A "Banned Member Forum"....


Recommended Posts

I know the staff runs the board and I don't have a problem with that, but I've often wondered why members don't have more say in some decisions. For example, say a permanently banned member had a chance to appeal to the members and we had a chance to vote on whether to allow the ban to stay or to revoke it. For something as important as a ban he would need at least say 70% of votes. If that's not workable, then say have a counsel of leading members that they could appeal to. To ban a member should be a last resort and he should be given every chance, I think.

Anyway, just an idea.

Don't forget we are infact also members. Most of us have been with the community for years. Staff aren't in the clouds sitting on piliars handing down stone tablets of rules. We interact with and use the community just as anyone else would, except we also make sure it runs smoothly.

Members can always PM us concerns or complaints. Banned members also can appeal moderation decisions. Doesn't mean they will always get their way, but we do listen.

Also remember that staff have checks and balances. Warns and Bans are reviewed daily, by multiple staff members, as well as any e-mails that come through.

Bans are also only approved after a staff discussion occurs and a supervisor approves.

The only thing we are tight lipped on are things regarding to member warns and status. That's between the member and staff.

It's an extremely rare case for a member to be banned without a very long warn history. Infact I can only think of a handful of incidents since 2001. The only time we ban on sight for rule breakage are spammers or duplicate accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the staff runs the board and I don't have a problem with that, but I've often wondered why members don't have more say in some decisions. For example, say a permanently banned member had a chance to appeal to the members and we had a chance to vote on whether to allow the ban to stay or to revoke it. For something as important as a ban he would need at least say 70% of votes. If that's not workable, then say have a counsel of leading members that they could appeal to. To ban a member should be a last resort and he should be given every chance, I think.

Anyway, just an idea.

I think it's a good idea. (Y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't support this idea at all.

It'd be like Lord of the Flies, except for in the end of things, the island won't burn down.

Part of being banned is .. well.. being banned.

You're not supposed to enjoy your time being banned, and the only way we can enforce that is to restrict your access to the site. Giving you access to a "special" forum would grant you access to the site and make it "enjoyable"..

Make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we volunteer even more time to our moderator team for people who get themselves banned for disrupting our community? Seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the staff runs the board and I don't have a problem with that, but I've often wondered why members don't have more say in some decisions. For example, say a permanently banned member had a chance to appeal to the members and we had a chance to vote on whether to allow the ban to stay or to revoke it. For something as important as a ban he would need at least say 70% of votes. If that's not workable, then say have a counsel of leading members that they could appeal to. To ban a member should be a last resort and he should be given every chance, I think.

The problem Growled is that "counsel" members would have to be chosen and be picked like a jury, impartial to the cause of an unban. As mods we're not really supposed to express our opinions on things, that's why you so rarely see us in Real World Issues (if at all!).

"Counsel" members could be easily bribed or swayed in their vote direction, therefore, it doesn't make sense to have a "counsel".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the staff runs the board and I don't have a problem with that, but I've often wondered why members don't have more say in some decisions. For example, say a permanently banned member had a chance to appeal to the members and we had a chance to vote on whether to allow the ban to stay or to revoke it. For something as important as a ban he would need at least say 70% of votes. If that's not workable, then say have a counsel of leading members that they could appeal to. To ban a member should be a last resort and he should be given every chance, I think.

Anyway, just an idea.

Most members that register here are never banned, never appear on the staff moderators "radar" and don't need to be bothered with troublesome members. All that would serve to do is give even more attention to the troublemaker by involving the community members. We have a set of "house rules" and if certain people can't abide by them by continually breaking those rules, they are simply shown the door. As I said, most members don't have a problem following and abiding by our house rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem Growled is that "counsel" members would have to be chosen and be picked like a jury, impartial to the cause of an unban. As mods we're not really supposed to express our opinions on things, that's why you so rarely see us in Real World Issues (if at all!).

"Counsel" members could be easily bribed or swayed in their vote direction, therefore, it doesn't make sense to have a "counsel".

i think this is another reason to support my idea of a new council for every ban ... get everyone who participiated in the thread that caused the ban to vote if a particular person is justified to be banned... that way, the moderation will be more un-opinionated because its decided by the community itself

also, by locking access of certan members to a certain part of the forum would serve as punishment and as an example of others, but there will need to be additional restrictions , like one thread per banned member, no new replies until someone else has replied,etc etc... and some way to make it obvious what the member was banned for, like having the offending post as the signature or something....

and of course normal members are free to view and reply to the threads, but maybe to drive the message home, normal members should also be allowed to delete/lock/edit everything posted by banned members...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think this is another reason to support my idea of a new council for every ban ... get everyone who participiated in the thread that caused the ban to vote if a particular person is justified to be banned... that way, the moderation will be more un-opinionated because its decided by the community itself

also, by locking access of certan members to a certain part of the forum would serve as punishment and as an example of others, but there will need to be additional restrictions , like one thread per banned member, no new replies until someone else has replied,etc etc... and some way to make it obvious what the member was banned for, like having the offending post as the signature or something....

and of course normal members are free to view and reply to the threads, but maybe to drive the message home, normal members should also be allowed to delete/lock/edit everything posted by banned members...

that sounds complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that sounds complicated.

its not, see, if mods are above normal users, then normal users are above banned people, and should be able to do things to them that mods can do to normal users...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not, see, if mods are above normal users, then normal users are above banned people, and should be able to do things to them that mods can do to normal users...

Why would you want to change how the forum staff work in the first place? The current "system" works so why change it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not, see, if mods are above normal users, then normal users are above banned people, and should be able to do things to them that mods can do to normal users...

you want to play around with the banned members? :laugh:

also, most bans arent done based on just one action/thread/post, other things like the users history is taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you want to change how the forum staff work in the first place? The current "system" works so why change it?

im not saying changing how the forum staff works, im talking about normal users becoming like forum staff to banned members

the benefit is threefold: it acts as a deterrence for normal users from doing acts that would get them banned, it would solve the moderation problem in such a 'banned members' forum, plus it may rehabilitate a banned member after being consoled by regular members

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By adding a third group of people you are, in fact, changing how the forum staff works. The way it's currently done is working perfectly well. Why change that? Do you think that banned people are being treated unfair?

Banned users are banned for a reason. If they're banned, they've gone against the rules in the worst way possible. They're then banned from the forum so that they can't post, can't become a member, and can't do anything else on the forum. It's a punishment, which is what being banned is all about. They shouldn't be allowed to go into a forum for banned members only, just to get "council" from members. If they've already gone against every single rule, banned members obviously could care less about being banned from the forums.

It's a forum, not some school where you get banned from class and where you then have to see someone to talk about your actions. Also, being rehabilitate by normal members sounds like you want to make a therapy group for banned users.

I'm sorry, but to me it's just the weirdest forum idea I have ever heard. I also can't see it turning out positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a forum, not some school where you get banned from class and where you then have to see someone to talk about your actions. Also, being rehabilitate by normal members sounds like you want to make a therapy group for banned users.

you do not suppose that people are actually going to treat banned members nicely, do you? much less give them 'therapy' or anything....

like it follows the reason that only a select group of people have the ability to close/edit/delete posts and threads, because unpleasant conditions happen when everyone gets to wield these same powers... however, if you apply these conditions only to banned members, and make it so that this is the only thing that banned members experience, it will be fair and just, a 'punishment' as you put it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not saying changing how the forum staff works, im talking about normal users becoming like forum staff to banned members

the benefit is threefold: it acts as a deterrence for normal users from doing acts that would get them banned, it would solve the moderation problem in such a 'banned members' forum, plus it may rehabilitate a banned member after being consoled by regular members

"Normal" users already have that privilege, and are frequently quick to report trouble on the forums. So, we already have that system in place.

We have always had the policy of not "hanging out the dirty washing" this is to respect peoples privacy, however annoying they may be, and to steer focus away from the dealt with negative behavior becoming lengthy topics by people who have no clue as to the extent of the banned persons previous warn history, which will never become a "public" offering by Neowin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was once banned for drinking the staffs beer stash :(

Oh come on, if you're not going to ban for that just just what should you ban for? :p

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banned users are banned for a reason. If they're banned, they've gone against the rules in the worst way possible. They're then banned from the forum so that they can't post, can't become a member, and can't do anything else on the forum. It's a punishment, which is what being banned is all about. They shouldn't be allowed to go into a forum for banned members only, just to get "council" from members. If they've already gone against every single rule, banned members obviously could care less about being banned from the forums.

By the time someone has gotten themselves banned they have ignored a lot of education/advice from the moderating staff. We do try to steer people back to the "light" side of the force and there have been a handful of members that have visibly have matured while posting on Neowin. Some of them have gone from 0% to 100% (and the brink of banmanship) but then have slowly reverted back down towards 0%. We no longer think of those members as "troublemakers" since they have turned the corner. It can be done. We try to help you make that transition but, on some people, after giving many chances, we sometimes loose faith that any progress will be made and we cut our loses. It isn't something that is done on a whim or done in anger. Usually it involves a wide moderator discussion.

There are very few exceptions when someone is banned without a wide discussion and that usually involves a first post viagra/discount watches ad. The other exception is when an account is linked to a previously banned account (one who's history is recent and well documented).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY complaint i have in regard to modderation, is that i got a warn the other week, but didnt realise it was a warn i had recieved, as the warn didnt increase my warn level.

The email i recieved stated that i WOULD get warned if i posted in such a way again, but thats it. Then my level never increased. The only reason i noticed something was up, was when my warn level never decreased as it should have done at the 6 month mark.

When i asked, i was told i had recieved a warn, but its a type of warn that doesnt increase the warn level.

Whilst i appreciate the feedback, i did reply saying that the email i originally recieved indicated that i WOULD and not that i HAVE been warned, so it was very missleading.

Until now, neither Shockz or Neobond replied to that or indicated that they will make the changes to that template to ensure no future confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY complaint i have in regard to modderation, is that i got a warn the other week, but didnt realise it was a warn i had recieved, as the warn didnt increase my warn level.

The email i recieved stated that i WOULD get warned if i posted in such a way again, but thats it. Then my level never increased. The only reason i noticed something was up, was when my warn level never decreased as it should have done at the 6 month mark.

~Snip~

So, pardon me for asking Rich as I'm not the staff in question who did your warn.. but.. what seems to be the problem.

The staff member in question didn't feel it was necessary to full blown warn you.

Look at it this way. We have 0% Warns, and the kind of warns that increase your warning level, If you get 100% warn level, you're gone for a temporary amount of time, or depending on your infraction, you could be gone forever.

You got off with a 0% warn, but you're complaining about it? Seems very strange to me.

I'm sure there are other staff members who would very happily adjust your warning level for you to accommodate for this "mistake".. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A null warn, or as staff call them, a zero level increase, is a friendly reminder Rich. As I stated in the pm... It's not actually a warn, but it is recorded in our logs.

Since staff did have to intervine on a post you made however, this would affect the warn reduction system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, pardon me for asking Rich as I'm not the staff in question who did your warn.. but.. what seems to be the problem.

The staff member in question didn't feel it was necessary to full blown warn you.

Look at it this way. We have 0% Warns, and the kind of warns that increase your warning level, If you get 100% warn level, you're gone for a temporary amount of time, or depending on your infraction, you could be gone forever.

You got off with a 0% warn, but you're complaining about it? Seems very strange to me.

I'm sure there are other staff members who would very happily adjust your warning level for you to accommodate for this "mistake".. :laugh:

The way I was reading is he is not upset because of the null warn, but because warning levels are supposed to go down every 6 months and because of the null warn that did not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.