Guybrush

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 On the whole, the mods here are doing a great job and so I hope noone takes this as personal criticism.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Urban Hat€monger ?

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.

__________________

Guybrush

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.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Howard the Duck

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

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Guybrush

^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.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Urban Hat€monger ?

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.

__________________

GuitarBizarre

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.

Guybrush

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.

__________________
Something Completely Different

someonecompletelyrandom

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!

Urban Hat€monger ?

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.

__________________