# You're banned from this thread **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 13, 2011, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223 "2011-04-13T13:48:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/1 "2011-04-13T13:48:38Z")
I think this may have been discussed before–hell, maybe I even made a thread about it–but recent events got me thinking about it again. So lemme start with the obnoxious preening here: I used to be a moderator on a messageboard that got even more traffic than SDMB, and that had fairly strict moderation. Okay, obnoxious preening over; I just bring that up to say where I got the idea from. On that board, we rarely closed threads that started out with a reasonable OP. Instead, if someone was being a jerk in a thread, we banned them from the thread, allowing others to continue in a more pleasant vein. I’m wondering if this could be an option. Instead of closing a thread, a mod could make a post along these lines: > [@Mod](#): > > **Rumpelstilskin** , **Little Bunny Foo Foo** , you may not post again in this thread for any reason. If you do, your posting privileges may be suspended or revoked. If you have any questions about this direction, please PM me. > > Everybody else, please do not respond to **Rumpelstilskin’s** or **Little Bunny Foo Foo’s** posts in this thread. This could be enforced with a harsh penalty for ignoring the direction–say a suspension starting at 7 days. Not reading the warning would be no excuse. [edit: I’d advocate a less-harsh penalty for a single response to R’s or LBFF’s posts, unless it was a clear defiance of the direction.] This could be used when one or more posters is hijacking a thread into back-and-forth bickering that’s only tangentially related to the OP, or just plain threadshitting. The advantage of it is that posters who are staying on-topic and having a good discussion wouldn’t see their discussion shut down by the threadshitters/bickerers. And I think it wouldn’t be more work than shutting a thread down (mods could monitor the thread to ensure compliance, or they could just trust that violators would get reported). It could become the default option for such situations instead of just shutting threads down. What do y’all think? ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/2 "2011-04-13T13:51:43Z")
Sounds good. So it would be a thread-by-thread version of the Evil Captor rule. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/3 "2011-04-13T13:56:09Z")
I’ve considered this but I don’t think I’ve ever done it. I haven’t done it because warnings and messages like “stay on topic” seem to get the job done, and it would probably lead to some short-term suspensions. I’d be willing to try it, though. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/4 "2011-04-13T14:00:30Z")
Does this mean that the Mod just says something like, “PosterX, you’ve disrupted this thread enough. I’m ordering you not to post in this thread again”? – rather than it being done by software in some way? ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/5 "2011-04-13T14:07:50Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Does this mean that the Mod just says something like, “PosterX, you’ve disrupted this thread enough. I’m ordering you not to post in this thread again”? – rather than it being done by software in some way? Doing it as a warning allows the poster the option of ignoring the moderator and getting banned. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/6 "2011-04-13T14:08:05Z")
I foresee a _lot_ of responses-to-banned-comments continuing, because people fail to read a whole thread before replying, and a lot of argument about variable application of the penalty. And I don’t think a seven-day suspension is harsh at all. Otherwise, sure, good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/7 "2011-04-13T14:09:22Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Does this mean that the Mod just says something like, “PosterX, you’ve disrupted this thread enough. I’m ordering you not to post in this thread again”? – rather than it being done by software in some way? Our software can’t exclude someone from an individual thread. So if we made that ruling and a poster chose to ignore it - I’m assuming by that point we’ve already warned them once or twice - we’d have to suspend them for a day or so. I’m not opposed to that, but I’ve tended to use other methods because if you suspend someone from a thread, you’re moving close to banning them entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/8 "2011-04-13T14:17:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’ve considered this but I don’t think I’ve ever done it. I haven’t done it because warnings and messages like “stay on topic” seem to get the job done, and it would probably lead to some short-term suspensions. I’d be willing to try it, though. Cool! Warnings and messages like “stay on topic” often work, true. But it seems like when they don’t work, the next step is usually to shut the thread down entirely. I’m suggesting that when they don’t work, the next step could be to ban the offenders from the thread. There are occasions where people ignore “stay on topic” or whatever but don’t get a warning; when threads are shut down for drift/bickering, usually no warnings are issued. Again, this would be a substitute for shutting the thread down in those cases, allowing folks who can play nice to continue. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/9 "2011-04-13T14:28:00Z")
I don’t see why this wouldn’t work. We’ve done specific limitations on posters before (God bless you, **Reeder**.) It does get annoying when fun, intelligent discussions get closed down because of a couple of jerks. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/10 "2011-04-13T14:30:36Z")
I like this idea with a caveat: that whatever the offender had posted be offlimits for further discussion. The same idea why we don’t allow zombie threads (that the original posters aren’t around to respond) would seem to be in effect. ---
**Author:** ![Sigmagirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c89c15/32.png) [@Sigmagirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigmagirl)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/11 "2011-04-13T14:31:10Z")
We have “stickies” for a thread to go to the top of a forum. Is it possible for a post to stay at the _bottom_ of a thread, so somebody who posts without reading the whole thread will see a moderator’s admonition to not respond to somebody who’s disturbing the conversation? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/12 "2011-04-13T14:32:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m suggesting that when they don’t work, the next step could be to ban the offenders from the thread. I think in the right situation I’d be willing to do that. > [@stpauler](#): > > I like this idea with a caveat: that whatever the offender had posted be offlimits for further discussion. In some situations, maybe. In others, that would be similar to closing the thread because one person is being stupid. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/13 "2011-04-13T14:36:11Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m wondering if this could be an option. Instead of closing a thread, a mod could make a post along these lines: > > **Rumpelstilskin, Little Bunny Foo Foo,** you may not post again in this thread for any reason. If you do, your posting privileges may be suspended or revoked. If you have any questions about this direction, please PM me. > > Everybody else, please do not respond to **Rumpelstilskin** ’s or **Little Bunny Foo Foo** ’s posts in this thread. Change _your posting privileges may be suspended or revoked_ to _you will be eviscerated_ and I’m on board. ---
**Author:** ![Implicit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/14 "2011-04-13T14:42:30Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > I like this idea with a caveat: that whatever the offender had posted be offlimits for further discussion. So everyone posting in the thread can no longer respond to any posts by the offender? No one can correct whatever ignorance the offender posted? What about posts made by the user that were on topic and occurred before whatever the offender did to get themselves banned from the thread? That makes no sense. If you are really concerned with people responding to posts made by the person who has been banned from the thread, then their offending posts should be removed from the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/15 "2011-04-13T14:44:57Z")
No. This just sounds like a way to try to stifle unpopular opinions. If someone is violating a rule, there are already warnings the mods can impose. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/16 "2011-04-13T14:45:03Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > In some situations, maybe. In others, that would be similar to closing the thread because one person is being stupid. Not sure I follow. Lemme try an example. There’s a thread about children’s movies, discussing which one is the best. **Bill** mentions the difference between G-rated and PG-rated movies in the context of which ones he’ll take his kid to see. **Cinderella** comes into the thread and says that any movie rated less than R automatically sucks and people that watch them are pussies and if you go see a G-rated movie and you’re not a parent that means you’re a pedophile. **Marley** bans **Cinderella** from the thread. If people are prevented from discussing the pedophile accusation, I see no problem at all with that. If people are prevented from discussing the virtues of movies that are rated less than R, that might be a bit restrictive. If people are prevented from discussing the rating system at all as it relates to children’s movies, that would definitely be too restrictive, as it prevents a discussion that was going on before **Cinderella’s** threadshit. In any case, advising people not to respond directly to **Cinderella’s** post would be a good idea, I think, for two reasons: 1. It’s too much of a temptation for her to return to the thread, risking a boardwide suspension. (Which is her choice, of course, but my assumption is that folks who’ve been banned from a thread will only degrade the thread further if they return, whether or not they get suspended for it. 2. Even if she doesn’t return, her post wasn’t productive, and responding to the post won’t be productive either I’d give folks more lenience on this, though, since as **spark** points out, folks often respond to a thread before reading the whole thing, and folks who are trying to be on-topic and not threadshit deserve more lenience than threadshitters and bickerers, IMO. [edit] Diogenes, it’s an effort to stifle threadshitting and bickering. I won’t discuss particular people who I would love to see impacted by this policy, but I think the difference between rude posts and unpopular opinions is fairly clear. When a thread is closed, everyone’s opinion, whether expressed politely or rudely, gets stifled. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/17 "2011-04-13T14:45:21Z")
Like I said, the caveat makes the policy ripe for argument about variable interpretations and enforcements. I say leave the thread open, let people comment as they like on what’s in the thread, and just go ahead with the board-wide suspension for the problem person after the first unheeded Warning. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/18 "2011-04-13T14:46:20Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No. This just sounds like a way to try to stifle unpopular opinions. If someone is violating a rule, there are already warnings the mods can impose. But with some posters never do. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/19 "2011-04-13T14:46:27Z")
Wow, you guys like making things complicated. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223/20 "2011-04-13T14:46:48Z")
> [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > But with some posters never do. Because there’s no reason to. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-banned-from-this-thread/578223.md?page=2)