I think the only category of people to consider allowing back are those who were otherwise-considerate posters, but who created 2nd accounts back when we were pay to post.
Let’s say we let a bunch of them back, and they start acting up and get banned again.
If even one poster in good standing leaves out of exasperation (or just because they no longer feel the boards are worth engaging with) during that “let’s see if they’re still awful” period, then ‘real harm’ has indeed been done.
Then we can have a banned ban amnesty poster ban amnesty.
It’ll be ban amnesty all the way down!
I believe there is also a category of banned dopers who once were good, then broke bad. In many cases this can probably be attributed to episodic bad things going on in their real lives. People often act belligerently when they are under a great deal of stress. Step on a friendly cat’s tail and see what I mean.
I think that’s a stretch. For one thing, I don’t believe there would be hoards of banned members pouring back once the floodgate’s released. I could see maybe a couple, perhaps a few.
For another thing, you can always mute someone, or simply scroll past their posts for the short time they are here before being re-banned (assuming they warrant banning).
Respectfully, I don’t follow this at all.
You mention a current good poster currently thinking of leaving over bullying, yet bullying is exactly what most bannees were banned for. Reinstating the banned bullies will help that poster or the rest of us how?
As the USA has gotten a lot more assholic in the last 20 years with much “credit” due to the prominent asshole-in-chief, a lot of people have real trouble not emulating the jerks they see on their one-POV TV. More of that is not helpful.
I agree that in many ways the Dope has lost some of the ribald snark it (and I) used to enjoy. Sometimes it feels a little too “kid-safe” for my true tastes. The problem is, in this assholic era, the slope from here to immoderate assholic Hell is particularly steep and well-greased. So we need to stand well back from the edge. And as @MrDibble so ably says up above, we actually need to run off a few more trouble-makers right now and get further back from the edge.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to out a current (or former) member, so I’ll speak generally.
Consider someone who has no (or little) history of being an asshole, but resorts to assholery under duress after being piled on greatly. Perhaps they are concomitantly under a great deal of stress IRL. Many people under these conditions snap. These kind of Dopers exist (or existed) and have committed suicide-by-mod. They are acute assholes, not chronic assholes. Acute assholes should be be forgiven if they resort to being non-assholes.
Can’t think who you mean - got a link?
So this was in DMs?
No. As I said above, it’s not my place to out someone. But I can think of a few people over the years to which this applies.
OK. I’ll buy the concept of acute jerkishness in a chronically nice person. I’ve certainly had high stress periods in my life where I’m not myself. Some of which results in snappishness.
IANA expert on the bannings of various individuals. if there is / was an example of an acute asshole, and the mods and board policy were willing to try again, I can see that working.
But that takes independent evidence the cause of the acuteness has passed, and some evidence of contrition, etc.
The other practical challenge with “rehabilitating” that persona (sic) here is that we already have a pretty dedicated vigilante troll patrol. And a certain number of offenderati with their various hot-buttons.
The mods would need to somehow alert everyone (hah) that the formerly-banned poster XYZ123 is about to be returned and has seemingly turned over a new leaf. So everyone (hah) must (hah) give this person a clean slate while they begin playing nice in the pool.
That’s probably not going to happen just from the difficulty of getting everyone to learn of the mod instruction, much less collective individual willingness to follow it. How our shaky returnee reacts to the ensuing pile-on will be as much on us as it is on them. Tough problem to solve.
See above - if it wasn’t in DMs to you, then it’s not “outing” to point to the post where someone said they’re thinking of leaving.
It was a DM.
I suspect banning is often for the good of the banned as it is for the board. The Internet is a big place and they will always find a new home, perhaps with a new appreciation about the adjustments needed to get along with others.
A “DM” would mean what now?
A PM, a private message. I believe DM means Direct Message.
Honestly, we probably wouldn’t even notice. We can investigate anyone, but we can’t investigate everyone. If someone’s not causing trouble, we’re not going to investigate them.
You have the cause and effect muddled. We never ban someone for getting warned. We Warn people, and suspend them, and ban them, because they’re engaging in some sort of bad behavior. The “reason why they were banned” is the behavior, not the warnings.
In cases of suicide-by-mod, there’s not really a choice of whether to ban someone. If someone wants to get banned, they’re going to keep on escalating until they’re banned. The only decision, in such a case, is an easy one: Ban them as soon as they express the desire, so we’re spared all the escalation.
Now, it’s possible in such a case that after things improve for that person, they’ll have a change of heart, and genuinely regret getting themself banned. In such a case, they could contact us and express contrition, and ask to be let back in. I’m not saying we’d agree to it, but they could ask. But the ball’s in their court on that: It’s not like we’re going to email someone six months after they were banned and ask them “Hey, you doing better now? Want back on the board?”. And to my knowledge, nobody who’s been banned in those sorts of circumstances has ever asked to be let back in.
True, but I’m thinking more for the benefit of the SDMB, than for the benefit of the banned member. If a poster was a good, productive poster, but they got banned for temporary assholery, then it’s to our loss if that person returns to good behavior after their stress has subsided, but they go elsewhere to post.
Tim_R.Mortiss BANNED as per his request after his 3rd warning for being a jerk.
So if he asked to come back, we would consider it and I suspect probably allow it.
I’m trying to locate the member that blew up over I think a Modnote and went after the Moderator in thread. They got a fast ban for that and fit well the category of maybe they were having a bad week. This was since we went to Discourse.
The idea that a formal amnesty is necessary for a banned poster to return is a polite fiction, I suspect. But I think there is a special harm that comes from openly allowing a banned poster to return under their own name, for reasons already described above (it sends an unwelcoming signal to better posters who have been exposed to the banees misconduct and often bigotry that moderation is willing to facilitate further abuse).
In any event, I do not approve.
So I say let banned posters continue to try their hand at sock puppetry. And continue to ban the shit out of them as they are uncovered.
Well, I’ve had DMs and off-board posts from several minority and female former posters who have actually left because of racists and misogynists here.
Most of whom were subsequently banned.
In any case, there’s actual bullying, and then there’s “bullying” (AKA being called on one’s bigotry or trollery by a lot of people). I’ve seen plenty of very vocal complaints about the latter. But I’ll be charitable and assume your interlocutor isn’t one of those.
Not muddled in my head, just didn’t write clearly 
.
I meant what you said - they racked up a warning-level offense after a suspension, which led to the familiar “we’re discussing your posting privileges → X is banned” part of the evening’s entertainment. It was the “after a suspension” part I wanted to emphasize there, so I was less clear about the other part.