Slightly altering the Banning System

[Lunatic Cake 1,618]

Hello fillies and gentlecolts.

 

I am making this topic to explain a certain injustice in my opinion that might be possibly prevented by altering the banning system a little.

 

After having lost two of my friends on this forum for breaking certain rules, I for one think that banning them permanently was a little bit too harsh in my opinion. To quote one of the moderators, a very nice one if I may add, I've been talking with:

 

"And unfortunately, permanent bans are meant for the person, not the account - so User A may not return."

 

Probably many of you know who I am talking about as they were both known in this forum and people were sad and angry about their punishment.

 

So let's finally get to my suggestion.

 

It is obvious that there are people out there who are simply bad for this forum for which a permanent ban would be the only solution, example would be: User A is not contributing to this site at all and only causing a fuzz whereever he goes and is acting against the rules all the time.

 

But on the other hand there are people that value this forum a lot (like the two people that got banned recently) and know about their mistakes and would love to return. Would it not make sense to divide people into these categories and only ban these kind of people for, let's say, a month to reconsider instead of banning them forever? People change and tend to do mistakes at times but if it's clear that certain people contribute to this site and appear mostly positive than negative and are rather popular, why not allowing them to come back after a certain time? Of course, it would be for the moderators and admins to decide when to choose which option should be executed. It is not that hard to differ between people who are only up to bad things and people who are actually value this forum and don't want to harm it.

 

To sum it up, I would appreciate a little alteration of the banning rules, means the moderators can decide whether or not to ban permanently or for a month (as an example) at 1000 Warning Points instead of simply throwing that banhammer because I feel that there is a huge difference between being banned for a week (800 points) and permanently (1000 points).

 

Thank you for your attention.

[Standard User 2,127]

As I understood the situation I believe you are referring to, the whole conundrum was going on for many weeks/months. That isn't learning from your mistakes, that is repeatedly breaking rules.

 

For me, being a member of a forum (especially such an amazing one as this site) is a privilege. Break the rules and you lose that privilege. It isn't hard to follow rules, especially when they are clearly stated and the moderators/admins are considerate to every user. It is sad that some users have to be punished so harshly, but it serves as an example to other members who might choose to ignore the rules on occasion: do so at your own risk.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Kolth

[Lunatic Cake 1,618]

As I understood the situation I believe you are referring to, the whole conundrum was going on for many weeks/months. That isn't learning from your mistakes, that is repeatedly breaking rules.

 

For me, being a member of a forum (especially such an amazing one as this site) is a privilege. Break the rules and you lose that privilege. It isn't hard to follow rules, especially when they are clearly stated and the moderators/admins are considerate to every user. It is sad that some users have to be punished so harshly, but it serves as an example to other members who might choose to ignore the rules on occasion: do so at your own risk.

My actual point was not to be that extremely harsh on certain members who do have certain emotions towards this Forum and it's members. Of course rules are made for a reason but there is a difference between doing something wrong because they purposely try to do so and doing something wrong they are unaware of (or at least didn't think it would be this much of a problem). While in the first example people try to ruin Forum experiences, in the second one people don't do it on purpose and sometimes don't listen until it's "too late" because they feel like they're right. Sometimes bans should be provided to show a user what he has been doing wrong, not to completely isolate him from this whole community. (To be honest, if I ever were to be banned from this Forum, I would probably not even be active in this fandom anymore because this very forum is making this fandom a lot more enjoyable for me and also did for many other people.)

 

While on other forums I'm on I barely ever see someone getting banned permanently, it is this forum, a forum that is supposed to support love and tolerance, that is being extremely strict on this occasion.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Applejackismahwaifu

[Standard User 2,127]

 

 

While in the first example people try to ruin Forum experiences, in the second one people don't do it on purpose and sometimes don't listen until it's "too late".

 

That is why infractions against the rules are worth a certain amount of points, and bans occur at 1,000. The points ARE the warnings, while the bans are the punishment. 

 

 

 

While on other forums I'm on I barely ever see someone getting banned permanently, it is this forum, a forum that is supposed to support love and tolerance, that is being extremely strict on this occasion.

 

Again, they are called warning points. The moderators are just doing their job. And the "love and tolerate" thing doesn't apply when the user in question is being mean to others. Heck, that slogan got so blown out of proportion that it doesn't mean anything anymore.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,568]

That is why infractions against the rules are worth a certain amount of points, and bans occur at 1,000. The points ARE the warnings, while the bans are the punishment. 

 

 

 

Again, they are called warning points. The moderators are just doing their job. And the "love and tolerate" thing doesn't apply when the user in question is being mean to others. Heck, that slogan got so blown out of proportion that it doesn't mean anything anymore.

My only problem with that system is that I have seen it be ignored at times. I have seen members get banned without any warning points being applied. I had a friend who was IP for not liking Feld0 and if I recall correctly, he received no warnings prior to this. So....The system is a bit flawed in my opinion.

 

I also agree with the OP. This might sound weird but this system kinda reminds me of the concept of hell. It isn't punishment if there is no possible way of redemption. For some people, I think it makes a lot of sense. I also recall a certain member being given a second chance recently as well...If he can get one, some others can as well.

 

Just my thought on the matter.

[Lunatic Cake 1,618]

(1) That is why infractions against the rules are worth a certain amount of points, and bans occur at 1,000. The points ARE the warnings, while the bans are the punishment. 

 

 

 

 

(2) Again, they are called warning points. The moderators are just doing their job. And the "love and tolerate" thing doesn't apply when the user in question is being mean to others. Heck, that slogan got so blown out of proportion that it doesn't mean anything anymore.

(1) I agree on this, these warning points are a warning itself but there are people who ignore warnings and only reconsider things after being punished, you could compare it to children while the mods are (or should be) the caring parents in this case.

 

(2) The moderators are doing their job. I agree on that but there is one thing that is slightly bugging me. This current system is a little inconsiderate if you ask me. It seems like people are executing a machine's commands for me. A machine that tells them to do a certain thing when a requirement is fulfilled and that seems wrong to me in many ways. Humans are special because they are able to think, because they have emotions. These emotions can be helpful at times, as long as moderators are not being biased. Also I know that this Love and Tolerate thing is way too overused but that was the slogan many bronies were proud of so I simply went to use it.

[Fhaolan 4,469]

Popularity should never be used to balance anti-social behavior. I honestly don't care if you're rich, famous, or popular. If you actively and consciously abuse people, stalk them, and frame them for things they didn't do out of some grudge (or attraction), like several of those who were banned over the last year, then it doesn't matter if you were otherwise on the side of the angels to me. That's what banning is for, and I'm constantly amazed at how members of this forum think that they should be immune to that punishment because they are 'popular'.

 

Now, I do think there should be a mechanism where a member can apologize, and if they can prove that they have changed and will not pursue that same anti-social behavior that the ban can be lifted. I don't think it's a matter of the point system, because the point system here doesn't work that way (it depreciates every day after accepting the points). So a 'sabbatical' would automatically reduce the warning points, and someone could game the system and actively ride the points so that they never hit full banning if they paid attention.

[Doctor XFizzle 8,651]

Maybe a probationary period can be installed where punished members have heavily restricted posting abilities (say 1 post per hour) and those posts get pre-screened by mods. 

 

Strike 1: Warning points

Strike 2: Probationary period

Strike 3: Perma-ban

 

Also blog posts and status updates are open to scrutiny too because it seems harder to apply restrictions to those. If someone is on probation but is spamming their blog or status updates with spiteful posts and dirty laundry then they can get strike 3.

[Standard User 2,127]

 

 

I agree on this, these warning points are a warning itself but there are people who ignore warnings and only reconsider things after being punished, you could compare it to children while the mods are (or should be) the caring parents in this case.

 

It isn't the moderators job to baby users, sit them down in the corner and explain why they got in trouble and don't do that again and let's get you a lollipop for being a good boy for ten whole minutes. It is the user's own fault if they refuse to recognize a warning. Heck, my first and only warning was for a silly reason (I edited a message in the Roleplay section and it ended up having fewer than 200 characters or something like that) but, despite my feelings of being targeted, I stepped up my game and started being more mindful of the character count. That's what users need to do: use their heads and think about their actions.

 

 

 

This current system is a little inconsiderate if you ask me. It seems like people are executing a machine's commands for me. A machine that tells them to do a certain thing when a requirement is fulfilled and that seems wrong to me in many ways.

 

That is the job of a moderator: to moderate the Forums for inappropriate and rule-breaking behavior. You can't expect them to graze over the rules and be the "nice guy" while simultaneously ignoring the duties and obligations they took on when they became moderators.

[Lunatic Cake 1,618]

I did not mean to put it that way, I'm sorry. Of course, being Popular should not be a reason to be immune but if the ban results because of something personal between people for example, it should not be a permanent ban or that kind but rather about talking sense to people. But for example a user who is always cheerful and contributing to this site getting banned for something inapropiate should not be put for an instant ban, instead maybe for a longer period of time. Permanent Bans are something extremely harsh and should only be applied when facing extreme circumstances in my opinion. By being Popular I meant it in a way of contributing to this site of course.

[Standard User 2,127]

 

 

But for example a user who is always cheerful and contributing to this site getting banned for something inapropiate should not be put for an instant ban, instead maybe for a longer period of time.

 

 

I see what you're getting at here. A user in good standing, however, is unlikely to get banned for inappropriate behavior. If the user was, say, cyberbullying to such a degree that a ban was called for, then...well, that user deserves the ban.

 

I also want to point out here: I'm all for giving people second chances. However, I see the warning system itself as their second chance, not an altered banning system that would allow for longer sessions of repeated offensives.

[Lunatic Cake 1,618]

That is the job of a moderator: to moderate the Forums for inappropriate and rule-breaking behavior. You can't expect them to graze over the rules and be the "nice guy" while simultaneously ignoring the duties and obligations they took on when they became moderators.

We seem to have a different definition of moderating. Moderators are supposed to keep this site up, making sure that people are happy on this forum to create a place for people to actually enjoy. If I wouldn't be able to talk to some of the moderators as well, I would think of this moderation as cold, harsh and uncaring and that really is quite the opposite to the moderators I've been able to chat with so far.

 

I don't want them to be a nice guy, I simply want them to be considerate of the circumstances and differ between cases instead of simply putting them together because it's easier. Moderators are not machines, they are humans just like you and me. People seem to forget about that at times.

If the user was, say, cyberbullying to such a degree that a ban was called for, then...well, that user deserves the ban.

 

I'm all for giving people second chances. However, I see the warning system itself as their second chance, not an altered banning system that would allow for longer sessions of repeated offensives.

 

I've been checking the Warning Points system and a case like Cyber Bullying is not listed as far as I noticed. Of course it is a very terrible thing to do and I would instantly try to resolve it as soon as possible because Bullying is the worst thing to do but let's say: The bully recognizes what he has done and apologizes and regrets, has eventually changed, shouldn't he get a second chance by then? As far as I heard about it, Cyber Bullying was registered as Permanent Ban so there is no 2nd chance included in there.

[Standard User 2,127]

 

 

As far as I heard about it, Cyber Bullying was registered as Permanent Ban so there is no 2nd chance included in there.

 

Eh, it's been a while since I've delved into the moderating FAQ. My bad.

 

Cyberbullying is a serious issue and shouldn't be tolerated, at all. Upstanding forum members should have the common sense NOT to cyberbully. Those that do deserve the boot.

 

 

 

I don't want them to be a nice guy, I simply want them to be considerate of the circumstances and differ between cases instead of simply putting them together because it's easier. Moderators are not machines, they are humans just like you and me. People seem to forget about that at times.

 

That opens up the possibility of favoritism and poor moderation. Not saying that any current moderators would do this, of course, but a moderator might choose to give his/her friend a slightly more lenient punishment because it "wasn't as bad" as what this other user did. Then begins the infighting and so-called "corruption" that I've heard from some users regarding the staff.

 

The Forums have rules. A user breaks those rules, they get an appropriate punishment. Harassing and bullying another user deserves a ban. 

 

However, I do see the point others are making here. An appeals process wouldn't be terrible, although it would need to be very strict and regulated so as to only re-allow those users who genuinely made a mistake Now that I think about it, cyberbullying isn't a mistake. It is a willing, malicious act and deserves a permanent ban.

[Fhaolan 4,469]

The thing is, the warning points *should* be working, because you have to acknowledge the points before you are allowed to post again. It's not like the points accumulate mysteriously and all of a sudden *ban*. I've gotten warning points for breaking little rules like writing nonsense to get around the minimum character limit, or positing off-topic jokes in threads, and I was unable to continue without saying 'Yes, I deserved those points.' or 'I am filing a dispute on those points.' The only way you get sudden bans is that all of the bad behavior happen in one day, or you do something so egregious that the mods believe that they really have no option (which is effectively the same thing, but I can see how they might be different).

 

To my understanding there's a special Skype channel where all the mods and admins get together and discuss this kind of thing before dropping the hammer. So it's not like it's one mod being a vigilante, or something that they doing offhand, or relying on an automatic mechanism. It's a group of people who are responsible, agreeing that the ban is necessary.

 

Also to my understanding, the most recent spate of bannings were over behavior that had been going on for months, so they should have been experiencing the point acknowledgement system and getting that indicator that their behavior needs to change. The coming ban should not have been a mystery or a shock. Now, if they hadn't been getting warning points up to now, that's an issue that should probably be addressed.

 

I still believe there should be some way that banned members can be redeemed, but whatever the policy and mechanism that is decided on, I don't think it should be connected to the warning point system.

[Lunatic Cake 1,618]

Cyberbullying is a serious issue and shouldn't be tolerated, at all. Upstanding forum members should have the common sense NOT to cyberbully. Those that do deserve the boot.

 

The Forums have rules. A user breaks those rules, they get an appropriate punishment. Harassing and bullying another user deserves a ban. 

 

Now that I think about it, cyberbullying isn't a mistake. [it is a willing, malicious act and] deserves a [permanent] ban.

That is the part I agree with you on, however there are a few things you could have avoided mentioning if you regarded to some of my earlier posts such as the favorism part.

 

As already mentioned mods should be able to differ in certain cases. Cyber Bullying has a reason most of the time and definitely is one-sided. The difficult part here is differing between Cyber Bullying and Cyber Fighting because members are upset with eachother for example. Why banning one person then while another did also contribute to this situation by provoking? That would not be Cyber Bullying anymore in my Opinion.

 

Also Bullying is sometimes executed without thinking about consequences. After facing these consequences however people are to change, that also adds up to earlier posts I've mentioned, so I would really appreciate if you could not make me repeat myself all the time, thank you!

[Standard User 2,127]

 

 

I still believe there should be some way that banned members can be redeemed, but whatever the policy and mechanism that is decided on, I don't think it should be connected to the warning point system.

 

I could get behind an appeals system of sorts, although I think it should be strict (to a degree) so that only those users who genuinely want to be a member of the community will follow through with the process.

[yeet 2,026]

Hey we're all friends here aren't we? I'm sure if you ask a high member of staff politely and tell them the whole situation up to now then maybe they could give the banned ponies we are talking about a second chance.

[Standard User 2,127]

Hey we're all friends here aren't we? I'm sure if you ask a high member of staff politely and tell them the whole situation up to now then maybe they could give the banned ponies we are talking about a second chance.

 

Yeah, just a friendly argument going on. We have way too many of these for my taste. 

 

And it would be great to offer second chances, but then EVERYONE starts expecting second chances and then it ruins to idea of a permanent ban because it isn't permanent anymore.

[yeet 2,026]

Yeah, just a friendly argument going on. We have way too many of these for my taste. 

 

And it would be great to offer second chances, but then EVERYONE starts expecting second chances and then it ruins to idea of a permanent ban because it isn't permanent anymore.

true, what rule/s did they brake anyway?

[Justin ZW 396]

true, what rule/s did they brake anyway?

 

Let's not start discussing all of that here. What happened should stay between the parties involved.

 

As for the rule system, I've honestly found it to be rather fair. If someone manages to get 1000 points, then it's obvious that they weren't following the rules. They're clearly defined, with punishments laid right out in the FAQ. Of course, it's still a case-by-case basis, but in most situations I think the mods do their jobs properly. Granted, I don't venture out of the RP sections, much, but I haven't seen much "great injustice" in terms of moderation and enforcement.

[yeet 2,026]

Let's not start discussing all of that here. What happened should stay between the parties involved.

 

As for the rule system, I've honestly found it to be rather fair. If someone manages to get 1000 points, then it's obvious that they weren't following the rules. They're clearly defined, with punishments laid right out in the FAQ. Of course, it's still a case-by-case basis, but in most situations I think the mods do their jobs properly. Granted, I don't venture out of the RP sections, much, but I haven't seen much "great injustice" in terms of moderation and enforcement.

well I don't think ive broken any rules, going by my warning points.

[duidamasterXD 9,626]

My only problem with that system is that I have seen it be ignored at times. I have seen members get banned without any warning points being applied. I had a friend who was IP for not liking Feld0 and if I recall correctly, he received no warnings prior to this. So....The system is a bit flawed in my opinion.

 

If you're referring to the person I think you are, that isn't true.

 

As for allowing people to return after lengthened suspensions, this actually has happened before, but only extremely rarely and in cases where the member had been generally well-behaved beforehand. People like this are the exception though, and extremely uncommon. And again, people are generally banned because they've failed to learn from their previous warnings and only kept breaking the rules. There are some people who have been banned who I believe have the maturity to return, but I feel like this might create feelings of resentment and favoritism. "Why can they come back when I/my friend can't?". It's worth discussing, but I can see some problems with selectively giving some people more leeway as well.

Edited December 16, 2013 by DashForever

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,671]

 

 

It isn't the moderators job to baby users, sit them down in the corner and explain why they got in trouble and don't do that again and let's get you a lollipop for being a good boy for ten whole minutes

The term "moderator" by the looks of it appears to be about keeping things in check. However, to assume that "keeping things in check" exclusively means making sure everyone stays within the line is missing the bigger picture. These rules have a goal in mind and that is to try and maintain a pleasant environment for its users and sometimes, being an enforcer simply isn't doing enough. Whether or not it is "their job" isn't relevant to this matter because they are volunteers pursuing a goal, not employees on a contract. Being a staff member can be hell. I haven't personally experienced it but I think @@Marcato can say a thing or two on this. 

 

Calming down upset users might just help to calm things down and improve not only their forums experience but also keep things pleasant for the rest of us. You see, this is what I'd like to be clear about; it's that rule enforcement is just one method or process in order to execute an intention.

 

You see, being a caregiver to users who are very upset and get reckless is for all intents and purposes itself a potential method or process to execute the goal of maintaining a pleasant forum environment and experience on MLP Forum. The focus of the conversation now is execution. Proper executions gives results. That said, taking care of upset users might just help them re-integrate into the community as well as stop being upset. Honestly, when telling someone over and over again isn't working, you can either give up (and blame them) or try something else. If getting such users to calm down and re-integrate were to be successful, I predict that those users would be grateful to the community and the parties involved for lending them a hand and an ear and not shut the door on them. Not only does that mean that such users could stay on the forums, it also means that they would become more attached to it than ever; their faith affirmed -- an experienced that can be described as the polar opposite of disillusionment with disillusionment being the spawning pool of cynicism, negativity and other such variants.

 

Alright, so how does that get pulled off? That is an entire discussion unto itself... I will say this, though; being a caregiver is very energy-intensive. 

[Standard User 2,127]

Woah, this conversation is still going on? I leave the Internet for a few hours and...whew.

 

Look, I'm a big conservative rules guy. Rules are rules are rules to me, and the system is working fine in my opinion. As 99.9% of the Forums are also running smoothly, I would suspect that the staff aren't about to go and rework the entire banning system. 

 

The OP states that the users have learned from their mistakes and want to return; ergo, they should contact the admins themselves. I'm confused as to why, when suddenly someone's friends are banned, the entire system needs to be reworked when before that point it was working just fine and still is working now.

 

...in my opinion, of course.

[King 5,625]

 

 

I have seen members get banned without any warning points being applied. I had a friend who was IP for not liking Feld0 and if I recall correctly, he received no warnings prior to this. So....The system is a bit flawed in my opinion

People can get banned straight away if the offence is strong enough, which is completely warranted in circumstances. As for someone getting IP banned for "not liking Feld0" that would never happen, the system isn't the most perfect thing in the world, but it isn't an outright popularity contest either.

 

 

Moderators are supposed to keep this site up, making sure that people are happy on this forum to create a place for people to actually enjoy.

Moderating at its core...is solving problems. A moderator on a website has the job of solving problems relating to rules. They are the police/judges of the forum and as such deal with anyone disrupting the site or causing issues by breaking rules. Thats why lots of mods tend to get hate form people, because they are mostly known for banning people or dishing out warning points, even though its their job and what they do is vital to keeping the site running smoothly on a community level. That being said, the mods aren't machines, they feel...more then once a mod has had to ban a friend or give them warnings, so its not like they enjoy warning/banning people. They just do their job and they do it well.

 

 

Being a staff member can be hell. I haven't personally experienced it but I think @Marcato can say a thing or two on this. 

Every staff member on this site has had their own experiences. Including myself and Im not even a moderator per say. Being staff on a site as large as ours isn't exactly an easy job. Not everyone will agree with what you do and some will outright hate you for it ,which can be hard. But we VOLUNTEER for this, we aren't paid for this, we do it because we agree to do it, because we want to serve teh site and help others enjoy their experience here.

 

 

That said, taking care of upset users might just help them re-integrate into the community as well as stop being upset.

 

When people have a grudge against certain staff, they will only see things their way, and when other staff attempt to help settle the issue, it will make them feel like they are being backed into a corner which creates an even bigger problem. Sometimes, you just can't help them, they set themselves on a path to a ban and moderators don't have the time to nurse people back into good understanding when they have the other 18000 members already here.