Banning and being banned

[XT]

How does one know when one is close to the razors edge of being banned? Do the mods generally send out private messages or emails, warning that a poster is walking on thin ice, or does the mod warnings in a given thread constitute the sole channel to inform a poster that they are about to be cut off? If so, how many such warnings are given before the mods take direct action...and what are the levels of action taken? Suspension followed by banning? Straight to banning? Is there a formula, or is it pretty much individually tailored to how much of an ass (or troll) a given poster is being?

I've seen posters come and go, but never actually thought about the lead up to any given banning. Also, I've seen some posters hang on for years and then suddenly be banned, while others are here and gone in a flash.

-XT

[Trepa Mayfield]

Don't make socks.

Don't threaten the Chicago Reader with legal action.

Both of those are insta-ban offenses.

Honestly, those (and spammers) are pretty much the only two reasons people get banned around here.

[Marley23]

For people who have been here a while, and assuming we're dealing with insults and being a jerk rather than having sock accounts, it usually goes like this:

1. Rack up a number of warnings in a fairly short period of time. If this continues there will usually be a warning that you are risking a suspension.
3. (If it continues) Suspension for a few weeks depending on what the problem is and how severe it is.
4. (If it's still happening) Usually a warning that banning is near.
5. (If the continuing continues) Banning.

All warnings are accompanied by notifications that are sent through the private message system.

That list isn't written in stone; I don't want to guarantee that we always tell people they are at risk for a suspension before it happens. We don't always give a separate last warning; sometimes we just tell people that if they come back from a suspension and have more problems, it's over. But the above is how we usually handle it.

A long time ago, before I was modding, the rule was three strikes and you're out. As the board got older that went away. These days we go with a more flexible system and we think about patterns of behavior, not a set number or period of time. But in general, if you get a handful of warnings in a couple of weeks or a month, you're at risk for a suspension.

It's also worth noting here that people who have been at the SDMB longer are going to get a little more of a benefit of the doubt, not because we hate new people but because we have a bit more context for their actions and we can tell if someone is going through a rough period, as opposed to someone who just shows up and immediately starts acting like a jerk.

[Marley23]

Don't make socks.

Don't threaten the Chicago Reader with legal action.

Both of those are insta-ban offenses.

Honestly, those (and spammers) are pretty much the only two reasons people get banned around here.
You're correct about the insta-bannings. And yes, bannings for being a jerk are pretty rare here. If you leave out socks and people who threatened to sue, we banned about six people last year.

[XT]

Thanks for the info. I've never really sat down and thought about it, as I said. I've noticed people being banned, of course, but I haven't really checked out the threads on why they were banned, or what the banning process was here. Some boards I've been on in the past are incredibly intolerant and seemingly ban in an arbitrary way, while others are almost anarchistic free for all zones.

From a personal perspective, it's nice to know that I'll at least get some kind of warning if my abrasive and irascible nature and odd sense of humor leads me down the path towards the dark(er) side. Though I don't really have the time to devote to this board as it really deserves, I really like being a member and posting here, and it would suck if I got tossed out.

-XT

[Marley23]

It's a truism for the mods that people who are that concerned about being banned don't get banned. If you are ever concerned about your status, you can always ask us by PM where you stand in terms of warnings or anything else.

[XT]

Fair enough. FWIW, I have had almost no issues with the modding on this board...in fact, it's one of the many things I really like about it, as it seems to strike a really good balance and keeps things from flying off the handle, unlike most of the other boards I used to belong too (leaving aside the boring, tech boards of course). The times I've been warned, almost without exception, I've agreed with the actions and rebuke. Generally I put my foot in it and fly off the handle first, then regret a post later when someone points out that I was either reading too much into what was being said, mis-underheard what the other poster was saying, or that I was simply being a jerk and going all nuclear on someone when it wasn't deserved.

At any rate, I appreciate the answers, as it's something I've always been curious about.

-XT

[John DiFool]

If I read an old thread and spot a banee, I'll often go back and check his post history, looking for clues. If I see no vitriol all over the place, I'll guess that he made a sock account (which also got banned tho I have no idea who it was). I do remember that guy who responded as his sock when he meant to post under the original account, and several people then went, "Umm, whaa?"

[XT]

How often do people threaten to sue though? That seems...odd. Though maybe it's more common than I'm aware of.

-XT

[Colibri]

From a personal perspective, it's nice to know that I'll at least get some kind of warning if my abrasive and irascible nature and odd sense of humor leads me down the path towards the dark(er) side.

If you're close to a suspension or banning for those kinds of reasons, you'll know about it. Occasional instances of bad judgement aren't going to be a problem. It's persistent behavior over a long time, and failure to change that behavior when warned about it, that results in a banning. As Marley23 says, posters who show an inclination to work with the moderators don't end up getting banned. You pretty much have to work at it to be shown the door here.

[Colibri]

How often do people threaten to sue though? That seems...odd. Though maybe it's more common than I'm aware of.

-XT

There were two instances of bannings for that reason last year, which was unusual. Other than those, I can recall only a couple of other instances.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Don't make socks.

Don't threaten the Chicago Reader with legal action.Don't threaten to infect the SD/SDMB servers with malicious code.

[Meeko]

To the spirit of the OP, I will add:

I have seen some boards actually use Yellow and Red cards, much like soccer.

IIRC, the cards are visible on the posts, and I think might carry with the poster himself, on all posts he comments to.

Then again, that site hands out warnings like no tomorrow. In their off-topic section, I started a mew thread, I posted to my Youtube Channel, and bumpped it, once.

Advertising and bumping.

I once made a comment on a thread that was "Dead", and got a warning for reivivng it.

They thankfully noted but passed on my one thread where I added extra lines to a comment, to indicate a pause, for a joke, as is quite common over here. They went and removed the returns.

Needless to say, over there, I have a quite a few yellow cards, all expired, thankfully.

Did SDMB pass on using a similar system?

[Marley23]

We do have that system here. It became available as part of the 2008 upgrade but we didn't start using it until May or June 2009. Here's a thread discussing it. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=519082)

[Guinastasia]

Don't threaten to infect the SD/SDMB servers with malicious code.

Are you talking about techchick?

[ToeJam]

Silly Banned Questions for The Mods:
Which moderator has banned the most users in your (Higher Powers that Be) opinion?
-I'm not just talking posters, I'm talking like the spambots, the trolls, all those things.
Ie: Who's got the quickest guns in the Mod Arsenal? They should get a reward or a title....

Follow-up: Which Mod has actually probably taken out the most "real" posters?
Do you guys keep track of that? I would guess it's probably whoever in charge of the Pit or GD....

Finally for two more useless banning questions for the Mods: Which Mod has the best BanHammer Style?

Mods: If you had to be Banned, which mod would you want to do it and why?

[twickster]

Silly Banned Questions for The Mods:
Which moderator has banned the most users in your (Higher Powers that Be) opinion?
-I'm not just talking posters, I'm talking like the spambots, the trolls, all those things.
Ie: Who's got the quickest guns in the Mod Arsenal? They should get a reward or a title....
Probably either Marley or samclem, both of whom are hell on wheels with spammers and trolls.

Follow-up: Which Mod has actually probably taken out the most "real" posters?
Do you guys keep track of that? I would guess it's probably whoever in charge of the Pit or GD....

Not sure if someone keeps track -- I sure don't -- but keep in mind that suspensions and bannings take place only after discussion, sometimes extensive, on the mod loop. The minimal requirement is a "yes" vote from two mods and an administrator, but we usually wait until at least half of the mods and admins have commented.

At that point, it's relatively unimportant who actually pulls the trigger (does the paperwork, posts the announcement, if any, in ATMB).

Finally for two more useless banning questions for the Mods: Which Mod has the best BanHammer Style?

Mods: If you had to be Banned, which mod would you want to do it and why?
Dunno, and don't care.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Which Mod has actually probably taken out the most "real" posters?
Do you guys keep track of that? I would guess it's probably whoever in charge of the Pit or GD....Just to expand on what Twix said, this is complicated. There may be multiple mods and admins involved in acrimonious threads with a poster, or someone might have a history with that poster. If the poster goes hyperbolic on one of the mods, we'll typically pull in someone that wasn't involved to actually review things, issue the ban or suspension, and communicate with the poster. It may not even be a mod that usually works the forum where the problem happened.

When it comes to moving threads, swatting spammers, responding to reported posts, and all of the other day-to-day responsibilities of moderating the SDMB, we tend to work alone. We issue warnings on our own, but keep the other mods in our forums up-to-date on what we're doing. But bannings and suspensions are discussed, and we act as a team.

Basically, this statistic wouldn't mean anything.

[Meeko]

We do have that system here. It became available as part of the 2008 upgrade but we didn't start using it until May or June 2009. Here's a thread discussing it. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=519082)

well I guess that speaks to my record over here then, :D .

[Marley23]

Which moderator has banned the most users in your (Higher Powers that Be) opinion?
It's really hard to tell because the different mod records don't go all the way back to the beginning of this site. The original admins have a big leg up on the rest of us in terms of years. I'd guess it's TubaDiva, but if it's not one of the admins, I say it's samclem. I'm not doing too bad for myself but I have only been at this for two years.

Ie: Who's got the quickest guns in the Mod Arsenal? They should get a reward or a title....
Modesty aside, I think I deserve consideration for that one.

Follow-up: Which Mod has actually probably taken out the most "real" posters?
Do you guys keep track of that?
Probably one of the admins because of the amount of time they have been on the job. We post notices when we ban people but we don't keep track on any kind of individual basis.

Finally for two more useless banning questions for the Mods: Which Mod has the best BanHammer Style?
I think we're all in manhattan's shadow on that one. ("I am the fucking hall monitor" wasn't even a banning but it's the gold standard for mod retorts.) I thought Giraffe had a lot of style. And Gfactor can be very sly.

Mods: If you had to be Banned, which mod would you want to do it and why?
Jack Bauer, so I could go to some other board and say only Jack Bauer could bring me down. :p

[Lute Skywatcher]

Are you talking about techchick?Probably. Can't remember who did that.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I temporarily banned techchick when she was drunk and out of her mind with grief for some reason, and she threatened to hack the board. We'd had the board hacked at least once before, possibly more than once, at that time, so it was a threat that I had to take seriously. I made it clear that it was a temporary ban until she could get hold of herself. I seem to recall that a friend of hers had recently died, and she was upset that people on the SDMB were laughing and joking about life, as was our custom. Apparently the whole SDMB was supposed to go into mourning for her friend, even though we didn't know that this person had died and we didn't know ahead of time that techchick was grieving.

Later, techchick upped the ante and got banned permanently. I really don't remember the details of it.

[Little Nemo]

Are you talking about techchick?There was some kid that found a way to edit people's titles. And there was somebody else who figured out a trick for posting under what appeared to be other people's usernames.

[XT]

I've seen both tricks done, but I thought that boards today had name security in place to prevent them (so you can't do something like create a name (blank)xtisme or some variant on that). Unless this was with the previous board software?

-XT

[Little Nemo]

Weren't a couple of people banned for flagrently lying about who they are in real life? One person who claimed to be a young woman but was actually a man and another person who discussed legal issues and claimed to be a lawyer but he wasn't?

[XT]

Those are banning offenses?

-XT

[Bricker]

Don't make socks.

Don't threaten the Chicago Reader with legal action.

Both of those are insta-ban offenses.


So, theoretically, if you used a sock account to threaten a lawsuit, you could go back in time? And be banned before you even did it?

Cool.

Signed,

"Brocker, Esquire"

[Little Nemo]

I've seen both tricks done, but I thought that boards today had name security in place to prevent them (so you can't do something like create a name (blank)xtisme or some variant on that). Unless this was with the previous board software?It was quite a while ago (back when posters could still have multiple accounts which prevented it from being a bannable sock-puppet offense). Apparently there was some way that you could create a username that looked like an existing username to the people reading it but the computer recognized as a seperate name. For obvious reasons, I don't think the board ever explained how the trick was done but some computer-savvy posters said they knew how the trick worked even if they wouldn't stoop to doing it. No idea if the software was changed to close whatever this problem was.

[Little Nemo]

Those are banning offenses?There was a debate on that at the time. It was a question of whether these two individuals had been banned for being jerks over the issue of their fake personas or whether the use of a fake persona was by itself a bannable offense. I don't know what the current policy is.

[aldiboronti]

There was a debate on that at the time. It was a question of whether these two individuals had been banned for being jerks over the issue of their fake personas or whether the use of a fake persona was by itself a bannable offense. I don't know what the current policy is.

I guess it's what you do with the fake persona. If you use it to elicit sympathy, spin elaborate yarns round it to pluck at Dopers' heartstrings, etc then it would surely come under the heading of trolling, which of course is a bannable offense.

[Colibri]

I guess it's what you do with the fake persona. If you use it to elicit sympathy, spin elaborate yarns round it to pluck at Dopers' heartstrings, etc then it would surely come under the heading of trolling, which of course is a bannable offense.

That was the real issue involved with Kaitlyn, who spun a very elaborate tale across multiple threads about her experiences as a transgender Asian-American schoolteacher. Investigation of "her" earlier posts (under a previous username) revealed she was actually a middle-aged white guy who fabricated the whole thing.

We don't usually have a way to check if a person's board persona matches that in real life, and we mostly don't care. It's only when posters blatantly lead people on that it might be a problem.

I don't think claiming to be a lawyer when you're not would by itself be a bannable offense. It might, though, if you were continually opening "Ask the Lawyer" threads or constantly providing obviously wrong answers in GQ based on your supposed legal expertise.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Don't know about legal advice but there has been a banning for giving out medical advice after being told not to.

[Little Nemo]

I don't think claiming to be a lawyer when you're not would by itself be a bannable offense. It might, though, if you were continually opening "Ask the Lawyer" threads or constantly providing obviously wrong answers in GQ based on your supposed legal expertise.As I recall it became an issue here because there were disagreements about some legal issues. Finally another poster, who was a lawyer, said that there was no way a real lawyer would make the statements this supposed lawyer was making. So he challenged him on some points of legal knowledge that a non-lawyer wouldn't be likely to know and the jig was up. The guy knew enough to convince non-lawyers he was a lawyer but he couldn't fool a genuine lawyer.

[Gymnopithys]

Side question: How can a BANNED member post ? Please explain briefly.

[twickster]

They can't. If you see a post made by someone with "banned" under his or her name, that post was made before he or she was banned.

[Rack-a-Bones]

Can I ask here what is the problem with "socks." I know it is an instaban offense but I'm curious to why. There must be a thread somewhere discussing this but I couldn't find one (though I admit, I didn't try very hard).

[Marley23]

It's been banned for years here because it's deceptive and makes it easier for trolling. Here's a recent example. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=548749) During the pay-to-post years people also sometimes used sock accounts to keep posting here without paying for a subscription.

[Gymnopithys]

Thanks twickster !

[Colibri]

As I recall it became an issue here because there were disagreements about some legal issues. Finally another poster, who was a lawyer, said that there was no way a real lawyer would make the statements this supposed lawyer was making. So he challenged him on some points of legal knowledge that a non-lawyer wouldn't be likely to know and the jig was up. The guy knew enough to convince non-lawyers he was a lawyer but he couldn't fool a genuine lawyer.

However, that poster, Beryl_Mooncalf, was not banned solely for posing as a lawyer. Rather, toward the end of the Pit thread in which this took place, s/he essentially admitted to trolling. Other offenses such as copyright violations were also involved.

[Little Nemo]

Well, what is the current policy on lying? Suppose I decided that my posts on current affairs weren't getting the respect I felt they were entitled to. So I started telling people I have doctorates in history and political science and teach these subject at an Ivy League university. I don't get rude about it but I cite my expertise on a regular basis.

A couple of years go by and somehow it's revealed that I do not have a doctorate and I am not a professor. I'm a college dropout who works in a prison. Many people would deservedly be pissed at me because I've been lying to them but would this rise to the level of being a big enough jerk to get banned?

[ToeJam]

I don't get rude about it but I cite my expertise on a regular basis.
---
Many people would deservedly be pissed at me because I've been lying to them but would this rise to the level of being a big enough jerk to get banned?

I'd consider that Jerkish behavior. And i'd guess others would think it enough to pull out the banhammer as well. Especially if you used it to give yourself credence.

[Colibri]

Well, what is the current policy on lying? Suppose I decided that my posts on current affairs weren't getting the respect I felt they were entitled to. So I started telling people I have doctorates in history and political science and teach these subject at an Ivy League university. I don't get rude about it but I cite my expertise on a regular basis.

A couple of years go by and somehow it's revealed that I do not have a doctorate and I am not a professor. I'm a college dropout who works in a prison. Many people would deservedly be pissed at me because I've been lying to them but would this rise to the level of being a big enough jerk to get banned?

Addressing this strictly as a hypothetical, I don't think we'd care very much. Caveat lector and all that. Posts should be judged by their quality, not by the purported level of learning of the poster. If the person is making bad quality posts, anyone who puts more credence in them because of their supposed expertise mainly has themselves to blame.

But we'd have to have a real instance to be able to judge the severity. In the couple of cases of misrepresentation that have been mentioned the posters were essentially trolling.

[TubaDiva]

Can I ask here what is the problem with "socks." I know it is an instaban offense but I'm curious to why. There must be a thread somewhere discussing this but I couldn't find one (though I admit, I didn't try very hard).http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_sdmb_rules

Only one screen name is permitted per user. If you wish to change screen names please email an administrator. Use of multiple screen names is grounds for revocation of your right to post under ANY screen name.

This has been in force for a long long time. It wasn't so much when we were at AOL, where you could have multiple screen names and still be "legal" under the AOL Terms of Service (which we were bound by as well as the AOL members; that's why you see older columns that have had all the cuss words taken out of them, that was AOL. But I digress.)

After we got out on our own we insisted on one screen name to a customer, period. We enforce that today.

[Alan Smithee]

[...]that's why you see older columns that have had all the cuss words taken out of them, that was AOL.

Ah! I've wondered about that before. I suspected it was something like that, but I did wonder if Unca Cece had gotten soft at some point. (Or I was just more easily shocked in my younger days and remembered more cursing than there was.) Censoring the "shit" in his column about Schrodinger's Cat was like putting pasties on the Venus de Milo, however.

[Irishman]

TubaDiva said:
This has been in force for a long long time. It wasn't so much when we were at AOL, where you could have multiple screen names and still be "legal" under the AOL Terms of Service...

After we got out on our own we insisted on one screen name to a customer, period. We enforce that today.

Actually, that change happened sometime after the board changeover. I know, because I didn't start posting until after the AOL days, and I remember when socks were legal.

[TubaDiva]

TubaDiva said:


Actually, that change happened sometime after the board changeover. I know, because I didn't start posting until after the AOL days, and I remember when socks were legal.No, not "legal." We just couldn't do anything about the fact that someone had more than one AOL screen name -- it's permissible under AOL's Terms of Service.

We've always discouraged having duplicate registrations, though when we were on AOL we didn't have a lot of teeth to back that up. When we got out from under AOL we could insist on it, as we do today and have done for a long time.

There were a few times on AOL when we had "masked chat" and people attended under different screen names, but those times were rare. That's not socking.

[kidchameleon]

Don't make socks.

Don't threaten the Chicago Reader with legal action.

Both of those are insta-ban offenses.


Bah, I bet they'd ban people that threatened the Chicago Reader with illegal action, too.

Life is so unfair. ;)

[Guinastasia]

There was some kid that found a way to edit people's titles. And there was somebody else who figured out a trick for posting under what appeared to be other people's usernames.

Wasn't that what started the whole "Winter of Our Missed Content?" (Or else it was done by the same person?)

[TubaDiva]

IIRC we had a server failure over several weeks -- the system was supposed to be doing a backup every night and it had failed to do so for a while. This was part of the server failure problem and by the time it was discovered we could do nothing but move to a new server and start again with the most recent backup we had, which was several weeks old. This resulted in a gap of about six weeks or so of postings and registrations that vanished into the ether.