When a MOD gives a slap down to an unruly poster and says something to the effect of: “You’ve been warned about this multiple times before. I’ll be discussing your future posting privileges’ with the rest of the staff.”
So what’s that conversation like? Is there an honor amongst MODs? When one MOD wants to lower the hammer down on somebody, does the rest of the staff fall in line out of mutual respect?
Or is there an actual debate? And have those debates ever became heated?
FTR, I’m not judging one way or the other. I think you guys do a fine job WRT banishment.
Unless you guys are thinking about banning me. In that case, to hell with you guys!
Generally, it’s just a discussion. The mod who wants to ban says something like “Poster X has collected these violations, and was Warned here, here, and here. Poster was suspended for this amount of time for this offense.” Other mods chime in with their own opinions, pro and con, and bring up whatever factors are relevant. We sometimes all feel the same way about a poster, sometimes there’s some disagreement. Sometimes there’s a few jokes.
As a group, we try to determine whether this poster is willing and able to shape up. If a poster keeps getting Warned for the same behavior, then usually we agree to a suspension first. If the poster has already had a suspension, but continues to exhibit the same undesirable behavior, then we conclude that the person isn’t going to change, and another suspension probably won’t do any good, so it’s banhammer time.
Spammers don’t get any discussion at all. They get nuked by the first person who sees a spam post. There’s also a couple of one trick ponies who get nuked from orbit whenever they appear.
We also try to keep each other informed of possible problem threads and entertaining threads.
To add to Lynn’s comments: there is often disagreement. Ultimately, most decisions are unanimous (at least, amongst those who comment; often a mod who has had no personal experience with the suspect refrains from comment.) Upon rare occasions, there will be one vote opposing with N votes favoring a ban, and such person usually then agrees. We’ve never had a situation (that I can recall in all me years) where a moderator strongly opposed a ban, but it was done anyhow.
Bottom line: aside from spammers and the like, no poster is banned without serious, multiple warnings and multiple opportunities to reform behavior.
As others have said, we have conventions in place so that the suspension or banning of a regular poster (that is, a non-spammer, sock, or troll) is not under the control or undue influence of a single moderator. Generally, anyone who is proposed for sanctions already has such a strong documented record for misbehavior that we are all in agreement. Occasionally there is some disagreement, in which case the discussion may continue for some time. Sometimes a mod may take a devil’s advocate position. But overall, our decisions are by consensus. If there continues to be strong disagreement after discussion, no action is taken.
We try to be conscientious so decisions are not made on the basis of personal animosity. In particular, if all or most of a poster’s warnings have been from a single mod, that mod will take care to have the case reviewed by others who may not have had direct interactions.
Can a banned poster still post? I’ve seen posts that say “BANNED” under the poster’s name. Are they banned or are they being silly? Thanks for the info. I, too, think you all do a great job.
No. When a poster’s usergroup is changed (e.g. from “Guest” to “BANNED”), it changes retroactively on all his previous posts. He’ll be listed as “BANNED” on all his posts from the beginning.
