Banned! Let's discuss, shall we?

First things first, I'm checking the drama at the door. I ask that you do the same. This isn't the place to discuss your personal banning or to seek out a particular Mod/Manager in order to enact vigilante e-justice. This topic could become quite volatile so let's all practice a small amount of restraint and respect.

With that out of the way, let's get down to business.

I think many people who have been banned here have found it rather difficult to have the desired level of communication concerning their punishment with the forum staff at TF.N. Whether it is felt that the banning is inappropriate, or a simple clarification of the rules is requested, it seems that the PM system is not robust enough to effectively serve as the primary tool for this purpose.

Would it not be better to scrap the use of PM's regarding bans and simply utilize a dedicated email account? This would allow users to continue dialog regarding their banning regardless of the level of punishment. Those who feel that they were banned in error would have an instant outlet to relay information and those who were confused as to the reasoning behind their banning could gather quick clarification.

What are the benefits of using the current PM system?

What would be the benefits or detriments of switching to an exclusive Email account for communicating in regard to board punishments?

 

Someone would have to check the email account and pass on the pertinent information to the pertinent person. What if he or she forgets or goes out of town for a couple of days?

I'm not exactely sure how the current system works (an unban request is sent but I don't know to whom). If this system already doesn't work, as you say, how would an email system be an improvement?

But you're right. It does allow a user to continue dialogue with the mods should they choose.

 

One problem with an e-mail system is that for whatever reason, Hotmail sometimes doesn't seem to get along with mail sent from TFN.

Given that quite a few people here use Hotmail, that could cause quite a headache when e-mails about bannings are replied to, but the bannee never receives anything.

 

Someone would have to check the email account and pass on the pertinent information to the pertinent person. What if he or she forgets or goes out of town for a couple of days?

I think that any solution is going to require that the staff be diligent in checking the unban requests as they come in. With email, there is the added ability of having the account contact multiple addresses. I don't know if the current PM system can do that? If anyone has the answer, post it.

One problem with an e-mail system is that for whatever reason, Hotmail sometimes doesn't seem to get along with mail sent from TFN.

Given that quite a few people here use Hotmail, that could cause quite a headache when e-mails about bannings are replied to, but the bannee never receives anything.

So, perhaps a better blend of the two systems is in order? The reason I feel that standard Email is an important component is the case of IP bans in which people do not have access to the PM system. If the user feels that the banning is incorrectly imposed or they would just like to apologize, then without email, they have no means of communication with the staff. Another example in particular in when a user is mistakenly IP banned (yes, it happens) and they are then unable to complete an unban request.

 

At the moment, we have several ways for interaction to occur between banned members and the mod who banned them.

1) The Unban Request. This simple system allows the banned member to request details from the mod who banned them. It is always logged on the JC for every other mod to see so no claims of improper behaviour can occur from either party this way. In regard to this, there is also a regularly updated thread in the private Mod Squad forum which informs everyone of standing Unban Requests to allow bans to be dealt with as speedily as possible.

2) The PM System. Banned members are allowed to log into socks and PM a mod to ask who banned them and what the specifics are. If the case is more urgent than an Unban Request allows (and the member is not IP banned) then this is another perfectly acceptable means to open a dialogue. Generally the mod approached is not the one who banned the member but they are allowed to refer the member to the mod who did and to give a basic reason why they were banned. As we all know, PM's are also logged on the system although only admin-level mods have the ability to investigate other users accounts.

3) Public E-Mail. We have a group mailing list at the following address: jcadmins@theforce.net This allows a single e-mail to go out to every member of the JC Administratin who has an account on the list and is a perfectly acceptable way to discuss a ban, although I'd say this avenue is particularly fitting to to those members who'd like to dispute a ban or get a group opinion on it. This system is not logged on a JC server although it is sure to be seen by several mods over time. Response is generally slower than an Unban Request or PM and I'm personally unclear about the exact number of mods who have addresses on the list...Kadue runs it and is far more qualified to comment on that. Also, what Herman mentions about Hotmail is correct: Hotmail loves to put e-mails from the JC straight into your "junk mail" folder. So if you're expecting a reply, the onus is on the banned user to keep an eye out for it.

4) Private E-Mail. The vast majority of moderators have their private e-mail accounts listed in their profiles and if you know who banned you, e-mail them. This system is obviously not logged on the JC servers and is between the banned member and the banning mod, and is going to probably be used in conjunction with one of the other methods above (say....Unban Request followed by private e-mail discussion).

I think that between these 4 different methods, there's really not a lot more we can do to speed up the processing of replies to bans. There's always going to be human error and stalls unless we somehow totally automate the system.

 

DarthAttorney,

1) Unban Requests are often returned with little to no information and are almost always the end of any and all dialog until the banning is served.

2) As outlined above, if you are IP banned, this option is toast. Without going into too much detail, I ran into a situation in which I was IP banned. After the banning was served and I initiated communication with the Moderator, it was admitted that the IP banning portion of the punishment was a mistake.

3) I tried this option with the following results:

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject: Delete this message
Sent: 4/22/2003 9:43 AM

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

jcadmins@theforce.net on 4/22/2003 9:44 AM
The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.
<mail.deleted.com #5.1.1 smtp;550 5.1.1 <jcadmins@theforce.net> is not a valid mailbox>

4) This option basically indicates that the above methods are ineffective. I wonder how many Mods are contacted via "surrogate" users on behalf of folks who are banned and can't seem to get a response?

Sorry about all the editing.

I think that between these 4 different methods, there's really not a lot more we can do to speed up the processing of replies to bans. There's always going to be human error and stalls unless we somehow totally automate the system.

I think you should get as far away from automation as possible. That may be a large part of the issue here. When things become automated, no one person has responsibility to check up on these things to make sure they are working. Case in point, the email address that you provided me that is non-existant. If someone was responsible to check it, then you would have known that it was out of commission.

 

obhave...
"Unban Requests are often returned with little to no information and are almost always the end of any and all dialog until the banning is served."

What is the basis for your statement that "unban requests are often returned with little to no information and are almost always the end of any and all dialog until the banning is served?"

Personal experience? Polling of all participants involved with the ban process?

"When things become automated, no one person has responsibility to check up on these things to make sure they are working."

Kadue, the highest level of Jedi Council administration we have has taken the responsibility to check up on these things and does so routinely.

 

Genghis12

A mix really. Personal experience and information gathered from talking to other users.

The unban request is rather final. You fill it out and you get a reply, end of communication unless you employ other methods.

 

The email address is actually: jc-admins@theforce.net

 

1) I beg to differ. It's unusual on our part to reply to an Unban Request without a reason and a ban length. If you're not satisfied with an Unban Request, ask for an Admin to asnwer it. Just two days ago I exchanged something like 5 Unban Requests with a user who wished to discuss their case. I prefer to discuss bans through Unban Requests simply because they're plainly obvious to any mod who wants to read them, every mod can offer an opinion and keep updated on what's going on if they want to that way.

2) IP bans are not a common thing and are generally not the immediate ban handed out to a user for...say...flaming. They're considered reserved for repeat offenders after an itital ban. I think the case you mentioned is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Once again, I had a very informative chat with the sock of a user I'd banned just a few days ago. I say informative because I think this is a good way to mods and banned members to talk on a level. I wouldn't have talked to this person otherwise and I think I learnt a lot about where they were coming from through a simple chat with them.

3) Yeah, that'll be my dodgy link no doubt. I'll dig it up and repost it (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). Sorry!

4) I dunno, I know that in most of my Unban Replies I supply my private e-mail address and invite members to discuss the matter further there if they want to. I wouldn't say it's stictly a sign of failure, just another option some people decide to take up.

And I agree with you on steering clear of automation of any kind. At least with the existing human reply system, each case is considered on it's own merits.

Edit(s): And DLE has the correct address already. Thanks!

 

obhave...

Well, I'd say we're not responsible if a user is unable to spell out the correct email address.

Did you get the wrong one from any "official" documents here which may have to be revised?

This would indeed be a problem on our part, if we're supplying the wrong jc-admin email address somewhere on the site. But, the places I know where it's listed (The Banned User Guide: Information for Banned Users, etc.), it's listed properly.

 

Thanks for the clarification DLE. I would ask that the correct email address be propagated to all of the staff. I recall being given the jcadmins@theforce.net in the past and becoming frustrated that it didn't work properly.

DA,

It's unusual on our part to reply to an Unban Request without a reason and a ban length. If you're not satisfied with an Unban Request, ask for an Admin to asnwer it. Just two days ago I exchanged something like 5 Unban Requests with a user who wished to discuss their case.

And in the case of an IP ban? The unban request is it. No checking profiles for emails. No PMing other Mods. Nada. Heck, you wouldn't even be able to get the proper email address if you didn't have it memorized. Even you had an issue remembering the proper address, imagine the difficulty a normal user may run into trying to recall it.

IP bans are not a common thing and are generally not the immediate ban handed out to a user for...say...flaming. They're considered reserved for repeat offenders after an itital ban. I think the case you mentioned is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

I agree, and for these exceptional instances, there should be a more effective way to communicate with you.

I dunno, I know that in most of my Unban Replies I supply my private e-mail address and invite members to discuss the matter further there if they want to. I wouldn't say it's stictly a sign of failure.

That is a great idea. Perhaps that should be something that is included in all Unban Replies from all moderators. That would certainly allow for better communication.

Genghis12,

How is a user who is IP banned going to locate this email address? As I stated above, even DA had trouble recalling the correct mailbox address.

 

<mail.deleted.com #5.1.1 smtp;550 5.1.1 <jcadmins@theforce.net> is not a valid mailbox>

First, isn't it jc-admins@theforce.net?

Second, I agree that something should be done with the current system. I've been advocating this for quite a while now. Any system in place that takes up to 72-hours for review when the vast majority of bans are 24- to -48 hours long... well, that's a problem in my book.

Here are specific issues I think need to be addressed, and I'd like the users to chime in on what they think:

- Hotmail Issue. This goes both ways, as both the Administration and the users generally know that there's a problem with Hotmail and Unban Requests. Since people know we can't change our code (and thus, can't affect the underlying sendmail routines the automated processes use), is there another solution to Unban Requests than users signing up with non-Hotmail acc'ts?

- Single Moderator Bannings. Without giving the farm away, we have a mechanism for letting all of the staff know who's been banned for what and for how long. But currently the system works where only the Mod who banned a user is allowed to unban that same user. I don't subscribe to this theory, as I believe we should be more proactive in being helpful to our userbase in whatever capacity possible (hence, I've explicitly given any Mod the authority to unban any user I ban). But there are those on both sides (users and Mods) that feel very strongly for the current system. What are your thoughts?

- Appeals Process. I think we need an overhaul to the appeals process. When I hand down long bans myself, I usually advocate leaving a sock available to the user to contact me, rather than having them create another random sock for that task. I also created a Hotmail acc't specifically to deal with users I've banned on Hotmail in order to get them information. But, as I understand it, the current process is: PM the Mod who banned you. Wait 72 hours. PM an Admin. Wait 72 hours. Repeat for all four Admins (Sape, Gandolf, Bra and Kadue). This can, at maximum, take 15 days if no one responds (which is a valid response according to the current guide that I am aware of). I think we, as staff, while in a VOLUNTEER position (and hence not subject to "hard and fast" rules) should still try and be as accomodating as possible. I think we should have some sort of "rapid-appeals" process for users who receive a 24-hour or 48-hour (or even 72-hour) ban that they feel is unjust, I'm just admittedly not sure what the best process is for that.

Now, to be sure, with "Problem 3" -- that's an extreme case (the 15 days) and I can't see that as ever likely happening -- just that it could. And also, people should remember that you may very well get a response within ONE day -- you just may disagree with it because it upholds your ban. Remember, you can always appeal up from Mods to Admins to Kadue, and the buck stops with him (he's the SC^2 -- Supreme Chancellor and Supreme Court all in one!) -- but don't think that upholding your ban is the same as not responding about it.

I think that's all my thoughts on the matter.

 

If I may ...

1) The Unban Request - This system works as it is intended, however it should not be the only thing moderators rely on, nor should it be the only method of discussing a ban with the moderators. Why? Because although any mod can view these unban requests, it is generally left to the 'banning moderator' to answer the issue. I can also state from experience that while I occassionally reviewed the ban requests from members I didn't ban, unless the unban request made a particularly loud, insistant claim that they were innocent, I never really followed up, assuming the other mod would take care of it. Thus, unban requests like "What? Why am I banned?" were generally left for others. I'd say the chance that an unban request is honestly looked into by any other mods is incredibly small. Thus, thus method doesn't address the issue of 'unfair bannings' (or bannings that are perceived as such).

Also, you can only submit one unban request at a time. If, for some reason, your unban request is unanswered, it's impossible to resubmit one until the other has been replied to.

2) The PM System - excellent method, except for those who have been IP-banned.

3) Public E-Mail - actually, it's jc-admins@theforce.net, and as I last knew, it wasn't very populated with moderators. My recollection of it was that it was essentially a source of spam and requests for passwords, hardly ever used for discussions of bans - although before the MS existed, and before unban requests, this was the method of discussing bans, and was quite effective (and also before it was spammed to death).

The reason I think this method is ideal is because you reach all mods at once (provided they all re-sign up, if it's cleared of it's spam problem), you can discuss it with several of them, it's documented, it's in the 'public' eye (in that there's more than one moderator viewing the entire dialogue), and it's generally more conducive to open discussion and several perspectives and reinforcement.

Also, the reason hotmail has a problem with mail from the JC, if I remember correctly, is because the system actually tags the 'sender' as their own email address. Thus, it's not "@theforce.net" that's the problem, but rather the automated response system which does not appear to come from theforce.net. I've never heard of any problems of emails not being received which are sent directly from someone on the mailing list to anyone on hotmail.

4) Private E-Mail - I don't have time to check, but last I did, most moderators actually didn't have their private email in their profiles. That said, you may be right. But this also necessitates knowing who the mods are. The group-email address provides the ability to hit everyone at once, without having to find a moderator's name or email address first... consider that newer members may not have the first clue how to do these things, and may not know any of the moderators.

I think the 4 methods currently established are certainly adequate, but I think there's room for improvement, and I see that in the form of re-vamping the email so that more moderators use it, it's less filled with spam, and it's more well-known as a viable, alternative method of discussing a ban with multiple moderators simultaneously.

Vertical

 

I think mods should be able to unban each others banned users. If a mod feels a case is special he or she can note it in the reason for banning that the user shouldn't be unbanned without contacting the banning mod.

 

I think as long as the ban notes say "48 ban" (or some time-specific ban), any mods on at the time of the unban can and do unban those cases.

Vertical

 

It needs to be clarified that an appeals process should and needs to be seperate from the routine request for information. This is currently the way it is.

While you won't get your 24- or 48- or 72- hours back, that's not necessarily the most important consideration is in an appeals process. Correcting any errors which caused the ban and ensuring that they don't happen again should be the most important consideration.

Don't try and merge an appeals process with a communications process for banned users. The two are vastly different animals, and may require different parties to be involved.

As it is, all of the methods work rather well for communicating information to the banned user by the banning moderator - why they were banned, how long, etc.

 

I think the 4 methods currently established are certainly adequate, but I think there's room for improvement, and I see that in the form of re-vamping the email so that more moderators use it, it's less filled with spam, and it's more well-known as a viable, alternative method of discussing a ban with multiple moderators simultaneously.

If the mailbox was properly maintained, then spam wouldn't be much of an issue. At work I receive hundreds of mail messages weekly and have no problem keeping everything in order. I can't believe that spam is such an issue that it renders the mailbox unusuable.

The Unban Request page could be altered to include a link to this email account and give the banned user a second option for communication. Not only would this be beneficial for those users requesting general informationm, but it would be invaluable for those with IP bans or those who have an issue receiving a timely response.

 

Only if they know the user needs to be unbanned. I'm quite certain it's possible for any mod to unban any user, the question is more a matter of practice.

I'm not sure how many mods cruise the list of banned users to be ready to unban one the instantt 24 48 or 72 hours roll around.

 

As I was going to say, before Farry beat me to the punch, is that this system of ONE MOD controlling your account while you're banned is silly.

A mod works late, we serve 12 extra hours, unless we moan and whine to other mods on AIM or something. A mod is busy then has to leave for work? Oops, see you in another 24.

I know I must sound like an advertisement for IGN, but the most I've waited for an unban request (OK so I don't have much experience there, only 2 unban requests and 1 banning) was 13 minutes. All mods will answer almost any unban requests. It works great. People are unbanned on time, and not bitter.

This is why we have the user notes.

 

The moderator who does the banning should be the one who answers the unban request, as they know the specifics of a situation, and may know past history and other details that make it better for the banning moderator to answer the request, as opposed to any other moderator. User notes are more for history and to allow every moderator to see someone's history in future situations.

After two or three days is another story, though. I wouldn't have a problem with an administrator or knowledgable moderator answering an unban request of mine that I'd somehow missed or was absent for.

On a different note, I'd like to say that the original post is a perfect example of how to bring up a legitimate issue in Communications.

 

If someone is asking who banned them, for what, and for how long, all that information should be readily available for any mod to respond with.

If it's about a wrongful banning or something similar, then the banning mod is the best one to talk to.

 

Why should the members suffer because you (General Mod You, not you specifically KW) guys get busy in real life, get lazy, or just decide to take a small break from the JC? Banned for 24 hours doesn't mean that we should be banned for 36 or 48, even though "it's just one extra day".

Also, I once e-mailed a moderator about my ban, note: only to apologize, and she threatened to make my ban permanent for contacting her via email.

So whatever, it's a lose-lose situation, because nobody cares about the banned users.

EDIT: As farraday said, mods should also UNBAN other mod's banned users, as long as there is nothing noted in the admin notes extending the ban.

 

Why should the members suffer because you (General Mod You, not you specifically KW) guys get busy in real life, get lazy, or just decide to take a small break from the JC? Banned for 24 hours doesn't mean that we should be banned for 36 or 48, even though "it's just one extra day".


I think the responsibility lies with moderators who ban someone to take of any unban request that comes through in a prompt manner, and to be able to take care of an unban request that comes through. If I'm going to be heading off the JC for a few days for whatever reason, I don't think I'd be banning someone shortly beforehand unless it was an obvious troll or some other situation that I knew wouldn't result in a legitimate unban request.

I think promptly answering unban requests is as much a part of good moderating on the JC as taking care of forums and listening to people's concerns.

 

KnightWriter,

What would be the harm of having another form of communication for banned users to utilize? I thinks it is clear from some of the users that have posted thus far that there is room for improvement in this area. Why not give us the option of contacting the Administration if we have problems using the other avenues? I don't see a down side.