Ban policy reform proposal

The state and policy on bans at the JC has long been a bone of contention with me.

*gasp* After 5 months of banning time, me too.

First I want to open everyone's minds to consider a rather philosophical concept. The ban. We on the JC accept them as an everyday occurence. If you're bad, you get banned. If you're really bad, you get perm banned. This is the way it has been for many years, and it is all we've known. But is this the best use for the ban? I think the ban is looked at all wrong here. The ban is a proverbial hand slap. A "you were naughty! Go to your room!" kind of punishment. Because this system is used, it's all too easy for vindication and personal feelings to seep into the bans, and injustice results. On top of that, it causes strife. For instance, when I am banned, those that oppose me can often be found gloating, either by PM or IM. This causes further emnity between JCers. The people banned are trodden on by the people unbanned. Then those people who were banned try and get their gloating opponent banned. The ban is used as a weapon in JC warfare, and mods are manipulated, hoodwinked, or sometimes bought (figuratively, I *hope* no one's gone as far as literal bribery) into banning. I have seen it and I confess that there have probably been times when I have also wielded the mighty weapon of the ban myself.

Yes, i really think your seeing it from my same point of view. Banning IS seen as a Preschool weapon and it has been for suck a long time. From my expirience, i have learned that the banning IS used as an anger trigger. For example...one time farraday banned me. I sent an unban request asking why and he said because i failed to report improper language in the YJCC when i said i would. I honestly was going to but i got sidetracked and had to get off the JC for the night, but Farry simply only could said "That doesen't matter. You failed to report it." The night AFTER i was supposed to be unbanned, the dude PMed me and said "i think it's stupid that you got banned." I asked him who he was and he admitted that he was Farry then he talked to me in a very unprofessional attidude. He admitted that he was mad that night but acted like "that wasn't the reason, i'm a hummingbird with a halo."

Yes, with that banning, i DID fail to report to the mods. But i was NEVER obligated to do anything. Hundreds of JCers roamed the YJCC that night, very few if any reported it. But did they get banned for a week? No sir e. Abuse of power was the reason Farry was kicked from the Mod Squad last i heard. I really do realize people get mad from real life things, but unrealistic bannings for NOTHING is unprofessional and just plain stupid in my opinion. Also, i think that banning times are abused, as well. I mean think about it. I was banned 3 months over the summer for calling a mod an a$$hole when the mod was reportedly warned for inappropriate behavior. 3 months for that? Jesus christ. I can honestly tell you that i am not aware of any mods that have been banned for over 24 to 48 hours. Try 1 week. Sound like fun fellas? You can call me whatever you want in the Mod Squad forums, but you should hear what the REAL JCers think about you in the chats.

Don't get me wrong, there is a FEW mods that i like and i really do think do their job correctly. Those mods should be the ones FULLY running the JC. Grilled-Sarlacc, PadméBra, AmazingB and YodaJeff are some just to name a few.

In regards to the warning policy, here's my idea. I feel it is not fair that these days there is no warning policy. Some mods warn before banning, others don't. It's very hard, as a user to walk the tightrope between expressing yourself and crossing the line.

I know exactly what you mean. 80% of my bans resulted in a mod leaving a blank ban. After i was banned, i simply would log out and check in the last few threads that i posted in...nothing at all. Mods should be obligated to explain the reasons of banning to the mods IN the threads that made them get banned.

This is going to

 

urgent...
royalguard answered it pretty well.

You said...
"My point is simply about the discontent certain people who are banned may feel, and what could be done to lessen it."

If people are being discontented by being banned, then one solution is to not get banned.

It's actually a far simpler solution than any "ban process" anyone may work up.

 

Abuse of power was the reason Farry was kicked from the Mod Squad last i heard

Before I respond to or post anything else, I'll set the record straight: farraday resigned from the Mod Squad. He was not forced out, or removed against his will.

 

Regarding warnings: I was told (in person) by a moderator that in order to "push the ban button", they have to fill in a message box that gets automatically emailed to the banned individual's registered email account.

Is this indeed the case?

If so, and this is the justification for the lack of warnings, I gotta say, post-facto notification cannot be considered to be a preventive measure. Furthermore, that message box doesn't require the mod to be specific: "You said ****, we don't allow that: (inserts TOS quote)." I think that system could be improved to show a user which specific tenet of the TOS he/she broke, which would act as a preventive measure not just for the bannable offenses, but for the Unban Requests full of anger and hurt that some mods find simply hilarious.

If this isn't the case, I'd like to know, so I can have words with that moderator for misleading me.

I agree with Connemara that standardising the moderator response to lower-level offenses, (ie: questionable posts, as opposed to those that breach the rules outright), is a good idea. I'm not sure why some mods take that extra time and others don't, but I wish they all would.

I also agree with the others who have posted that for multiple offenders, or for the more severe offenses, warnings are less practical. But I don't agree that many users go out looking for the line in order to dance on it: most of us are ignorant of where the line is, because it changes from mod to mod. That's where I wish the TOS could be more specific, and the mods who are faster with the ban button could be accountable for unjust bans.

I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss reform for the banning policy here on the JC, especially when the JC has such a terrible reputation for uneven moderation and unjust bans.


*Derisa*

 

This is rubbish. This would indeed cause needless amounts of bureaucracy and slow the enforcement of the TOS to a crawl.

Strilo is wise as his colors are red.

 

I agree with Connemara that standardising the moderator response to lower-level offenses, (ie: questionable posts, as opposed to those that breach the rules outright), is a good idea. I'm not sure why some mods take that extra time and others don't, but I wish they all would.


Because situations are varied, and there's simply no way to standardize things to the extent you're asking. Additionally, the more you standardize something, the easier you make it to toe the line without ever technically going over it.

As someone who's been doing this for a little while now, I can say that there's no practical way to write down every situation that comes up and say what should happen in each case. The varied elements and nuances of posting and moderating are a fact of JC life, and I don't think it's something you can set in stone in the TOS (or anywhere else).

I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss reform for the banning policy here on the JC, especially when the JC has such a terrible reputation for uneven moderation and unjust bans.


How well-founded is that reputation? What's behind the talk? There have been wrongful bans at any point in JC history (right up through the present). However, I don't believe perfection is attainable, and we're all doing our best to make sure each ban is justified.

 

Even now users are able to "break new ground" and find new ways to be banned. HAving definative "laws" would just make it easier for people to agrue.

"JC Rule no.79 says I can't have profanity in my WUL but it says nothing about making my WUL say bad things about other members, as long as they aren't profane. Therefore you can't ban me, until you make a new rule and even then you.." blah blah blah.

Moderators NEED to power to be able to make new decisions,a dn setting up a ridgid ban policy would do nothing by restrain them. And, like KW said, allow more people to "toe the line."

P.S. ANy board of this size, where the mods don't personally know the major of the users is going to get complaints about "biased moderating." Especially since this board is "family friendly" and has more rules than most.

 

I don't understand where you get the idea that personal feelings come into play when someone gets banned. It's extremely simple: Someone breaks the rules, I ban them. Reasons include swearing, flaming, and trolling. All of those are pretty clear-cut.

 

Re-read what MaxVeers wrote. That's what we do to the best of our abilities and it's never a personal thing.

 

I think that system could be improved to show a user which specific tenet of the TOS he/she broke, which would act as a preventive measure not just for the bannable offenses, but for the Unban Requests full of anger and hurt that some mods find simply hilarious.

I think this would be helpful as well. As far as allowing more people to "toe the line"--the way the TOS is written allows room for interpretation. Example:

User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense. Also, as a general guideline, all users here should respect one another's opinions and beliefs.

This is just the first paragraph of the TOS, and already there is some flexibility allowed. My definition of "hateful" or "harassing" or "threatening" may not be the same as someone else's. We still have mod calls here.

 

As a poster on the other side of the fence from the mods, i have to say that all of the ones i've run into are examplery.

Now i've been banned in the past, but never unjustly. The 3SA mod team is wonderful, and a fanstastic team unit.
I'm not saying that they're the best, only using them as an example.

I understand completely the argument for reform and agree to a certain degree, but also feel that people are made moderators for a reason, not because of the number of posts or the length of time they've been a member, but because they have earned it through level headedness and fair thinking. While improvement is always a viable option, I commend the mods and managers of these forums, and hope they continue the fantastic work.

EDIT : Spelling

Silvertouch

 

KnightWriter said

Before I respond to or post anything else, I'll set the record straight: farraday resigned from the Mod Squad. He was not forced out, or removed against his will.

Well, if this is your statement, and since you have always been very honest and truthful on these boards, I guess I am willing to accept that.

But understand that there is an ongoing rumor about Farraday; that he was indeed forced out/removed against his will, that it had something to do with a serious breech of conduct (ala Preacherboy). The thing being said is that when most Moderators step down, they lose their 'colors' and VIP's/Moderators Emeritus status, and like Preacherboy, he was not afforded that luxury because of whatever it was he did; but that to give him a chance to save face, the story was put out that he was stepping down willingly and was not forced out.

Thats just the story that I have heard, anyway. I can't say I ever had any problems with Farraday, so to me, it is rather irellevent what really happened.

 

But understand that there is an ongoing rumor about Farraday; that he was indeed forced out/removed against his will, that it had something to do with a serious breech of conduct (ala Preacherboy

There is no truth whatsoever to the rumor.

The thing being said is that when most Moderators step down, they lose their 'colors' and VIP's/Moderators Emeritus status

When most moderators step down, "emeritus" is put in their title, and VIP colors are given. However, farraday stepped down before the practice of putting "emeritus" in a title started, and he declined VIP colors (as some others have done since then).

There was no "story" to put out, and any moderator that is promoted can read in plain language what happened in July of 2002. He stepped down of his own accord.

This is getting off-topic, but I wanted to make certain that the record is straight.

 

Just letting everyone know I am still reading this thread, and I have a *lot* to say in reply to some of the posts, so keep an eye out for that. But I spent the entire day writing soemthing up for Games and my head has gone fuzzy. So, carry on, carry on, I'll be back to post maybe tonight, or maybe monday.

 

Because situations are varied, and there's simply no way to standardize things to the extent you're asking. Additionally, the more you standardize something, the easier you make it to toe the line without ever technically going over it.


Knightwriter, I could be wrong in interpreting what Derisa was trying to say, but I think the standardizing thing that she was talking about was having all mods send out PM's forwarning [minus trolls, serious board infractions that need immediate attention] them of an impending ban. The way I read it is that knows some mods do this already and just wished that they all did this as a practice. Maybe I misread though...........

 

My misinterpretation if that's the case.

However, I would also disagree with creating such a policy. To me, it would amount to allowing a "freebie" or "get out of jail free card", since you're sure to get a warning for many things (instead of risking a ban).

 

The 3SA mod team is wonderful, and a fanstastic team unit.

I'd like to explore this some more.

 

Darth Sapient said, quoting a previous poster: "The 3SA mod team is wonderful, and a fanstastic team unit."

I'd like to explore this some more.

So start a thread, Sape

Captain Sarcasm: you have it exactly correct: I was stating a wish that all mods would give all (non-problem) users the courtesy of a specific PM warning before the spank. I am one of those that feels education and communication can only add to everyone's enjoyment of the forums.

KnightWriter posted I would also disagree with creating such a policy. To me, it would amount to allowing a "freebie" or "get out of jail free card", since you're sure to get a warning for many things (instead of risking a ban).

I just wanted to comment on the phrase "get out of jail free card". This is an interesting choice of words, because it was used by a mod in reference to a banning I am familiar with, and warnings were the issue then, too. While that was a FF issue, your use of the phrase tweaked my curiosity. Is this phrase common in usage in the MS, or is it just a case of coincidence?

Also the phrase implies that the user was knowingly infracting upon the rules, when I believe it is possible they had no idea. Hence the warning is a polite act of consideration as opposed to a punishment summarily enacted with no recourse.

I would also like to take the time to re-ask a thread-pertinent question I had posted earlier which remains unanswered, in the hopes that someone in the know will answer it. I appreciate your patience.

I asked: I was told (in person) by a moderator that in order to "push the ban button", they have to fill in a message box that gets automatically emailed to the banned individual's registered email account.

Is this indeed the case?

So, is it?


*Derisa*

Edits: clarification and punctuation

 

E-mails are sent out when we respond to unban requests. When we ban someone, we enter in information into the user notes as to the reason. The ban itself is not directly tied to the e-mail.

 

Thanks for the quick reply, Sape. So where's that thread "In praise of the 3SA moderators!"


*Derisa*

 

DLM: Interesting. How would we decide if a ban had merit or not, though? Would it be by popular vote? By a vote of the mods?

you could decide merit mainly by listening to what the banned user has to say -- i guess the comms admins could handle that part -- if they think the user has a point, they could then ask the mod in question to explain his reasoning, and then make a decision based on the "evidence" given. i guess because it would be done in public it would mean that the admins couldn't just back the mod no matter what, there'd be accountability. users could comment also.

i doubt it would even occur all that often, because there's no doubt more reasonable bans handed out than unreasonable ones, however it would serve as a safeguard to limit overreactional bans.

 

That is a wonderful idea. I also support PM warnings.

 

Adding my user voice of "yae" to Epic's post.

 

Voteing for any kind of ban that is flame, troll or spam is just wrong. What that is doing taking away the power form the mods to get ready of the people that flame, troll, and spam.

If you follew the TOS there should be no problem.

 

If you follew the TOS there should be no problem.


But what if you posted something in a thread that wasn't a violation of the TOS, yet there was a warning in a thread by a mod, but it was 3 pages prior. If you didn't read the entire thread [which I don't do with extremely large ones] but only read the last 3 pages or so, you could be banned for doing something that was warned against posting, yet you did not know about it.

A PM prior to a ban would give the average user a chance to either

A) Edit their post.

B) Know not to do it again.


Personally, I don't see the harm in PMing people of impending bans, especially if they have no history in their users notes, or aren't known as problem users. If it was an accident they would know to be more careful next time and would aviod a ban. Some mods already do PM people, It would be great though if they all did. I'm sure it would cut down on their workload, they'd probably have to do less actual bannings and less maintenence of user notes.