On publicising formal warnings and bans

[JimboUK]

@Lisnpuppy thanks for the reply, they're good points which have changed my mind. Your reply deserves a longer answer but we've got the decorators in this weekend and im just quickly going through stuff before I unplug the router, I'll still have the phones Internet but this site isn't the best on mobile devices. :O

 

@Thandal it's just something I'm personally uncomfortable with, not that it matters, the poll disagrees with me.

[Deleted82156User]

Edit: But I can see that I am very much in the minority, by the poll, so arguing my point is a complete waste of time. I leave you to it. Edited November 17, 2012 by Guest

[Dark0ne]

Shezrie, I read your original post and I stand by your original banning. It was the right thing to do at the right time considering the circumstances involved. However, had I known that your ban thread was still causing you issues I'd have been more than willing to hide it considering the time that has passed, the fact you've been reinstated and the asset you've been to this community. All you had to do was ask. Would you like me to hide the thread from public view?

[bben46]

Posting the reason for a ban or formal warning is needed for transparency. It's a fine line though. On one side we get blasted for violating someone's privacy - for bring attention to what they posted publicly or typed into the chat again publicly. While on the other we get accused of indiscriminate bans for no valid reason if we don't show why they were banned. :rolleyes:

 

Don't believe for a minute that an obnoxious profane ridden post where someone trashes a mod then admits to piracy, and is then found to have been previously banned for the same kind of actions, would not get a complaint of "You banned me for no reason!" when the report merely shows the offender was banned without any detail of why. And they will, and do, go public both here and on other sites about how the moderation of The Nexus is blatantly unfair. The public posting of exactly what they posted is our only defense against accusations of unfairness.

 

And to be fair, we need to post that information for every ban. For minor warnings not so much. I have often given 'unofficial' warnings instead of a strike by PM that were never seen by the public. Most worked. :happy: The new system just formalizes that act. A minor warning will be just that, a warning with no other penalty - and I believe it should be hidden. But now available to the rest of the staff as well. While a major warning, similar to the current strike should be more public - this person has violated a rule, but not badly enough to be banned unless they continue. This serves as both a warning to the offender and a warning to anyone else who reads it. Hopefully deterring others from doing the same thing.

 

As for the 'public shame' most people use an assumed screen name and not their real name (as they should) when posting. The shame goes to that forum name and not to the individual who is still anonymous to everyone else - unless they have chosen to make their actual name available on their profile. In my experience, most of the people we ban don't put much more than what is required in their profile (there are exceptions though)

 

As to the public poll, like Thandal, I will abstain. And I will adhere to whatever rule Dark0ne establishes. :thumbsup:

[Deleted82156User]

Shezrie, I read your original post and I stand by your original banning.

 

I am not disputing that, I lost my cool, went too far and I understand that.

 

Would you like me to hide the thread from public view?

 

Yes please.

 

Thank you.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Guest

[Nintii]

The fact that you (Dark0ne) are even bothered to guage people's opinions on the issue (as you don't have

to), is huge.

Hope to heaven that this would put to bed any suspicion that anyone might have that "the Moderators are

out to get me", here it is transparent and above board.

[Rabbit1251]

I have found the public warnings and bans very useful. I have learned what specific actions warrant punishment and have tailored my actions to meet these guidelines rather than the generalized Terms of Service. And I must say that I have learned a lot from my readings. So I say keep them public.

 

 

Rabbit

[Lanceor]

I don't have strong feelings one way or another. I'm sure that if changes are made and it's not working, then it's possible to drop the changes.

 

On one hand, the current system seems to be working, so if it aint broke, there's no need to fix it.

 

On the other hand, I'm slightly in favour of hiding warnings for the following reasons:

• 
   
  
• Members who make genuine or heat-of-the moment mistakes probably regret it and don't want to be embarrassed.
  
• Those who don't care about the warnings will probably continue breaking rules.
  
• Those most likely to break rules are probably unlikely to read the Forum rules and strikes forum.
  

Other bits and pieces:

• 
   
  
• Informal warnings should definitely be private.
  
• If multiple strikes have led to a banning, full details of those strikes should be published.
  
• By default, ban notices should stay even after reinstatement but can be re-hidden if the reinstated persone requests it.
  
• QQuix's suggestion of a hidden first warning is a good compromise between hiding and showing warnings, but you already knew that. :)
  

The only thing I'd change about that is to keep it to a formal tone and drop the sarcastic barbs that are often accompanied by these. That does sometimes cast things in a negative light.

Agreed. Although I find them fun to read, some might interpret it as a personal attack on the person being banned.

 

Finally, a question: While informing the reporter of the full resolution of a moderator decision is technically unfeasible at the moment, would it be any easier to at least issue a generic message like "Your report has been assessed by a moderator and appropriate action has been taken."?

[Mabwich]

Shezrie's plight makes me think that ban and warning posts on the forums should only remain public for a limited time after which they should be removed from public view. I would suggest that 1 month would be appropriate. Much longer than this and the post loses its relevancy and immediacy.

 

I also feel that when someone is reinstated the details of the original ban should be made private. After all, if someone has been reinstated is the original offence really relevant any more?

[JanusForbeare]

As I was doing my daily rounds through the latest bans (I do this for fun - and am generally chuckling the whole time) a thought occurred to me. I assume that it must have occurred to the site admins at one point or another, and there's probably a good reason that it hasn't happened yet. However, I thought I'd ask:

 

Given that (to the best of my understanding) the Nexus is manually coded, and not built on any sort of pre-fabricated "sitebuilder" software, isn't it possible to prevent previously banned IP addresses from creating new profiles until the ban has expired? It seems that a huge percentage of the moderators' work involves hunting down ban evaders and giving them the boot. Similarly, couldn't some sort of protocol be developed to compare a new applicants IP address against the list of existing users and prevent multiple accounts from being created from the same location?

 

Granted, there may be some occasions when such a feature could obstruct potentially legitimate accounts (such as when two individuals share an IP address), but I'd think that those situations would be the exception, rather than the rule.

 

Feel free to shoot down the idea, I'm just curious if it's a feasible way to reduce the admins' workload.