Three steps to the ban

[Measure for Measure]

First you are warned. Then you are suspended. Then you are banned. Should we add additional intermediate steps? I perceive no injustice under the status quo, but I do question whether we could improve the board incrementally. Needscoffee suggests that we permit multiple suspensions, in a rinse and repeat cycle. I can see your side, but the offenses pointed to in the banning thread were so lame, it's almost laughable. I'd have just suspended him again, for longer this time. Banning is for jerks, and none of those offenses reached the jerk threshold. I would say that the 2nd suspension might be for 3 months. Some people might benefit from an extended breather.

Giraffe suggests forum-specific bannings: maybe some people are just bad matches for certain forums. ...I do think restricted forum posting is a very useful tool that could be used to improve rule enforcement. For one, it would allow mods to create consequences for behavior that is occasionally annoying without really being deserving of lifetime banishment. Getting too feisty in GD, posting too many trivial threads in GQ, threadshitting in CS: people might think a lot more carefully about stuff like that if they couldn't post in those forums for a day/week/month. (Trolls and spammers you still just ban as always.)

I think it would be interesting to create a usergroup that only has posting access in ATMB and The Pit. Use the infraction system to create shortcuts to move people into that usergroup for short, fixed amounts of time (e.g. 1 hour, 8 hours, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month). Give individual mods full discretion over the 1-24 hour options, get some consensus for the longer ones. There would then exist a middle ground between "no, really, please stop it, I'm serious this time!" and "begone FOREVER!"

The mods would be able to control their forums in a more nuanced way, and the board would lose less otherwise-excellent posters... I think it would be win-win. I'm not asking for an official statement from TPTB: I'm hoping for a discussion. I recognize that the track record with repeated trials for problem posters isn't that great. I still prefer the single-suspension policy over what preceded it, if only because it's reassuring to those who haven't followed the particular drama in detail. But I wonder whether adding additional steps might help incrementally, without putting an undue burden on the staff.

Like most threads in ATMB, GQ, GD, IMHO..., this one is unlikely to settle anything. But it might at least succeed in outlining some of the main issues. For reference, here's a partial list of recently banned posters (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14483698&postcount=56). And here are some of my arguments against (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14475928&postcount=15) such a change.

[billfish678]

I wouldnt oppose something like warnings, then eventually a few month suspension, then something like 6 months to a year for the next suspension, then perhaps 3 years for the next one. Then a final banning. Though I'd certainly want a very strict enforcement of the posters proper behavior after the 6 month suspension. Such a system would probably only "save" a very low number of problem posters that with great time can change their behavior though.

[XT]

I think it's always a bit of a shock when a well known poster is banned, even if youve seen that person get warnings and mod spankings (damn iPad spell checker) for months or years. It seems, well, wrong somehow, even if you never really liked the poster in question and even thought they were an idiot (when I get banned, someone link to this post and smile, kk?:p). You expect newbies, especially one off drive by types to get banned, and spammer idiot who come in with some YouTube video we all really must see, but when it's someone you've 'known' and fought with, or even been on their side in a debate, well...you almost have a relationship with that person, and inside you hate to see them go. Even if they were an idiot, or an asshole.

Specifically, IMHO the mods bend over backwards for the older, more well known posters. They give them plenty of chances to change. And assuming my personal experience with them is any indication, they send plenty of private messages and emails to give additional weight to what they are trying to say...namely to back off and straighten up, that you are on thin ice.

So, I don't think we need more strikes, personally. Them mods just need to do what they are doing, and use the ban hammer of doom judiciously, and only after due consideration. Jmho...mmv...

-XT

[Smeghead]

It's really not hard to not get banned, if you don't want to get banned. I don't see how making it harder would make much of a difference.

[Astral Rejection]

then perhaps 3 years for the next one.

I think there's really no functional difference between a three-year suspension and a ban. Same goes for a one-year suspension, really.

[TubaDiva]

Unless you are a spammer it's a long road to banning.

The idea about warnings in the first place is that the user being warned will change their behavior. And mostly people DO listen, and learn, and change.

In fact it's a tiny percentage of our users who get warned in the first place. And the overwhelming majority of those users, they get that one warning and they change their behavior, and that's the end of it, and we never have problems with them again. Problem solved.

Then we have people who don't listen, and don't learn, or don't care to, or can't help themselves, or whatever. And we try to get their attention, and they just keep going.

It takes a while to get to the suspension place -- and that's the next to the last stop. If the user is not going to change after all that, nothing else is going to make them change.

And so that's the end of it. There's no reason to subject the good users of this site to more of the same from those who don't want to follow the rules or are incapable of following the rules. You deserve a better experience than to have to put up with that.

It also saddens me to read that some of you think banning is inevitable. I can't imagine why you would think that way.

[needscoffee]

Note: In the instance I was quoted about in the OP, I suggested suspending again largely because the last suspension was described as being early last year, over a year and a half ago. I don't hang out in GD where most of the offenses occurred, though, and have little knowledge of his history other than what Marley23 linked to in his banning notice (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=632294).

[the lone cashew]

It also saddens me to read that some of you think banning is inevitable. I can't imagine why you would think that way.
The exchange that got gonzomax banned was not worthy of a banning, it wasn't worthy of any moderation, imo. This staff stunt blatantly emphasizes how subjectively this board is run, a harmless exchange can mean the difference between being able to post here and losing that privilege altogether.
When longtime contributing, harmless posters are being banned, how can this kind of strict subjective policing be a good thing for place?

[XT]

Horseshit. You don't get banned out of the blue. Gonzo didn't just suddenly get banned for innocuous posts. He had a history of butting heads and not following mod warnings and not changing his posting style. I'll save the other things I think about him and his posting style for the pit or to myself since he's gone now, but to try and say his banning was in any way random is just bullshit and revisionist history. Same for Dio. I liked DtC, even if I rarely agreed with him, but it was militantly unsurprising when he got banned.

-XT

[TubaDiva]

"The straw that breaks the camel's back."

Sometimes the final offense is something that perhaps we would counsel someone else for. But when it's part of an overall pattern of bad behavior, enough is too much. There's negative consequences to cumulative bad behavior and to give someone with a longstanding pattern of misbehavior the same consideration we would to a first-time offender is no way to run things.

[John DiFool]

You haven't read anything the mods said, it seems tlc; it is clear that they gave Gonzo plenty of rope, and he just used it to hang himself (i.e. it wasn't just this "one" instance). It's pretty obvious to me that some people's posting styles are compulsive, and in such cases they rarely change their spots, and deserve their final reward.

[the lone cashew]

I have read what the mods said, an example of what I am talking about is this recent exchange beginning with mhendo. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14376464&postcount=500

So Gonzomax responds with this. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14376507&postcount=501 Hardly anything to consider misbehavior on a message board, yet gonzomax gets a warning. The comment "if you think it is meaningless, you do not know baseball", in the context of the discussion doesn't seem out of line. Yet someone thought it was. On the other hand "..your clueless parroting of phrases" was not deemed out of line. This is the kind of subjectivity I am talking about.

[Marley23]

I think the system we have now is pretty good, although I want to point out that it's informal and I don't see a lot of upside in formalizing it. For people who have been here a while, we almost always suspend them before we ban. Even though a suspension is officially supposed to be your last chance, people who are back from suspension usually get multiple warnings before they're banned because we don't want to rush to pull the plug on people. We give people a lot of chances to show they're improving. I don't think adding extra steps is necessary and I don't see it doing much good.

Very long suspensions are pretty much de facto bans anyway. Whether you say the poster is banned forever or suspended for a year, the underlying fact is that the poster is evidently unable to follow the rules here. And if you have a poster who does stick around after that many suspensions, I think that system gives them chance after chance to act up - something they have already done many times - while making it tougher for us to ban them once it's clear things are not working out.

Say we have a poster who's been warned many times and is suspended for a month. He comes back and gets warned again, which means he could be disrupting a thread or goading someone into insulting him. Then he gets suspended for three months and comes back and does the same thing. That's another thread thrown off track and another possible warning to another poster. Then he gets a six-month suspension, and after that...

What is the SDMB gaining from this? Additional threads get derailed, multiple people may get warned, and all of that for someone who has been warned 10 or 20 times, which is more than enough times to know they're not a good fit for the board.

As far as subjectivity goes, yes, moderating is subjective. There are a lot of judgment calls, and I don't think anybody has said otherwise. It's possible that some of gonzomax's warnings could have been mod notes instead, although if you go down that road I think you have to acknowledge that some of the many mod notes he received could have been warnings instead. As it is, some of his warnings were not exactly borderline:

Quit being a jerk.

He makes drive by insults, but is unable to respond to threads properly. you will get used to it and in time, see it as a childish and sometimes humorous aside. But largely irrelevant bloviating.

MCNIGHT you are a joke.

I actually put XT on my ignore list for several months due to his pettiness.

But that big an asshole could smuggle in a Samurai sword.

In the future don't be such a butthead.

[Measure for Measure]

Horseshit. You don't get banned out of the blue. Gonzo didn't just suddenly get banned for innocuous posts. He had a history of butting heads and not following mod warnings and not changing his posting style.... to try and say his banning was in any way random is just bullshit and revisionist history. Well if I ever do that, assume it's an attempt at hilarity. I guess I should say explicitly that I personally don't have a problem with the gonzo banning. Same for Dio. I liked DtC, even if I rarely agreed with him, but it was militantly unsurprising when he got banned. DtC's ~3 page post-ban requiem was full of complaints about the guy -- but nobody claimed that he insulted people too much, which is what he got banned for. The things that people did complain about were, "Putting things in the worst possible way" - and other nonbannable/nonwarnable offenses.1 All that said, there's no outrage here, as he was given adequate opportunities to straighten up and fly right. The suspension technique provides that sort of demonstration.

So if there's no injustice, we're in the land of cost/benefit analysis and applied criminology. They say that speed and certainty of punishment matter more than severity. I wonder whether a greater use of the proverbial penalty box vis a vis Giraffe's recommendation for forum suspension would improve the climate here, or whether it would just piss people off. Ah, who am I kidding? All changes to board policy piss people off... That said, we don't have to use the Multiple Warning/Final Suspension Warning/You're Out! system. We could hand out 1 week suspensions like candy (though that would tend to disrupt conversations). We could try the rinse and repeat method for posters with both demonstrably good behavior and demonstrably bad behavior. There are options.

Ookay, on preview: I think the system we have now is pretty good...

Very long suspensions are pretty much de facto bans anyway. Whether you say the poster is banned forever or suspended for a year, the underlying fact is that the poster is evidently unable to follow the rules here. And if you have a poster who does stick around after that many suspensions, I think that system gives them chance after chance to act up - something they have already done many times - while making it tougher for us to ban them once it's clear things are not working out. 1. Well I was thinking of 3-4 month bans, followed by 6 months, followed by 8 month, etc. I imagined that some might wander away on their own or sharply reduce their posting level if given 4 months of cold turkey.

2. "...once it's clear things are not working out."

If bannings only occur under circumstances where the consensus is that there's no way the poster is going to straighten up... well frankly I trust mod discretion at this board. Giraffe thought there might be scope for a wider pallet of punishment but, but then he would, wouldn't he? BWHAHAHAAH... (I kid.)

3. If somebody is terrible in IMHO but well behaved in GD and GQ, might there be an obvious solution, jointly agreed to by poster and mod? Admittedly, this situation might be a nonexistent one. And for many or most problem posters we should anticipate the possibility of migrating bad behavior.

4. Thank you Tuba and Marley for your comments. I would hope that if you do spot deficiencies in the current system that you consider alternatives, which I readily admit are far from obvious or easily implemented without drama.



1That's not true. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is.

[John Mace]

It's really not hard to not get banned, if you don't want to get banned. I don't see how making it harder would make much of a difference.

Exactly. You get plenty of mod notes, you get quite a few official warnings, you get a suspension, and then you get some more warnings. What's so hard about avoiding the final blow, if you actually have any intention of following the rules in the first place?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It would show understanding, both of the subjective nature of most warnings and of the power to mete them out, to institute an incremental length of suspensions, the final one being a virtual banning (i.e., three or five years). First one is a day, next one is a week, one after that three weeks, after that, two months, after that five months, etc., with a generous provision for appealing each warning. That way, few people could claim that it was being done out of pique, or on a personal basis, or anything of that sort. Now it just seems like a kangaroo court to me....

[Telemark]

First one is a day, next one is a week, one after that three weeks, after that, two months, after that five months, etc., with a generous provision for appealing each warning.
IMO, that's a silly and counterproductive proposal. It's not a court of law, or nursery school. If it gets to suspension you're on your last leg; it doesn't need to be more complex than that.

[John Mace]

It would show understanding, both of the subjective nature of most warnings and of the power to mete them out, to institute an incremental length of suspensions, the final one being a virtual banning (i.e., three or five years). First one is a day, next one is a week, one after that three weeks, after that, two months, after that five months, etc., with a generous provision for appealing each warning. That way, few people could claim that it was being done out of pique, or on a personal basis, or anything of that sort. Now it just seems like a kangaroo court to me....

Way too much work for the mods. Don't want to get banned? Don't break the rules repeatedly. Seems pretty simple.

[Lute Skywatcher]

IMO, that's a silly and counterproductive proposal. It's not a court of law, or nursery school. If it gets to suspension you're on your last leg; it doesn't need to be more complex than that.And it's not like banning automatically means one has to leave forever. Granted, those who have been reinstated typically didn't last very long.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Way too much work for the mods. Don't want to get banned? Don't break the rules repeatedly. Seems pretty simple.

Yes, heaven forbid the mods do work. This principle, "the mods' convenience before all other considerations," seems pretty well entrenched around here, I'll concede that.

[Telemark]

And it's not like banning automatically means one has to leave forever. Granted, those who have been reinstated typically didn't last very long.
Banning is forever. Suspensions have an end date.

[XT]

Yes, heaven forbid the mods do work. This principle, "the mods' convenience before all other considerations," seems pretty well entrenched around here, I'll concede that.

When they are paid to do that job then you'd probably have more of a leg to stand on, bitch wise. They are volunteers after all and, IIRC, they get 'paid' for putting up with all of us by receiving a coffee mug and the warm, heartfelt thanks of folks like you for the job they do. :p

-XT

[Lute Skywatcher]

Banning is forever.Unless successfully appealed, or otherwise rescinded.

[Marley23]

DtC's ~3 page post-ban requiem was full of complaints about the guy -- but nobody claimed that he insulted people too much, which is what he got banned for.
Diogenes the Cynic might have been better known for other things - for being stubborn and not conceding when he was wrong, but example - but that's not against the rules on its own. He did have several warnings for personal insults, as well as a few for being a jerk or ignoring the mods.

That said, we don't have to use the Multiple Warning/Final Suspension Warning/You're Out! system. We could hand out 1 week suspensions like candy (though that would tend to disrupt conversations). We could try the rinse and repeat method for posters with both demonstrably good behavior and demonstrably bad behavior. There are options.
There are options, yes. We do sometimes do shorter suspensions of a week or two weeks for multiple rules violations. A few times we've suspended someone for 24 hours to give them time to cool off after a single indicent. tomndebb has done this a couple of times that I can think of; I've only done it once but I think it works in the right situation.

Ookay, on preview: 1. Well I was thinking of 3-4 month bans, followed by 6 months, followed by 8 month, etc. I imagined that some might wander away on their own or sharply reduce their posting level if given 4 months of cold turkey.
We don't take bannings lightly, but I don't think pushing someone that hard to "wander away" is really preferable to a ban. If we're going to get someone to stop posting I'm fine with calling it what it is.

3. If somebody is terrible in IMHO but well behaved in GD and GQ, might there be an obvious solution, jointly agreed to by poster and mod? Admittedly, this situation might be a nonexistent one. And for many or most problem posters we should anticipate the possibility of migrating bad behavior.
I can imagine the GQ mods endorsing this idea. ;) I think this is probably doable but we could look at it, but I'm not sure it's necessary. I think that generally, if someone acts like a jerk or insults people, they tend to do it in multiple forums and not just one. I don't think we've ever particularly kept track of this kind of thing in the past, so it's hard to say if it would really matter. Some posters tend to hang out in just one forum and I think most prefers some forums over others, so they might have most of their warnings in one forum and few in others, but that reflects their posting habits and doesn't necessarily mean they have trouble with the rules in one forum.

[StusBlues]

I consider myself about as obnoxious a poster as I would tolerate on a message board, and I have no warnings. Zip, zero, nada. Honestly, I am tired of people who clamber after their rights to be obnoxious on these boards. It tires me. If you can't avoid being ten times the jerk I am (and I can be one hell of a jerk), you need help.

[picunurse]

The real world has a three strikes law, why not here?

[Giraffe]

We give people a lot of chances to show they're improving. I don't think adding extra steps is necessary and I don't see it doing much good.
Say we have a poster who's been warned many times and is suspended for a month. He comes back and gets warned again, which means he could be disrupting a thread or goading someone into insulting him. Then he gets suspended for three months and comes back and does the same thing. That's another thread thrown off track and another possible warning to another poster. Then he gets a six-month suspension, and after that...

What is the SDMB gaining from this? Additional threads get derailed, multiple people may get warned, and all of that for someone who has been warned 10 or 20 times, which is more than enough times to know they're not a good fit for the board.

I think it's pretty clear that you guys prefer to keep things the way they are, which is fine, but since my post is in the OP and you appear to be responding to something like it, I'd just like to clarify a couple of things:

1. The idea is not to add another layer of punishment between the current [some number of warnings] and [lifetime banishment]. The idea is to replace some/most of those warnings with temporary posting restrictions of varying length. Again, not for your trolls/spammers, but for your long-time posters who occasionally cross the line.

Yes, it won't fix everything -- some people will still shrug it off and keep breaking the rules. So eventually you ban them, just like you do now. But some people will remember how sick they got of logging in day after day and not being able to respond to threads they otherwise would, and decide it's just not worth calling the guy they're currently arguing with a dickbag.

An analogy: say there is some really nice parking right next to your workplace. It's always empty and parking enforcement rarely goes by. So sometimes when you're running late, you park there. And every now and again, you get a note on your windshield saying you can't park there. You know that if you get eight or nine notes (or six or fourteen or maybe twenty), you'll get fired, but you've only got four right now, so why stop parking there? Now imagine if every time you got busted, you weren't allowed to park anywhere in the town you work in for some length of time. Even if you weren't close to getting fired, it would become less attractive to risk it, given that it could mean taking the bus and walking the last half mile.

2. On an unrelated topic: in my personal opinion, it's ridiculous to ever banish any long-term poster forever over a minor rule infraction. Not all crimes merit prison time, no matter what a person's previous record is. Calling someone a "blind righty" in GD? Come on.

(Please note that I am in no way upset that gonzomax is gone: he was a terrible poster who typed like a Muppet on crack. But if we want to get rid of terrible posters, just add an asterisk to the rules saying that the mods will occasionally vote someone off the island who is annoying the piss out of everybody and dispense with the pretense.)

[TubaDiva]

3. If somebody is terrible in IMHO but well behaved in GD and GQ, might there be an obvious solution, jointly agreed to by poster and mod? Admittedly, this situation might be a nonexistent one. And for many or most problem posters we should anticipate the possibility of migrating bad behavior.

I can imagine the GQ mods endorsing this idea. ;) I think this is probably doable but we could look at it, but I'm not sure it's necessary. I think that generally, if someone acts like a jerk or insults people, they tend to do it in multiple forums and not just one. I don't think we've ever particularly kept track of this kind of thing in the past, so it's hard to say if it would really matter. Some posters tend to hang out in just one forum and I think most prefers some forums over others, so they might have most of their warnings in one forum and few in others, but that reflects their posting habits and doesn't necessarily mean they have trouble with the rules in one forum.To restrict someone to an area or, conversely, to ban them from just an area is not useful. There's nothing to keep them from continuing bad behavior where they can post, regardless. That's not a satisfactory solution to the problem.

We're not going to go down this road.

[kunilou]

. A few times we've suspended someone for 24 hours to give them time to cool off after a single indicent. tomndebb has done this a couple of times that I can think of; I've only done it once but I think it works in the right situation.

Has there ever been an instance where a poster said something so outrageous, illegal or jerkish that he was banned in one -- no suspension, no warning?

I know it's done with socks and spam, but what about someone who just asked for it.

[TubaDiva]

(Please note that I am in no way upset that gonzomax is gone: he was a terrible poster who typed like a Muppet on crack. But if we want to get rid of terrible posters, just add an asterisk to the rules saying that the mods will occasionally vote someone off the island who is annoying the piss out of everybody and dispense with the pretense.)That's not what we do.

The process as it stands now always holds out hope that the user will do better, will change their ways. We give them the benefit of the doubt for a long, long time and we try to work with them to get them to change. How they handle this is up to them.

Again, let me point out that we're talking about a tiny segment of the user population. Most people on this board never get warned at all. Most of those that do get warned have one warning, shape up, and that's the end of the problem. They never get warned again because they follow the rules.

It's a tiny, tiny group that take it all the way to the bitter end.

Why should everyone else have to put up with extended crap from this tiny bit of the population? To ask them to hold still for more of the same is actually unfair to them and adversely affects their experience. The good users of this board deserve better.

As for your other proposal ... man, that's just wrong.

[TubaDiva]

Has there ever been an instance where a poster said something so outrageous, illegal or jerkish that he was banned in one -- no suspension, no warning?

I know it's done with socks and spam, but what about someone who just asked for it.We've had people attempt to hack the site. They got banned immediately.

We've had people threaten to take legal action. They got banned immediately as well.

These are very rare things but over the course of our history these things have happened.

[billfish678]

Here is the reason I am for a suspension, a long suspension, then a couple year suspension. In hindsight what I was thinking was this. The problem IMO is really that the first suspension is just too short. The poster with a month or two suspension can just "tough it out". They don't really get the feel for what it would be like to never post on the SDMB again. Make it six months to a year and THEN they would get the idea of what that part of their life being gone would be like. Also, if they are having problems in their life making them a bit more jerky than normal those problems are quite likely still around in a month or two. And then there are those posters who don't like the suspended poster. If its just a month or two later, those posters are probably still a bit pissed at the jerk and are much more likely to bait/poke at em with a stick than they would be if a longer period of time has gone by.

So, maybe at the least make the first suspension significantly longer?

[TubaDiva]

Man, if you can't learn or change after multiple warnings and a suspension, what is going to work? And why should the rest of the community have to put up with it?

Dragging this out -- potentially for years -- I don't see the use in this.

[Marley23]

2. On an unrelated topic: in my personal opinion, it's ridiculous to ever banish any long-term poster forever over a minor rule infraction.
An insult is an insult, and he had double digit warnings for insults. Saying that the last one wasn't a big deal misses the point. With posters like this, we sometimes have a tendency to give extra chances (as I did when I gave gonzomax a note instead of a warning over the weekend), and when that happens, it usually creates headaches for us without providing any benefit to the board.

[Giraffe]

Man, if you can't learn or change after multiple warnings and a suspension, what is going to work? And why should the rest of the community have to put up with it?

Dragging this out -- potentially for years -- I don't see the use in this.
I suspect that's because you (understandably) only see things from the enforcement side. To you, having to hand out and track warnings is a nuisance, and you'd just as soon have fewer nuisances to deal with. It makes sense: I'm sure some police officers wish they could just banish certain people from town after their third or fourth call to the same residence for the same domestic dispute.

But from a poster perspective, some posters add far more value with their posts than they detract with occasional slip-ups. Case in point: Diogenes called someone a fuckhead in IMHO, then posted immediately afterward saying he had thought the thread was in the Pit and apologizing. Did that significantly detract from many people's message board experience? I doubt it. But for you guys, it was another reported post you had to look at, another judgment call you had to make, and you decided enough was enough. No one would argue that in an ideal world, posters would all just follow the rules. But since we live in an imperfect world, easing the burdens of enforcement have to be balanced against the consequences.

I'm well aware that the changes I proposed would not necessarily make modding more enjoyable, particularly for the staff who are sick of dealing with rule-breakers. But I do think that they have the potential to make modding more effective, and to make posting more enjoyable for the community as a whole. Which, IMO, should be the top priority.

[billfish678]

?

Dragging this out -- potentially for years -- I don't see the use in this.

Okay fine, but what do you think about making the first suspension something that really hurts? Do you dissagree with my point that a one month one is not going to feel as nearly "real" as a six month one? Some small fraction of people can change but the punishment really needs to hurt for them to "get it".

You have this if the person WON'T change:

Jerk Jerk Jerk, one month suspension, Jerk Jerk Jerk, Banned or

Jerk Jerk Jerk, six month suspension, Jerk Jerk Jerk, Banned

Either way other posters get exposed to total same amount of Jerkdom till the poster is banned. I am just arguing that with the second method there is a small but slightly higher chance the poster will change for the better. And an upside of the six month one is that a poster who was suspended and really doesn't care about this board one way or another probably won't even come back after six months anyway.

Then again, I don't really care either way. Just throwing that out as a suggestion.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Here is the reason I am for a suspension, a long suspension, then a couple year suspension. In hindsight what I was thinking was this. The problem IMO is really that the first suspension is just too short. The poster with a month or two suspension can just "tough it out". They don't really get the feel for what it would be like to never post on the SDMB again. Make it six months to a year and THEN they would get the idea of what that part of their life being gone would be like. Or ban them if they show no signs of changing for the better after one recent suspension and, if they want back in after a year or so, they can ask nicely.

[Giraffe]

An insult is an insult, and he had double digit warnings for insults. Saying that the last one wasn't a big deal misses the point. With posters like this, we sometimes have a tendency to give extra chances (as I did when I gave gonzomax a note instead of a warning over the weekend), and when that happens, it usually creates headaches for us without providing any benefit to the board.
I think you guys acted perfectly consistently with past board tradition in the case of gonzomax. It was simply the lightness of the final offense that prompted me to pontificate that perhaps we could use more shades of grey. Just my personal opinion, feel free to take it for what it's worth.

[Sailboat]

Yes, heaven forbid the mods do work. This principle, "the mods' convenience before all other considerations," seems pretty well entrenched around here, I'll concede that.

While I would have argued for more leniency (or for waiting for a more clear-cut infraction before pouncing) in some of the bannings I've seen, I have served as an administrator for a (much smaller and entirely unrelated) web community, and making things as straightforward as possible for the volunteers is in fact good policy, if you want to have volunteers. If it's dazzlingly complex, people won't want to do it. And although I value individual judgment, if a practice is too subjective, someone will always be found to disagree with it. So, although clear rules and consistent enforcement veer towards undesirable rigidity, they remain useful enough principles to be worth striving toward.

Constantly second-guessing or undercutting the volunteers is also a bad idea.

[Marley23]

Okay fine, but what do you think about making the first suspension something that really hurts? Do you dissagree with my point that a one month one is not going to feel as nearly "real" as a six month one?
For someone who posts on a daily basis, I think a month is plenty of time to make that point. Considering how much trouble you have to go to to get enough warnings to be suspended for a month, I don't think the problem is that the poster is not getting the message. It's that he's unwilling or unable to change. So I don't think the problem is the message, it's the person who is (not) receiving the message.

[2gigch1]

This place is a message board on the internet, and though it may be a special place for many, being tossed off the board for misbehavior after repeatedly being warned is not life threatening. The operators of the board make it reasonably clear how they expect the participants to behave.

I'm not sure I see what all the fuss is about. This place is a free resource moderated by volunteers. If the participants can't follow some simple rules of the board, their banning is appropriate. If we were all paying for a valuable resource I might hold a different opinion, but you do have to craft your expectations to meet what you are paying for.

Which is nothing.

[jsgoddess]

There have been a lot of bannings here. Zombie threads with half of the posters banned are an ugly clue. I've had the feeling for a long time that if you have much of a personality at all it's just a matter of time before it's your turn in the barrel.

The functional equivalents of speeding tickets shouldn't get you shot.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It is my considered opinion (I've been posting long enough to have a "considered opinion, " haven't I, and not just an opinion?) that a useful exercise might be reversing the treatment of errant posters and errant Mods, purely to see the virtues of what I mean by "patience" and tolerance."

If a Mod fucks up, typically other Mods rush to defend (in public, anyway) their poor behavior or judgment. Commonly referred to as "circling the wagons," the Mod community seeks to ignore the mishavior, or minimize it, or excuse it, or bend over triple-backwards to justify it. But what if instead they tried to demonstrate their self-policing discipline by coming down hard with a stern "warning," and then suspension of Modly duties and rank for later offenses, culminating in permanent removal of said Mod?

I'll tell you what would happen: y'all would go nuts, attacking this system as draconian, unreasonable, unduly punitive--which I agree it would be. And if you did the same with posters, if the Mods would come to the defense of any poster who violated SD rules seventy times seven times, minimizing, excuse-making, justifying bad behavior by posters while complaints about their rudeness, cluelessness, etc. went unheeded, you'd likewise see this place go mad.

I'd like to see some tiny fraction of the forbearance mods show to other mods for their inappropriate actions apply to us common peons. A quarter. No, I'll settle for a tenth. Do I hear one-twentieth?

[jtgain]

The functional equivalents of speeding tickets shouldn't get you shot.

I agree with this. Minor infractions should be like parking tickets. You just keep getting more of them, paying them, and moving on. You can never get so many parking tickets that you end up on death row.

It's unfortunate, but you see this at work a lot. When an employee is on his last "you screw up one more time and you're gone" warning, there is no way he can win. He is under a microscope that even the best employees can't live up to. You might as well fire(ban) him right then.

I agree with Giraffe's sentiments as well.

[John Mace]

There have been a lot of bannings here. Zombie threads with half of the posters banned are an ugly clue. I've had the feeling for a long time that if you have much of a personality at all it's just a matter of time before it's your turn in the barrel.

The functional equivalents of speeding tickets shouldn't get you shot.

I'd like to see a zombie thread with half the posters banned. And if "parking ticket" warnings have no consequences, then those warnings are meaningless.

[samclem]

I agree with this. Minor infractions should be like parking tickets. You just keep getting more of them, paying them, and moving on. You can never get so many parking tickets that you end up on death row.

Minor infractions ARE like parking tickets. You get them, you pay them, you go on your way.

It's when you accumulate an 80mph in a 55mph zone, then you get a "failure to yield the right of way" and finally you get a "failure to control" for causing an accident, all within a year or so. If you got these while driving in the US, you don't end up on death row, but you certainly don't keep driving.

[Peter Morris]

Has there ever been an instance where a poster said something so outrageous, illegal or jerkish that he was banned in one -- no suspension, no warning?

I remember one guy who tried to score points in a debate by claiming that his parents were killed in 9/11. Instant ban, no warnings, no return.

[John Mace]

I remember one guy who tried to score points in a debate by claiming that his parents were killed in 9/11. Instant ban, no warnings, no return.

Man, that's cruel. After losing both parents on 9/11, then being banned from here. Talk about a downer!

[curlcoat]

I remember one guy who tried to score points in a debate by claiming that his parents were killed in 9/11. Instant ban, no warnings, no return.

Because it couldn't have been true??

[Czarcasm]

I remember one guy who tried to score points in a debate by claiming that his parents were killed in 9/11. Instant ban, no warnings, no return.I don't recall the incident, but I doubt it was as simple as that.

[Colibri]

Because it couldn't have been true??

It wasn't.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The functional equivalents of speeding tickets shouldn't get you shot.
They don't. Repeated speeding tickets get your driver's license taken away: you no longer get the opportunity to break the rule.

FWIW, I think the mods are far too lenient. I'd much rather have a process like this:

1) You say something insulting. A mod steps in and says, "That's not how we do things around here. Take some time to cool off, and don't do it again."
2) You do it again, at any point. A mod bans you.

I just don't see the advantage in letting assholes remain around the board. There are people in this thread who regularly make the boards worse; I'd ban them in a heartbeat if I could.

If you're unable to keep your typing civil, find somewhere else to be.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

They don't. Repeated speeding tickets get your driver's license taken away: you no longer get the opportunity to break the rule.

FWIW, I think the mods are far too lenient. I'd much rather have a process like this:

1) You say something insulting. A mod steps in and says, "That's not how we do things around here. Take some time to cool off, and don't do it again."
2) You do it again, at any point. A mod bans you.

I just don't see the advantage in letting assholes remain around the board. There are people in this thread who regularly make the boards worse; I'd ban them in a heartbeat if I could.

If you're unable to keep your typing civil, find somewhere else to be.

Perfect example of the attitude that, IMO, destroys the concept of 'tolerance" around here. Your concept of "civil" is 1) probably different from some others' concepts of civil and 2) maybe sufficient to get you banned, under your guidlelines. After all, you just referred to some unnnamed posters as "assholes." Shouldn't that get YOU banned by someone a little prissier than you? Someone earlier in this thread, I believe, actually claimed himself as the nastiest poster he felt should be tolerated around ,which struck me as unusually imperceptive. Yes, that's how ALL of us feel--when I act like a jerk, THAT's my definition of tolerable behavior--anything further than that should be banned--which is a pretty good working definition of intolerance.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Perfect example of the attitude that, IMO, destroys the concept of 'tolerance" around here. Your concept of "civil" is 1) probably different from some others' concepts of civil and 2) maybe sufficient to get you banned, under your guidlelines. After all, you just referred to some unnnamed posters as "assholes." Shouldn't that get YOU banned by someone a little prissier than you? Someone earlier in this thread, I believe, actually claimed himself as the nastiest poster he felt should be tolerated around ,which struck me as unusually imperceptive. Yes, that's how ALL of us feel--when I act like a jerk, THAT's my definition of tolerable behavior--anything further than that should be banned--which is a pretty good working definition of intolerance.
Whatever, then, fine, I'm intolerant, who gives a crap? If my concept of civil is sufficiently different from this board's mods', then I'll take today to be thankful that there are about two gazillion other boards out there.

As I said in the other thread,
The only negative I could come up with is the inevitable post by someone who doesn't like me who tells me I'm annoying and should therefore be banned.

You've just manifested the only negative I can imagine of a stricter policy, and I still feel pretty good.

[SiXSwordS]

1. The idea is not to add another layer of punishment between the current [some number of warnings] and [lifetime banishment]. The idea is to replace some/most of those warnings with temporary posting restrictions of varying length. Again, not for your trolls/spammers, but for your long-time posters who occasionally cross the line.
I think this is a very compelling idea, not so much as another stop on the ban train, but more as another tool in the toolbox. (When the only tool you have is a ban hammer....)
Unfortunately, I can see it leading to some potentially explosive flame-outs in the Pit or ATMB; essentially giving a banee-to-be a venue and an audience.

If the idea is to take the rules on insults and being a jerk seriously though, it could offer a level of punishment that is more appropriate to DIAF threats and you're-a-poopie insults.

I'm not sure what the overhead in technical terms would be, but if I were a mod, I think lifetime bans from specific threads would be a great tool.
"You like this thread?" "You want to make your point or show-up your opponent?" "Follow the rules or go complete another list in the game room!"

Thread specific or forum specific bans could come with or without a warning, and the usual banning process could go on as it is now. Starting another thread with a nearly identical title or taking a GD argument into ATMB would be warnable offenses.

[Peter Morris]

I remember one guy who tried to score points in a debate by claiming that his parents were killed in 9/11. Instant ban, no warnings, no return.

I don't recall the incident, but I doubt it was as simple as that.

After corresponding with Czarcasm, I now realise that I omitted to mention that the guy's claim was a lie, and was exposed right away. Apologies to anyone else who, like Czarcasm, was confused by the omission.

Oh, and Czarcasm, you're welcome.

[TubaDiva]

All of these suggestions make tons more work for the moderators here, who have enough to do as it is.

Instead of making it easier for people to be annoyances for longer periods of time how about people just not be jerks in the first place? Or ... here's a tough one ... how about people pay attention to their first or second or third warnings and modify their jerky behavior? Then we wouldn't need to do any of this at all, people could stay on the board, and life would be a dream, shboom.

Just a thought.

[Czarcasm]

Oh, and Czarcasm, you're welcome.Since I don't recall saying "Thank you" recently, may I assume that this is a clever retort of some kind?

[TubaDiva]

Okay, you guys, if you're going to bicker, take it elsewhere.

[Czarcasm]

Okay, you guys, if you're going to bicker, take it elsewhere.
But he hit me back first!

[Cat Whisperer]

They don't. Repeated speeding tickets get your driver's license taken away: you no longer get the opportunity to break the rule.
<snip>I think jsgoddess' analogy was flawed, too - it's more like, "You've broken the traffic laws on this road X number of times; we're kicking you off this road. Go drive somewhere else."

I agree with everyone else regarding the OP; it isn't all that hard to not get banned from here, even with some personality. The personal insults outside of the Pit is what seems to get most people banned, and it isn't that hard to limit your insults to one forum.

[TubaDiva]

But he hit me back first!Don't make me turn this message board around.

[Irishman]

1. The idea is not to add another layer of punishment between the current [some number of warnings] and [lifetime banishment]. The idea is to replace some/most of those warnings with temporary posting restrictions of varying length. Again, not for your trolls/spammers, but for your long-time posters who occasionally cross the line.

Warnings are instant notifications/acknowledgement of a rule violation. So you're saying that we start dropping suspensions with our Warnings? That would be an increase in board strictness. We already get bitch parties for handing out Mod Notes, for Pete's sake, and you're suggesting dropping suspensions? :dubious: Mod notes themselves are a leniency, when in many cases they are actually pointing out rules violations rather than instructions that prevent sliding into rules violations. Yet we get whine parties for handing out Warnings instead of Mod Notes for actual rules violations. This is pathetic to me.

But some people will remember how sick they got of logging in day after day and not being able to respond to threads they otherwise would, and decide it's just not worth calling the guy they're currently arguing with a dickbag.

So you're hoping a couple instances of "can't respond" will have more impact than just one round? Perhaps. But it takes so much to get to the first round, is this something we really want?

( But if we want to get rid of terrible posters, just add an asterisk to the rules saying that the mods will occasionally vote someone off the island who is annoying the piss out of everybody and dispense with the pretense.)

Isn't there already a rule in the registration agreement that the board reserves the right to ban people at any time for any reason? That sounds like an asterisk to me.

Okay fine, but what do you think about making the first suspension something that really hurts? Do you dissagree with my point that a one month one is not going to feel as nearly "real" as a six month one? Some small fraction of people can change but the punishment really needs to hurt for them to "get it".

For someone who posts multiple posts daily, a one month hit is a big hit. If one month doesn't get their attention, six months won't be significantly better. Either they already learned their lesson, they gave up on the board, or they come back just to get their final slam in.

[Morgenstern]

I would be happy to see a policy where a banned poster had a one on one with an admin, and was allowed to return after 3 to 6 months. I realize it's extra work, but in many ways, some recent bans have hurt our family more than safeguarded it....IMHO. It's not like the admins aren't well paid for what they do here. I've heard those coffee cups are sterling silver.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Sometimes we do hear from someone who has been banned and wants to come back. And we do give it some thought.

The problem is, usually the banned person had plenty of warnings, and at least one suspension before the ban. If someone gets a dozen warnings for the same behavior, and a banning, why should we think that this person will miraculously start abiding by the board rules now that s/he's been banned?

We've occasionally allowed someone who has been banned to return. It has almost never worked out. I won't say that we will never again allow it, but I don't think that we'll do it as a matter of course.

Oh, and MY cup is 24 karat gold. This is a problem when I drink hot liquids from it, as gold is an excellent conductor of heat.

[CannyDan]

Allow me to paraphrase something I said in the semi-parallel thread (link) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14494196&postcount=64), since it seems more appropriate here than there.

We keep hearing that mod notes and warnings are learning tools, devices by which behaviors are to be modified. But neither notes nor warnings entail actual consequences, other than bringing one invisibly closer to whatever line across which lies suspension/ban. So the suspension is the first actual consequence a transgressing poster ever gets. And he can get it only once (with the rare exception) before banishment.

In a Utopian world perhaps people should indeed modify their behaviors based upon cues from their society, without a need for actual punishment. And indeed, most members of our community here can do exactly that. But some here, as in society as a whole, apparently require a bit more structure. Without that structure they can be pathological to society, but given an assurance of actual consequences, they (or at least many of them) can modify their behaviors and function as valuable and contributing members of that society.

I think successive suspensions, not necessarily of graduated duration but simply immediate actions, could provide that kind of structure. So you accumulate your batch of warnings (whatever that batch is, under present practice) and you get a 2 month suspension. You come back and either immediately or some time later transgress again, you are immediately suspended for another two months. The worst you could do before getting popped again will be to insult somebody or shit in someone’s thread. I suspect our people are strong enough to survive such a horror. If your future transgressions are really egregious (you return only to insult all and sundry and make a jerk of yourself), or the duration of your "good" periods becomes shorter and shorter, the ban hammer is justified. But if you get along pretty well for several months or longer at a stretch after your little "time away", and get suspended again whenever you backslide, maybe you can stay around.

I know it isn’t the purpose of this Board to provide behavior modification as a social engineering tool. And I know that the present system has produced a community that I am pleased to be a part of. But that doesn't mean we couldn't improve our systems. After all, I think this and similar threads demonstrate that our "bad boyz" add a bit of spicy flavor to our cuisine here. I wouldn't mind being occasionally annoyed or affronted (if I even could be, which I doubt) if we kept a few of them around. Nor do I mind asking TPTB for a bit of extra effort, if by so doing we might keep this place as diverse, interesting, entertaining, and yes even as controversial, as it is. I think that repetitive suspensions could, in many cases, be just the kind of short leash certain people need.

[jtgain]

They don't. Repeated speeding tickets get your driver's license taken away: you no longer get the opportunity to break the rule.


I still contend that some infractions should be like parking tickets. An insult of a "blind righty" (I think that was the final insult) should be a parking ticket. Get a mod note/warning/week suspension and it never gets higher than that.

If you keep calling someone a fucking dickhead in GD, then those should be speeding tickets. Increased tickets eventually get your license revoked.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I have no doubt some sort of incremental suspension system would be

1) feasible
2) creating much fewer ATMB complaints about warnings AND bannings
3) fairer than the present system
4) conducive to much better behavior around here in general

BUT because it would also be

5) creating some new work for Mods, at least initially
6) and is a suggestion by mere posters

it is unlikely to be instituted.

7) Ever.

[RickJay]

I have no doubt some sort of incremental suspension system would be

1) feasible
2) creating much fewer ATMB complaints about warnings AND bannings
3) fairer than the present system
4) conducive to much better behavior around here in general

(1) is true, technically speaking.

(2) is totally false, I am convinced. The complaints in ATMB are largely confined to a small subset of the SDMB's posters and there's not a doubt in my mind they would continue complaining. Of the folks who only occasionbally enter ATMB when something is really off there's nothing about an "icnredmental suspension system" that would cause fewer complaints; if anything, it'd cause more, since there would by definition be more moderator interference, not less.

(3) There is nothing unfair about the current system. You might not like it, but it's as fair as one could ask for; the rules are pretty clear and they're enforced as uniformly as one could expect.

(4) I don't buy this for an instant.

Seriously, the "incremental suspension system" is a solution in search of a problem. Most posters are never warned, and of those that are more are not warned more than once in a blue moon. Suspensions are very rare, banning equally rare, and the evidence is clear; a person who is suspended once is extremely unlikely to modify their behaviour. You're suggesting a system that would quite likely have no benefit at all.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

The problem I'm addressing is simply that the SD has banned way too many posters over the years who didn't warrant banning. Take me, for example--I've been warned several times, suspended once, and I'm sure despite my best intentions, I'll be banned someday, and will no longer be able to contribute whatever it is that I do contribute, permanently. But If I'd been suspended for a few weeks, then a few months, and maybe now serving a two-year (let's say) suspension, I probably wouldn't have gotten to make any more objectionable (to you) posts than I had anyway, but there's a chance I might have re-thought my bad posting habits. Maybe I would have decided that religion threads are unsafe for me in general, or politics, or interacting with certain posters. Instead, it's just a matter of time until I venture too close to the edge, and then I'm banned permanently.

The trouble with your post is (unwittingly, I think) contained in the modfiers in this key phrase: "the rules are pretty clear and they're enforced as uniformly as one could expect." Yes, the rules are "pretty" clear, but by design not crystal clear, and they work far better for those who avoid controversy and heated, sensitive subjects, which is why some people like me enjoy discussing these subjects. For me, the "pretty clear" rules are pretty murky: basically, it comes down "Piss off a mod and you're history." If I wanted to be perfectly safe, I'd only post in safe subjects and I'd think very carefully before I posted anything remotely controversial or critical. And as far as the rules being "enforced as uniformly as one could expect," I don't have very high expectations--the mods are human, and some of them (not you, that I've seen, and not a few others) are petulant, prideful, vindictive, small-minded, lazy, vain, and prone to errors, as humans are, so I don't expect much by way of uniform enforcement, nor do I see much.

Thanks for your support on issue #7, though.

[Marley23]

I believe an incremental suspension system would also taste great, have fewer calories, increase our energy efficiency 22%, and stay crunchy in milk. I'm not sure if any of those things really benefit a message board, but I have no doubt they're true!

[Marley23]

Take me, for example--I've been warned several times, suspended once, and I'm sure despite my best intentions, I'll be banned someday, and will no be able to contribute whatever I do permanently. But If I'd been suspended for a few weeks, then a few months, and maybe now serving a two-year (let's say) suspension, I probsbly wouldn't have gotten to make any more objectionable (to you) posts than I had anyway, but there's a chance I might have re-thought my bad posting habits.
We moderate from the assumption that Straight Dope posters are intelligent and reasonable adults who can follow a rule that is broad and may be vague, but which can be applied to most situations ("Don't be a jerk"). From that assumption stems the idea that when someone does break the rules, they won't require more than a reminder (a mod note or warning) to correct their behavior. You know what they say: a word to the wise is sufficient. We're willing to remind people more than once, and sometimes pretty often, as long as we think they're trying and want to improve. When we get the sense they don't care or can't help themselves, we look at more severe responses, meaning suspensions or bans. It's not perfect but it's worked pretty well to this point and I think it's a decent system. People don't always get the specifics of how we interpret the rules in a given situation but the basics are well understood.

All of which is verbose way of saying that if you can't understand the general kind of behavior we except around here ("Don't be a jerk") and haven't corrected your behavior based on multiple mod notes, warnings, and even a suspension, the problem isn't the system of reward and punshiment, imperfect as that system might be. pseudotriton ruber ruber, you're telling us at the same time that you understand the rules well enough to be confident that you'll be banned, but that if we'd only punished you more severely and more often, you'd have stopped doing the stuff you know we don't want you to do. But since we haven't done that, you know you won't be able to avoid breaking the rules in the future. None of that makes me think something is wrong with the system.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

None of that makes me think something is wrong with the system.

Like I said, I don't expect any changes. Ever.

Except maybe for the worse.

Can't get any vaguer than "Don't be a jerk" and that's way you like it. Might as well say "We'll ban whomever we please, whenever we like, and put it down to our perception that the person being banned has, in our totally subjective and unappealable opinion, been a jerk, once too often." That would be more honest. It has cost you some good posters in the past, and will continue to cost you some good posters going forward. You don't care a damn about that.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Can't get any vaguer than "Don't be a jerk" and that's way you like it. Might as well say "We'll ban whomever we please, whenever we like, and put it down to our perception that the person being banned has, in our totally subjective and unappealable opinion, been a jerk, once too often." That would be more honest. It has cost you some good posters in the past, and will continue to cost you some good posters going forward. You don't care a damn about that.That's a totally fine way to put it, AFAIAC. If you know what the rules are and you haven't been sufficiently spanked in order to be arsed to follow them, I think you should be banned. Not later, not when you step over the line one last time, but right now.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

you should be banned.... right now.

That's almost vindictive enough of you, LHOD, to qualify you for immediate Mod-ship. Have you considered applying? I think you'd be quite welcome.

[samclem]

That's almost vindictive enough of you, LHOD, to qualify you for immediate Mod-ship. Have you considered applying? I think you'd be quite welcome.

Nah. We want mods who are W-A-Y more vindictive than that. We're, after all, the modern day personification of Nazi's. We don't merely want to ban you, we want to eat your children also. We want to pull the gold teeth out of your grandmother's head before we gas her.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

That's almost vindictive enough of you, LHOD, to qualify you for immediate Mod-ship. Have you considered applying? I think you'd be quite welcome.
The funny thing, of course, is that you consider that an insult. It'd be like me accusing you of being pedantic enough to be a professor at an ivy league school--if I were a chronic class-auditor at an ivy league school.

I have very few problems with the moderation hereabouts. If I had lots of problems with it, I'd leave. Similarly, if I were a mod, I'd ban people who had nothing better to do than to complain about the moderation all day long.

[tomndebb]

Might as well say "We'll ban whomever we please, whenever we like, and put it down to our perception that the person being banned has, in our totally subjective and unappealable opinion, been a jerk, once too often."And yet, you are still here.

You appear to be mistaken and your post is my cite.

[SiXSwordS]

We're, after all, the modern day personification of Nazi's.
Finish your sentence. Nazi's... what?
Gaudere analysis complete. No issue's found.

[Measure for Measure]

1. pseudotriton ruber ruber is entitled to his considered opinion. I would like to distance mine from his. For example, I have no problem with having the final offense be a mild one: sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.

2. There are a tiny sliver of all posters who get banned. None of them have been subjected to injustice in my view. But a tiny sliver of that tiny sliver made solid contributions in the fight against ignorance. Losing them was unfortunate. Admittedly I can tabulate them on a single hand.

3. The jackboots clamor for stronger measures: electronic shocks delivered via the mouse, death rays administered from LED lights, etc. Luckily the membership has mozilla plugins to block such attacks, so the very worst TPTB can manage is indefinite suspension of posting privileges on a single message board.1

4. We don't take bannings lightly, but I don't think pushing someone that hard to "wander away" is really preferable to a ban. If we're going to get someone to stop posting I'm fine with calling it what it is. Some are not a good fit for the board. Others make valuable contributions... but still are not a good fit for the board. But there's another subset of problem members that just spends too much time here. They need to post less, which implies spending more time in other parts of the internet or (heaven forbid) RL.

Again, I'm not claiming injustice. But in the interests of effective problem prevention, it might make sense to hand out a 60 or 75+ day suspension. Thirty days isn't long enough to build new habits. 75 days makes rejoining the board part of the indefinite future. If suspension is supposed to be the last stop on the ban train (sort of, subject to adjustments) maybe it should be a long stop.

5. To restrict someone to an area or, conversely, to ban them from just an area is not useful. There's nothing to keep them from continuing bad behavior where they can post, regardless. That's not a satisfactory solution to the problem. Sure there's nothing stopping them from that. But if someone has contrasting behavior in different flora, maybe, possibly he's just a bad fit in one of them. Now I don't know whether this is likely or not: I would prefer to leave that to moderator discretion. I'm just saying that if all the warnings are in one forum and the moderators in another forum observe solid contributions, then a deal might be struck, during the extended "Work with" period. I am even (naively?) suggesting that it could be done with the consent of the offender. Make it for an extended time, say 4+ months or so, to provide a chance for new habits to sink in.

6. The OP is not about fixing a situation that is broken. It's about making a terrific board better.


1Happily, research in the hidden lair continues.

[Lynn Bodoni]

We keep hearing that mod notes and warnings are learning tools, devices by which behaviors are to be modified. But neither notes nor warnings entail actual consequences, other than bringing one invisibly closer to whatever line across which lies suspension/ban. So the suspension is the first actual consequence a transgressing poster ever gets. And he can get it only once (with the rare exception) before banishment.

In a Utopian world perhaps people should indeed modify their behaviors based upon cues from their society, without a need for actual punishment. And indeed, most members of our community here can do exactly that. But some here, as in society as a whole, apparently require a bit more structure. Without that structure they can be pathological to society, but given an assurance of actual consequences, they (or at least many of them) can modify their behaviors and function as valuable and contributing members of that society. In my experience, most posters never get warned or even noted. Of those that do, most will require only one or two notes or warnings, they learn from it, and don't give us any more problems. A poster who requires frequent notes/warnings is quite rare.

All in all, I'd say that our system works pretty well as it is, and probably we don't need to add repeat suspensions.

[Claude Remains]

Has there ever been an instance where a poster said something so outrageous, illegal or jerkish that he was banned in one -- no suspension, no warning?

I've been there. My ban was lifted just a few hours later. Not providing a link or cite, just answering your question.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

All in all, I'd say that our system works pretty well as it is, and probably we don't need to add repeat suspensions.

How utterly amazing!

[Cheshire Human]

My suggestion is to ban everyone who's posted in this thread. Except for mods, of course....







Ooops.....

Bye, all. Nice knowing you. :D

[RickJay]

How utterly amazing!
It doesn't seem terribly amazing to 99.9% of the board's users. You might want to ask yourself why that is. Maybe it's you, not the board. What's "amazing" about it?

I cannot emphasize enough that the objective evidence clearly demonstrates that the board works well. Few people are ever warned. Few people who are warned are warned more than once in a blue moon; warnings (and thread closures where appropriate) almost always solve the problem. And the evidence strongly demonstrates that suspensions work once in awhile but usually don't.

Complicating the suspension process is, in my humble opinion (and I held this opinion before my recent appointment as moderator of one of the lesser forums) a complete, utter waste of time and a virtual guarantee of far more complaints, far more confusion over the rules, and much worse quality of moderation. Furthermore, since the avalanche-overwhelmingly-sized percentage of posters seem fine with the way the board is run, arguments to substantially change it don't carry a lot of evidential weight.

[Chronos]

Someone who doesn't get the message from a two-week suspension isn't going to get the message from a suspension of any length. And once they've demonstrated that they're not going to get the message ever, why beat around the bush?

[billfish678]

Eureka! I've got it. The problem seems to be that anything short of a banning really isnt any punishment at all (which is why I support a LONG suspension so that it at least hurts). Now the sequence is more like a bunch of finger wagging, a parking ticket, then a fatal ride in ole' sparky.

1. A serious infraction, or some significant number of minor ones in a short period of time means your susbscription is cancelled or you now have to subscribe/resubscribe to post again.

2. ???

3. Profit!

Repeat as neccessary. Heck, they could even change the motto to "banning assholes for fun and profit". Gold plated ban hammers for everyone! :)

Yeah, that would probably only attract rich assholes with free time on their hands.

Back to the pre banning suspension length. I think there are two ways to look at that. One, that some have expressed, is that bad posters won't get the message. And thinking about it that way is basically asking how long is long enough? I think another way to look at what the suspension length is to ask "How long would be too long?". Given that I can come up with several reasons why a long suspension is good and no reasons why a short one is good (or better) I think we (yeah I'm French) should err on the long side rather than the short side. It would probably only rarely "save a soul" so to speak, but I can't see how it would hurt.

[Trepa Mayfield]

Just wanted to say that I approve of both the current warning/suspension/banning policy, and the recent direction it's taken. Keep up the good work, mods!

[Stink Fish Pot]

I would be happy to see a policy where a banned poster had a one on one with an admin, and was allowed to return after 3 to 6 months. I realize it's extra work, but in many ways, some recent bans have hurt our family more than safeguarded it....IMHO. It's not like the admins aren't well paid for what they do here. I've heard those coffee cups are sterling silver.

Nah. It IS a waste of time. Let's face it. Not one recent banning has been a surprise to those that knew the history of the banned poster. Just because someone is a prolific poster doesn't mean they are either 1) intelligent or 2) have some divine right to do as they please (even if it sometimes appears that way) on the boards. I'd argue that the mods in many cases bend over backwards to keep a long-time or prolific poster around. Much longer than the board rules imply that they should. And even THEN, with rules stretched beyond the tensile strength of steel, they still can't help themselves. And for all the predicted doom for the board, the brain drain, the posters the board cannot live without, the board is still here. The posters are not missed by the vast majority of the TM. In fact, I'd argue that the absence of certain posters has made the board a better experience.

The problem I'm addressing is simply that the SD has banned way too many posters over the years who didn't warrant banning. Take me, for example--I've been warned several times, suspended once, and I'm sure despite my best intentions, I'll be banned someday, and will no longer be able to contribute whatever it is that I do contribute, permanently. But If I'd been suspended for a few weeks, then a few months, and maybe now serving a two-year (let's say) suspension, I probably wouldn't have gotten to make any more objectionable (to you) posts than I had anyway, but there's a chance I might have re-thought my bad posting habits. Maybe I would have decided that religion threads are unsafe for me in general, or politics, or interacting with certain posters. Instead, it's just a matter of time until I venture too close to the edge, and then I'm banned permanently.


This is one of the strangest posts I've read in a long time. Did you read it again before you hit the "Submit Reply" button? Seriously, you contend that if we take you as an example, your behavior might be changed if you received another suspension instead of being banned? I don't know your history, but you claim that you've been warned several times, and suspended once. And yet despite your best intentions :dubious:, you'll probably be banned someday. And your argument is that if ONLY you received another long suspension at some future date, instead of that final banning, that you'd 1) have a chance to think about your bad posting habits, and 2) you might decide to change your ways. :dubious:.

:confused: The fact that you are still posting with your history and "interesting" thought process should tell you about the leniency of the board and the mods. I suspect that if you are truly concerned about the value of your contributions and feel that many readers of this board will be deprived of reading "whatever it is that [you] do contribute":dubious:, you may want to decide to do that self-evaluation now before it's too late. I'm not sure the board could survive your banning or not. But since according to you it's only a matter of time, when it happens I'll be happy to start the timer. I'm guessing it will survive, but hey.. who knows? Here's an idea. If you really think your postings are invaluable, perhaps starting a blog would be in order. That way, those that are doomed to be deprived of your wisdom will have an alternative way to get it.

Honestly, after reading your post, I don't know how/why the mods do it.

[Irishman]

The problem I'm addressing is simply that the SD has banned way too many posters over the years who didn't warrant banning. Take me, for example--I've been warned several times, suspended once, and I'm sure despite my best intentions, I'll be banned someday, and will no longer be able to contribute whatever it is that I do contribute, permanently. But If I'd been suspended for a few weeks, then a few months, and maybe now serving a two-year (let's say) suspension, I probably wouldn't have gotten to make any more objectionable (to you) posts than I had anyway, but there's a chance I might have re-thought my bad posting habits. Maybe I would have decided that religion threads are unsafe for me in general, or politics, or interacting with certain posters. Instead, it's just a matter of time until I venture too close to the edge, and then I'm banned permanently.

This is seriously one of the most perplexing things I have seen posted. You admit to having received numerous Warnings and even been suspended in the past. You know the rules of the board, and you know that repeat suspensions are rare, and that the next step after suspension is banning. Yet somehow if the punishment process of this board had been stricter you would learn your lesson and reassess your posting style, but because the board is more lenient, you aren't going to undergo that self analysis that you admit you should? WTF?


It has cost you some good posters in the past, and will continue to cost you some good posters going forward. You don't care a damn about that.

I think it is possible to assess a poster's merits vs detractions and decide that even with some good merits, the detractions are sufficient that they shouldn't post any more. Sure, it is a loss on their good contributions, but think of all those good contributions we are missing out on because people don't know about this place. Think of all the good contributions we are missing out on because the possible contributor doesn't have internet access. Think of all the wonderful contributions we could get if only the contributors weren't dead.

The assessment of whether someone is a "good poster" or not goes on more than just the good posts. It also has to be measured with their bad posts.

[Stink Fish Pot]

This is one of the strangest posts I've read in a long time. Did you read it again before you hit the "Submit Reply" button? Seriously, you contend that if we take you as an example, your behavior might be changed if you received another suspension instead of being banned? I don't know your history, but you claim that you've been warned several times, and suspended once. And yet despite your best intentions :dubious:, you'll probably be banned someday. And your argument is that if ONLY you received another long suspension at some future date, instead of that final banning, that you'd 1) have a chance to think about your bad posting habits, and 2) you might decide to change your ways. :dubious:.

Honestly, after reading your post, I don't know how/why the mods do it.

This is seriously one of the most perplexing things I have seen posted. You admit to having received numerous Warnings and even been suspended in the past. You know the rules of the board, and you know that repeat suspensions are rare, and that the next step after suspension is banning. Yet somehow if the punishment process of this board had been stricter you would learn your lesson and reassess your posting style, but because the board is more lenient, you aren't going to undergo that self analysis that you admit you should? WTF?



Is there an echo in here? :eek: :D

[Irishman]

...ECHO...Echo...echo...echo...

Yeah, I saw that, but had already worked up on the issue and had to say my piece.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

LMK when you guys are done echoing, and I'll be glad to respond....

[Irishman]

If you respond, we might not need the echos...

[Cisco]

I think there's really no functional difference between a three-year suspension and a ban. Same goes for a one-year suspension, really.
This is an aging population. A lot of us have been here over a decade, and to us I suppose a year-long suspension would be very functionally different from a permanent ban.
There have been a lot of bannings here. Zombie threads with half of the posters banned are an ugly clue. I've had the feeling for a long time that if you have much of a personality at all it's just a matter of time before it's your turn in the barrel.

The functional equivalents of speeding tickets shouldn't get you shot.

I've felt exactly the same way for a long time, right down to :dubious:ing at all the banned users in old threads. For some reason I've always felt really bad for weirddave, who met his wife here and now can never post here again.

Every time I look in my usercp I see 3 old "infractions" - all over a year and a half old - for ridiculous, petty little things. Why do these NEVER expire?

[XT]

According to my own User CP data they are set to never expire. My guess is so they can keep track over time. IIRC, though, it's infractions that happen in close proximity that get you into real trouble...so, if you got 3 new ones in close succession, that's when you should worry, especially if they give you a time out as well.

-XT

[kunilou]

And today we learned it is possible to go from zero to banned in the space of a single thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634004).

[tomndebb]

And today we learned it is possible to go from zero to banned in the space of a single thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634004).Aaah! We've banned trolls a lot faster than that. It depends of the level of trollery.

(And maccy got our attention in several separate threads where he did not catch a Warning, but that did add to the overall level of evidence for his intentions.)

[Chimera]

"Oh, won't you
Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister
Gimme three steps toward the door?
Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister
And you'll never see me no more"

For, sure