Suggestion : Permban by Votes and comments on moderation
 

This thread is about an idea/concern which has been churning occasionally in my mind since I was moderator myself. I believe I didn't bring it up at the time because I thought it would seem too critical as other mods could take it personal. I have some criticisms, but it is directed at a way of doing things rather than the actions of anyone specific. There's always the chance of someone feeling targetted, though, and if anyone's offended due to my comments/suggestion, I am sorry.


Background / Criticisms

Moderators are pretty much left to their own when it comes to exactly how they deal with members. That means that some moderators may not deal with members in ways that you agree with. Something I've seen moderators do (including myself) is to write passionate messages to other members, belittling or ridiculing them for how they broke the rules or being sarcastic or something other that the member finds offensive. For most users, being disciplined is hard enough and sometimes what happens is that the user will get so angry at this that he will send an offensive message back to the moderator. This in turn justifies harsher disciplinary actions from the moderator and the user can even find him or herself permabanned.

As a fellow moderator, there's not much you can do when this sort of stuff comes up. The discussion took place in PM and when you see a quotation from another user personally attacking a mod, there's little you can do but voice your support. You are part of a team.

Sometimes this scenario just happens, but I suspect moderators can and have used it as a way of baiting members into angry fits where they will do something ban-worthy just so that the moderator will feel justified in turning a small disciplinary action into harsh punishment. Regardless of whether the moderator is purposely manipulating the member or not, the outcome is often the same.

I should add as a side note that even if/when employed as a manipulative strategy, it will generally be used in a way which is beneficial to the site by removing a troublesome element. Hence, I'm not so much criticizing the results as I am the way it is done.


Suggestions

I'd like to propose a few things. First, I propose a more factual and colder approach to discipline. A note to the user need simply contain a "You did this and this is the consequence" and perhaps a warning that repetition can lead to bans is a good way to let a user know when a rule is broken. Of course, a member can still get pissy (candidates for permbans generally are), but at least it's less the fault of the moderator. There should be no need to insult a member.

I don't know how moderation is done nowadays, but I also propose using the infraction system more as it makes a thread in your reports forums which means more transparency as every mod can review the way a situation was handled.

Finally, I suggest using a (mods only) voting system to ban members. For every user who would normally be permabanned today, you can create a poll thread in the mods forum (ex. Permban : Username). The user can be tempbanned while voting goes on. It will let all mods voice their opinions and it will also be easier to go back and look at the circumstances surrounding any banned members' case.

As a final note, I also believe moderators should be able to suggest the permbanning of members who haven't done anything wrong as they collectively are working together for the best interests of the site.


Finally, I'd like to mention that since it's been a while since I was mod now, such a system could already be in place for all I know :p: On the whole, the mods here are doing a great job and so I hope noone takes this as personal criticism.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at in regards to having a vote for permabans.

You yourself know that permabans are not dished out lightly and are only given out after a lot of discussion between the mods has happened already. In some cases pages of it until a final agreement is made.

I don't really see how adding a Yes/No poll will change anything or be of any help.

It will formalize the proceedings a bit and make it much easier to go back and have a look at the circumstances concerning any past banned members case. Regular members will have a general guarantee that when a member they appreciate is banned from the site, it's not simply because moderator X had a bad day. Moderators who would disagree with the ban have a very real way of influencing the banning of a member through a vote. The chances they will log on some day and find a member permabanned without them being included in the process is much smaller.

I am not suggesting this is done for every ban out there (spammers and such). Perhaps being treated this way should be a privilege for members with a 100 posts or more post count.

edit :

I agree that permabans are generally discussed, but not always. The scenario I mentioned where moderators wittingly or unwittingly baits members into replying to the mod in an offensive manner is a typical situation which can lead to a permban without other mods having a say.

oojay practically poo-poo'd my idea of a voting poll for banning

those were the days when The Virgin ran riot

though I disagree with the mods' decision to let him stay that long (practically everyone had some gripe about him), might I suggest that this permaban voting poll be reserved for someone who is totally annoying and irritating, and only when the mods are hesitant to take any action towards said member

^I should make it clear that I am not suggesting regular members have any say in such a vote. My suggestion only has to do with moderators and what goes on in their forum.

I can't ever recall that ever happening though.

Every permaban that's happened since I've been a mod has been after a great deal of discussion usually after a number of infractions. I can't ever recall anyone getting a permaban out of the blue because a mod has had a bad day, it just doesn't happen.

And how will a poll say what the circumstances for past bannings are? Especially as I just as easily go back to the discussion & read what happened for myself. Also there are times when I've thought a member should be banned only for another mod to come along a bit later on and suggest a different idea and change my mind, this is another reason why I think a poll is pointless.

I've given out quick bannings before, they only last 24 hours, they're never permabans. I only do that when I think giving an infraction is pointless because it won't stop them continuing trolling and I think the member needs time to cool down and take some time away from the forum.

People are different so you have to moderate differently, some people react better to a simple request, some people react better to something formal & some people react better when they're given time to cool down. Also I'm more likely to be more sympathetic to a good member who rarely causes trouble just having a bad day to someone who's always looking to pick fights.

Your 'colder approach' takes none of these things into account which is why I would be dead against it. I'm pretty sure I said this to you when you tried implementing something similar when you were modding that I just don't think you can moderate by statistics.

I disagree on the "Factual" stuff. Part of what makes the mods here good is that they don't put up with bull**** and they still try and have some fun. Trying to be "Cold and factual" would mean they'd have to tie themselves to the rules and there'd be less emphasis on what the mods do well, which is lay the hammer down when people try to skirt the rules in order to be *******s.

Urban, I have the feeling a lot of people have been permbanned from the site without my involvement when I was a mod. The way I see it, even though moderation here works fine without such a system, it could work more fine with it. So it's not so much that MB needs it, but more that it could be an improvement.

As for the "cold" approach, all I mean is a mod shouldn't purposely ridicule, belittle etc. a member. You can do the disciplining with infractions and bans. I'm not saying you have to leave your personality at the door when stepping up to the job.

I've personally not seen any "baiting" since I've been a mod, and am definitely opposed to such behavior. Adding a poll in the mod cave seems to only make the discussion and consensus that takes place a touch more formal, so it's not a bad idea.

A few of the moderators here are sarcastic, and frankly that's what keeps us from being walked all over and lets us deal with the insanity of other people with humor. I've never witnessed anyone trying to bait a member into a ban (although of course, we have joked about it occasionally when members do things to get on our nerves). Usually what will happen is a very friendly PM is sent, if they take no action and continue to break the rules an infraction is given, couple of infractions leads to a ban, after that permanent bans are considered. There are, of course, special cases, but we're relunctant to even hand out a temp ban without asking, let alone toss around permies.

So while a poll wouldnt hurt, the precedent for its creation is something I just can't really see. Although there have been instances where mods act alone in banning, these were times when consensus wasn't possible and I personally trust their discretion.

It does make me think that maybe every member under review for being permabanned should get a thread in the cave for discussion.

Thanks for the suggestion, tore! :)

The problem is that most of the decisions to give a permaban are made at the end of the discussion, not the beginning. That's why I think it doesn't really do anything to add a poll.

Once you reach the end of the discussion you already have a consensus on what to do from a majority of mods so adding a poll seems rather pointless.

The problem with voting is that often, some moderators won't show their faces for a month. The last time we permabanned a user, it was put to the rest of the staff whether or not it should be, and everyone who was present within 24 hours fully supported the ban.

I haven't given out an infraction in some time, but I've generally come to the opinion that infractions are impersonal and cause a greater divide between staff and the rest of the community, (a divide which I think we've all worked hard to lessen since the first half of '11 when there was a lot of concern about how we do our jobs) and for a first offense, I'd much rather tell someone "Hey, you can't really do that" than fire them off a mark on their permanent record.

I'm also of the habit of copying the quotes from these conversations into the Cave for people to be generally aware of the exchange. I understand that this method can be subject to doctoring, but I do trust the other moderators, and I don't believe we've got anyone here who would feel a need to do that, nor have anything to gain from it.

Wanna come back to the team and see? ;)

EDIT: Hey, Tore, reading your subsequent posts in the thread, I haven't seen the behaviour you've mentioned regarding permabans in the 10 months I've been moderating.

A poll wouldn't necessarily require all moderators to join in, perhaps only enough for a majority vote if that's the chosen way to do it. Say there are 11 mods, any permban decision could require 6 votes. I realize presence could still be an issue.

When it comes to infractions, at least for tempbans/permbans they are good as it does, as you say, go down in a member's record so that other moderators can see that in the future as well as for the transparency reasons that I like. To those who don't know, 10 infractions or more to your account means you are banned until the number of infractions go below 10.

I can think of episodes where "baiting" it has happened, but I'd rather not name them because that's water under the bridge and it don't think mentioning examples would be worth it to further an argument in this thread. The banning of the members involved was generally in the site's best interests so I don't have a problem with the fact people got banned. I just feel the way it was done could be improved. Anyways, those who can't remember seeing it happen on the site could think instead of the possibility of it happening in the future.

edit :

By "baiting", I mean any situation where a mod has written/responded sarcastically/rude/etc. to an offending member, causing a conflict between member and moderator to escalate to the point where it results in harsher disciplinary action from the moderator than what the member originally got/deserved before the conflict escalated.

Hmm. Well, you make valid points about there being a clear cut history for each user (though it's not that hard to search for their name and usually everyone is well aware of their history), but at the same time... I obviously can't say what your experience has been, nor do I even know who you worked with, but I trust these people implicitly to be honest with the rest of us. People have made decisions I don't agree with, but I can't say they've ever been dishonest or secretive about it. If that comes up, it might facilitate changes in the manner which we go about things, but right now I don't see a problem. We consult one another, and it's been a long time since a decision has been made that has been poorly received by the community.

Yes, I don't know much of what goes on in terms of drama on the site, but the moderator / regular user relations seem very good at the moment :) People seem happier with the mod team now than they did last spring.

As I mentioned, I'm not addressing an issue which I feel needs fixing. It's only a suggestion for improving on something which already works well.

In that case, the only point I would make against your suggestion (and this is my observation over the last year) is that on the whole, the community takes infractions and official warnings very personally, and people seem to feel like we loom over them with an iron fist when we pass them out (as we did with much more frequency early last year). Communication is the key to mediation, not black marks and time outs.

On the other hand, you have members who sit somewhere on the skirts of the community, and these are typically the troublemakers, and because we know their patterns of behaviour, we do tend to come down more firmly with them. We do indeed use infractions for these people as warnings.

Urban already summed it up; no one strategy will work across the board, and I think we're doing pretty good at knowing when and where to use our tools. :)

It's true that members here are deathly afraid of infractions even though they are relatively harmless in small numbers. There are many possible reasons why so I'm not sure which one it is. I've sometimes thought perhaps peoples feelings about receiving infractions could change if modding culture changed and they were used more frequently, but perhaps it is the very idea that you have a record where your wrongdoings are recorded that worries people.

I see the problem with using them as a disciplinary measure against "petty crimes" today, but I would still recommend them for bans. In those cases, the offender has probably done something bad enough to earn a mark on their record anyways!

This thread... I don't get it.

x 2

What is it you don't get? The idea that there's a point in having a formal procedure on how to do things, that this could at all improve cooperation/communication between moderators or prevent mods banning members without properly consulting other mods first?

Why does it need to be prevented?
I was made a mod to use my own judgement.

For permabans or lengthy bans you have a point and it's already being done. Nobody gets a lengthy ban on a whim.

For 1 day bans to 1 week bans I don't see why don't see why I need every other mods opinion. If someone is trolling the boards and I decide to give them some time to cool down do you really expect me to delay. for example am I supposed to delay a one day ban for a week while I wait for every other mod to sign on and have an opinion on it?
Meanwhile that person is still on the boards trolling away with members getting more & more annoyed that nothing has been done about this person.
It's unworkable.

We're here to make judgement calls, sometimes we get them wrong. I get what you are saying but I think your solution is far too much work and over complex for something that isn't a huge problem to begin with.

I agree with your point about smaller disciplinary actions like 1 day bans. It's not really needed for that. Mods are chosen, as you say, because the other mods believe in their ability to use their judgment. I'm only suggesting it for more important cases which happen less frequently. Less frequently now than ever, I suspect, as there currently seems to be fewer troublesome elements on the site than I can ever remember.

As a side note, mods could also vote to ban people off the site regardless to whether or not they've done anything wrong to deserve it. It could be useful for getting rid of people like Coryallen and The Virgin quicker. When here, it's like you can see that sooner or later that they have to go as their presence on the site is disturbing to all, but noone wants to be the person responsible for getting rid of them when they're not breaking the rules per se. That could be less of a problem with such a system.