# A proposed policy on the reasons for banning members **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 19, 2019, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525 "2019-09-19T21:11:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/1 "2019-09-19T21:11:51Z")
To the members of the board and the administration thereof, I suggest the administration adopt an official policy of making the general reasons why a member is banned promptly available after such banning takes place. The rationale need not necessarily be listed in a new thread within this subforum; it could also be in a public response to the offending post, or in case of new members who have contributed little it could be a note on their profile page. Neither must the rationale give too much explicit detail for all bannable offenses: I do not need to know which member is a sock of, only that they were banned for being a sock. Neither is any sort of rationale necessary for a member who has made absolutely no contribution to the board, nor a member whose only contributions have been removed pursuant to other rules and common sense. I ask for such changes because as a relatively new member and a skeptical person in general, I would like to know why one of the people I debate with suddenly disappears, as with **kirkpatrick**. If he committed some sort of offense, I should hope to learn why so as to avoid the same fate; if he committed no offense, I should raise my own voice on his behalf and possibly leave the board if I fail; if he committed a silent offense such as _socking_, as was actually the case, I should hope to learn the same to quell my own conscience. Being a new member, and perhaps due to my own personality, I simply do not trust the administration to be fair without some form of public oversight as to its actions. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/2 "2019-09-19T21:17:12Z")
If you don’t trust the mods, why would you trust their stated reasons? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/3 "2019-09-19T21:24:40Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > If you don’t trust the mods, why would you trust their stated reasons? With the exception of socking, I should be able to assess their judgement myself. Actually… Maybe you have a point. That’s disconcerting. I can’t currently articulate why, but I still would like to see the reason somewhere. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/4 "2019-09-19T21:28:42Z")
History shows us that a banning with no explanation is always of a sock, troll, or spammer. That’s to prevent them from garnering any more attention or publicity. At least that’s what the mods say. To my knowledge, there’s never been a quiet banning of a member who wasn’t one of these categories. If there had been then surely we would hear the screams, if only from the parasite boards that obsess over the Dope’s behavior. Would it satisfy members’ curiosity to have a locked announcement that Dastardly Don was banned for being a sock? Undoubtedly. It’s been asked for many times before, and the answer always was no. Maybe this time, in the new regime, that answer will change. I wouldn’t place any money on it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/5 "2019-09-19T21:37:06Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I suggest the administration adopt an official policy of making the general reasons why a member is banned promptly available after such banning takes place. We already have that policy. The only exceptions are spammers, for obvious reasons, and socks. The sock exception is because we have a history of people who find this board, get banned, and go on to make (I am not exaggerating) thousands of sock accounts to try to get back in. Years back, it was decided that the best way to handle this was to disappear socks and not comment on them, in the hopes that their inability to make any sort of an impact on the boards, including an explanatory ATMB thread, would discourage them from continuing to try to post. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/6 "2019-09-19T21:43:50Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > History shows us that a banning with no explanation is always of a sock, troll, or spammer. That’s to prevent them from garnering any more attention or publicity. At least that’s what the mods say. To my knowledge, there’s never been a quiet banning of a member who wasn’t one of these categories. If there had been then surely we would hear the screams, if only from the parasite boards that obsess over the Dope’s behavior. > > Would it satisfy members’ curiosity to have a locked announcement that Dastardly Don was banned for being a sock? Undoubtedly. It’s been asked for many times before, and the answer always was no. Maybe this time, in the new regime, that answer will change. I wouldn’t place any money on it. How about just a note in their profile? Right at the top of the “About me” section, “BANNED FOR SOCKING ~[moderator name] 09/19/2019” That wouldn’t afford the banned member any more attention. And being a relatively new member, I do not have the benefit of looking back at history to find an administrative policy. If there is an existing policy I ask that it be moved to the FAQ. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/7 "2019-09-19T21:46:14Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > And being a relatively new member, I do not have the benefit of looking back at history to find an administrative policy. If there is an existing policy I ask that it be moved to the FAQ. From the FAQ: > [@](#): > > Q: What happened to a particular thread or poster? They seem to be missing? > A: If you are curious about a particular thread or poster, please PM a moderator. In probably 95% of such cases, the thread or poster that vanished was an attention-seeker – a spammer , sock, or troll. They’re out for any attention, even negative attention, and we don’t want to give it to them. They disappear, as do their posts. And as do posts about them. Please do not post a public inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/8 "2019-09-19T21:46:36Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > We already have that policy. The only exceptions are spammers, for obvious reasons, and socks. The sock exception is because we have a history of people who find this board, get banned, and go on to make (I am not exaggerating) thousands of sock accounts to try to get back in. Years back, it was decided that the best way to handle this was to disappear socks and not comment on them, in the hopes that their inability to make any sort of an impact on the boards, including an explanatory ATMB thread, would discourage them from continuing to try to post. That’s reassuring. 🙂 I do ask that you move this somewhere into the FAQ. Being a relatively new member, I didn’t realize that was how you do things until pointed out in this and the previous thread. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/9 "2019-09-19T21:53:53Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > From the FAQ: I remember reading that, but I didn’t think it applied to banned posters (with still-visible posts and profiles). It didn’t even come to my mind. Sorry all. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/10 "2019-09-19T21:59:22Z")
The poster in question takes a slightly different fact pattern than what we usually see. Typically we’ll just disappear the posts/threads or lock them. But in the most recent case, there were many, and they were getting active responses so we didn’t think curtailing those conversations was necessary. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/11 "2019-09-19T23:04:29Z")
**kirkpatrick** was banned? When? I really liked that guy. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/12 "2019-09-20T00:36:25Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > With the exception of socking, I should be able to assess their judgement myself. Without wanting to sound too much like a bureaucrat, we have moderators for the purpose of watching over the boards, and issuing warnings and even bannings when appropriate. If TPTB wanted to make this board a democracy, I’m sure a minor adjustment in software would accomplish it. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/13 "2019-09-20T00:50:26Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > **kirkpatrick** was banned? When? I really liked that guy. **kirkrapine**? I’m confused about identities now. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/14 "2019-09-20T00:50:28Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > **kirkpatrick** was banned? When? I really liked that guy. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/15 "2019-09-20T01:21:12Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > :dubious: _Whoosh!_ > [@Max\_S](#): > > I ask for such changes because as a relatively new member and a skeptical person in general, I would like to know why one of the people I debate with suddenly disappears, as with **kirkpatrick**. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/16 "2019-09-20T02:01:21Z")
I’m not sure what history shows us; some of these moves are made almost Tonton Macoute disappeared. With most things here I can say what I think of the Mods (overall pretty good) but for these types of calls its harder for me to say. I like the idea of something on their profile page or a locked thread simply listing them as they go off to the corn field. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/17 "2019-09-20T02:48:29Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > History shows us that a banning with no explanation is always of a sock, troll, or spammer. That’s to prevent them from garnering any more attention or publicity. At least that’s what the mods say. To my knowledge, there’s never been a quiet banning of a member who wasn’t one of these categories. If there had been then surely we would hear the screams, if only from the parasite boards that obsess over the Dope’s behavior. > > Would it satisfy members’ curiosity to have a locked announcement that Dastardly Don was banned for being a sock? Undoubtedly. It’s been asked for many times before, and the answer always was no. Maybe this time, in the new regime, that answer will change. I wouldn’t place any money on it. We’re talking about kirkrapine. He (or she if that was the case) wasn’t a spammer. Was he a troll? I didn’t feel he was. He had opinions and some people disagreed with them. But I didn’t see him post anything outrageous. So was he a sock? I guess that’s the likeliest explanation but I was surprised. Kirkrapine never seemed like a sock to me; he didn’t seem to come here with any grudges and he didn’t refer to old board issues. If he was a sock, he was really on top of his game. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/18 "2019-09-20T03:16:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So was he a sock? I guess that’s the likeliest explanation but I was surprised. Kirkrapine never seemed like a sock to me; he didn’t seem to come here with any grudges and he didn’t refer to old board issues. If he was a sock, he was really on top of his game. I see this has been confirmed in another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/19 "2019-09-20T03:24:59Z")
Having had ban powers on other sites, I can say that a quiet banning has the powerful effect of denying a person the attention that spurred the behavior in the first place. It’s pretty much a mod version of Don’t Feed the Trolls. A person who gets banned and sees their banning get announced is encouraged to do it again and again via socks. A person who is quietly banned without comment gets bored and finds something else to do eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525/20 "2019-09-20T05:09:55Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > **kirkpatrick** was banned? When? I really liked that guy. Ack, mixed up the name with something from work. ~Max [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-proposed-policy-on-the-reasons-for-banning-members/840525.md?page=2)