"Don't post in this thread again" - this type of "ban" not covered by DRP, why?

Lovely Bloke

As above really, it seems to be a bit of an anomaly that this particular type of ban - for a ban is surely what it amounts to - is not covered by the DRP.

Why is that the case?

The DRP deals with Yellows, Reds and Forum/Cat Bans (bans can come without cards).

Why is a "Thread Ban" not covered? Seems to me it should be - it's a mod restricting a user's ability to interact on the site, so therefore should be covered under the same auspices as other, similar, bans.

If the argument is going to be that it's somehow not a ban, then I'd like to hear the rationale for that? A moderator has told a user they are not allowed to post in a particular thread.

The area where these can be disputed - the Help Desk - has a much slower reply rate than the DRP, so it seems a tad unfair on the user.

If a mod has said that, it's usually because the poster has been disruptive, offensive, posting off topic to the thread itself.. Numerous other reasons. Better to disrupt one that to stop dozens from talking.

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

The area where these can be disputed - the Help Desk - has a much slower reply rate than the DRP, so it seems a tad unfair on the user.

If after discussing it with the mod who issued the ban without resolution, why not just PM one of the CMods? Faster than Help Desk, and they'd be the ones reviewing it if it went to DRP anyway. I dealt with a few thread-ban complaints when I was CMod where posters PM'ed me about them.

But generally I think thread-bans aren't up for DRP because of how minor an infraction it is. It's not a mod action which is tied to your account and you're not banned from a forum, just a particular thread where it's felt that further posting will ultimately result in a proper mod action/infraction/ban.

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a mod has said that, it's usually because the poster has been disruptive, offensive, posting off topic to the thread itself.. Numerous other reasons. Better to disrupt one that to stop dozens from talking.

Sure, but like all infractions and bans it's merely a moderator's opinion and should therefore be open to appeal under the same processes.

Lovely Bloke

Penn wrote: »

If after discussing it with the mod who issued the ban without resolution, why not just PM one of the CMods? Faster than Help Desk, and they'd be the ones reviewing it if it went to DRP anyway. I dealt with a few thread-ban complaints when I was CMod where posters PM'ed me about them.

So why not just do this for ALL cards and bans then?

************

@ the other poster - I get the reason why they are issued, and they are infinitely more welcome than a straight closing of the threads - but at the end of the day mods are fallible, they can and do make bad calls, but this particular method of modding seemingly falls outside the established parameters available to users to seek redress in the event they feel hard done by - it seems pretty arbitrary really.

Lovely Bloke

Penn wrote: »

But generally I think thread-bans aren't up for DRP because of how minor an infraction it is.

I strongly disagree that it is a "minor infraction" - this is a message board where people post, being told you are disallowed from posting is a higher sanction than a yellow or red card, which does not restrict ones posting privileges.

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I strongly disagree that it is a "minor infraction" - this is a message board where people post, being told you are disallowed from posting is a higher sanction than a yellow or red card, which does not restrict ones posting privileges.

No, it's a lesser sanction because it's not an official mod action which goes on your record, and you're technically not banned from the thread in the same way that you can be banned from a forum. You have the capability to post again and can still read the thread (unlike an actual ban), the thread-ban is simply the mod saying that the poster has continuously caused such disruption to the thread that they are being told not to post on it again. If the poster then does post again (ignoring mod instruction), then infraction/actual-ban is given which is a higher sanction than a thread-ban.

The reason they're not dealt with in DRP is because they're not an official mod action which goes on your record, unlike yellows/reds/bans. That doesn't mean there isn't still a way to contest them (HelpDesk, PMing CMod).

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

The area where these can be disputed - the Help Desk - has a much slower reply rate than the DRP, so it seems a tad unfair on the user.

In the two visible threads on Helpdesk where users are contesting mod actions, a relevant mod or cmod has responded within a few hours. A pretty standard and acceptable response time I would have thought.

Lovely Bloke

It doesn't matter if it's an "official" software recognised sanction, the fact is that you are being prevented from posting - a red or yellow card does not prevent you from posting.

It doesn't matter that the poster cans till "technically" post, they've been told by an authority figure that they are disallowed from posting (in a particular thread). That is a higher sanction that a yellow card, which does not affect ones posting privileges.

Why does it matter if it's recorded against you or not? It amounts to the same thing, user is not allowed to post on a thread because a mod said so. That should be open to the same redress as a "proper" ban - as it stands it is not.

What happens if the user gets no satisfaction from the CMod?

And as I already said, the speed of reply is not anything like as efficient in HD as it is in DRP.

Penn

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it's an "official" software recognised sanction, the fact is that you are being prevented from posting - a red or yellow card does not prevent you from posting.

It does matter. An account of the number of previous yellows/reds/bans a poster has received can have an influence further down the line, as mod actions typically increase in severity for each further transgression. A thread-ban does not appear in that account, and as such, no record of it is kept (bar maybe in the relevant mod forum to let the other mods know a thread ban was issued). A thread-ban is essentially the most severe type of on-thread warning, in this case warning the poster not to post on the thread or an official mod action will be issued.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

It doesn't matter that the poster cans till "technically" post, they've been told by an authority figure that they are disallowed from posting (in a particular thread). That is a higher sanction that a yellow card, which does not affect ones posting privileges.

Different mod actions for different reasons. Again, a thread-ban is given to prevent further disruption to the thread by a poster whose actions/posts may not be severe enough to warrant a yellow.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Why does it matter if it's recorded against you or not? It amounts to the same thing, user is not allowed to post on a thread because a mod said so. That should be open to the same redress as a "proper" ban - as it stands it is not.

Again, the user isn't banned from the forum as a whole, it's not on their record, and they can still read the thread/forum. They're simply being told not to continue posting on that particular thread. Demonstrably less severe than an actual ban, and still open to being contested via Helpdesk, PM to the mod, or PM to the cmod.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

What happens if the user gets no satisfaction from the CMod?

Same thing that happens in DRP, ask to escalate it to an Admin.

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

And as I already said, the speed of reply is not anything like as efficient in HD as it is in DRP.

And as I already said, a few hours is not an unreasonable response time, whether in HelpDesk or DRP.

Beasty

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

The area where these can be disputed - the Help Desk - has a much slower reply rate than the DRP, so it seems a tad unfair on the user.

Personally I would try and deal with something Sports-related in Help Desk as quickly as I would in the DRP. However the pre-approval process does inevitably slow things down

As I said in the thread which possibly triggered this query, the HD does provide an avenue potentially all the way up to Admin (and indeed if you look at the sticky in the forum it suggests it's only for Admins to respond, but that has moved on particularly since the formal dispute process commenced with CMods typically dealing with many of the moderator complaints raised)

Ultimately there is a balance to be achieved between what becomes a very formal DRP process and what can be dealt with less formally. Opening the DRP up to thread bans then begs the question as to whether any other disputes with moderators should be covered there. When the DRP was initially established there was a suggestion it should only be for reds and bans, but yellows were included because they do appear on a user's record. Hence they are covered whereas things that are not maintained on that record are not. A line had to be drawn somewhere and personally I think they got it right (I appreciate it may appear a case of "I would say that wouldn't I" - although some would still argue for yellows not to be included, I am happy for them to remain in the process)

Dades

If anything, the DRP needs to lose some of the spurious appeals that appear in there. There's been talk for a while that appeal to CMods only for yellow cards would be sufficient.

Right now anyone can appeal one to an admin, which can involve both a CMod and an admin getting bogged down in an entire user history. But a basic thread ban just isn't so serious that it warrants that a right to appeal all the way up.

KomradeBishop

On-thread mod action - whether it is recorded or not - does get used against you when it comes to later mod actions that land in DRP and such, so shouldn't really be considered as lesser compared to recorded mod action.

Doesn't matter if it's not recorded - it still gets used against you, and the little things do tot-up (so never leave anything uncontested, if you think it was unjust).

The problem with cutting-out posters ability to appeal things, based on mod/admin time constraints, is that mods just get lazy about evaluating your record and take the easy way out (leaving the mod action in place), just because of time constraints - and if there is any kind of complexity/nuance as to why there was mod action, that mods just don't want to even look at, it also enables taking the easy way out (of leaving mod action in place) - or if large blunders have been made in future mod action (based on misreading of past mod action, due to complexity), leading to unjust mod action, it enables mods to just avoid addressing any of that because of 'time constraints'.

The Hill Billy

How widespread a problem is incorrect or unwarranted thread-banning that it needs an official appeals process?

Mod discretion has always been a cornerstone of how the site is run. Thread-banning comes under that. If a mod is abusing that privilege then inform a CMod via PM & they can take it from there.

The Mods, CMods & Admins only have so much time to devote to the running of this site. If every gripe could be appealed up to Admin level we'd need to outsource the running of DRF to Bangalore.

Penn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

On-thread mod action - whether it is recorded or not - does get used against you when it comes to later mod actions that land in DRP and such, so shouldn't really be considered as lesser compared to recorded mod action.

Doesn't matter if it's not recorded - it still gets used against you, and the little things do tot-up (so never leave anything uncontested, if you think it was unjust).

Only when it's repeated behaviour on the same forum. Say for instance you'd gotten 3 on-thread warnings from mods in Politics over the space of a month. They'd probably make a note of that in the Politics Mods forum, and if you caused further trouble in Politics, the on-thread warnings could be used as a basis to issue an infraction or ban.

However, if you then started causing trouble over on Cool Vids & Pics & Links, I'd have no idea you were given on-thread warnings in Politics. I'd be able to see if you'd been issued yellows/reds/bans, which means if you were causing the same type of trouble on a forum I mod as you were on other forums, it would be more obvious. But on-thread warnings aren't recorded on your profile. Hence why on-thread warnings and thread-bans are deemed less serious than yellows/reds/bans.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The problem with cutting-out posters ability to appeal things, based on mod/admin time constraints, is that mods just get lazy about evaluating your record and take the easy way out (leaving the mod action in place), just because of time constraints - and if there is any kind of complexity/nuance as to why there was mod action, that mods just don't want to even look at, it also enables taking the easy way out (of leaving mod action in place) - or if large blunders have been made in future mod action (based on misreading of past mod action, due to complexity), leading to unjust mod action, it enables mods to just avoid addressing any of that because of 'time constraints'.

Again, the poster does have the ability to appeal things. They can still appeal to the mod directly, or a CMod, or Helpdesk. I believe what Dades was referring to was that yellow cards are such minor infractions that the final step of appeal should probably be at CMod level rather than being able to appeal the CMods decision to Admin level. This doesn't take away a poster's ability to appeal mod decisions, it just means for minor actions the appeal is made to the CMod who has the final say. Regardless, as it currently stands, yellows can still be appealed to Admin level.

KomradeBishop

Ya so on-thread warnings or thread-bans, tot-up, as I say (used not only to justify issuing infractions, but to defend them once in place) - so they should be contestable and aren't really lesser than 'recorded' mod actions.

I was applying what I said about the 'time constraints' excuse, all the way up to Admin level; it's something that's used to 'take the easy way out' at all levels.

Micky Dolenz

I usedit a lot and found it was a great way to diffuse a situation and let poster/s chill out while not infracting them or giving out a forum ban.

If the thread is short lived everybody moves on, on longer more involved thread I'd often get PMd to request the thread ban be lifted which I always obliged.

I found most mods I worked with to be reasonable people. PMing them after a fiery situation has cooled may very well see thread band being lifted.

Penn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya so on-thread warnings or thread-bans, tot-up, as I say (used not only to justify issuing infractions, but to defend them once in place) - so they should be contestable and aren't really lesser than 'recorded' mod actions.

And again, they are contestable via PM to the mod, cmod or on Helpdesk. Just not serious enough to warrant a DRP thread.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I was applying what I said about the 'time constraints' excuse, all the way up to Admin level; it's something that's used to 'take the easy way out' at all levels.

It's quite a leap to go from what Dades was saying that for minor actions, both a CMod and Admin shouldn't need to look over a user's history and CMods decision should be final, to trying to claim that no one looks over the poster's history due to time constraints and just agrees with the mod.

Beasty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya so on-thread warnings or thread-bans, tot-up, as I say (used not only to justify issuing infractions, but to defend them once in place) - so they should be contestable and aren't really lesser than 'recorded' mod actions.

I was applying what I said about the 'time constraints' excuse, all the way up to Admin level; it's something that's used to 'take the easy way out' at all levels.

If they are used to justify subsequent cards or bans then that's part of the evidence a CMod can consider when dealing with the consequent card/ban in DRP

KomradeBishop

Penn wrote: »

And again, they are contestable via PM to the mod, cmod or on Helpdesk. Just not serious enough to warrant a DRP thread.



It's quite a leap to go from what Dades was saying that for minor actions, both a CMod and Admin shouldn't need to look over a user's history and CMods decision should be final, to trying to claim that no one looks over the poster's history due to time constraints and just agrees with the mod.

I didn't say that "no one looks over the poster's history due to time constraints" - I said that cutting off a posters ability to appeal something, due to the 'time constraints' excuse, can be misused by mods to 'take the easy way out', where the default position is to uphold mod action whenever 'time constraints' are cited.

From the mod level up to the admin level, that can be used to justify anything, by throwing up the hands and saying 'time constraints' - it's very effective if combined with stonewalling.


Contesting the thread mod action via PM instead of DRP may be perfectly fine, I just disagree with 'time constraints' being the reason it should not be applicable to DRP.

KomradeBishop

Beasty wrote: »

If they are used to justify subsequent cards or bans then that's part of the evidence a CMod can consider when dealing with the consequent card/ban in DRP

Exactly, yes - that's why it needs to be contestable, and why it's not all that different to 'recorded' mod action.

looksee

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Exactly, yes - that's why it needs to be contestable, and why it's not all that different to 'recorded' mod action.

Well of course the easiest solution would be to cease the 'please do not post in this thread again' instructions and go straight to infraction or ban. Then it would be contestable. Seems a pity though to lose the 'gentle nudge' option in favour of strict regulation.

The Hill Billy

Thread-bans are contestable. Via PM.

Again, I ask if incorrectly-applied thread-bans are such a big issue, or are mountains being made out of mole hills on this?

Beasty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Exactly, yes - that's why it needs to be contestable, and why it's not all that different to 'recorded' mod action.

The point I was making was if that contributed to a card or ban it can essentially be challenged if that card or ban is disputed. There's no point in facilitating a formal appeal against this sort of stuff if in most cases it ceases to have any relevance after a time. If posters still have an issue there's a less formal process they can follow to dispute that. Really don't understand why some posters are getting so hung up about this. There are ways to challenge any mod action, so what's the problem?

KomradeBishop

If you wait until it's used against you at infraction/DRP time, then by that point it's too late - mods don't link to on-thread-warning posts they use for consideration into an infraction or anything, you don't get the chance to contest stuff like that when it gets used to back mod action.

You don't even know how to go looking for it, unless you trawl through the forum to look for a random on-thread warning that could be months/years ago.

That's not even considering reported-posts. You have absolutely no idea at all what kind of reported posts that have not have received mod action, get used for consideration against you.

All these little things do add up and weigh mod decisions - if you can receive an infraction, where you otherwise would not, due to all these little things adding up, then it's not making a mountain out of a molehill - and this kind of stuff definitely plays a part in DRP and weighing mod decisions.

Beasty

It's not too late at all. If it's part of the justification for a later card or ban then it's relevant when considering an appeal against that card or ban. Anyway, as I've already said, there are ways of challenging such decisions directly, so I really am struggling to see the issue here.

KomradeBishop

Beasty wrote: »

It's not too late at all. If it's part of the justification for a later card or ban then it's relevant when considering an appeal against that card or ban. Anyway, as I've already said, there are ways of challenging such decisions directly, so I really am struggling to see the issue here.

Mods don't link to on-thread warnings in DRP, how are you ever going to find the past on-thread warnings at the time of a later infraction, so that you can even contest them?

It's just not practical. Mod action needs to be contested at the time it happens, not way later down the line when it builds-up to something bigger.

In the case of this on-thread stuff, PM'ing a mod at the time, doesn't seem a bad solution.

Beasty

Firstly mods do not deal with DRPs - in the first instance CMods do

If a mod justifies a ban by reference to having thread banned someone in the past (in addition to any subsequent infringement that triggers the ban), I would expect the mod to be able to point to that if I ask them the background to the ban. Equally as you suggest it should not be difficult to find such a thread ban if the user PMs the mod to dispute it anyway (and that process should be followed whether it's disputing a card, ban or thread ban.

Regardless of that, as I've said a few times now such bans can be contested outside the DRP, so what is the problem?

Insect Overlord

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That's not even considering reported-posts. You have absolutely no idea at all what kind of reported posts that have not have received mod action, get used for consideration against you.

All these little things do add up and weigh mod decisions - if you can receive an infraction, where you otherwise would not, due to all these little things adding up, then it's not making a mountain out of a molehill - and this kind of stuff definitely plays a part in DRP and weighing mod decisions.

Perhaps, if an individual poster is worthy of that much attention over a period of time, there is some merit to whatever sanction is in question.

KomradeBishop

Beasty wrote: »

Firstly mods do not deal with DRPs - in the first instance CMods do

If a mod justifies a ban by reference to having thread banned someone in the past (in addition to any subsequent infringement that triggers the ban), I would expect the mod to be able to point to that if I ask them the background to the ban. Equally as you suggest it should not be difficult to find such a thread ban if the user PMs the mod to dispute it anyway (and that process should be followed whether it's disputing a card, ban or thread ban.

Regardless of that, as I've said a few times now such bans can be contested outside the DRP, so what is the problem?

You're adding in the assumption - that a user PM's the mod to challenge the on-thread-warning, and you use that to claim it's easy to reference the on-thread-warning in a later DRP thread - when what I was taking issue with, explicitly involved that assumption not being true (i.e. only challenging the on-thread-warning as part of a later DRP thread).

If a user does not PM a mod or such, to appeal the on-thread-warning at the time it happens, then it is simply not practical for the user to appeal it if it gets used against them in a later DRP - it will be hard to find, they may not even remember it.
Mods (fairly obvious I mean cmod if I'm talking about DRP, makes little difference what term I use...) typically use/mention but do not reference on-thread-warnings when they are used to back a ban/infraction - a mod may not even mention them in DRP, but may subjectively use them to weigh their decision - so if these things aren't appealed at the time they happen, they can and will get used against you.

As I've said many times now as well, PM'ing a mod doesn't seem a bad solution - so check if we're actually in disagreement first...

KomradeBishop

An File wrote: »

Perhaps, if an individual poster is worthy of that much attention over a period of time, there is some merit to whatever sanction is in question.

This is another catch-all excuse that you see a lot from mods and all the way up the chain - it's another 'taking the easy way out' excuse (similar to the 'time constraints' one), where the actual merits or not of mod action are ignored, and the default position becomes one of upholding mod action.

I mean, that's explicitly what you're suggesting there: Not judging mod action based on its individual merits on a case-by-case basis, even if overturned on appeal, but just on numbers of times there's been mod action (regardless of appeal status).

With that attitude, it would mean that even successfully-appealed mod action gets considered against you...that attitude, also backs my point, that all the little things 'add up', so you need to contest them all.

Beasty

KomradeBishop wrote: »

As I've said many times now as well, PM'ing a mod doesn't seem a bad solution - so check if we're actually in disagreement first...

If that's a solution (and I'm in agreement it's the first step in any dispute), then I'm struggling to understand the relevance of the DRP to your own position on this

Steps are:
1. PM the mod to try and resolve it directly.
2. If still no resolution, PM the CMod.
3. If still no resolution start a thread in Help Desk where an Admin can chip in if they consider it appropriate

KomradeBishop

Beasty wrote: »

If that's a solution (and I'm in agreement it's the first step in any dispute), then I'm struggling to understand the relevance of the DRP to your own position on this

Steps are:
1. PM the mod to try and resolve it directly.
2. If still no resolution, PM the CMod.
3. If still no resolution start a thread in Help Desk where an Admin can chip in if they consider it appropriate

If we consider '1' above a solution, then DRP isn't relevant to my position on this.

The issue I was taking up involving DRP though, was the suggestion earlier in the thread that - absent '1' (appealing mod action for on-thread warning by PM, immediately when it happens) - if a poster receives an infraction or such later on, and the previous on-thread warning is used to support that, effectively that's too late to appeal the on-thread warning (for the practical reasons I mentioned).

If we take '1' as a solution, it avoids that problem - it still felt worth pointing out the problem with the above though.
It's really not that significant/important - it's mostly lost in all the back-and-forth now anyway.

NachoBusiness

Dav wrote: »

I had a lot of my day wasted with this nonsense and I don't have time to finish all the work I get paid to do, never mind having to deal with pointless rubbish like this. The infraction remains.

Just seen the above nonsense in the DRF.

It's not a user's fault if you haven't the time for dealing with disputes. It's not the first time (and I doubt it will be the last) that you have needlessly been rude to a member of the site. If you have a problem with your workload, maybe you should take it up with your employer, rather than take it out on forum users.

Penn

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Just seen the above nonsense in the DRF.

It's not a user's fault if you haven't the time for dealing with disputes. It's not the first time (and I doubt it will be the last) that you have needlessly been rude to a member of the site. If you have a problem with your workload, maybe you should take it up with your employer, rather than take it out on forum users.

If some posters didn't do stupid things like falsely encourage people to PM Dav, maybe he'd have a bit more time, wouldn't he?

Poor example, NachoBusiness.

NachoBusiness

Penn wrote: »

If some posters didn't do stupid things like falsely encourage people to PM Dav, maybe he'd have a bit more time, wouldn't he?

What the user did to warrant the infraction is irrelevant. If the infraction had been upheld and a brief reason given for why it was being upheld, I wouldn't have brought it up. It is the manner in which the user was dealt with that I take issue with. Admin saying they don't have time to deal with the work they get paid to do and referring the a user's appeal as 'pointless rubbish' is wholly unnecessary.

I remember John Cleese once talking about the guy who influenced the character of Basil Fawlty and how while he was staying at his hotel he got impression that he was very much of the belief that his hotel would be so much better if it wasn't for the damn guests. Sometimes I think certain members of Boards' admin feel that way about Boards and it's members.

Dav

I was talking about the member's actions (which wasted an hour of my day), not the appeal (which is, as you say, an expected part of my day's work). All of this had been previously conveyed to the member in question.

dr.bollocko

When I was a c-mod, if somebody asked me to look into a thread ban they thought was unfair I'd damn sure just look into it.

Ask the c-mod.

Generally though, there's probably a reason for the thread ban but you're sometimes so close to the thread and things are getting so hot-headed that you just get defensive.

It's difficult. People derail threads sometimes. They don't break rules per se, but they will counter point and multi quote and just generally provide a negative influence that is thread spoiling for others. It's not even intentional most of the time. It's not trolling. It's not being a dick, it's just ... taking things a little too seriously from time to time.

Difficult to mod situation. But generally it's a good idea. Remove the disruptive influence from a chat but don't remove people from the forum. Best used when good people just get too hot under the collar.

K-9

I always thought Help desk dealt with thread bans and on thread warnings.

The advantage for me of that, is mods can reply in HD, giving direct replies, which is great to refute misrepresentations and sometimes lies told about you.

In general, they are a great tools for users and mods and usually do the trick. Great for good posters who lose the run of themselves a little on emotional subjects, and getting a bit wound up. Also stop endless tit for tat posts.

So there is a right of appeal as far as I know.

Similar to cards, if somebody gets thread banned several times, naturally sanctions will escalate. That's up to the user. If you only get 1 or 2 thread bans, they aren't an issue at all and serve their purpose.