Idea for moderator actions

[Bootstoots]

One of the things I've noticed about CFC is how the moderators are predisposed to banning whenever trouble breaks out, and the ban is almost always for at least 3 days. I have to wonder: Why is it that banning has to be done so often? It certainly isn't the only way to stop trouble. I am a junior moderator at CDG, and some of the methods of controlling things there that would usually result in a ban at CFC work very well and are good alternatives to excessive bans. These include:

-Warning the users that cause trouble several times, with PM's about why they were warned and to stop that action.
-Closing a thread where trouble (such as a flamewar, spamming, etc.) is occurring for an hour or so, and posting a notation that the thread was closed briefly and a general warning to stop causing trouble. This breaks the momentum of flamewars, spam-fests, etc. and typically stops the action without having to resort to a ban.
-If the user(s) continue that action, they are banned, but usually only for a very short time of an hour or so, and tell the user privately of the ban rather than announcing it. Though that action couldn't be done where only one person can unban someone, why not use short bans, lasting for only a day or so? They would probably have the same impact as a week-long ban.
-If somebody cannot be reformed by that, then more action would have to be taken.

Is there any reason that these couldn't work here? I think that it would work just as well if not better than immediate banning.

One other thing, when these issues are brought up, the moderators usually say that they are moderating the forums as TF wants them to be moderated. Is there a set of guidelines or rules on how to deal with certain situations? If so, I would be very interested to see them.

 

[MarineCorps]

This thread won't last all that long.

 

[Darkness]

Originally posted by MarineCorps
This thread won't last all that long.

That is a very likely possibility.




The alledged predisposition to banning is not something I've noticed here at CFC.
I've seen more warnings than bans. The mods at CFC do a fine job. They only ban posters when it's really neccessary, in all other cases they just issue warnings....

 

[Bootstoots]

That's very true, they issue warnings very often too, and I approve of that, but banning occurs a bit too often here in the opinions of many. I was only proposing alternatives to banning.

 

[col]

Originally posted by MarineCorps
This thread won't last all that long.

I dont have a problem with constructive criticism. Closing and reopening threads that have got out of hand seems like a good idea to me. The important thing is that offenders reform or leave.

There are a lot of warnings issued - many behind the scenes - and I regard a ban as a last resort when someone just refuses to take any notice of 'advice'. For what its worth, my impression is that there are fewer bans around here than there used to be and posters are generally more civil than in the past. Some might claim that this is because things are generally quieter in OT than, for example, when the Iraq war was starting.

There is a set of moderator guidelines - alas they are in the staff forum and mod only

 

[cracker]

The reality is that banning is misnamed and is just a "timeout" and temporary interruption or loss of telephone priviliges for a few days.

The label should really read "timeout" or something else less fatal sounding than "banned" or "excommunicated".

Unfortunately, for most receivers of the ban button, the reality is that this does not occur all that often and the banee is usually warned multiple times before being banned. Although they may not get three of four warning at the specific event this really is not appropriate.

If you want to be treated like aresponsible adult then that infers the basic prerequiste of at least trying to act like a responsible adult.

 

[Padma]

Boots,

Believe me when I say I do much more "quiet" mod work than I do public warnings and bannings.

A ban is a "last resort" type measure, akin to the old joke of using a 2x4 to get the attention of a thick-headed mule. In some instances, however, it is the only resort, e.g., posting porn, warez links, etc.

Most of the time that I do "public" bannings and warnings is when I want the public to see. Although occasionally it is because I have no other means of contacting the offending poster. (Note: that means turning the PM option "ON", and emptying your PM box regularly. Email is another option, but many users turn that Off.)

 

[Stapel]

Afaik all mentioned alternatives are already used by our moderators!

The only alternative missing is being forced to refill the (not-so) secret moderator's refridgerator with beers! I have heard this will decrease the banning period.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by cracker
The reality is that banning is misnamed and is just a "timeout" and temporary interruption or loss of telephone priviliges for a few days.

The label should really read "timeout" or something else less fatal sounding than "banned" or "excommunicated".

I've noticed that Lefty uses the term "restriction," perhaps for this very reason.

Originally posted by Stapel
Afaik all mentioned alternatives are already used by our moderators!

That was my first thought as well.

Originally posted by Stapel
The only alternative missing is being forced to refill the (not-so) secret moderator's refridgerator with beers! I have heard this will decrease the banning period.

Just because you know that a secret fridge exists doesn't make it less of a secret. When you first heard about the Secret Cow Level in Diablo II for example, but didn't know how to get there, it was still a "secret" even though you knew it existed.

Bad example, I know since that wasn't a very well kept secret ...

 

[Bootstoots]

Well, what about closing and reopening threads that got out of hand? Wouldn't that be a good idea? I don't think I've ever seen that done, and though it probably has in the past, it should be regularly used. Also, what about a very short ban (maybe a day or so) to get the user's attention if they have been causing trouble? Even for major offenses, a one-day ban will probably get someone to stop what they're doing and refrain from doing it in the future.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Well, what about closing and reopening threads that got out of hand? Wouldn't that be a good idea? I don't think I've ever seen that done, and though it probably has in the past, it should be regularly used.

This thread just a few down from this one, is a recent example.

EDIT: typo

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Big site, heavy traffic, well-moderated = More bannings

Also, we know most of our Collesseum regulars very well - no point in continual re-ed for those habitual offenders.

You guys got off light with 3 days - my minimal is 7, unless I receive an assurance and a promise of future good behaviour.

 

[Darkness]

Originally posted by XIII
You guys got off light with 3 days - my minimal is 7, unless I receive an assurance and a promise of future good behaviour.

Or a bribe?
Like extra beer in the secret mod fridge?

 

[Thunderfall]

We are already using those alternatives you listed for a long time. If we don't, we'll have far more bans.

Right now there are only 4 bans in the ban list, two of them are DL accounts. We usually have less than 5 people on the ban list most of the time. For a forum this size, it's VERY light.

-If the user(s) continue that action, they are banned, but usually only for a very short time of an hour or so...

It's not simply not feasible, because only admins can unban people. I only can spend 2 or 3 hours a day on the forum nowadays.

It's possible that we'll use more shorter bans in the future, because the next version of vBulletin has an auto-unban feature.

Anyway, I am pretty happy with the work of our moderators, and find little need to change the way we do things here.

 

[Bootstoots]

It's not simply not feasible, because only admins can unban people. I only can spend 2 or 3 hours a day on the forum nowadays.

That's why I said this:

Though that action couldn't be done where only one person can unban someone, why not use short bans, lasting for only a day or so?

Keep in mind, I am pleased with how well the mods here keep this a friendly posting environment, I was just offering constructive criticism and I think it would be a good thing if they performed a short-term thread-lock when any flamewars or spam-fests break out before issuing bannings.

Right now there are only 4 bans in the ban list

That does exclude perm-bans, right?

 

[Flak]

Is there a way to view the ban list? This might become one the first places I visit when I come to civfanatics so I'll know if I'm even allowed to post or not that day.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

No.

The pros and cons of having such a list had been debated to the death in the past, and the end conclusion was still no.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Bootstoots

That does exclude perm-bans, right?

Rather than ban, we use and (unpublishable) term for those in the staff romm. Something involving Toecutter, a giant squid, a skunk, and a surgical kit.

 

[floppa21]

So TF still manually unbans every bannee?

 

[Shabbaman]

Well, since there are like 5 most of the time, like TF said, that shouldn't be too much work. What happens when he's on holiday though? Does a ban automatically get extended 'till the end of that holiday?