# Bannings. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 13, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851 "2003-12-13T23:29:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/1 "2003-12-13T23:29:15Z")
A few prolific posters have been banned recently. Since they were prolific, I’m assuming they weere compliant for a good amount of their posting history before they “lost” it. Some banning decisions seem to be the result of superficially ambigious judgements. I was thinking that maybe banned users should be allowed to state their case and have a discussion. This is how I envision the process should take place. Unlike current process, where an user is banned immediately at the discretion of mods (even with prior warnings), mods should change the status from ‘Member’ to ‘Under Review’ or such. Then that user gets to participate in a single thread in the Pit, dealing with their case. The mods and the offended parties can detail their greviances. The subject is restricted to posting in that thread alone while the thread is active. If the rule is not followed, subject is banned and review thread is closed. After a certain discussion, the user is asked to state what their mistakes were and what changes they will make in their behaviour. If satisfactory, user retains membership, else gets banned. The above system is just a concept. I’m sure a workable system can be discussed and developed, if anyone’s interested. I’m advocating this only for those who have some serious participation under their belt on this board (not spammers/persistent trollers) ---
**Author:** ![imthjckaz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/imthjckaz/32/3223_2.png) [@imthjckaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imthjckaz)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2003, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/2 "2003-12-13T23:52:28Z")
There is a system. Don’t be a jerk = will not be banned. After the first warning, said poster is already under review. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/3 "2003-12-13T23:56:39Z")
Jerk is very ambigious term. It’s possible what one mod considers aggressive behaviour is being a jerk to another. And right now there isn’t a system, just a loose set of rules. The "under review’ status is perhaps a bad example, call it ‘To Be Banned’ ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/4 "2003-12-14T00:05:37Z")
Your idea is interesting, **Gyan9** , but I think you’re merely substituting the existing system via email between banned poster and the administration for one that is essentially a free-for-all trial-by-messageboard. I think the present system works well enough. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/5 "2003-12-14T00:37:41Z")
I cannot possibly see this working. This is an internet message board, not a court of law. Nor is it even a barracks-room court. If a decision seems to be superficially ambiguous, contact a Staff Member directly via e-mail. That has been the stated policy on here again and again for years now. What is the business case for abandoning that policy, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Geek\_Mecha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecae2f/32.png) [@Geek\_Mecha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Geek_Mecha)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/6 "2003-12-14T00:44:29Z")
The feeling I get is that this stems from not being able to see the process by which a poster gets banned. I think if you saw every post the mods and admins did, were privy to the discussions between them, and knew the relevant histories, you (in the editorial sense) wouldn’t be so quick to propose that banned posters be given a chance to publicly explain themselves. Most wouldn’t deserve it. ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/7 "2003-12-14T00:50:58Z")
Every “zero tolerance” system is the result of people demanding that there must be rules, there must be a system for applying them, and that that system must not only operate even-handedly, but be seen to do so, without the possibility of judgment being exercised or mercy shown. I prefer that the Straight Dope _not_ be a zero-tolerance zone. Since that implies that the mods are to be trusted to exercise intelligence in the light of experience, I do so. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/8 "2003-12-14T00:57:07Z")
Speaking as an Administrator (elsewhere), I will say that handling Board disputes that may brew - especially the ones that take weeks or months to come to a head - is a lot like sausage making. You really don’t want to see what goes into it. And since a lot of people don’t like the result either, maybe it’s more fair to call it “black pudding making” instead. Yes, “black pudding making” might be it…as it involves lots of blood, after all… ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/9 "2003-12-14T01:43:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gyan9 \* > \*\*I was thinking that maybe banned users should be allowed to state their case and have a discussion. \*\* I was thinking that maybe you shoulda posted this in the BBQ (“This is the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB”) Pit. ---
**Author:** ![porcupine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac91a4/32.png) [@porcupine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/porcupine)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/10 "2003-12-14T01:49:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gyan9 \* > **I’m sure a workable system can be discussed and developed, if anyone’s interested.** We already have a workable system. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/11 "2003-12-14T01:50:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ice Wolf \* > \*\*Your idea is interesting, **Gyan9** , but I think you’re merely substituting the existing system via email between banned poster and the administration for one that is essentially a free-for-all trial-by-messageboard. I think the present system works well enough. \*\* No offence to the mods, but how do we know? What if the poster did come around to some compromise, but a bad personal correspondence history or grudge by the mod meant the user remained banned? (Not to suggest that this does happen, since I really don’t know, but that’s the point.) > [@](#): > > _By Una Persson_ > I cannot possibly see this working. This is an internet message board, not a court of law. An internet message board for fighting ignorance, comprised of people capable of critical thought. I can’t see this turning into a free-for-all. The point is let the user have a public but limited venue to fight his/her (last) fight under certain rules and then nobody will be unsure as to what limits justify a banning. Fighting ignorance, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/12 "2003-12-14T01:52:14Z")
Most of the complaints I get about bannings via email are not “Why did you ban so-and-so? He wasn’t that bad!” Instead, I usually get a slew of letters saying “What in the hell took you so long? But thanks!” Most of the time, when I ban someone, I get a few people bitching about it on the boards, but a LOT more writing to me to thank me. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/13 "2003-12-14T01:55:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni \* > \*\*Most of the complaints I get about bannings via email are not “Why did you ban so-and-so? He wasn’t that bad!” Instead, I usually get a slew of letters saying “What in the hell took you so long? But thanks!” Most of the time, when I ban someone, I get a few people bitching about it on the boards, but a LOT more writing to me to thank me. \*\* With all due respect, I wouldn’t want to get on the bad side of a mod by bitching a lot about bannings. ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/14 "2003-12-14T01:55:54Z")
I don’t think there has ever been an unexplained and unjustified banning. There are enough hue-and-cry threads started up “Why was such-and-such banned?” to give enough transparency to the system. Stick around long enough around here, you soon see the precedents, the reasons, and the additional info behind the cover-all “Don’t be a jerk.” And the thing to remember? This is only a messageboard, people. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/15 "2003-12-14T01:59:08Z")
> [@](#): > > No offence to the mods, but how do we know? What if the poster did come around to some compromise, but a bad personal correspondence history or grudge by the mod meant the user remained banned? (Not to suggest that this does happen, since I really don’t know, but that’s the point.) Yeah, you don’t know. ANY banning is subject to review by the other mods and admins. ANY banning. Warnings are also subject to peer review. For that matter, ANY mod/admin actions are subject to scrutiny by the other mods/admins, and we do document our actions. For example, when I changed the member status of someone to Asshat, I got gently chewed out for it, as we had pretty much decided not to use custom member statuses unless we could charge money for them. The system we have works pretty well. You’re not happy because you don’t see everything, but trust me, it’s mostly not something that you WANT to see, unless you’re an interminable busybody and gossip. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/16 "2003-12-14T01:59:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gyan9 \* > \*\*No offence to the mods, but how do we know? What if the poster did come around to some compromise, but a bad personal correspondence history or grudge by the mod meant the user remained banned? (Not to suggest that this does happen, since I really don’t know, but that’s the point.) > \*\* How do we know? Are you seriously saying that having a huge discussion involving any and all people would be better than the present one? Look at some of the threads about banned people. No, go ahead; look right now. Do you see how many **pages** some of that stuff is? Pages and pages of people “discussing” the hell out of an issue that _had already been decided_. How many pages do you think we’d get for a discussion of the issue prebanning? And, like those other “discussion” threads, there’d never be an actual resolution, because Camp A would always want the person kicked off, and Camp B would always want them to stick around, because they find their posts entertaining and whatnot, and never the twain would meet. It would only end badly, like when someone from either camp had their _own_ meltdown, and then **they’d** be warned, and we’d have to have **another** discussion, and… ad infinitum! > [@](#): > > The point is let the user have a public but limited venue to fight his/her (last) fight under certain rules and then nobody will be unsure as to what limits justify a banning. Fighting ignorance, that’s all. Most people aren’t unsure, because those who have been removed from active membership were warned, AFAICT, on more than one occasion. So either they were intentionally flouting the rules or were completely clueless. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/17 "2003-12-14T02:00:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gyan9 \* > \*\*With all due respect, I wouldn’t want to get on the bad side of a mod by bitching a lot about bannings. \*\* Maybe you don’t, but there’s quite a few people that I can pretty much count on who will show up in a banning thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/18 "2003-12-14T02:00:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gyan9 \* > **A few prolific posters have been banned recently. Since they were prolific, I’m assuming they weere compliant for a good amount of their posting history before they “lost” it. Some banning decisions seem to be the result of superficially ambigious judgements.** Like the others have said, we don’t know precisely what goes on behind the scenes. But I picked this part out to note that prolific posters don’t just ‘lose’ it. Not always, anyway. It’s not like it goes ‘good good good good good bad BANNED’. Sometimes it goes ‘good kinda good kinda bad warned kinda good/bad good kinda bad warned kinda good/bad kinda bad bad warned really bad BANNED’. Posters often get all the chances they really need. ---
**Author:** ![imthjckaz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/imthjckaz/32/3223_2.png) [@imthjckaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/imthjckaz)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/19 "2003-12-14T02:02:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ice Wolf \* > \*\*And the thing to remember? This is only a messageboard, people. \*\* Blasphemer!! Stone the infidel!!! ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851/20 "2003-12-14T02:05:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by imthjckaz \* > \*\*Blasphemer!! > > Stone the infidel!!! \*\* Well, okay, if you see things _that_ way … 😃 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bannings/218851.md?page=2)