

Depends on the post, someone who posts in the pregnancy section of the parenting forum, (who has never posted in any of the parenting forums) in a thread entitled 'we're pregnant' were the op is looking for advice on dr and hospital bookings saying having an abortion or with a picture of a wire clothes hanger and is a member of the site long enough to know better then, permaban them.

They can troll elsewhere and if it was an honest error and they thought they were in a forum where that was acceptable then they can talk it out with the mod or go to the DRP but in most cases those who do that really just want to rile people up and are not interested in contributing to the forum in a constructive manner and in such cases the forum is better off with out them.

OutlawPete

Sharrow wrote: »

Depends on the post, someone who posts in the pregnancy section of the parenting forum, (who has never posted in any of the parenting forums) in a thread entitled 'we're pregnant' were the op is looking for advice on dr and hospital bookings saying having an abortion or with a picture of a wire clothes hanger and is a member of the site long enough to know better then, permaban them.

They can troll elsewhere and if it was an honest error and they thought they were in a forum where that was acceptable then they can talk it out with the mod or go to the DRP but in most cases those who do that really just want to rile people up and are not interested in contributing to the forum in a constructive manner and in such cases the forum is better off with out them.

I (and I think most users that have posted on the thread so far) agree with the above, not sure why you think I or they wouldn't.

As I said earlier in the thread:,

OutlawPete wrote: »

Moderators (of course) should be able to permanently ban users from forums as much and as often as they wish (even if those users have not been infracted and/or received previous temp bans) as there are simply too many occasions when such bans are more than justified.

lordgoat

ISAW wrote: »

What if a long time poster has established a point of view, and others with a disproved conflicting point of view who have been temp banned? The others come back and repost their original disproved claims and the established poster is permabanned for reposting the counter argument. The others are allowed back in to post their already disproved and nasty claims on the basis that their spittle is brief but the counter argument is overly lengthy?

It's very easy to spot the trolls tbh.

It's all well and good having a point of view but when you don't try and engage in debate just prattle on about said opinion, then start a blog cos that ain't discussion.

strobe

Sharrow wrote: »

If someone is a seagull poster then permaban them, they have no interest in the forum or the topic or the community then winy let them wreck the place?

What's a 'seagull poster'?

Corsendonk

strobe wrote: »

What's a 'seagull poster'?

That had me puzzled too, way too much Jargon used on Boards, I asked before about a Jargon Buster but was told Boards didn't have one.

FreudianSlippers

strobe wrote: »

What's a 'seagull poster'?

Corsendonk wrote: »

That had me puzzled too, way too much Jargon used on Boards, I asked before about a Jargon Buster but was told Boards didn't have one.

They just hang around and... defecate all over threads.

The Muppet

Could we please leave the specifics of individual bans aside, This is not the place to discuss them and it could lead to the thread being locked.

Dav

Thread tidied - let's not do that again please folks.

Permanent bans are something I support and I see absolutely no compelling reason to remove them from this site. If mods decide that anyone needs to be permanently banned from a forum then generally speaking it's because they were causing upset and it's for the good of the community on that particular forum that they are no longer a part of it.

Again I state, there is only one person who's probably at fault and that's the person who's been banned.

There's nothing, by the way, stopping you sending a polite PM a year or so after you've been banned and asking for a review. We've never said that things are absolute.

The Muppet

Dav wrote: »

Thread tidied - let's not do that again please folks.

Permanent bans are something I support and I see absolutely no compelling reason to remove them from this site. If mods decide that anyone needs to be permanently banned from a forum then generally speaking it's because they were causing upset and it's for the good of the community on that particular forum that they are no longer a part of it.

Again I state, there is only one person who's probably at fault and that's the person who's been banned.

There's nothing, by the way, stopping you sending a polite PM a year or so after you've been banned and asking for a review. We've never said that things are absolute.

If that's addressed at me I suggest you talk to your mods, you obviously have not had the full story.

Either way I don't ever invisage looking to go back in, I was as tired of what was going on there as everyone else, some of the mods were aware of that months before i was banned.

I think it best for all concerened that things remain as they are, that doesn't mean I agree with the process that has taken us here. I still think that was as descibed by another mod here a "witch hunt".

Dav

It's addressed at everyone, not specifically you.

Thanx 4 The Fish

You (muppet) have already had 2 perm bans lifted and you were allowed back into the forum, so you know that these things are not absolute. However after three perm bans (perm probably should not be used) we are probably moving closer to an absolute.

FreudianSlippers

Dav wrote: »

There's nothing, by the way, stopping you sending a polite PM a year or so after you've been banned and asking for a review. We've never said that things are absolute.

My problem is the review process. It would be nice to have a bit more than something along the lines of "we've discussed it and we've decided that your ban will be forever and that's the end of the story - move on".

Especially when a bona fide attempt to say "look, I know what I did; it won't happen again" was made.
It would be better to have SOME transparency in the system.
"We don't believe you've learned your lesson because..." would even be a start.

FreudianSlippers

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You (muppet) have already had 2 perm bans lifted and you were allowed back into the forum, so you know that these things are not absolute. However after three perm bans (perm probably should not be used) we are probably moving closer to an absolute.

Do 1 year bans not solve that problem? Serious question.

What is the difference between banning someone for a year and allowing themselves to hang themselves as they may when the temporal ban is up, they're banned for another year and you have nothing to worry about.

It seems like more work to perma-ban someone then have to deal with reversing it, just to perma-ban them again.

If you're 1 year banning someone 3 times (that's 3 years!) obviously they haven't learnt their lesson and then maybe consider a perma ban?

Thanx 4 The Fish

The terms were longer than one year in each case and there was a full review of each individual who requested re-admittance when the soccer forum had an amnesty. This however is not an approach that has to be adopted or needs to be in every forum. We just find that it works for us.

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You (muppet) have already had 2 perm bans lifted and you were allowed back into the forum, so you know that these things are not absolute. However after three perm bans (perm probably should not be used) we are probably moving closer to an absolute.

ah yeah but they don't count, they were in the good old days before boards became a civilised community.;)

AH I miss the days when you could get a permban if someone you had nominated for access to soccer stepped out of line, I'd say you miss them too , do you?

The Recliner

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Do 1 year bans not solve that problem? Serious question.

What is the difference between banning someone for a year and allowing themselves to hang themselves as they may when the temporal ban is up, they're banned for another year and you have nothing to worry about.

It seems like more work to perma-ban someone then have to deal with reversing it, just to perma-ban them again.

If you're 1 year banning someone 3 times (that's 3 years!) obviously they haven't learnt their lesson and then maybe consider a perma ban?

I would suggest the reason a Permaban is more effective (even if it causes more work reviewing) it is because given how severe the sanction is it might actually make someone think that they need to learn how to post on the forum

People have come back from 6 month bans and acted the exact same as before the ban, people have been banned in ever increasing increments from 1 week, 2 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and still haven't gotten the message so for some people it can take having their access removed permenantly for the message to hit home that they need to change their behaviour

As was said Permabans can be lifted so I don't see the issue here

Your issue seems to be with how your appeal was handled, if you aren't happy with how the Mods handled it you still have recourse to the CMods/Admins and DRP

Thanx 4 The Fish

The Muppet wrote: »

ah yeah but they don't count, they were in the good old days before boards became a civilised community.;)

AH I miss the days when you could get a permban if someone you had nominated for access to soccer stepped out of line, I'd say you miss them too , do you?

Not at all, and of course nobody could, or did,l get a perm ban for sponsoring someone but you could get temp bans.

That was not what you were twice perm banned for though so not it is not that relevant. As we are not really into specifics here either, this discussion should probably cease. I merely joined in to highlight the fact that you know that perm does not always mean perm.

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Not at all, and of course nobody could, or did,l get a perm ban for sponsoring someone but you could get temp bans.

That was not what you were twice perm banned for though so not it is not that relevant. As we are not really into specifics here either, this discussion should probably cease. I merely joined in to highlight the fact that you know that perm does not always mean perm.

They did. What did you get if you got three temp bans (the equivalent to 3 infractions today) in those days?

You can't remember anyway, you had to ask me how many permbans I have had?

IITYWYBMAD

The Muppet wrote: »

They did. What did you get if you got three temp bans (the equivalent to 3 infractions today) in those days?

You can't remember anyway, you had to ask me how many permbans I have had?

I really don't think that you get it at all, do you?

I know that this "ban crusade" is not about you, and I'd actually imagine that you would have started this thread (and the other posts) had you not been permanently banned from the SF for a second time recently. So what do you think is the issue?

Do you actually believe that the Mods/Admins here think that less = more? i.e. Ban more users equals more popularity of site/boards.ie? Or, perhaps, do you think that they are trying to cut the sh*t away from the various fora, because so much hassle is made by so few users?

I know of many good posters, who no longer post in the SF because of you and others. Do you not think that this message drills down to the Mods/Admins?

Now, I realize that this is not about you, so lets have this hypothetical situation whereby a user gets banned twice from a forum, and has a history of complete muppetry, such as having an Admin nearly restoring a 14GB backup to prove this "user" and their mate were not acting the dick (when they actually were) and this mystery user having to make the most humble and embarrassing apology afterwards when they were found out to be completely lying to the whole community. Lets assume this "user" gets off, and then decides to completely skirt around the rules, and generally being a Muppet (with the memory of that humiliation still fresh in his/her memory) , so do you not think that this mystery user should just say ....well....enough is enough?

Do you think that the site should bend to the user, or the site should just say "f**k this"..bye bye. Justification, me arse...

I'm no fan of the moderation/admin of this site in general;, but in this case, they actually have no need to explain themselves.

OutlawPete

Dav wrote: »

If mods decide that anyone needs to be permanently banned from a forum then generally speaking it's because they were causing upset and it's for the good of the community on that particular forum that they are no longer a part of it.

Again I state, there is only one person who's probably at fault and that's the person who's been banned.

Precisely .. which is why I feel that all permabans should be disputable via the DRP, as mistakes and poor judgement calls can obviously be made. You have mentioned before that you are employed to look out for the Boards community and part of that undoubtedly is to see that members are fairly treated while they are here. Well, like it or not, I too am a member of that community Dav and I take great exception at being treated like a troll by some members of the administration of this forum. I was permabanned from a forum for basically disputing a moderation decision (via the correct channels I might add) and a week later giving Feedback on another members thread, who appeared to have had a similar experience to what I had, on that same forum.

Now, before I am set upon again here, let me make it very clear: I DO NOT in any way wish to dispute my permban here in the Feedback forum (as I already made clear in the thread I started, which was locked). What I do however wish to do is dispute the permaban in the DR forum, just as I feel all users should have the option of doing, when and if they feel that their permaban was unwarranted and unjust. It's not simply a case that I disagree with the reasoning of just why I was permabanned from the forum, it's the fact that the reasons expressed to me via PM are based on falsehoods and untruths.

Allowing myself and other users to dispute bans such as these would go a long way to making sure that there is complete transparency on Boards when it comes to permabanning members from forums and not just partial transparency, which is what I feel it is right now, as long as admin can just permaban members and should that member attempt to appeal/dispute those bans, just be dismissed out of hand with comments such as: "You have been dealt with already by an Admin and that is the end of it.".

The Muppet

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I really don't think that you get it at all, do you?

I know that this "ban crusade" is not about you, and I'd actually imagine that you would have started this thread (and the other posts) had you not been permanently banned from the SF for a second time recently. So what do you think is the issue?

Do you actually believe that the Mods/Admins here think that less = more? i.e. Ban more users equals more popularity of site/boards.ie? Or, perhaps, do you think that they are trying to cut the sh*t away from the various fora, because so much hassle is made by so few users?

I know of many good posters, who no longer post in the SF because of you and others. Do you not think that this message drills down to the Mods/Admins?

Now, I realize that this is not about you, so lets have this hypothetical situation whereby a user gets banned twice from a forum, and has a history of complete muppetry, such as having an Admin nearly restoring a 14GB backup to prove this "user" and their mate were not acting the dick (when they actually were) and this mystery user having to make the most humble and embarrassing apology afterwards when they were found out to be completely lying to the whole community. Lets assume this "user" gets off, and then decides to completely skirt around the rules, and generally being a Muppet (with the memory of that humiliation still fresh in his/her memory) , so do you not think that this mystery user should just say ....well....enough is enough?

Do you think that the site should bend to the user, or the site should just say "f**k this"..bye bye. Justification, me arse...

I'm no fan of the moderation/admin of this site in general;, but in this case, they actually have no need to explain themselves.

You shoudn't "play" if your not able to handle losing.

ISAW

lordgoat wrote: »

It's very easy to spot the trolls tbh.

It's all well and good having a point of view but when you don't try and engage in debate just prattle on about said opinion, then start a blog cos that ain't discussion.

I agree 100%
Some mods don't seem to take this sound advice on board.
In my experience some posters who prattle are retained and others who point out their lack of engagement get banned! Case in point helpdesk thread about Christianity moderation. This isn't about my ban so much as styles of moderation which lead to such bans.

By the way I assume by "you prattle on" you don't mean me but "one" or "when a poster prattles"?

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You (muppet) have already had 2 perm bans lifted and you were allowed back into the forum, so you know that these things are not absolute. However after three perm bans (perm probably should not be used) we are probably moving closer to an absolute.

I have raised the problems with Res judicata and ne bis in idem elsewhere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_bis_in_idem

If you have served your time retrying the case when raccused of something else comes under ne bis in idem.

OutlawPete wrote: »

, I too am a member of that community Dav and I take great exception at being treated like a troll by some members of the administration of this forum.
...I was permabanned from the forum, it's the fact that the reasons expressed to me via PM are based on falsehoods and untruths.

Allowing myself and other users to dispute bans such as these would go a long way to making sure that there is complete transparency on Boards when it comes to permabanning members from forums and not just partial transparency, which is what I feel it is right now, as long as admin can just permaban members and should that member attempt to appeal/dispute those bans, just be dismissed out of hand with comments such as: "You have been dealt with already by an Admin and that is the end of it.".

Ditto! Like he said. Me too.
The point seems to be that how things look and feel for most is given greater focus than actually allowing freedom of expression. \And Im not talking about spammers asnd trolls. I am talking about something I brought up during a discussion with Salman Rushdie of all people. The point I made was that democracy is built not on what we ban but on what we are prepared to tolerate. For example in hois case people tried to ban a film in which Saliman Rushsie is captured and killed but he himself asked the censor for this offending film to be allowed to be released. I would say the same about Nazi's. Anti Jew rhetoric may be offensive but we should debate it and not ban it. Likewise with anti Catholic posters posting in Christianity. I defend their right to post. But banning people for criticising them for example while allowing them to post is patently wrong!

LoLth

good thing its a privately owned website and not an irish court of law then.

user bans and ban history are kept as a record of that users behaviour on the site. If a user get a permanent ban that is later lifted, then you can be absolutely 100% sure that the original permanent ban, the reson it was given *and* the reason it was lifted as well as any conditions on that lifting, will be taken into account when deciding the length of a ban from the same forum. It isnt punishing a person for the same act twice, its punishing a person because they failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.


As for anti-X rhetoric: discussion, imho , is fine but it *has* to be regulated otherwise a vocal minority will take it as an opportunity to treat the discussion as open season on whatever X is and we run the risk of the forum being used to soapbox propaganda.
Anti-catholics posting in the catholic forum for example: yes, post a polite discussion point on a forum where you know the vast majority are going ot have a view opposing yours and expect others to disagree and defend their view just as strongly as the poster holds theirs. The importnat point is to engage in discussion and not just post an attack on the catholic church and then sit back smugly as the target audience is sufficiently outraged and angered. The forums are for discussion and not just forcing views on others.

Where there is ambiguity, I would much much prefer that the moderators err on the side of caution and discuss with the user afterwards rather than allow abuse to continue to a point where the intent is absolutely certain and then lose the goodwill of a , justifiably, disgruntled majority.I would also hope that a user would understand the mods actions and accept the resoning behind them, even if they prove to be wrong in the end. (this would depend a lot on how the user is treated by the mod. I have no time for users that explode with insults and threats when they have received nothign but polite communications from the mods). If a user has received bans in the past for similar bahaviour and the actions have continued without taking the mod's warnings into account - as in the posting style hasnt changed or the particularly abusive or sensitive content, then this should definitely result in less leeway on future actions and longer/more severe ban terms until the user "gets" it or has no way to come back.

ISAW

LoLth wrote: »

good thing its a privately owned website and not an irish court of law then.

So what? Do you think people should be encouraged to hurt others in private if they are not allowed to do it in public?

You seem to miss the point! The excuse of " boards is a dictatorship" while valid is the last vestige of hypocrisy. I mean either you are advocating fair play and fair procedures or you are saying you could care less about them and are suiting yourself. which is it?
With comments like the above it would seem clearly the latter . In which case why pretend?

user bans and ban history are kept as a record of that users behaviour on the site.

So what? Criminal records are also kept on criminals. But you do not get to bring the past history into a particular case! That is the difference. Innocence is assumed. You do not revisit the prior case and retry it! Yes after a fair trial you can look at prior cases in terms of sentence. A kangaroo court is not a fair hearing especial;ly if to appease a Lynch mob.

If a user get a permanent ban that is later lifted, then you can be absolutely 100% sure that the original permanent ban, the reson it was given *and* the reason it was lifted as well as any conditions on that lifting, will be taken into account when deciding the length of a ban from the same forum.

That is different! You are talking about a perma ban being overturned here.
Maybe that is a confusion we can sort out?
What you refer to is part of is an appeal process.

I am talking about a totally separate independent issue having a prior offence brought into it. In effect retrying the person for something he was already aquitted of or convicted of. Double jeopardy.

It isnt punishing a person for the same act twice, its punishing a person because they failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

If After the judgement you look at prior convictions!
But you don't base the judgement on retrying or bringing in a prior case.

The sentence may reflect on prior form but the judgment should not!
Do you see what I mean?

As for anti-X rhetoric: discussion, imho , is fine but it *has* to be regulated otherwise a vocal minority will take it as an opportunity to treat the discussion as open season on whatever X is and we run the risk of the forum being used to soapbox propaganda.
Anti-catholics posting in the catholic forum for example: yes, post a polite discussion point on a forum where you know the vast majority are going ot have a view opposing yours and expect others to disagree and defend their view just as strongly as the poster holds theirs.

Aha but that isn't what is happening. Take a look at my Help Desk Thread on that.
Many of the people who might defend a reasoned argument (e.g. me) are banned ( wand whiule they/I were being treated far form "politely") for on the basis that they "disrupt" the forum yet in their absence the forum is full of anti Catholic rhetoric!

The importnat point is to engage in discussion and not just post an attack on the catholic church and then sit back smugly as the target audience is sufficiently outraged and angered.

The target audience was banned! The smug bunch were allowed continue!

Where there is ambiguity, I would much much prefer that the moderators err on the side of caution and discuss with the user afterwards rather than allow abuse to continue to a point where the intent is absolutely certain and then lose the goodwill of a , justifiably, disgruntled majority.I would also hope that a user would understand the mods actions and accept the resoning behind them, even if they prove to be wrong in the end. (this would depend a lot on how the user is treated by the mod. I have no time for users that explode with insults and threats when they have received nothign but polite communications from the mods).

All very wise words which are admirable. But again it seems while you appeal to follow such rules, in practice when this does not happen you always have the "ah well this is a dictatorship anyway" excuse. In which case why pretend to follow the wise course you above advocate?

If a user has received bans in the past for similar bahaviour and the actions have continued without taking the mod's warnings into account - as in the posting style hasnt changed or the particularly abusive or sensitive content, then this should definitely result in less leeway on future actions and longer/more severe ban terms until the user "gets" it or has no way to come back.

Ah but now, having clarified the difference between sentence and judgement you are back to non bis in idem! All I can say for myself is I didn't abuse anyone. If anything I was blamed for my own abuse, and accused of facilitating the abuse of children. If you find reference to that "sensitive" to people feelings just think how I might feel on being accused of that.