Teh Ban

After reading everything in the latest ms update regarding bans, permbans, severity of offenses, etc, I came up with this idea. Maybe something that will help regulate and issue bans/permbans more fairly and consistently is to have different levels of bans in addition to the typical ?spanks? and such of varying lengths.

Spanks, 24 hour bans, 48 hour bans, lengthy bans, and permbans already comprise a loosely based system of ban levels. But I think maybe it would help if there were a concrete and specific system of levels that would be applied and followed when handing out any kind of ban. And with clearly defined levels the mods can have a better idea of what is a suitable punishment for any given offense.

First, you would have to set up the various levels themselves, and then you would have to decide what types of offenses fall into each level.

This is just a rough example of some possible levels, some of the things that might fall into each, and length of ban:

Level 1 ban- isolated incident of profanity, intentional spamming, and blatant flaming.

Ban- 24 hr.

Level 2 ban- severe profanity, intense spamming, belligerent flaming, trolling, moderate harassment, Repeated level 1 offenses.

Ban- 48 hr.

Level 3 ban- extremely offensive post; malicious libel, trolling, flaming, harassment, or obsceneness; posting porn pics, repeated level 2 offenses.

Ban- 1 week.

Level 4 ban- anything in the one of the lower levels but MUCH more extreme, repeated level 3 offenses.

Ban- 1 month, or longer.

Level 5 ban- hacking, repeated level 4 bans, excessive bans of any level, death threats, criminal offenses, etc.

ban- permanent.


As I said, this is just a loose example of the idea in its initial conceptualization. To create this system you would have to decide how many levels there should be, which levels each and all offenses fall into, and then what the disciplinary action would be for each level. Also, creating and implementing this system doesn?t mean you have to become more hard-lined than the current status quo when enforcing rules. Many minor offenses can still be handled with a warning PM or a simple edit and "forgive and forget", just like mods often do with the way things are now.

Now before everyone just takes a collective dump on this idea, I think it?s worth some thought and discussion. It has the potential to make disciplinary action more consistent, less confusing, and more simplified.

 

You know, I've never thought of it as "levels", but those are pretty much the guidelines I go by when banning..

 

and it would help if ALL mods used the SAME guidelines/system of levels.

 

It's hard to come up with an exact policy on what actions require what types of bans, simply because every case is unique.

However, I don't think having some sort of guideline is a bad idea.

I've pretty much used a system similar to the one you outlined. Sometimes, if it's a minor offense, I'll just warn someone, instead of banning them.

Another thing that I don't think you mentioned is repeat offenders. If someone had been banned for a "Level 1" offense, the next time they did it, it should be treated like a "Level 2" offense, and so on.

Edit:
Now that I learned how to read, I see that you did mention that.

 

I am all for having ban "levels" and having a set length of ban for each level of ban worthy behavior.

 

Be very careful as to what it is called. If it is a guideline, stress that each case is evaluated for punishments outside of said guideline. Else, we will get more threads about what is and isn't policy.

Master Mishima

 

I'm all in favor of a general guideline, but I am against any concrete standard that absolutely must be adhered to. There must be an allowance for flexibility and moderator judgement.

 

Generally, a name is only ever perm-banned if A) they are obviously brand new and trolling, or B) a clear majority of the Mod Squad agrees with the decision.

I tend to be against a set system in banning people, but that?s just me.

 

I agree with KW. A Guideline is just that, a guide. Is is not a concrete, written in stone law that is unbreakable. A Standard for this type of punishment may be warranted for the lower bans but... I think putting is down as a 'rule' is an idea that will someday kick us in the butt, and I think that the higher bans need to be discussed by mods and then a concensus reached.

Gandolf has a valid point also. I mean, there is no tree laid out for bans. Most everything now is set in threads about specific offenses (spamming, trolling, ect..). There is a cry for 'why fix what isn't broken?' but as of now, based on the number of threads created by users it seems to me that some are unhappy with the way it is. So, is this simply the majority of the 'people who will never be pleased' or is it a sign to change the way things are done?

Master Mishima

 

the whole point of this was to discuss the development of something to improve the manner in which bans are handed out.

the current way is NOT without flaws. the key issue is that bans are not handed out consistently. there are a lot of things for which some mods will ban a member and another mod will not. if a member does something that gets them banned by one mod based on said mods differing views, then that member gets a somewhat unfair judgement. and this applies mainly to lesser offenses. of course the major offenses should be discussed amongst many mods. but when little timmy gets a ban from mod X for posting an iffy violation and then jim bob posts the same thing and mod Y lets it slide, THAT is not consistent disciplining. THAT is not fair to little timmy.

mods will still be able to use their own judgement. this isn't meant to be a fully automated system, it is meant to be more conistent and fair. it would also cut down on the headaches and long winded debates and arguments caused by members feeling like certain people are being favored or targeted. and you wouldn't have members crying because one mod told them it was ok to do something and then another mod came along and banned them.

 

I like your idea, PiaS. I agree there shouldn't be a concrete standard of how bans are handled but there should be better general guidelines to follow.

 

even levels, or floors 1-10 in Macy's department store are in the eyes of the beholder and at the discretion of each mod. finding that balance is always difficult, sometimes questionable, never totally agreeable to all members at the same time.

 

It might be nice to have in place a more structered set of guidelines. I have, of late noticed that some newer mods are quicker to jump on the Ban Button than a mod with a bit more experience. I am not critisizing the newer mods, they were within their rights to take what action they saw fit, but perhaps this suggestion, which is a good one by the way, could be sent to the AC to review, and they could bring it to the MS. Having a more understandable ( for both the mods and users ) would make a lot of questions regarding a ban go away.

One thing I think would be good, is that when banning a user, is there a way they can be sent an email, or a PM, or something informing them exactly what violation brought on their ban. I mean, we see repeatedly here, threads on "Why was UserX banned?"

 

even levels, or floors 1-10 in Macy's department store are in the eyes of the beholder and at the discretion of each mod. finding that balance is always difficult, sometimes questionable, never totally agreeable to all members at the same time.

so does that mean we have to live with unfair and inconsistent bannings? all because some of the mods can't agree on whether or not "penis" (hypotheticaly. calm down) is an acceptable word to post? maybe the higher ups should just decide for them then, so that they are all consistent with each other. i would hope that that isn't necessary though.

 

I believe word usage in some situations would be acceptable, while use in other situations would not be. It's not a black and white case.

As far as e-mail goes, that has been discussed before, and it is not possible due to many members keeping their e-mail addresses private, along with the practical considerations of sending an e-mail every time it happened. There's also the technical problem the boards have with hotmail. Basically, if banned people want to know what happened, they simply submit an unban request.

 

KW, as i told a mod who threatened to give me a 24 hour ban for posting the word "die", which i do now and then as a joke and part of my e-schtick (and everyone knows it's meant lightheartedly), the context and intent of the word, especially a non-profane word, is what matters, not your misintepretation. so, apparently sometimes a simple word CAN cause an extreme reaction from a mod whe they misunderstand it's usage. in such cases, especially with somthing as trivial as a non-profane 3 letter word, set standards would make things easier.

DISCLAIMER: i do not have a personal issue with said mod or that incident. it is over and it is not the reason i started this thread.

 

I agree that context and intent is very important. No doubts there. I would note that if everyone is interpreting something in a way other than what you (meaning anyone) had intended or hoped, it might be wise to remove it.

 

i agree. but i guess what i meant was when 1 mod is the only person, members and mods alike, that even thought it was used improperly, it's not fair to punish (hypotheticaly) the person cuz one mod was being a little hypersensitive and totally missed the point.

 

This has been brought up many times. I agree with the KnightWriter's first post. Many things are simply too subjective to assign them a finite punishment. This would all look great on paper or in a link, but it still comes down to the judgment of the moderator in whatever given situation - all of which are unique.

For example, if someone posts the "f word" one time, I simply edit it out, sometimes not even sending the warning PM. People make mistakes, although typically I send the warning or post the warning in my edit. As long as I catch it, I try not to be too overwhelming. Now, if I see that user posting the "f word" all over the place in multiple posts/threads, especially in a short amount of time, 24hr spank.

It also comes down to intent. A moderator uses his or her judgment on whether the profanity is done so on purpose, meant to flame, or "test the limits".

 

one suggestion about the emails would be, at least for the lesser offenses, send the user a PM, informing them of the infraction,and telling them that they are banned, and for how long, and when the mod sees that the user has read the PM, the Mod could then ban the person. That could also serve to catch those people who might be banned, and not even know it cause they don't log in every day, and also, the mod has the PM he sent, so there would be no question as to why the ban was enacted on the user's part. Also, if the user wanted to explain what he/she had done, if it were something like the "Die" situation, or similar, they would have that chance after reading the PM.

 

Porkins in a Speedo...
"the whole point of this was to discuss the development of something to improve the manner in which bans are handed out."

If that's the case, then has this "radical" idea been looked into...

Users not breaking the rules.

That would also be a way to improve the manner in which bans are handed out.

That is, if the problem is consistency, then in the case of:

UserA being banned for saying "****!"
UserB merely being warned and having his post edited for saying the same word, "****!"

Then this "consistency problem" wouldn't be a problem if nobody said "****!" Yeah, radical idea, right?

So, any "problems" with inconsistent bans is both a supply as well as a demand problem. I don't think one side should be focused on more than the other - they're both important in this mix.

Removing the demand for enforcement also erases inconsistency, as would tweaking the supply of enforcement.

I also recognize that looking at the demand side may not be as popular as looking at the supply side. "Blaming mods" for "unfair treatment" is easier to do for some people than correcting one's own longtime poor posting habits.

 

If that's the case, then has this "radical" idea been looked into...

Users not breaking the rules.

Ouch.


You're evil. I like you.

 

This is the text of a post I made in the Adisory Council regarding this matter:

While I think PiaS's ideas are good, and the fundamental principle sound, I don't know that I'd agree to writing it all down and wrapping it up and putting a bow on it, as it were.

The logical flow that PiaS's ban-chart goes by is basically the logical flow that goes on in my head with every ban - if I see it's a new user, and they've just broken a rule, I warn them. If it's a repeated incident after a warning, I ban them. If it's an aggravated incident, first time or no, newbie or no, it's an automatic spank, with the duration determined by their status (newbie? any priors? model poster? fluke?).

All of this is basically just what I like to call "good judgement". Common sense. We choose moderators who have demonstrated such. We pick people that we feel won't just see someone who accidentally posted the word "ass" and then perm-ban them. We promote people who've seen how the system works, who've gotten a feel for it.

The second we write something down, we're going to start tripping all over ourselves trying to explain the situations that don't fit (and there will be *many*). There will be a new breed of drama threads in Comms - "User X commited Y offense, which has a standard punishment of Z. Yet Mod A gave him punishment B!" ...

Look at how people latched on to the Terms of Service. These are not the rules. Sure, if you break them, you can be ejected, but nowhere in there do you see spamming mentioned, or "trolling" defined. Yet because they're written down and readily available, people treat the TOS as the be-all-end-all of the rules, and if it's NOT specifically disallowed in the TOS, it must be OK. And if it IS disallowed in the TOS, it can NEVER be allowed.

This is not reality. Look at what the TOS says - it says if you post something inaccurate, you could be banned.

.

.

.

Come on. Get real. No one is going to get banned for that, unless it's an extremely twisted, malicious inaccuracy or something.

My point is that having something written down for people to reference and point to will only give people the impression of an absolute, a concrete positioning for all things ban-worthy, and that is completely not suitable to this environment. Each situation requires a human brain to process the elements and factors involved, and make a judgement call.

There may be instances where something which doesn't constitute flaming or trolling or spamming or anything might warrant a ban.

There may be instances where something which everyone sees as completely against the rules might actually be acceptable, for whatever reason.

These things cannot be quantified. To some degree, yeah, but those degrees fall in the realm of common sense, and good judgement.

If a newbie goofs and posts the "F word", and I edit it and send them a gentle PM letting them know profanity is not allowed, and then the go and post another moderately profane word, and I PM them again, and they say "Oh! I'm sorry, I didn't understand exactly what is and isn't profanity. I do apologize and I'll err on the side of caution", I don't want to have to be bound by some concrete standard to ban the guy, if he obviously understands the rules now. Sometimes it takes people a little bit to understand, and we should have situational lee-way.

And if people are willing to concede that we need situation lee-way, then making concrete, written, referable guidelines are pointless, as the point of them, according to the thread, is so that there won't be inconsistancy... but situational lee-way opens the flood-gates of circumstantial inconsistancy... even if each situation is 'fair'.

Inconsistancy is not the 'evil' that it is often mistaken to be. The only time it is is if someone is banned for something that they saw someone else only get warned for.

Well... you know, each situation is different. Unless that poster had exactly the same 'reputation', with exactly the same history, and exactly the same knowledge of the boards, the si

 

I'd like to propose that INTENTIONALLY using the word 'teh' falls under obsceneness and would be a LEVEL 3 ban.

 

Hehe. Along with "kthxbye".

Vertical