Questioning a Ban

Here is the policy as it has been since before I became a moderator over a year ago. It has not changed (and if it has, the topic on it has been nicely hidden) in all that time, and still stands:

you are allowed to log in as a sock for the sole purpose of PMing a moderator to query the reasoning behind a ban. Sometimes people try this but if they've been banned for trolling, then the mod might be watching for sock creation to continue this and ban those socks while doubling the original ban. That is something that people have to be willing to risk.

But if you are using the sock to PM other users, create "Why am I banned?" threads in Comms/other forums, or posting in general, then the person will be definitely banned.

So, yes you can log in as a sock, to PM a moderator, and a moderator only, not other users. But sometimes you might be gotten for this if it is suspected that this might be done for the purpose of continued trolling, not for checking(sorry, but we can't determine whether you're doing this or not via telepathy, so it is a small risk that you have to decide to take).

Now, as to moderators not following this, that is another matter, and one that obviously needs to be looked at, and it's something that I personally will try to fix if I can.

Moderators are allowed to state in broad terms why someone was banned, and who did it, so long as it is directly to the person that was banned. You can't ask for someone else. Also, all you will get from that is "You were banned for spamming", "You were banned for trolling", "You were banned for flaming", etc, not the full prose answer. That is for the moderator in question to go over with you so that there are no misunderstandings about the reasons behind why you were banned.

In regards to the jc-admins@theforce.net e-mail address, farraday, xie, I can't speak to you're bans, but that is not going to happen at the moment. For both of those, I know that I personally wasn't on the e-mail, and at the moment I am the main person that watches over it, so even if I don't reply myself, the e-mail will be forwarded onto the moderator in question for them to deal with. Yes, not all moderators are on it due to the large number of people that have enjoyed signing that address up for spam (and since it's a re-mailing list, we can't send a request for it to be removed from other mailing lists), they do not go unnoticed.

Edit: Kit, there is also a request to all moderators for when responding to Unban Requests on Hotmail accounts to either send an e-mail themselves to the user that has the exact contents of the unban response, or tell me and I will e-mail them so that they get the response that they should have.

And yes, while e-mailing the admin log does take a little longer for a response, so can the unban requests. We are sorry to anyone that is unfortunate enough to get caught in a ban like that, but we generally get things sorted out within 12-24 hours at the most in those cases.

 

Regarding Kadue's point that users are allowed to PM a moderator, I'd just like to make a request that the priviledge be extended to members of the AC as well. After all, members are frequently encouraged to approach members of the AC should they have any problems that they would like the AC to solve for them. And in other ways, this is another method of contacting the Mod Squad as a whole.

 

I?ll second that notion, and I?m not even on the AC.

 

The YJCC is a place to talk about topics other than Star Wars. As the question had to do with Star Wars, I redirected it to Star Wars Misc. Go to the first page and you will find more than one SW/LOTR thread

Funny how there are SEVERAL LOTR threads alive and well in the YJCC. Consistency, anyone?

 

Also, out of curiousity, how often are moderators supposed to check the unban request place?
_jOBO

 

Jobo...
"Also, out of curiousity, how often are moderators supposed to check the unban request place?"

In the Banned User Guide - Instructions for Banned Users, the time period for the unban request system is given:

Once you have filled out an unban request, you should hear back from the administration within 1-3 days. It could be faster than that, but I'm not about to promise speedy results. You broke the rules, after all, so you're not exactly our top priority. Hope you understand.

Presumably, the moderator doing the ban will be looking for some sort of response via the accepted methods and will take action on a request within the three day period. But, it's just not limited to mods who have banned someone, as there are people who routinely check the unban request system to deal with problems, such as moderators not being around, etc. Kadue is an Administrator who does this.

I check the unban request system and Admin Action logs with some regularity, even if I don't have any ban I need to handle, becuase their also the best places to see where major problems are occurring. And I know there's others who do so for this purpose as well.

But, for specific administration oversight of the unban system, in his role as an Administrator, Kadue has taken the role of supervising the unban request system. He alerts moderators via the Modsquad who need to take action on something when he sees that requests are not being handled properly. He has a specific thread he is administering for exactly this purpose.

It seems to me as a general observation that all of the answers to everyone's questions are already in existence and posted where they should be, in the Informational Threads forum. While I don't fault people for not knowing the specific details, there's a reason why the Informational Thread forum exists. And that's to post the answers to all of these types of questions.

I'm not trying to mock anyone, as this could be a valid concern - is "Banned User Guide - Instructions for Banned Users" not a clear enough title that people looking for answers on what to do when banned are missing it?

 

"I'm not trying to mock anyone, as this could be a valid concern - is "Banned User Guide - Instructions for Banned Users" not a clear enough title that people looking for answers on what to do when banned are missing it?"

Getting back to Knight's assumption from before, if as many mods as he thinks haven't read the guide, what makes you think regular members have? That's not to say anyone should be absolved for not knowing the rules/regulations/guidelines/whatever. But really, how many people actually read all the threads in the Informational Threads forum? How many people even know it exists? All these guides that everyone has been so quick to point to in this thread should be much more high profile if they're as definitive as some seem to believe.

Amazing.

 

Amazing...
All valid concerns, IMO.

For example, since it seems that people can navigate to Comms just fine, but are unable for some reason to be able to navigate to the Informational Threads forum, does it mean that the Informational Threads forum should be put under the Administration forums where Comms is located, instead of the Welcome forums.

Or perhaps, since they're all read-only anyway, mirrored within the Administration forums and still be retained in the Welcome forums for new users?

And remember, both are linked to in the Terms of Servive that we have to assume everyone is familiar with, but it seems that people may not actually be reading that either. The Terms of Service are always readily available, with a link contained in the header bar.

At some point, you have to draw a reasonable line that it is the user's responsibility to seek out the information they're looking for. It is not practical to include the entire "Banned User Guide" in the header bar, for instance.

I do think it's reasonable to include links that say "Hey, if you want more information, here's where you go."

 

I do think it's reasonable to include links that say "Hey, if you want more information, here's where you go."

Why, would it really be that much effort?

 

So, yes you can log in as a sock, to PM a moderator, and a moderator only, not other users. But sometimes you might be gotten for this if it is suspected that this might be done for the purpose of continued trolling, not for checking(sorry, but we can't determine whether you're doing this or not via telepathy, so it is a small risk that you have to decide to take).

kadue, this is somewhat disturbing in a way that i'm sure you can imagine. and that is, a mod can very easily say that they thought the person was trolling, simply because they don't like that person. there needs to be at least a little bit of burden of proof on the mod's part. how could a mod know that a person is trolling, or might troll, if the person hasn't posted with the sock and there is no proof that they PM trolled? unless the person is a KNOWN troll or there is tangible evidence that they are causing trouble in any way with the sock, i see no reason to have to punish them for logging in with a sock to PM a mod.

 

I was getting ready to say what PiaS said, then I saw he said it, so I agree.

Also, since when did a "Guide" become law? Can we get a title change? There is also another old thread in YJCC that has conflicting information. I spent a lot of time researching this, when I was banned for 3 Weeks for PMing a Mod while banned.

So basically, why is a "Guide" that is never advertised ANYWHERE, law, and why are there threads with conflicting information in two forums?

 

xie...
"So basically, why is a "Guide" that is never advertised ANYWHERE, law, and why are there threads with conflicting information in two forums?"

1. One cannot get any more or better advertisement than being included in the Terms of Service, which stays at the top header bar for every single user all of the time. The Terms of Service are clear and direct in pointing users who may have a question about something with the forums:

"For answers to most questions, please see the Informational Threads forum."

Of course, within the Informational Threads forum is a thread entitled, "The Banned User Guide - Instructions for Banned Users." Is this title not clear enough to tell people what it may be about?

2. There can and have been forum-specific policies created by forum-specific moderators to cover the idiosynchrosies of each individual forums. The Informational Threads forum contain general answers to general questions affecting the forums, generally. YJCC and the YJCC mods are free to institute matters of policy for their specific forum which may differ from the general policies. An example, in the Literature forum, we have a specific rule on the use and definition of "canon." This use and definition differs in detail quite a bit from ones users may find in say the movie forums. The Literature mods have made sure to include such differing or forum-specific rules is a sticky "Literature Welcome Thread" that always remains at the top of the first page of the forum.

 

I am well aware of the rules in the EU Forums, Genghis, but that's not the issue. This was a banned users guide as well, it wasn't a rules of the JCC type thread. It was just put in the most trafficed forum.

I am trying to find it, but I'm having trouble, I will link when I succeed.

But again, a link to the forum its in might be considered enough to assume that people are aware of it, but since when did a "guide" become a strictly enforced law?

It still disturbs me, that based on a particular Moderator's judgement (and a lot of users have gripes about Mod judgement), this rule can be suspended with no warning, and the user's ban extended.

 

"For answers to most questions, please see the Informational Threads forum."

Something simple like that should be much more prominent than it currently is. Ideally, yes, people would read the TOS fully at some point, preferably when they sign up. But there's no guarantee that people do read it, so having that link in the TOS is only mildly useful. Perhaps such a link in the Comms Header and/or Sapient's sticky thread (unless there is one there already, I don't recall) would help.

But then this gets into the whole area of how much these guides really mean. Are they merely guides, as the name suggests, or are they the law of the boards and aren't to be broken? And if they are merely guides and aren't law, then they shouldn't be referred to as definitive answers as they have been in this thread.

Amazing.

 

PiaS, xie, I do understand that point of view, but let me say that the instances of a mod sitting there and waiting for socks to appear is in the extreme minority. It is usually only done for those people that have spammed across multiple forums with the same thing, or have been gotten before for repeatedly coming back as a sock. Most of the time one of us bans someone, we usually write up the reason, hit the button, then go back to what we were doing. Hence why I said it was a small risk.

If though you do start to PM a moderator from a sock, and see the ban screen again, don't keep trying socks. From there make sure that there is an e-mail sent to the jc-admins@theforce.net e-mail address saying that you were just banned, and think that you got a sock banned trying to enquire about it, and one of us will take it from there.

And yes, PMing now can include AC members, but do try to get it from a moderator first.

Genghis is also right, I do check the requests screen all the time while I'm on, and any response that is being left unattended will be either brought to the attention of that mod, or I will take care of it personally. Mods are encouraged to check the requests screen multiple times when they are online, although I do know from personal experience that sometimes you don't recognise someone as one of your own bans.

 

I think Kadue has done a fantastic job explaining things and I really can't add too much beyond that. What makes it difficult is that for me, I can only think of one time this has ever happened. It's something that doesn't happen often and so if it seems there are some inconsistencies from time to time, this is why.

 

Sape is right, almost all bans are unquestionable and well done.

But those are also the bans anyone in that position could make. Being a mod is supposed to be about making the right call in the hard situations, not about getting credit for all the easy calls.

 

Well I would give the mods just a little bit of a break. After all, they do put a lot of work and thought into their job and they don't even get paid for it! They're not above criticism, but should be cut some slack. I have only witnessed a couple of misuses before and the proper care was taken with that mod (i.e. stripped of mod powers).

 

Yay bureaucracy!