I read this in an existing thread which I can’t find right now, also loosely inspired by the immortal “Too Stupid for Words” tag. I thought it was a pretty good idea when I first read it, so I’m asking it again here. Appologies for not giving proper credit to the original poster.
Can “BANNED” under a user’s name be more descriptive? I imagine it would keep down the “why was so-and-so banned” threads. Example:
DippityDoo
TROLL
FORMERAGENT
SOCK
Barking Spider
RETURNING TROLL
Chas. E.
JERK
Or, maybe you could add a tooltip to the word “BANNED” such that a simple mouse over would produce a tooltip that said “Sock”, “Troll”, etc? Or add an hlink such that a mouse down would link to the offending post?
However, adding more customized titles might only encourage the trolls. To the end of reducing the attention given to them, I rather like the sometimes-employed tactic of not putting any notice at all - banning them, but letting the status say “Member”.
The tooltip would have to be javascripted, and either the tooltip or the link might require more customization than they want to do. It’s not just the link/tooltip - the information has to reside somewhere.
If people really MUST have more information, why don’t you add a whole explanation to the biography in the banned user’s profile, with a suitable note that it has been edited? I don’t know if a banned user can still see their profile or not - if they are completely prevented from logging in, as opposed to just being prevented from posting, they couldn’t, since you have to be logged in to view profiles. In they can’t get to it, you wouldn’t be giving any extra gratification to the bannee, and members could look up the dirt.
Well, banning just revokes posting priviledges, IIRC, but changing their passwords (which the administrators can do) would allow editing of profiles. However, the administration in the past has been reluctant to give trolls and other assorted jerks even the minimal attention of customized status lines.
Lynn used to stick some rather amusing things there from time to time when banning various morons. The result was threads of congratulations directed at her, and general mocking of the banned, but this was really just more attention payed to the undeserving, so the practice was stopped.
Having worked for some years at an ISP, and having friends in the “Abuse” department, I can say that people who are denied access usually aren’t just a little over the line. They’re WAY over the line. Unbelieveably over the line. Abusive and hostile. They’re so offensive that the administrators have no fear their banishment is defensible, and they don’t bother consulting with the legal department, because there’s no question of being in the right.
It may be different for this board, but I doubt it.
As for dignifying abusers with a description of their actions, although I admit I’d like to hear the purient details, it probably boils down to: these people have behaved outrageously, and are resolutely defiant about their actions. Okay, I don’t really need to know more. Delete their messages, and ignore them.
Speculating on the motivations of banned posters has the potential of bringing out of hiding some of the loonies and obsessives, so I think I’ll close this thread now.
