Can moderators maintain a post of banned members?

[+ Coolwave35]

Just a thought. We are a community. Many of us have made friends here and have followers we look forward to engaging with on a regular, daily basis.  

When we’re banned or put on time out, we just disappear and are unable to respond to PM’s and no one knows what happened, often fearing the worst  

Are the moderators willing to maintain a locked thread that is updated each time someone is banned?  It could just be the username and the date they’re allowed back. 

It wouldn’t encourage discussion of moderator actions if it is locked, but it would let the rest of us know not to worry, that no one died, they just committed an egregious offense against the community that sidelined them for a short period of time. 
 

Thanks for your consideration. 
 

 

[Prime38]

Second it!

[+ WilliamM]

why?

[+ Coolwave35]

54 minutes ago, WilliamM said:

why?

So when you disappear for a month, I don’t think you’re dead. 

[samhexum]

if @WilliamM ever disappears for a month, it'll be because he's visiting his brother (& Yogi Bear) in Jellystone National Park. 😁🤣😇😎

Edited September 14, 2021 by samhexum

[BSR]

3 hours ago, Coolwave35 said:

Just a thought. We are a community. Many of us have made friends here and have followers we look forward to engaging with on a regular, daily basis.  

When we’re banned or put on time out, we just disappear and are unable to respond to PM’s and no one knows what happened, often fearing the worst  

Are the moderators willing to maintain a locked thread that is updated each time someone is banned?  It could just be the username and the date they’re allowed back. 

It wouldn’t encourage discussion of moderator actions if it is locked, but it would let the rest of us know not to worry, that no one died, they just committed an egregious offense against the community that sidelined them for a short period of time. 
 

Thanks for your consideration. 
 

 

Aren't suspensions supposed to be confidential?  If a member has "misbehaved," perhaps he'd rather not have the whole board know.

But I get your point.  Unless you've shared your email or something with another board member, the community has no idea what happened to you when you disappear. 

[+ Coolwave35]

6 minutes ago, BSR said:

Aren't suspensions supposed to be confidential?  If a member has "misbehaved," perhaps he'd rather not have the whole board know.

But I get your point.  Unless you've shared your email or something with another board member, the community has no idea what happened to you when you disappear. 

Often in threads, long time or prominent members will be referenced for their sudden lack of contribution, or notable absence.  This would be a thread we could reference to avoid panic. 

[+ azdr0710]

instead of a "thread of shame", perhaps some indication/marker on their avatar/profile is all that's needed?
 

[+ MysticMenace]

40 minutes ago, azdr0710 said:

instead of a "thread of shame", perhaps some indication/marker on their avatar/profile is all that's needed?
 

like a subtle hint or watermark on their profile...like this:

[Guest]

2 hours ago, WilliamM said:

why?

Answered in the original post. Did you read it carefully? FWIW, I agree with the original poster. A lot of people on this forum (such as  yourself) are getting on in years, and it's disquieting when suddenly posts seem to go dead. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Unicorn

[big-n-tall]

In the past, when someone was on timeout a little "timeout" tag would appear under the person's avatar. Then daddy decided to do away with that. Maybe that could be brought back.

[+ WilliamM]

39 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Answered in the original post. Did you read it carefully? FWIW, I agree with the original poster. A lot of people on this forum (such as  yourself) are getting on in years, and it's disquieting when suddenly posts seem to go dead. 

if someone fairly well known stops posting because of a time out, it not a huge challenge to trace back on that  person and his recent posts

 

And my brother, Rick, an author on wolves, has 100 times the Public persona as I.

Edited September 14, 2021 by WilliamM

[+ Coolwave35]

20 minutes ago, WilliamM said:

if someone fairly well known stops posting because of a time out, it not a huge challenge to trace back on that  person and his recent posts

Yes it is. 

[+ Charlie]

One rarely knows why a person was given a "time out," and often can only guess from his posts, since an offending post may have been removed.

[+ WilliamM]

8 minutes ago, Charlie said:

One rarely knows why a person was given a "time out," and often can only guess from his posts, since an offending post may have been removed.

usually the specific post, or series of posts are not removed -  with Daddy

[Guest]

1 hour ago, WilliamM said:

if someone fairly well known stops posting because of a time out, it not a huge challenge to trace back on that  person and his recent posts

 

And my brother, Rick, an author on wolves, has 100 times the Public persona as I.

I,for one, have never been able to figure out why a person stops posting. Sometimes it is because the person passed away. And I know you're the king of non-sequiturs, but what does the fact that your brother writes about wolves have to do with any of this??? 🙄

[+ WilliamM]

@Unicorn if somone wants to know if I am still alive one can contact my brother, I gave enough info

[coriolis888]

I assume a lot of thought is given to a situation before a member is banned, penalized or a "time-out" is attached to a member's forum account. 

In the case of deliberate, nasty and hostile behavior of a member, a ban is justified, in my opinion.  

However, I wonder if a suspension or ban is a good idea in cases where there is no hostile behavior from a poster.   The member just mistakenly posted something in the wrong area of the forum or the member posted links to a fake escort account (links not provided by the fraudster escort).  These are just examples.  

I ask the above because of a recent thread I noticed that was created asking for donations to the forum which are certainly justified.  

When forum members are penalized over something they post to the board but do not realize the post is inappropriate, giving the forum member a ban or penalty could likely have a negative factor in the member's desire to make a monetary contribution to the forum.   The ban or penalty could effectively cost the forum money in the form of lost contributions from a banned or penalized member.       

Just my opinion.  

[+ WilliamM]

26 minutes ago, coriolis888 said:

I assume a lot of thought is given to a situation before a member is banned, penalized or a "time-out" is attached to a member's forum account. 

In the case of deliberate, nasty and hostile behavior of a member, a ban is justified, in my opinion.  

However, I wonder if a suspension or ban is a good idea in cases where there is no hostile behavior from a poster.   The member just mistakenly posted something in the wrong area of the forum or the member posted links to a fake escort account (links not provided by the fraudster escort).  These are just examples.  

I ask the above because of a recent thread I noticed that was created asking for donations to the forum which are certainly justified.  

When forum members are penalized over something they post to the board but do not realize the post is inappropriate, giving the forum member a ban or penalty could likely have a negative factor in the member's desire to make a monetary contribution to the forum.   The ban or penalty could effectively cost the forum money in the form of lost contributions from a banned or penalized member.       

Just my opinion.  

I am friends with a long time member who was put on"time out" frequently. Speculating , like this, is a waste of time, in my opinion

[+ Coolwave35]

1 hour ago, coriolis888 said:

       

Just my opinion.  

We aren’t allowed to discuss moderator actions, in general or specifics per the guidelines.  
 

The thread is turning into a thread on moderator activity which I really don’t want to get blamed for as it wasn’t my intention. Are you comfortable deleting your post so we don’t get in trouble? 

[coriolis888]

I am not talking moderator activity or actions.   

Therefore, I am not clear how we could get into trouble for expressing a possible way to increase revenue to the forum.  

I am thinking that the forum might bring in more money from forum members if the bans and penalties were less frequent.  

Being banned or penalized must leave a sore feeling for those penalized. 

It is those penalized people and their friends who are less likely to contribute to the support of the forum. 

I am merely suggesting a way for the forum to bring in more income.  

This is a marketing tool, so to speak.  

I  want to plant a thought as a possible way for the forum to bring in more money and make forum members who were penalized more inclined to contribute money to the forum.  

 

[RadioRob]

In general, I've operated under the model of "you praise in public and critique in private".  Maintaining a "Wall of Shame" post of everyone banned/suspended would be difficult:

• It's more work to maintain.  Most bans are temporary in nature.  Not only would we have to manually add someone to the list, we would have to remember to remove them from it later.  
• It would call out publicly that the person was breaking the site rules.  By posting this, it can be seen as another form of punishment by calling the person out.  
• It leads to conversations about actions taken by moderators when that post is updated which as has been noted is against the community guidelines.  

With that being said however, I understand the need to do a virtual "wellness check" on someone who has disappeared.  In those cases, I would recommend using the Contact Us feature to note your concern.  A moderator can reach out to the person via email (given that is our only method of contact).  If the person is suspended, we would simply note back after a day or so that we've heard back and they're fine.  If they're not suspended and we don't hear back, we would note just saying we've not gotten a reply either.  

This would allow us to maintain discretion around a person's disciplinary status while also not overly worry someone else.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Coolwave35 said:

We aren’t allowed to discuss moderator actions, in general or specifics per the guidelines.  
 

The thread is turning into a thread on moderator activity which I really don’t want to get blamed for as it wasn’t my intention. Are you comfortable deleting your post so we don’t get in trouble? 

 

15 minutes ago, coriolis888 said:

I am not talking moderator activity or actions.   

....

Another example about how things can be mis-interpreted, actions taken which don't need to be taken, and unnecessary hostility created. I'm hoping things can always be kept on as civil a level as possible, especially when no hostility is intended. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, RadioRob said:

In general, I've operated under the model of "you praise in public and critique private".  Maintaining a "Wall of Shame" post of everyone banned/suspended would be difficult:

• It's more work to maintain.  Most bans are temporary in nature.  Not only would we have to manually add someone to the list, we would have to remember to remove them from it later.  
• It would call out publicly that the person was breaking the site rules.  By posting this, it can be seen as another form of punishment by calling the person out.  
• It leads to conversations about actions taken by moderators when that post is updated which has been noted is against the community guidelines.  

With that being said however, I understand the need to do a virtual "wellness check" on someone who has disappeared.  In those cases, I would recommend using the Contact Us feature to note your concern.  A moderator can reach out to the person via email (given that is our only method of contact).  If the person is suspended, we would simply note back after a day or so that we've heard back and they're fine.  If they're not suspended and we don't hear back, we would note just saying we've not gotten a reply either.  

This would allow us to maintain discretion around a person's disciplinary status while also not overly worry someone else.  

Great idea!

[RadioRob]

One other note I'm going to add here...  as @Coolwave35 noted, we don't discuss actions taken by moderators but given this is framed around a generality and not around a specific scenario I'll give a few thoughts:

• Posts that are simply in the wrong forum, etc are not issued warnings.  They're simply moved with no warnings given.  We still ask people to use the "Report" feature to draw our attention to something, be it a rule violation or just general housekeeping.  But the moderators are smart enough to know when to issue warnings and when something is just cleanup.  
• If a warning is issued by a moderator, those warnings can be issued with or without warning points being associated with them.  In general, if someone does violate our community guidelines...  if this was their first time doing so, we will issue a zero point warning.  This is simply a way to notify the member (privately) that something is not allowed and to draw their attention to it.  Our warning system requires the person to acknowledge the warning which includes the reason why it was issued and what content was involved.  They are unable to post or take action until the warning is acknowledged.  This allows us to make sure they are 100% aware of the situation so there is no question around "I didn't know".  
• If a person has been warned previously and/or the violation was of a more serious nature... we may forgo the zero point warning and associate warning points with the violation.   Historically the number of warning points given was just the number noted in the Community Guidelines.  However we have recently changed how we issue warning points to use the Guidelines as a "max warning".  For example, an attack against other people according to the guidelines is a 10 point violation.  We might start with a zero point warning.  If it happens again, issue a 5 point warning.  If it happens again, issue a 10 point warning.  Those points typically stay "active" on a person's account for 6 months.  (Think of these like DMV points on your license...  you get enough points assessed and you lose your license).  
• Just receiving a warning (and even some warning points) does not automatically result in banning.  Bans are based on the number of ACTIVE warning points when the new warning is issued.  When a threshold is crossed, that is how long a person is banned for.  You can find the exact number of points required and the length of time for each threshold in the guidelines themselves.  

In looking through all of the bans in the system, the only ones done without prior warnings have been those involving spam where a spammer registered an account and was just posting crap.  In those cases, we flag those accounts as spam which automatically bans new content AND automatically deletes all posts by that account.  

Now...  with all of that said, if you have additional questions about how warnings work, I would recommend using the Contact Us feature.  I don't want to derail the original topic at hand, but I did want to add a few public thoughts on this.