# Three steps to the ban **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 23, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833 "2011-11-23T02:46:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/1 "2011-11-23T02:46:18Z")
First you are warned. Then you are suspended. Then you are banned. Should we add additional intermediate steps? I perceive no injustice under the status quo, but I do question whether we could improve the board incrementally. Needscoffee suggests that we permit multiple suspensions, in a rinse and repeat cycle. > [@Gonzomax's banning](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gonzomaxs-banning/603824/8): > > I can see your side, but the offenses pointed to in the banning thread were so lame, it’s almost laughable. I’d have just suspended him again, for longer this time. Banning is for jerks, and none of those offenses reached the jerk threshold. I would say that the 2nd suspension might be for 3 months. Some people might benefit from an extended breather. Giraffe suggests forum-specific bannings: maybe some people are just bad matches for certain forums. > [@Let's implement The Box](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-implement-the-box/603160/8): > > …I do think restricted forum posting is a very useful tool that could be used to improve rule enforcement. For one, it would allow mods to create consequences for behavior that is occasionally annoying without really being deserving of lifetime banishment. Getting too feisty in GD, posting too many trivial threads in GQ, threadshitting in CS: people might think a lot more carefully about stuff like that if they couldn’t post in those forums for a day/week/month. (Trolls and spammers you still just ban as always.) > > I think it would be interesting to create a usergroup that only has posting access in ATMB and The Pit. Use the infraction system to create shortcuts to move people into that usergroup for short, fixed amounts of time (e.g. 1 hour, 8 hours, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month). Give individual mods full discretion over the 1-24 hour options, get some consensus for the longer ones. There would then exist a middle ground between “no, really, please stop it, I’m serious this time!” and “begone FOREVER!” > > The mods would be able to control their forums in a more nuanced way, and the board would lose less otherwise-excellent posters… I think it would be win-win. I’m not asking for an official statement from TPTB: I’m hoping for a discussion. I recognize that the track record with repeated trials for problem posters isn’t that great. I still prefer the single-suspension policy over what preceded it, if only because it’s reassuring to those who haven’t followed the particular drama in detail. But I wonder whether adding additional steps might help incrementally, without putting an undue burden on the staff. Like most threads in ATMB, GQ, GD, IMHO…, this one is unlikely to settle anything. But it might at least succeed in outlining some of the main issues. For reference, [here’s a partial list of recently banned posters](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14483698&postcount=56). And here are some of [my arguments against](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14475928&postcount=15) such a change. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/2 "2011-11-23T02:55:10Z")
I wouldnt oppose something like warnings, then eventually a few month suspension, then something like 6 months to a year for the next suspension, then perhaps 3 years for the next one. Then a final banning. Though I’d certainly want a very strict enforcement of the posters proper behavior after the 6 month suspension. Such a system would probably only “save” a very low number of problem posters that with great time can change their behavior though. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/3 "2011-11-23T02:57:29Z")
I think it’s always a bit of a shock when a well known poster is banned, even if youve seen that person get warnings and mod spankings (damn iPad spell checker) for months or years. It seems, well, wrong somehow, even if you never really liked the poster in question and even thought they were an idiot (when I get banned, someone link to this post and smile, kk?:p). You expect newbies, especially one off drive by types to get banned, and spammer idiot who come in with some YouTube video we all really must see, but when it’s someone you’ve ‘known’ and fought with, or even been on their side in a debate, well…you almost have a relationship with that person, and inside you hate to see them go. Even if they were an idiot, or an asshole. Specifically, IMHO the mods bend over backwards for the older, more well known posters. They give them plenty of chances to change. And assuming my personal experience with them is any indication, they send plenty of private messages and emails to give additional weight to what they are trying to say…namely to back off and straighten up, that you are on thin ice. So, I don’t think we need more strikes, personally. Them mods just need to do what they are doing, and use the ban hammer of doom judiciously, and only after due consideration. Jmho…mmv… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/4 "2011-11-23T03:27:23Z")
It’s really not hard to not get banned, if you don’t want to get banned. I don’t see how making it harder would make much of a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/5 "2011-11-23T03:39:46Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > then perhaps 3 years for the next one. I think there’s really no functional difference between a three-year suspension and a ban. Same goes for a one-year suspension, really. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/6 "2011-11-23T03:41:12Z")
Unless you are a spammer it’s a long road to banning. The idea about warnings in the first place is that the user being warned will change their behavior. And mostly people DO listen, and learn, and change. In fact it’s a tiny percentage of our users who get warned in the first place. And the overwhelming majority of those users, they get that one warning and they change their behavior, and that’s the end of it, and we never have problems with them again. Problem solved. Then we have people who don’t listen, and don’t learn, or don’t care to, or can’t help themselves, or whatever. And we try to get their attention, and they just keep going. It takes a while to get to the suspension place – and that’s the next to the last stop. If the user is not going to change after all that, nothing else is going to make them change. And so that’s the end of it. There’s no reason to subject the good users of this site to more of the same from those who don’t want to follow the rules or are incapable of following the rules. You deserve a better experience than to have to put up with that. It also saddens me to read that some of you think banning is inevitable. I can’t imagine why you would think that way. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/7 "2011-11-23T03:55:59Z")
Note: In the instance I was quoted about in the OP, I suggested suspending again largely because the last suspension was described as being early last year, over a year and a half ago. I don’t hang out in GD where most of the offenses occurred, though, and have little knowledge of his history other than what Marley23 linked to in his [banning notice](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=632294). ---
**Author:** ![Ostrya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/35a633/32.png) [@Ostrya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ostrya)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/8 "2011-11-23T04:15:30Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > It also saddens me to read that some of you think banning is inevitable. I can’t imagine why you would think that way. The exchange that got gonzomax banned was not worthy of a banning, it wasn’t worthy of any moderation, imo. This staff stunt blatantly emphasizes how subjectively this board is run, a harmless exchange can mean the difference between being able to post here and losing that privilege altogether. When longtime contributing, harmless posters are being banned, how can this kind of strict subjective policing be a good thing for place? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/9 "2011-11-23T04:28:42Z")
Horseshit. You don’t get banned out of the blue. Gonzo didn’t just suddenly get banned for innocuous posts. He had a history of butting heads and not following mod warnings and not changing his posting style. I’ll save the other things I think about him and his posting style for the pit or to myself since he’s gone now, but to try and say his banning was in any way random is just bullshit and revisionist history. Same for Dio. I liked DtC, even if I rarely agreed with him, but it was militantly unsurprising when he got banned. -XT ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/10 "2011-11-23T04:33:27Z")
“The straw that breaks the camel’s back.” Sometimes the final offense is something that perhaps we would counsel someone else for. But when it’s part of an overall pattern of bad behavior, enough is too much. There’s negative consequences to cumulative bad behavior and to give someone with a longstanding pattern of misbehavior the same consideration we would to a first-time offender is no way to run things. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/11 "2011-11-23T04:36:05Z")
You haven’t read anything the mods said, it seems **tlc** ; it is clear that they gave **Gonzo** plenty of rope, and he just used it to hang himself (i.e. it wasn’t just this “one” instance). It’s pretty obvious to me that some people’s posting styles are compulsive, and in such cases they rarely change their spots, and deserve their final reward. ---
**Author:** ![Ostrya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/35a633/32.png) [@Ostrya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ostrya)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/12 "2011-11-23T05:05:10Z")
I have read what the mods said, an example of what I am talking about is this recent exchange beginning with mhendo. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14376464&postcount=500](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14376464&postcount=500) So Gonzomax responds with this. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14376507&postcount=501](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14376507&postcount=501) Hardly anything to consider misbehavior on a message board, yet gonzomax gets a warning. The comment “if you think it is meaningless, you do not know baseball”, in the context of the discussion doesn’t seem out of line. Yet someone thought it was. On the other hand “…your clueless parroting of phrases” was not deemed out of line. This is the kind of subjectivity I am talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/13 "2011-11-23T06:44:39Z")
I think the system we have now is pretty good, although I want to point out that it’s informal and I don’t see a lot of upside in formalizing it. For people who have been here a while, we almost always suspend them before we ban. Even though a suspension is officially supposed to be your last chance, people who are back from suspension usually get multiple warnings before they’re banned because we don’t want to rush to pull the plug on people. We give people a lot of chances to show they’re improving. I don’t think adding extra steps is necessary and I don’t see it doing much good. Very long suspensions are pretty much de facto bans anyway. Whether you say the poster is banned forever or suspended for a year, the underlying fact is that the poster is evidently unable to follow the rules here. And if you have a poster who _does_ stick around after that many suspensions, I think that system gives them chance after chance to act up - something they have already done many times - while making it tougher for us to ban them once it’s clear things are not working out. Say we have a poster who’s been warned many times and is suspended for a month. He comes back and gets warned again, which means he could be disrupting a thread or goading someone into insulting him. Then he gets suspended for three months and comes back and does the same thing. That’s another thread thrown off track and another possible warning to another poster. Then he gets a six-month suspension, and after that… What is the SDMB gaining from this? Additional threads get derailed, multiple people may get warned, and all of that for someone who has been warned 10 or 20 times, which is more than enough times to know they’re not a good fit for the board. As far as subjectivity goes, yes, moderating is subjective. There are a lot of judgment calls, and I don’t think anybody has said otherwise. It’s possible that some of **gonzomax** ’s warnings could have been mod notes instead, although if you go down that road I think you have to acknowledge that some of the many mod notes he received could have been warnings instead. As it is, some of his warnings were not exactly borderline: > [@Why so Little Hate for the US Soldiers?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-little-hate-for-the-us-soldiers/587727/279): > > Quit being a jerk. > [@SDMB liberals...who do you want in the next Presidential election?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-liberals-who-do-you-want-in-the-next-presidential-election/590302/135): > > He makes drive by insults, but is unable to respond to threads properly. you will get used to it and in time, see it as a childish and sometimes humorous aside. But largely irrelevant bloviating. > [@You have 100 Blame Points. Assign them to those responsible for the financial meltdown.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-have-100-blame-points-assign-them-to-those-responsible-for-the-financial-meltdown/600241/66): > > MCNIGHT you are a joke. > [@Why is the Left so afraid of nuclear power?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-left-so-afraid-of-nuclear-power/529708/379): > > I actually put XT on my ignore list for several months due to his pettiness. > [@Ask the incarcerated former lawyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-incarcerated-former-lawyer/527328/26): > > But that big an asshole could smuggle in a Samurai sword. > [@Father of 9/11 victim fights to have "Murdered by Muslim Terrorists" inscribed on son's memorial](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/father-of-9-11-victim-fights-to-have-murdered-by-muslim-terrorists-inscribed-on-sons-memorial/516414/66): > > In the future don’t be such a butthead. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/14 "2011-11-23T07:16:34Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Horseshit. You don’t get banned out of the blue. Gonzo didn’t just suddenly get banned for innocuous posts. He had a history of butting heads and not following mod warnings and not changing his posting style… to try and say his banning was in any way random is just bullshit and revisionist history. Well if I ever do that, assume it’s an attempt at hilarity. I guess I should say explicitly that I personally don’t have a problem with the gonzo banning. > [@](#): > > Same for Dio. I liked DtC, even if I rarely agreed with him, but it was militantly unsurprising when he got banned. DtC’s ~3 page post-ban requiem was full of complaints about the guy – but nobody claimed that he insulted people too much, which is what he got banned for. The things that people did complain about were, “Putting things in the worst possible way” - and other nonbannable/nonwarnable offenses.[sup]1[/sup] All that said, there’s no outrage here, as he was given adequate opportunities to straighten up and fly right. The suspension technique provides that sort of demonstration. So if there’s no injustice, we’re in the land of cost/benefit analysis and applied criminology. They say that speed and certainty of punishment matter more than severity. I wonder whether a greater use of the proverbial penalty box vis a vis Giraffe’s recommendation for forum suspension would improve the climate here, or whether it would just piss people off. Ah, who am I kidding? _All_ changes to board policy piss people off… That said, we don’t _have_ to use the Multiple Warning/Final Suspension Warning/You’re Out! system. We could hand out 1 week suspensions like candy (though that would tend to disrupt conversations). We could try the rinse and repeat method for posters with both demonstrably good behavior and demonstrably bad behavior. There are options. Ookay, on preview: > [@Marley](#): > > I think the system we have now is pretty good… > > Very long suspensions are pretty much de facto bans anyway. Whether you say the poster is banned forever or suspended for a year, the underlying fact is that the poster is evidently unable to follow the rules here. And if you have a poster who does stick around after that many suspensions, I think that system gives them chance after chance to act up - something they have already done many times - while making it tougher for us to ban them once it’s clear things are not working out. 1. Well I was thinking of 3-4 month bans, followed by 6 months, followed by 8 month, etc. I imagined that some might wander away on their own or sharply reduce their posting level if given 4 months of cold turkey. 2. “…once it’s clear things are not working out.” If bannings only occur under circumstances where the consensus is that there’s no way the poster is going to straighten up… well frankly I trust mod discretion at this board. Giraffe thought there might be scope for a wider pallet of punishment but, but then he would, wouldn’t he? BWHAHAHAAH… (I kid.) 1. If somebody is terrible in IMHO but well behaved in GD and GQ, might there be an obvious solution, jointly agreed to by poster and mod? Admittedly, this situation might be a nonexistent one. And for many or most problem posters we should anticipate the possibility of migrating bad behavior. 2. Thank you Tuba and Marley for your comments. I would hope that if you do spot deficiencies in the current system that you consider alternatives, which I readily admit are far from obvious or easily implemented without drama. [sup]1[/sup]That’s not true. Yes it is. No it isn’t. Yes it is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/15 "2011-11-23T14:08:36Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > It’s really not hard to not get banned, if you don’t want to get banned. I don’t see how making it harder would make much of a difference. Exactly. You get plenty of mod notes, you get quite a few official warnings, you get a suspension, and then you get some more warnings. What’s so hard about avoiding the final blow, if you actually have any intention of following the rules in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/16 "2011-11-23T14:23:05Z")
It would show understanding, both of the subjective nature of most warnings and of the power to mete them out, to institute an incremental length of suspensions, the final one being a virtual banning (i.e., three or five years). First one is a day, next one is a week, one after that three weeks, after that, two months, after that five months, etc., with a generous provision for appealing each warning. That way, few people could claim that it was being done out of pique, or on a personal basis, or anything of that sort. Now it just seems like a kangaroo court to me… ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/17 "2011-11-23T15:02:24Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > First one is a day, next one is a week, one after that three weeks, after that, two months, after that five months, etc., with a generous provision for appealing each warning. IMO, that’s a silly and counterproductive proposal. It’s not a court of law, or nursery school. If it gets to suspension you’re on your last leg; it doesn’t need to be more complex than that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/18 "2011-11-23T15:04:22Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > It would show understanding, both of the subjective nature of most warnings and of the power to mete them out, to institute an incremental length of suspensions, the final one being a virtual banning (i.e., three or five years). First one is a day, next one is a week, one after that three weeks, after that, two months, after that five months, etc., with a generous provision for appealing each warning. That way, few people could claim that it was being done out of pique, or on a personal basis, or anything of that sort. Now it just seems like a kangaroo court to me… Way too much work for the mods. Don’t want to get banned? Don’t break the rules repeatedly. Seems pretty simple. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/19 "2011-11-23T15:26:48Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > IMO, that’s a silly and counterproductive proposal. It’s not a court of law, or nursery school. If it gets to suspension you’re on your last leg; it doesn’t need to be more complex than that. And it’s not like banning automatically means one has to leave forever. Granted, those who have been reinstated typically didn’t last very long. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833/20 "2011-11-23T15:57:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Way too much work for the mods. Don’t want to get banned? Don’t break the rules repeatedly. Seems pretty simple. Yes, heaven forbid the mods do work. This principle, “the mods’ convenience before all other considerations,” seems pretty well entrenched around here, I’ll concede that. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-steps-to-the-ban/603833.md?page=2)