Banned Users

[Vox 870]

Recently I've noticed more and more banned users. Whether this is some kind of coincidence or just a result of increasing troublesome behavior is besides me. The presence of recently banned members doesn't necessarily concern me as much as the reason they were banned. I am not critiquing the better judgement of the moderation team/admins, rather, I am presenting an idea that may perhaps clear up some confusion regarding banned members. Instead of removing access to the banned users page, or redirecting you to a page stating the user is "no longer active",I believe acknowledging the ban, or giving a blunt and vague description of the terms of the ban instead of the rather vague "no longer active" page.

Edited October 15, 2014 by VoxPolice

[碇 シンジン 27,436]

There is discussion with good points on the Invision Power support forum.

 

http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/403390-allow-everybody-see-the-ban-reasons-and-profile-pages-of-banned-users/

[mars 4,863]

I think bans should be between the user and the admins/moderators. Bans are private, and I mean I understand we all get curious about why a user was banned, but that is something that should remain hidden. No other site gives the reasons why a user was banned for privacy reasons, and I think the forums should be no different.

[Lightwing 12,978]

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

The reason of a ban is always private outside the staff,and I'm the first who admits that has curiosity of why certain members were banned.

 

But I've been enought time on this forums to know that it's better to know that kind of things nor make them public,for the fact that,commonly,certain bans carry the anger of certain group of people(aka its friends),and others.

If the reason was able to be known,I believe that the situation would be worse,with tons of people complaining even more about the ban,no matter if it was deserved or not,so,overall,is a bad idea.

 

But,on another topic,I would suggest to change the "This user is no longer active" message to "This account has been suspended permanently",just to reflect better the current status of the account.

[Vox 870]

I think bans should be between the user and the admins/moderators. Bans are private, and I mean I understand we all get curious about why a user was banned, but that is something that should remain hidden. No other site gives the reasons why a user was banned for privacy reasons, and I think the forums should be no different.

I'm not saying it should display the reason for which they were banned, rather, acknowledge that they were banned, rather than simply "no longer active"

[Snow Frostflame 3,568]

yes I'm glad I'm not the only one who has seen the banned users some being my friends now I think this isn't a coincidence something is definitively wrong here a few months back one of my friends recieved a 7 day ban for no reason he got no email or reply form a mod/staff/admin so I think it could be the mods/staffs/admins doing but I quote @SCS "This is not true. Moderators are never allowed to employ any manner of personal bias in moderation or any staff work. Any staff members who do this are subject to disciplinary action and/or removal from the staff." but even with his reassuring speech I still think something aint right 

 

as for what you said its more of a privacy thing I would like to see how my old friends got banned but I'm pretty sure they don't want others knowing how they got banned but I with you if you visit their banned page it should give you reason for why they are banned opposed to saying they got banned

[Jeric 46,866]

The ban and warning point policy, like many others, has evolved over the three years since MLPF was founded. From removal of a show specific Badge, to the implementation of rules and warning points to allow an objective decision to be made, the Admin and Moderation team have tweaked the process to be more fair to users.

 

Any self respecting forum cares about user stability, and minimizing attrition. We are no different.

 

Regarding privacy, specifics are never divulged.

[corrosioncorridor 48]

No one stab me with a ball-point pen, but I thing if someone in your friends list got banned then you should be alerted, however it will not tell you way they got banned. Just a thought.

[Shanks 10,816]

I understand why warnings and suspensions are private but I often wonder if doing the same for perma bans is the best idea. I have seen a lot of examples on here of popular users getting banned, people not knowing why said user got banned and it causing a panic/outrage/drama until everyone who cares enough finds out eventually anyway. From what I understand one of the main reasons given for this information to be private is to prevent or minimize drama but I am beginning to question if that is really the best way to go about it. I am not saying we should all know every detail about everything but a general idea will suffice. 

 

 

 No other site gives the reasons why a user was banned for privacy reasons, and I think the forums should be no different.

That is not entirely true actually, there are some sites that do in fact have a public ban log and I am a member of two of them and the policy seems  to work for them.

Edited October 14, 2014 by EarthbendingProdigy

[Guest90210 3,569]

I understand why warnings and suspensions are private but I often wonder if doing the same for perma bans is the best idea. I have seen a lot of examples on here of popular users getting banned, people not knowing why said user got banned and it causing a panic/outrage/drama until everyone who cares out enough finds out eventually anyway. From what I understand one of the main reasons given for this information to be private is to prevent or minimize drama but I am beginning to question if that is really the best way to go about it. I am not saying we should all know every detail about everything but a general idea will suffice. 

 

This would cause even more drama, especially if it was open for discussion among the public in a thread. All of the banned member's buddies will huddle around them, pointlessly argue back and forth, and nothing would be resolved. It'd just separate the forums further, in my opinion. Plus it'd require time and effort to moderate which could be better spent on other things

[Nohbdy 4,108]

We don't reveal the specifics of bans and warnings to protect the privacy of our members. Many people use the same username across many sites, and it's possible that a ban here could tarnish their reputation elsewhere, perhaps years down the line--and even after they've changed for the better. Long story short, it's mostly for the benefit of the banned members. 

 

The only time we'll ever discuss the specifics of warnings (i.e., beyond the usual "member broke a certain rule" explanation) is if members voluntarily reveal the details. If that happens, we're told that this privacy has been waived, and so we can respond as needed. To address exceptional cases in which there is staff error, we do provide the option for members to dispute bans and warnings, and we'll readily explain the details if a member chooses to divulge information on his warning.

 

As far as transparency goes, we do our best to provide any and all information that may be useful to the public. This generally means we provide updates on rules and policies, site and staff organization, and other important updates. For the most part, details on warnings and bans aren't useful as far as the public is concerned. Most of the time, inquiries regarding warnings are made on the basis of curiosity (e.g., "Why was X banned? He seemed like a good guy!").

 

With the above in mind, the reason we don't have a dedicated forum for discussing warnings is that there's simply no need for it. Most members don't care, and those who do often have other ways to find out. In the end, it's far more likely that such a forum would invite more problems than it addresses. While it may work for some sites, I can safely say that it wouldn't work here. It simply wouldn't be worth the headaches for all parties involved.

 

Our goal is to be flexible for the benefit of our community. We ask ourselves questions like, "how can we increase staff accountability without increasing drama?" It's a matter of keeping our policies balanced enough that we can respond to one end of affairs without breaking the other end. 

 

Finally, a word on the recent bans. Due to the incremental nature of the system, people tend to be banned in groups. There's no single incident (unless there's good reason to believe a member is a troll, spammer, or lawbreaker) that causes a member to be permanently banned. For example, if you start with 0 points and post pornography, you'll get 800 points--200 points below the permaban threshold). But what if you already had 200 warning points? You get banned. What if you had 400? Same thing. 1000 points is a hard threshold, which means that no matter how many points you had before that, you get banned as soon as you reach that value. An example (warning given on arbitrary day of the week):

 

User 1

Week 0: Warned for abusive behavior (250 points; wp == 250)

Week 1: -25 points (wp == 225)

Week 2: -25 points (wp == 200)

Week 3: Warned for NSFW content (800 points; wp == 1000). USER BANNED

 

User 2

Warned for NSFW content (800 points; wp == 250)

Week 1: -25 points (wp == 775)

Week 2: -25 points (wp == 750)

Week 3: Warned for NSFW content (800 points; wp == 1550). USER BANNED

 

In summary, we often see periods of relative peace punctuated by waves of bans because that's when people finally push themselves over the threshold. In reality, such bans are weeks or even months in the making. Many bans happen as a result of posting NSFW content. If you have anywhere from 200 and 999 points at the time of being warned, you get banned. NSFW's a huge deal, so that massive point value serves as a deterrent.

[NavelColt 22,883]

I think bans should be between the user and the admins/moderators. Bans are private, and I mean I understand we all get curious about why a user was banned, but that is something that should remain hidden. No other site gives the reasons why a user was banned for privacy reasons, and I think the forums should be no different.

 

In addition to this, as soon as you start listing reasons publically on profiles as a staff team, the 'confusion' and 'lack of clarity' will not end, OP, it will just be cause more of the same inevitable drama. It's called friends and peers of those banned users taking up pitchforks and raiding moderator's inboxes with lengthy 'I don't agree with this' messages x) If people find out about why some people were moderated upon, I don't see why they can't go track down the person themselves. If they were friends with them, why shouldn't they know them outside this site? If they don't, that's certainly not the staff's fault. It's a privacy matter, regardless if drama occurs in various levels whichever way the staff decides to go with their policies on things.

 

There are some sites that do in fact have a public ban log and I am a member of two of them and the policy seems  to work for them.

 

So am I, and I know one of the two you're talking about because I'm there as well x) Only reason it works for them is because their members (and by extension the type of site and community they have) don't care as much when someone's banned or moderated upon. This stems from sheer size diffrerence and just the types of fans who are there, and what they're there for. Honestly I don't understand why the staff there felt the need to have that section, because if they had the type of community we had, their staff team may have very well had a heart attack, if they had to resort to 'we need to have this section' with a community that's pretty damn lax.

 

Every community is different; no one idea can cookie cutter from forum to forum. A public log here would make everything explode twice, insighting endless arguing over technicalities and claims of bias. Maybe not from people like you and me who 'know better', but the army of noobs, arguementative and lurker people who no one ever accounts for when they're counting the heads of the well-mannered regulars.

 

More on that note, about that 'size difference' I mentioned. When you have a site this big, it's not just 'The Regulars and the Staff' anymore, it's an entire ecosystem of people, those who have strong opinions but know when and how to give them without making staff members want to leap bridges, and then the folks who either don't care or are too dim to know when to give something a rest, and will tackle and bite into anything the staff does that's even remotely off their radar. Tends to be a lot more of the later.

 

This all leads to the more intelligent Regulars questioning why Staff do things in certain ways, usually not fully grasping that it's because the staff has to think about the community at large; the regulars and intelligent people, as well as the hyenas just waiting in the wings for the staff to make a decision and then cause another 1000 years of dramatic statuses, blogs and conspiracy theories. A public log for staff actions, even if it was somehow limited, would still be like throwing steaks out into the hyena pen, opening it up and letting them run after Billy for kicks. Breeds more pointless drama than it's worth.

 

It's quite the circle!

 

People always do find out eventually anyway, yes. Usually because those people stop expecting the staff to breach privacy and decide to go and ask the banned person or a friend of the banned person privately in their own time. Why does this not work? I don't see why they can't go track down the person themselves if they really seem to give that much of a shit. If they were friends with them, why shouldn't they know them outside this site? If they don't, why should they care? If you doubt the staff's actions or even harbor conspiracy theories about the staff, then you need to realize they're humans, incredibly stressed humans, and that even when they do make mistakes, that's to be expected because they're not perfect. They're putting themselves on the perverbial railroad track to do a shit job that a lot of times is daunting. Talk with them about it privately. Civily. All will work out, if everyone treats each other with respect and gives one another at least some benefit of the doubt, by George.

 

It is and always will be a privacy matter, regardless if drama occurs in various levels whichever way the staff decides to go with their policies on things. No policy is perfect, this one isn't either, but a public log would make things worse, not better, in my opinion.

[PROJECT: Simon 3,955]

I think bans should be between the user and the admins/moderators. Bans are private, and I mean I understand we all get curious about why a user was banned, but that is something that should remain hidden. No other site gives the reasons why a user was banned for privacy reasons, and I think the forums should be no different.

You have my respect from now on

[Vox 870]

In addition to this, as soon as you start listing reasons publically on profiles as a staff team, the 'confusion' and 'lack of clarity' will not end, OP, it will just be cause more of the same inevitable drama. It's called friends and peers of those banned users taking up pitchforks and raiding moderator's inboxes with lengthy 'I don't agree with this' messages x) If people find out about why some people were moderated upon, I don't see why they can't go track down the person themselves. If they were friends with them, why shouldn't they know them outside this site? If they don't, that's certainly not the staff's fault. It's a privacy matter, regardless if drama occurs in various levels whichever way the staff decides to go with their policies on things.

 

 

 

So am I, and I know one of the two you're talking about because I'm there as well x) Only reason it works for them is because their members (and by extension the type of site and community they have) don't care as much when someone's banned or moderated upon. This stems from sheer size diffrerence and just the types of fans who are there, and what they're there for. Honestly I don't understand why the staff there felt the need to have that section, because if they had the type of community we had, their staff team may have very well had a heart attack, if they had to resort to 'we need to have this section' with a community that's pretty damn lax.

 

Every community is different; no one idea can cookie cutter from forum to forum. A public log here would make everything explode twice, insighting endless arguing over technicalities and claims of bias. Maybe not from people like you and me who 'know better', but the army of noobs, arguementative and lurker people who no one ever accounts for when they're counting the heads of the well-mannered regulars.

 

More on that note, about that 'size difference' I mentioned. When you have a site this big, it's not just 'The Regulars and the Staff' anymore, it's an entire ecosystem of people, those who have strong opinions but know when and how to give them without making staff members want to leap bridges, and then the folks who either don't care or are too dim to know when to give something a rest, and will tackle and bite into anything the staff does that's even remotely off their radar. Tends to be a lot more of the later.

 

This all leads to the more intelligent Regulars questioning why Staff do things in certain ways, usually not fully grasping that it's because the staff has to think about the community at large; the regulars and intelligent people, as well as the hyenas just waiting in the wings for the staff to make a decision and then cause another 1000 years of dramatic statuses, blogs and conspiracy theories. A public log for staff actions, even if it was somehow limited, would still be like throwing steaks out into the hyena pen, opening it up and letting them run after Billy for kicks. Breeds more pointless drama than it's worth.

 

It's quite the circle!

 

People always do find out eventually anyway, yes. Usually because those people stop expecting the staff to breach privacy and decide to go and ask the banned person or a friend of the banned person privately in their own time. Why does this not work? I don't see why they can't go track down the person themselves if they really seem to give that much of a shit. If they were friends with them, why shouldn't they know them outside this site? If they don't, why should they care? If you doubt the staff's actions or even harbor conspiracy theories about the staff, then you need to realize they're humans, incredibly stressed humans, and that even when they do make mistakes, that's to be expected because they're not perfect. They're putting themselves on the perverbial railroad track to do a shit job that a lot of times is daunting. Talk with them about it privately. Civily. All will work out, if everyone treats each other with respect and gives one another at least some benefit of the doubt, by George.

 

It is and always will be a privacy matter, regardless if drama occurs in various levels whichever way the staff decides to go with their policies on things. No policy is perfect, this one isn't either, but a public log would make things worse, not better, in my opinion.

My proposition isn't any more specific than it needs to be, in fact, it still holds with it still the same amount of anonymity as it does now. I'm not calling for the reason the user was banned being plastered on their redirected homepage, However, I think it should acknowledge the user being banned, no more specific than that. Of course this isn't absolutely necessary, as we could always just assume a user who is 'no longer active' violated the rules and was banned.

[NavelColt 22,883]

My proposition isn't any more specific than it needs to be, in fact, it still holds with it still the same amount of anonymity as it does now. I'm not calling for the reason the user was banned being plastered on their redirected homepage, However, I think it should acknowledge the user being banned, no more specific than that. Of course this isn't absolutely necessary, as we could always just assume a user who is 'no longer active' violated the rules and was banned.

 

Well, you said 'I believe the reason for the ban should be displayed on the redirected page, instead of the rather vague "no longer active" page'; that seemed pretty clear at the time that your thoughts were 'list reasons why they were banned', not just a 'This user is banned. Go back to the Index fair traveler, nothing to see here!' type of message x)

[Vox 870]

Well, you said 'I believe the reason for the ban should be displayed on the redirected page, instead of the rather vague "no longer active" page'; that seemed pretty clear at the time that your thoughts were 'list reasons why they were banned', not just a 'This user is banned. Go back to the Index fair traveler, nothing to see here!' type of message x)

 

Well, for me, that's optional, I don't care if it's implemented or not, it likely won't be, but i'd at least like some clarification and acknowledgement of the ban itself. 

And even if it displayed the "reason" for the ban, it wouldn't have to very specific, just give a vague one or two word summary of the offence.