On publicising formal warnings and bans

[Dark0ne]

We're currently progressing well with our new moderation tools and I wanted to throw up a quick poll to gauge user opinion on one element of our moderation system here. Publicising strikes and bans in our Forum Rules and Strikes forum is something we've done for a long time now and I want to see if this is something people actually want, or whether it's something people resent.

 

Our moderation system is being broken down in to multiple tiers now.

 

• Notes are simply moderator-only visible notifications that we can leave on a member's profile to either keep on their record or to let other moderators know things about the member. E.g. "This member has informed us that his brother also has an account here under the username 'JimBobRectanglePants'.
  
• Informal warnings will be for minor offences, things that perhaps wouldn't warrant a formal warning (aka a strike) but that we think if the member continued, would add up to making a strike. A way to pre-warn a member they need to change their ways before they get a formal warning.
  
• Formal warnings are what strikes are now, and they can be backed up with punishments like being blocked from posting, uploading/downloading mods, images etc.
  
• Still straight bans for piracy, particularly aggressive or rude posting, and other major offences.
  

 

Informal warnings and formal warnings are unmissable on the Nexus sites. If you try to use a Nexus site after receiving a warning you will be redirected to a warning page explaining you've received a warning, what the warning was for. You cannot leave this page until you agree to our terms of service again. So if you try to visit a mod page without clicking the "I agree" box you'll just get redirected back to the warning page until you do agree.

 

My question to you is, should we be publicising the formal warnings on the forums as we have been, either in full (with the reason for the warning) or as a generic "This user has been formally warned about their actions"?

 

The way I see it there are two sides to the argument (and chime in if you see more sides). On the one side if you've reported an individual who's trolled one of your file threads, or has done something against you and you don't see them getting banned and you don't see any sort of notification that they've been warned then you're going to assume that no action has been taken when it's quite likely that action has been taken, you just don't know.

 

On the other side publicly humiliating individuals who've been warned isn't a great first step in ensuring they change their ways. It simply fosters embarrassment (or a big FU to the moderators who consequently ban them) and resentment to us and how we do things.

 

So consider this a poll for me to gauge public opinion on the matter, a "Robin's trying to cover his ass by making sure he's with the majority on this one" thread. Something I can point to when people get all hot-under the collar about being publicly ousted and say "well hey, this is what most people wanted". I can well imagine which way this poll is going to swing.

 

To pre-empt one possible idea being suggested, I have thought about making it so that the warning isn't public but the reporter is informed of our decision privately. This system presents certain coding complications between the forum software and the site code that I'd rather not delve in to, especially since the forum software will be updated soon at which point all the code will need changing again. So, for now, consider that option off the table.

[micalov]

From chat regular, bans yes. It helps when you get ppl coming with second accounts for reference. Also when checking ported stuff and some one credits Bob as the original creator, you can search and find out bob was banned for stealing stuff so the likeliness of the ported mod being stolen assets are high to, a prime infamous example would be someone like TOXA.

 

Warning 50/50 if they are published then no details just a note, but hidden or no full details not much difference tbh.

[Millenia]

I'm okay with having both warnings and bans public.

 

Also "JimBobRectanglePants" made my day :dance:

[BlackBaron2]

I would be happy to keep things mostly as they are: post them and give an explanation as to where they went wrong for all to see. Making things vague and nebulous just opens things up for seriously annoying cases of rules lawyering.

[TheVampireDante]

I'd leave the bans public, then there's no doubts on anyone's side (staff and members) and we have something to show people if they come asking about the user in question.

 

Strikes - since the new system is going to make it directly obvious to the user being issued the strikes/warnings that they have indeed been given one (can't avoid it now) and we will have an accessible record of the Staff actions against users, there's no real need for strikes to given a public record anymore.

[QQuix]

Both publicized with details.

The main aspect of the 'publicity' is Educational, I think. Other members (particularly the new ones) will know where the line is drawn.

 

Agreed: humiliation is not a good first step and tends to escalate and send the relationship down the drain. So, if possible, maybe the first warning could be 'non-public', giving a chance for the member to change his ways voluntarily.

[Ygfbv]

I don't think warnings/strikes/whatever should be public - it can stir up unneeded emotions, etc. Same with bans - if they're public, they shouldn't include any major details IMHO.

 

Just a bit curious/offtopic: Are you using/planning on using IPB's internal warning/strike system to make it easier to track warnings? You could even make strikes public using the internal IPB warning system, though it won't post a thread (would just be a pip under a users name that people can click).

 

I don't think they've changed the table location in a few years (yourprefix_warn_logs, iirc), and I doubt they'll change the location with 3.4.x., which means you could just pull content from the table to alert people on the main page of the site.

 

sorry if I'm rambling, it's the morning.

[Striker879]

I agree with QQuix ... I have used and continue to use Forum Rules and Strikes as a way of understanding where the limits between acceptable and not acceptable lie. Perhaps fewer details for the Strikes/Warning, as that person is still a member, or a hidden first warning as QQuix suggests.

[razorpony]

I prefer keeping bans at least in the public forums with details. Many times I've found out that a friend has been banned only to read that it was by request and they'll likely be back. I imagine without this information being public the mod team will be deluged with questions of "Why was so-and-so banned?" thus making even more headaches for yourselves. That's my 2 cents, don't spend it all in one place.

 

RP

[rickerhk]

I voted hide warnings/public bans but after reading the posts here I think first warning hidden everything else public is a good idea.