Can we adjust banning policy?

Can we get rid of the insta-ban for anything but spam and socks? In other words, any initial banning would be a 7 day ban, with any repeat behavior after return, if within some defined span (a year?) leading to permanent ban?

Also, can we as a community please stop calling for the ban if anyone, even assholes? Report posts, send pm’s to mods laying out your arguments for a ban if you must, but let’s please stop calling for the banning of individual posters.

…if you are referring to my thread: you will note that I specifically didn’t call for the banning of Elmore. That isn’t the point of the thread, and I’ve specifically said that I do not want Elmore banned.

I am not a mod, but I don’t see a reason for taking away tools from them. They usually are good at working with posters, including giving suspensions.

How frequently has the instant ban been used? Almost all of the posters that have been banned that I can think of have had frequent warnings or long-time issues.

I wasn’t referring to your thread, I hadn’t seen it yet. I was referring to some instances in the recent past where people were specifically asking for bannings.

I am very pleased with the moderating on this board, and don’t want to take any tools away. What I’m looking for is a change in policy specifically to make banning as rare as possible. Over time, we have changed what is and isn’t ok here, and appropriately so. I think we would benefit from a decision as a community to make banning even more of a last resort. There is no way back from banning. I think at least some of the ones banned might have reconsidered their actions after a just-shy-of-permaban event. Maybe most still won’t, but then at least we tried. I really would like to make every effort to preserve some of the more unique voices - many of which unfortunately come with objectionable behavior. Maybe I’m a sucker for redemption stories. But what would we really lose by making a per a-ban only happen after some version of time-out? In many cases, it already goes like that - I’d just like it to become policy.

There’s one poster with 9 warnings (and I think he was suspended once) and they haven’t gotten rid of him yet, so…yeah. It’s not a tool the mods use often.

See previous thread (Proposal: Long Time Members Must Be Suspended Before They Can Be Banned):

Past tense: yes, like that, except for all (non spam, non sock) posters. There should be no difference just because you found a home here sooner rather than later.

Your first two sentences seem to contradict each other.

I believe they’ve tried letting folks who have been banned back into the fold, and they just get banned again.

Seriously, it’s pretty damn hard to get banned here. You have to seriously work at abusing other posters to get that sort of punishment. If you actually provide engaging conversation along with the abuse, they take even longer to bring out the banhammer.

While it’s laudable to want to preserve every voice possible, people who abuse other posters chase away voices. We don’t get a BANNED written on their old posts, they just fade away, never to be heard from again. To quote one of the great philosophers of our time

Well, regarding Dalton, if your only tool is a kick, then every problem looks like a butt.

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. The guidelines (not policy or rules) around suspension/banning work fine for the range of problems the mods encounter. When your main rule is “Don’t be a jerk” your enforcement policies have to be equally flexible.

The moderators here take a ludicrously long time to ban anyone. That’s a deliberate decision and generally works out fine, but asking for the banning policy to be MPRE lenient is ridiculous. If anything they should be banning more people, not less.

I don’t think so. The moderating is applying rules and policy, which our team does excellently well, and judiciously to boot. Asking for a change in policy does not in any way reflect on their efforts, it asks for these efforts to be applied slightly differently. ( and in fact asks for what is already common practice for most cases to become codified and applied to all)

Your recommendation of a temporary ban and then a permanent ban if the behavior returns is functionally what the standard is now, except the temporary ban is called a suspension.

For those most part, there is a system of warnings, typically followed by suspensions (sometimes of varying or increasing length), and then a ban. At times when posters have escalated along this path, they have reached out and we had discussion to clarify the situation. Other times we’ve reached out and have been rebuffed.

There’s only a few categories where we do instant bans. Socking, spam, threats, and trolls. Even the last has some leeway in that we do issue warnings for trolling behavior which doesn’t necessarily mean that the poster themself is a troll.

It seems like what you are asking for is an elimination of the last category, so that trolls wouldn’t be an instaban. Believe it or not, we have posters who register whose only purpose is to curse everyone out, to launch into racial epithets, to be psychotic. They usually get banned after 1 or 2 posts and no one sees their offerings. Those people are trolls too which we ban on sight.

It’s very rare that people who are banned are surprised. We do typically go through a process in hopes that people can modify behavior. So while I agree it’s a good idea to stick to process generally, in certain circumstances we can and do leaprfrog the process because the situation calls for it.

I agree. They don’t.

The first sentence says he doesn’t want to take any tools away, but the second sentence seems to indicate that he wants one tool, the ability to instaban trolls, taken away.

But every night all the men would come around and lay their money down.

Just don’t try to sell any bottles of Dr. Good here.