On publicising formal warnings and bans

[TheVampireDante]

Any action taken on someone's account is private information. Any information regarding someones account is no one elses business, be that whether the account is banned or has strikes against it or is in good standing. That information should only be available to the site staff, not the general public.

 

The offense is public, so is the punishment. Example of what not to do - and what happens if you do it anyway.

 

The only information that we have as staff that regular site members do not have access to is IP addresses and emails (if the user has decided to hide theirs from view). That is all, and it's not like we include that information for all to see when a ban post is written.

Anything else is viewable via their profile page if they've filled it in. If people don't want something known - then don't post it.

[Dark0ne]

I can understand the privacy argument if it was a ban involving private conversations, but when we're talking about public actions, like trolling file comments, that's a public post, for all to see. Does it then make sense to make the implications private?

[blove]

I voted "You should publicise bans with the full details of why the user received their ban", but feel that only the gist of why would be sufficient.

[Mabwich]

The Vampire Dante:

The only information that we have as staff that regular site members do not have access to is IP addresses and emails (if the user has decided to hide theirs from view).

 

That is not quite true. You may also have details of the offence which staff members can place somewhere that is only accessible to other staff members. If the offence is public, and so is the punishment, then the details of the offence should be public too if you intend to be completely open.

[TheVampireDante]

I was talking about profile information - not report offense information.

[Zaldir]

Any action taken on someone's account is private information. Any information regarding someones account is no one elses business, be that whether the account is banned or has strikes against it or is in good standing. That information should only be available to the site staff, not the general public.

 

Nothing 'silly' about it. :dry:

We never share information that is not already available to the public - only freely available information will ever be shared, and only if it has any relevance to the matter at hand. All private information is still private, and only available to the user in question and the site staff.

 

What they have done is freely available to anyone who does any digging - just look at their posting history. So this is not private information.

If they are banned at all is stated in their profile (as it should be). So this is also not private information.

Profile information that is not hidden is freely available to anyone who visits your profile. So this is not private information.

 

Private messages is what it is; private. This information will (EDIT) only be shared in rare occurrences.

Hidden profile information remains hidden, and is not revealed to the public in any way.

IP addresses are private, and will not be shared by the staff.

 

 

There might be exceptions to this in rare cases if we deem it necessary to share certain information, but again, only in rare cases. IP addresses will still never be shared.

[Dark0ne]

Private messages is what it is; private. This information will never be shared with the public by the staff.

 

That one's not entirely true. If someone is lying about what has gone in within private conversations between me, or in conversations I have been given access to via an invite, and it's within acceptable reason, I'll release PM information within ban or strike notices. You need only look at the Earache ban thread for proof of that. Though I should point out, from what little I can remember of the situation, I'm not sure Earache was the one doing the lying in that case; there was just a lot of lying going about from other members that required the record being put straight.

 

Still, it's a very rare occurrence.

[JimboUK]

My only concern with the publicity is people do have a right of appeal, if it does turn out they were wronged then they've had what they've been wrongly accused of posted in public. Anyway what does publicising everything actually achieve? you understandably can't question moderator actions so why do we need the details of them. Just seems a little unnecessary to me.

[Lisnpuppy]

My only concern with the publicity is people do have a right of appeal, if it does turn out they were wronged then they've had what they've been wrongly accused of posted in public. Anyway what does publicising everything actually achieve? you understandably can't question moderator actions so why do we need the details of them. Just seems a little unnecessary to me.

 

People question bannings in the open forums on a regular basis. There was one in the last week in fact. Really its a damned if we do and damned if we don't. Perhaps the terms of service should state in a more formal way that bannings and strikes/formal warnings will be public and to agree to it agrees that what you did will be pubic. After all I don't think if you troll an open forum or file post that you have any expectations of privacy. In fact anything posted on this site save for PMs (which is up to Dark0ne to decide about as he gave a good example and that is one of maybe 3 I have ever seen PM or emails shared in the years and years I have been here) and personal info (IP and person email not publicly shared on your profile page) is open to anyone registered to the site and the postings are open to anyone that visits (member pages are not viewable by guest.)

 

This isn't a doctor office and if you post on this family of sites there is no expectation of privacy for what you post in the open forum and file comments.

 

The second we do something like example:

 

Jim_uk banned. (sorry Jim just using you as an example lol)

 

And there is nothing else then tons of folks will start with, Why was this member banned? What did they do? They are nice and helpful and give good links to greenscreen things for 2D programs. I can't imagine what they could have possibly done!!! Lisnpuppy must have banned them because she is jealous of them...blah blah yadda yadda (har har)

 

This would happen in public (do not doubt it) and in PM.

 

If we link the post of what got them in trouble...then people may not agree but it lessens the angst among the community because they can see...oh they posted blah blah blah blah in this file upload thread. To do otherwise invites far more rumor mongering that showing the reason will ever have. People that win their unban appeal are almost never let back because we made public something they absolutely did not do. If that is the case moderators have made private and sometimes public apology to those people (when warranted and trust me if we screw up we are taken to task)...but almost always the unban appeal is that the person realizes they broke a rule of the site and has said they understand what happened and reviewed and understand the rules and will not do such and such again. We don't make these things public to do a smear campaign on folks!

 

Honestly even when I think someone deserves a ban it doesn't make me happy. I am never happy to ban someone. It makes me sad when we can't express ourselves in such a way that is civil and with common sense (which is all most of the rules here are.) Sometimes people just need to go and make it clear in the unban appeals (which are sometimes just a way to tell us off in very descriptive and anatomically impossible ways!) The ban appeal is the second chance for people that really want it.

 

Jim, I do understand what you are saying but to not give information will cause a crapstorm I don't think anyone wants.

[Thandal]

My only concern with the publicity is people do have a right of appeal, if it does turn out they were wronged then they've had what they've been wrongly accused of posted in public. Anyway what does publicising everything actually achieve? you understandably can't question moderator actions so why do we need the details of them. Just seems a little unnecessary to me.

A valid point, jim_uk. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. In every case I can remember where a Strike or Ban was issued in error, the Nexus Staff have made a very public apology to the member, and to the community as a whole.

 

We review Ban Appeals daily (sometimes hourly) and clearly mark the successful ones as "Reinstated". While I have recused myself from voting in the poll, I favour more, rather than less transparency.

 

The Nexus sites are a private space with public exposure. So I believe an "Informal Warning" should remain private, but anything more should become a matter of public record.