I was reading through some old threads and was surprised at how many contributors have “BANNED” beneath their names. Do we know any stats on what percentage of posters get banned?
Since we started using our current system (around 2005-ish), we have banned approximately 23,492 spammers, 1,134 socks, and 715 other (trolling, hate speech, etc). We’ve had about 120,000 people register on the site during the same time period.
A lot of the registrations are never used or are single post drive-by users. Then again, a lot of the troll posts come from folks that register, troll, and get banned and aren’t around long enough to really become contributors in any meaningful sense.
We currently have 4,646 active members. I don’t know of anyplace where we keep a historical record of active members, though.
That is 4.7%.
In 2016, we banned 11 members who had been posting here for any significant length of time (ones that qualified for an announcement thread in ATMB). Since we have several thousand active posters at any one time, the percentage of such members banned each year is considerably less than 1%.
As engineer indicates, the vast majority of banned posters are spammers, socks, and short-term trolls. Their posts are mostly removed, however, so that if you see a poster with “Banned” under their name it was someone banned for other rules violations such as insults, being a jerk, etc.
I’ve been here for a while now (15 years) and one of the things I’ve noted is that you have to work pretty damned hard if you’re a regular poster to get yourself banned. Although of course a bit of hard work never daunts some people!
Okay, who has managed to get banned after the largest number of posts? I was looking at an old thread today featuring Diogenes the Cynic, who was banned after 58,797 posts over 9 years.
I would not be surprised if Dio holds the record.
For a brief time it was 100%.
Thanks for the info. When reading through old threads, it seems like much more than 1-4.7%.
Also, a semi-related question: I’ve seen some posters with “Banned” underneath their usernames, but it doesn’t seem like they are banned. Is it allowed for posters to customize “member” into “Banned” just for kicks?
Someone did that once. He may have had to use “BANNNED” to make it work.
ETA:
Here it is. Good old** Boyo Jim**. I think he spawned some ATMB threads with people asking why he was BANNNED.
BrainGlutton was banned after 13 years and 78,508 posts.
Posters with tens of thousands of posts will show up in threads disproportionately often. They may be 1% of posters but have 5% of posts. (Numbers made up for emphasis.)
Excellent point. Thanks.
No, you can’t. You can’t use any standard SDMB title as a custom one.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12126632&postcount=11
And, apparently variations such as “BANNNED” aren’t allowed, either, as Boyo Jim was asked to stop using that particular one.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15506829&postcount=28
I based that on the numbers of users and bans a moderator gave us, not on posts.
Sometimes people have been banned, then unbanned on appeal.
Sometimes people have been suspended temporarily, and have been listed as “banned” for a while, until the status is changed.
Depends on how you define your terms. When someone is banned, they cease to be an active member, and the number of active members as well as the composition thereof varies with time as well. Seems like you’d need to define a time frame and then obtain “ban dates” for that time frame as well as the number of active members within that same time frame.
If you see a poster with “Banned” under their name then they are currently banned from posting. Old posts remain as is. What do you think is evidence that a poster with “Banned” under their name is not really banned?
That used to happen occasionally many years ago before we developed our current system of multiple warnings and suspension before a final banning. Now this is very unlikely to happen since any poster that is banned has had multiple chances to change their behavior previously and hasn’t.
Even under the previous system, virtually all posters who were banned and reinstated ended up being banned again.
That also used to happen in the past when regular moderators couldn’t change the title manually. Under the current system, we can automatically apply a “suspended” title so that shouldn’t happen except by oversight.
As has been noted, it is not permitted to have a custom title which misleadingly indicates a poster’s status, such as moderator, administrator, banned, suspended, etc. If someone is listed as “Banned” they are blocked from posting.