Apparently it's not impossible to do...

Message boards *do* post lists of banned members and why. Nothing bad happens to those message boards. The only thing they would have to fear is if they ban someone for unacceptable reasons, how are they going to explain themselves?

But I am giving the JC mods the benefit of the doubt that they honestly want all their bans to be above board. In which case why is this principle not put into effect?

For instance, I was perusing Massassi.net, a huge gamer community today.

It was after reading a post by the head of that site that I realized not all forums have to be operated like some sort of tightly controlled political regime.

Brian, of Massassi.net posted this on the site's front page a few days ago:

"I'm trying to wade through all the ban inquiries, but unfortunately, I don't have access directly to our database yet, so I can't do any unbanning. The ultimate goal is to make our ban list public (which includes the reason why a particular person was banned) so we can at least get an outcry from our visitors if one of us on the staff makes a silly, unjustified ban. I'm seeing some silly ones in here and it's a bit frustrating. Did you realize that we have literally HUNDREDS of nicknames banned? That's not a great percentage when you look at the number of people registered (and quite a few on the list are people that registered dozens of names), but I think it's still a bit too high. I'm going to revise the rules a bit and let the ops know that they don't have to be so strict. So, if everyone can stay civil, continue to post constructive criticism on levels and mods, and generally be good netizens, we won't have a huge ban list anymore. Remember, this place is for you guys, please keep that in mind before you post!"


Beautiful. I wanted to hug the guy. There is another way!!!!

Consider this, "netizens" of the JC. Because I think too few realize that there isn't just one way to do things, despite what we are led to believe.

Edit- markups and clarity of meaning

 

And how many members does Massassi have? And how many moderators.

Sometimes scale of operations means things that may work on a small board will not on a large one.

And are people really being banned unnecessarily still? The very rare banning that may be questionable tends to be discussed and the ruling changed if found to be too harsh.

 

Just to clarify: what would be the benefit of a public ban list?

 

I think it's the fact moderators would need to 'explain' their bans publically that Conne wants.

Not entirely sure how that relates to Massassi.net's setup though, there's no obvious "banned user / reason" list that I can see...

 

Well, the person who was pushing for this the hardest and had all the info on the whole thing would be able to come in here and explain except, oh yeah...he was banned unnneccessarily

But no, this isn't just a personal tirade. I'm making a point that changes could be made. They simply aren't.

The advantage, FS, is there would be zero tolerance of unfair or uneccessary bans, and the JC users could feel confident the mods were banning for the benefit of the community only, because they are not afraid to share with the community the history of the bans made.

 

Well, the person who was pushing for this the hardest and had all the info on the whole thing would be able to come in here and explain except, oh yeah...he was banned unnneccessarily


Banned unnecessarily according to who or what?

 

Of course it isn't impossible. Anyone with a basic understanding of databases could tell you that. With the internet, very few things are impossible.

However, it would require a couple things:
1. Access to the board code/database/zerosleep.
2. A reason to publically air dirty laundry. The ban is between the user and the mod who banned them, and it'd be nice if we respected everyone's privacy. If you are banned, you can tell your friends all about it if you want, or you can keep it private. I think the choice should be left to the individual.

 

"Banned unnecessarily according to who or what?"

According to reason and sanity.

But this is between you and one of my friends, I really don't wanna get into it. Specially not publically on the JC.

YodaJeff- I admit, you do have a point. However, that's rarely how bans work. I don't know many people who are actually ashamed of bans. A lot of people brag about them. Others feel their voice is stifled, their ban hidden away so no one will know why they've been banned, and consequently, no one will question it. I don't hear a lot of people saying "ssssh, don't tell anyone about my ban!"

And I didn't specifically look for the list of banned users on Massassi. But I find it hard to believe Brian would post false information in his news section. Maybe it is just in one of the forums somewhere, but not stickied.

 

According to reason and sanity.

That can depend on your point of view.


But this is between you and one of my friends, I really don't wanna get into it. Specially not publically on the JC

I don't understand. If there was a banned user list available to the public, you would likely have to get into it publically. Is that what you would want?

I'm not sure if you realize that administrators and moderators in general would likely notice if there is an obviously wrong ban in place. There are at least a few of us that take the time to look at various bans and the reasons for them.

 

85-90% of the people banned here are banned unnneccessarily.

According to them.

Doing this wouldn't change that, these people would still think they did nothing and that the mods are out to get them. All it would do, is create more work for the mods.

And on top of that, imagine the possibilities for public humiliation. "Ha Ha! You got banned! Loser!" Threads and posts galore.

This is not a good idea.

 

Connemara, what do you think of FlamingSword's question?

E_S

 

> But I find it hard to believe Brian would post false information in his news section.

Uhh. He's talking about the banned user list that is a huge "text box" in UBB setup pages.

In those old boards there's a place where you type banned users names if you're a mod, and it prevents that person logging in. It's certainly not public.

He does say though 'The ultimate goal is to make our ban list public (which includes the reason why a particular person was banned) so we can at least get an outcry from our visitors if one of us on the staff makes a silly, unjustified ban.'

I'd say a better idea would be to train mods up so they don't make silly, unjustified bans in the first place.

 

I like it only in the sense if it could be helpful in an appeals type of process. It is somewhat scary to think that your entire membership teters on the feeling of one particular moderator.

That you cannot be unbanned and have no recourse. It's also a take it and lump it sort of attitude. You can only take up the issue with the mod that banned you. There is not much of a recourse if you feel you have been wronged.



Having said that though 99% of the bans that are issued are probably spot on.



Except mine of course

 

I'm with YodaJeff on this one. We don't need a public ban list. Whether or not a user gets banned is none of other users' business.

 

No one gets banned unreasonablly. But most people believe they were. Just like how people don't want to see a police officer when they commit a crime but are the first people to complain when a crime is being commited againsnt them, posters dont want to see a mod doing his job if it objects to what they are doing.

There is no reason for a list of banned users to be posted, it would just cause more problems.

 

> It is somewhat scary to think that your entire membership teters on the feeling of one particular moderator.

But it doesn't. In the very banning Connemara is alluding to, for instance, there was much discussion between all the admins and forum mods before the punishment was given. And the length of ban was the same as was given to others for the same infraction. And it certainly was not a first offense by this person.

That you cannot be unbanned and have no recourse. It's also a take it and lump it sort of attitude. You can only take up the issue with the mod that banned you. There is not much of a recourse if you feel you have been wronged.

That's not correct. If you can't get any satisfactory reasons for your ban from the mod who banned you there are plenty of other avenues available.

 

What's the reason behind a public listing of who is banned? It's none of our business. Why hold people up to public ridicule? I'm sure plenty of new people get banned, then go on to be good posters. No reason to have a public record.

As far as being unfairly banned.. well there's a TOS posted, for all to see. It's simple. You follow it, you don't get banned. You break it, you get banned. Simple.

 

Unless it's in Fan Force, of course. Fan Force is the exception to all of the above.

And no, I'm not kidding.


*Derisa*

 

I don't believe this would be a fair way to go with this. In the few years that I've been a member here, I've never cared of the reasons why people get banned. What would the point of making such a list for the public to see be anyway? If you're not the person that's banned, or the moderator involved in the banning, why would anyone else have to know about it? I know if I ever get banned one day, I don't want a few thousand people getting access to the reasons why.

 

I don't really care why some was banned. I also don't think any one other then the poster and the Admin, manager, or mod doing the banning shoudl know.

 

I personally think there is no need to publically list bans. I would not want mine listed if I were banned. And the arguement that it will cause people to get bans as "achievements" does have validity.

But I do think that we should be able to bring up a specific case in comms. I think restriciting banned user discussion to PMs is stifling, and while it will create more drama, using individual banned cases for discussion will help refine future ban policies and show people what is out of line... as well as keeping the moderators in line.

A thread discussion on banned users would need to have the banned user's permission, though, as well as basic moderator approval.

I think promnoting discussion on a specific case would be infinitely more productive than keeping a list of all the banned users.

If any mod would happen to know, about how many bans does the JC/FF get over a week or so? What would we be looking at?

EDIT: And _Derisa_Ollamhin_, could you please further explain? i don't get quite what you are saying

 

A thread discussion on banned users would need to have the banned user's permission, though, as well as basic moderator approval.

Why would the user's permission be needed?

I don't think a banned user list is necessary. If you've been banned you know why. Chances are nobody else cares other than your friends and they can ask you directly.

 

Could be referring to the fact that, I think, some Fanforces allow things that aren't allowed on the JC, namely swearing, and talk of drugs. I could be very, very wrong though.

 

Why would the user's permission be needed?

If someone was going to start a public thread on me and why I was banned, I'd hope they would have the curtosey to ask for permission to make that information public. If they hadn't, I might PM a mod and ask them to remove/lock the thread.

If you've been banned you know why.

Not really true. you may have some idea, but a lot of the time, you aren't exactly sure why, and even if you are, you still don't know for how long until you manage to contact someone willing to help you.

 

how many of the banned users would you want on the list? everyone banned? because there are plenty of bans that go on that are known trolls trying to sneak back on the boards, or socks of currently banned users - do you want all of those listed as well?