The Rules on Banning

Discussion in 'THE TEMPLE' started by Rincewind, Aug 21, 2005.

  1. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Ok, We need to get an offically rule for banning:

    I say three warnings then a community vote.

    So if some breaks a rule (we need to work out the rules)

    The mod says This is against the rules. Then links the rules, and asked the person to re-read them

    If someone breaks the rules agian

    The says 'This is the second time you;ve broken the rules if you break them one more time you will get banned. Link to the rules, asked the person to re-read them

    If someone Breaks the rules agian:

    This is the third time you have broken the rules. You are now up for public banning.


    Then they make a thread saying

    This person broke the rules on ocasion x,y and z.

    The community votes to ban him.


    I think it's important that the community votes to get someone banned. That way if a Mod gave someone a warning for something that wasn't really agianst the rules, the community could pick the mod up on it. It would keep the mods in check. I think we have to keep our ways as close to the old board.
  2. Roman_K New Member

    Looks like it's the way to go, Rinso. I second it. Any other suggestions, though, anyone?
  3. Hex New Member

    I think it's a good system that makes a lot of sense, and what Rinso outlined was very clear. I say use that as our banning policy, but as Roman said, suggestions are welcome. :)
  4. Orrdos God

    :: returns from camping ::

    Yes. That seems to be the way to go.

    Just need to work ouy exactly what the rules are :)
  5. Roman_K New Member

    Agreed, Doors. In fact, I think it's time to start on said rules.
  6. sampanna New Member

    Do we consider the severity of the rules transgression, or are all rules created equal?
  7. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    I think severity should be considered.

    identity fraud is worse than starting a casting thread.

    when we're revisiting the "rules", we need to decide which ones are CLEARLY bannable offenses.

    someone like jaunty never did much that would specificly rate a warning, he was just continually a low grade pest. his first post would have rated a warning, and he DID break rules after that, just to be clear. however, we got sick of the lowgrade stuff, which only made the initial crimes worse.

    anyway, until I can dig through our email conversations about this, I won't have much else to add.
  8. Tephlon Active Member

    Ah. How do we react to casting threads?

    As long as they are confined to one (official) thread I don't see an issue.

    My suggestion: People posting a castingthread should have their thread locked and moved to the DD, given an explanation/justification and be directed to the "Official casting call thread" and the Rules thread.
    Minor offense, but "strike one" nonetheless.

    However: There's some now in the different books threads, and they are basically badly constructed polls with a very UK centered, limited choice. Nothing we can do though, because there's no rules prohibiting it... ;)
  9. Mynona Member

    The problem at the moment is what Tephlon pointed out, we haven't got a set of 'rules' yet. Most of us know how to behave but it looks like we're getting newbies and it's not prudent to point them to the faq thread on the HC site.

    As important as the manner faq are the offical threads. If we make them sticky it'll be easier for newbies to do 'right'.
  10. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    our current rules are the same as our rules from the harper collins site until those rules are updated and changed.

    Casting threads are NOT a good thing, but we can ignore them because they're a minor thing. we will have an official casting thread eventually. when we do, we can consider closing the other ones.

    if a post is started on a casting thread, we point the people involved to the existing casting thread. locking wouldn't be necessary unless they kept using it
  11. McLaren New Member

    [quote:ea73515303="Rincewind"]That way if a Mod gave someone a warning for something that wasn't really agianst the rules, the community could pick the mod up on it. It would keep the mods in check.
    [/quote:ea73515303]

    Just to be clear (I've only just started to catch up with "The Temple" topics so sorry if this was established in another thread) does this mean that the three warnings a person is given can only come from a moderator? Or do other peoples comments count as an "official warning"?

    I don't suppose it matters as if a member points out that someone has broken the rules a mod would probably back that up with an "official" warning anyway, I just wanted to check.
  12. Marcia Executive Onion

    Once the person has broken the rules three times, and the vote is taking place, there needs to be a time limit on the voting. We don't need a vote going on for a week about whether or not to ban someone, when in the meantime he's posting crap all over the board.

    edit: To add:


    [quote:e97108e557="McLaren"]
    Just to be clear (I've only just started to catch up with "The Temple" topics so sorry if this was established in another thread) does this mean that the three warnings a person is given can only come from a moderator? Or do other peoples comments count as an "official warning"?

    I don't suppose it matters as if a member points out that someone has broken the rules a mod would probably back that up with an "official" warning anyway, I just wanted to check.[/quote:e97108e557]

    I was thinking about this earlier. Now that we have official moderators, I think it's important that a moderator states the rule to the offender at least once. So that we don't have to deal with someone replying, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" which is what happened frequently on HC.
  13. McLaren New Member

    [quote:2f003e7d49="Marcia"]Once the person has broken the rules three times, and the vote is taking place, there needs to be a time limit on the voting. We don't need a vote going on for a week about whether or not to ban someone, when in the meantime he's posting crap all over the board.
    [/quote:2f003e7d49]

    Maybe the moderator could ban that person assuming the vote appears to be going that way on the grounds that people seem to be saying they should be banned and they're causing more trouble, then un-ban them if there's a swing in the vote for some reason (which is unlikely)?

    Although I agree that a time limit or a necessary number of votes for a ban should be decided.
  14. Tephlon Active Member

    [quote:0f12036a41="Marcia"]Once the person has broken the rules three times, and the vote is taking place, there needs to be a time limit on the voting. We don't need a vote going on for a week about whether or not to ban someone, when in the meantime he's posting crap all over the board.

    edit: To add:


    [quote:0f12036a41="McLaren"]
    Just to be clear (I've only just started to catch up with "The Temple" topics so sorry if this was established in another thread) does this mean that the three warnings a person is given can only come from a moderator? Or do other peoples comments count as an "official warning"?

    I don't suppose it matters as if a member points out that someone has broken the rules a mod would probably back that up with an "official" warning anyway, I just wanted to check.[/quote:0f12036a41]

    I was thinking about this earlier. Now that we have official moderators, I think it's important that a moderator states the rule to the offender at least once. So that we don't have to deal with someone replying, "Who are you to tell me what to do?" which is what happened frequently on HC.[/quote:0f12036a41]

    I'd say devil karma or a temporary ban.
    Regarding devil karma: Mods should set their threshold to -1 in order to see if anyone with devil karma is posting crap.

    Warnings should be official, done by a mod. That doesn't mean a member can't warn anyone, but like McLaren said, the mod is the one that slaps the wrist.
  15. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I'd like to say that anyone could say you've broke the rules...otherwise I think we have a 'oh...wait til Doors sees this atittude' it depends on how clear the rules are.

    If the rules are clear and someone clearly brakes them, Any member can say according to rule 1 you've done X.

    There should be no 'who the hell or you to tell me off' becuase it should be clear by the rules (agian, this depends on how clear are rules are).

    I think there should be a time limit on a post, I'd say 48 hours, but i'm not sure if thats long enough for people who don't check the board. Maybe it could be longer and the person has a tempory ban while the voting takes place.


    I think there should be a difference between majour and minor rule breaking. Hopfully a lot of the stuff that anoys us won't happen becuase we have stickys and stuff.
  16. Electric_Man Templar

    I think that the ban should take effect once there is enough votes (however many that may be), after that the banning takes place.

    There should be a time-limit, because if say a person only has 5 votes after a week, it's pretty obvious that the community doesn't wish to ban that person, so the vote would have to be scrapped.

    Which raises an interesting question, what do we do if someone "survives" the ban vote (bad choice of words), do they get another three chances, or less?
  17. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I don't no. If five people say 'yes' and no-one says 'no' then I think he should be banned. The will of the community..or the community who could be bothered to vote...was for yes.

    In my mind if you don't say anything, then you've said 'yes'.

    I think as long as there is more yes votes to no's maybe 60% to 40% that person gets banned.

    Even if only 5 people vote 4 say 'yes' and one says 'no'. The community has said 'yes' he should be banned. The community is the vocal part of it. If people don't say anything, they don't care, they won;t want to be involved.

    Also I do think the Ban should take place during the voting period. Otherwise, we have the person going round cuasing trouble why we wait for to see. Also it means that if the vote goes for the person, he's had a 'break' from the board which will give him time to reflect on why he's been almost banned, which means his still been pissing off the board, but just not enough.

    Also there are things we should consider, Say Over a period of 2 years someone gets 3 warnings, should he still be put up for banning? 3 majour things in that many years isn't that bad.

    Now, if we want to give more power to the mods, we could leave it to thier discretion. Maybe in that case, they could be allowed to post while the vote is taking place, while a member who seems more trolly in thier nature would get banned during the vote.


    edit: If someone survives the ban. I say they get bumped back to a final warning. If they break another rule, when they come for the ban, they'll have a list of 4 rule breaking not the usual three.
  18. Electric_Man Templar

    I guess if it was 5 votes all for banning then a ban should be implemented, lack of support for the suspect would be damning enough.

    I'm not sure about banning during or not, in a way it would be like keeping them in custody, on the other hand it would really piss them off if they weren't banned.

    I agree that there should be only one more chance if they don't get banned. I suspect the likelihood of anyone surviving is pretty slim, because I doubt we'll even suggest anyone who really deserves it.
  19. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    Maybe it would piss them off. But then It would show them that they've 'pissed' us off. If they come back in a huff and can't like a twat, it will only bring them closer to a complete banning.


    There should only be one more chance, but if they waste that chance, they shouldn't be insantly banned, they should be re-put up for a public vote (which i doubt they would survive) but if they did survive they'd go back down to being on the 2 warning, then if they broke that agian, they've go back up for a re-public vote only this time they'd have they'd have broken 5 rules instead of the usual three.

    This way the banning are always the will of the community, if the community likes someone enough to keep him here dispite his rule breaking then thats fair enough, if they'd don't like him enough to put up with any crap then they'll get rid oif him. Cause, it's not always about the rules, it's about the attiutude if someone breaks alot of rules but we feel his trying not to we may keep him, if someone is breaking rules and being a cock about it we won;t keep him.

    Oh, and I don't think it should have to be f votes all banning him, just a clear majourity for say 60% of the votes.

    Though, only 5 people voting isn't that much of the community, if people chose not to vote it means they don;t want to be bothered with that issue, which means they don't count in any decision.

    If only 5 people vote, then the that is the community. If you're silent then you agree with the majourity, if anyone as any issues they have to raise them or else they can't moan.
  20. sampanna New Member

    [quote:6c8d0a29c8="McLaren"]
    Maybe the moderator could ban that person assuming the vote appears to be going that way on the grounds that people seem to be saying they should be banned and they're causing more trouble, then un-ban them if there's a swing in the vote for some reason (which is unlikely)?

    Although I agree that a time limit or a necessary number of votes for a ban should be decided.[/quote:6c8d0a29c8]

    [quote:6c8d0a29c8="Rincewind"]
    Also I do think the Ban should take place during the voting period. Otherwise, we have the person going round cuasing trouble why we wait for to see. Also it means that if the vote goes for the person, he's had a 'break' from the board which will give him time to reflect on why he's been almost banned, which means his still been pissing off the board, but just not enough.
    [/quote:6c8d0a29c8]

    But this sounds awfully like guilty till proven innocent, and I definitely have a problem with that. I do agree that there should be a time limit on the voting, and given the global nature of the board, somewhere around 24 hours would be right. We all check the board at least once a month. If there is a vote on, an announcement could be made in the Boardania forum, and the announcement be taken down 24 hours after it was made, and the vote closed.

    Edited to add this:
    Some more thinking: a ban is different from disabling an account, right? Disabling=>can read, but not post
    Ban=>cannot read the board even.

    Is that correct? In that case, disabling an account temporarily seems ok, it's a bit like putting someone behind bars while the trial is on. But it also means that the person is not able to defend himself/herself at all ..
  21. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    The thing is, if someone's becoming a problem poster or seems bent on causing trouble, there's no good reason to leave them free run of the place while we debate banning them.
  22. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    If they can be stopped from posting, but not completely banned. I think that would be the best for while the voting is taking place.
  23. sampanna New Member

    Maybe it could be a judgement call on the part of the moderators? Unless it looks like the problem poster is running amok, leave him/her be till after the vote? No one would challenge the moderators, since effectively we are deciding to block him during the vote, but also leaving the option of suspending the ban (subject to the moderator's judgement).
  24. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Yeah, that suits.

    I really do think that we need to be careful about deciding 'minor' and 'major' infractions are the same.

    If someone with a language barrier shows up, types in chat speak (I can't count the number of pakistanis and egyptians I've seen on IRC who type like an american 12 year old counter strike player, u no????), advertises a discworld auction on ebay, and then gives us their favorite casting choices for a lesbian scene between angua and susan (angelina joliee and a young nicole kidman, probably), all in the space of a half hour, is that three strikes or is that one REALLY bad start if he'd become a good poster after reading the rules?

    likewise, what do we do if "DeathJuggerRegiStarNautCide" shows up and bumps every single thread by quoting the first post of it, all in the space of a half hour? Do we count that as one infraction? Do we see it as vile and horrible as typing "i no my english is bad, but u r able 2 read it, c?"? Is that one strike or is that a dozen?

    Also, as for how clear the rules are...

    the more "clear" and specific we make the rules, the more loopholes there will be. If we say "Do not do anything wrong", we've been too vauge. If we say "Do not type in leet speak, chat speak, internet shorthand, or cunneiform fonts", we still leave ourselves wide open for some dick to show up and type in Webdings (this of course would only be a risk if we could change fonts) and NOT have broken any rules.

    that was the big strength of the guidelines.

    a few simple 'golden' rules, and some specific examples to back em up.
  25. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    crossposted. "that suits" refers to rinso's suggestion that we prevent them from posting but don't block them from the boards.

    i honestly don't think its the best solution, but it's probably not any worse than most others.
  26. sampanna New Member

    [quote:8ab2ef3b2e="Garner"]If someone with a language barrier shows up, types in chat speak (I can't count the number of pakistanis and egyptians I've seen on IRC who type like an american 12 year old counter strike player, u no????), advertises a discworld auction on ebay, and then gives us their favorite casting choices for a lesbian scene between angua and susan (angelina joliee and a young nicole kidman, probably), all in the space of a half hour, is that three strikes or is that one REALLY bad start if he'd become a good poster after reading the rules?
    [/quote:8ab2ef3b2e]
    I'd say this is one infraction ...

    [quote:8ab2ef3b2e="Garner"]
    likewise, what do we do if "DeathJuggerRegiStarNautCide" shows up and bumps every single thread by quoting the first post of it, all in the space of a half hour? Do we count that as one infraction? Do we see it as vile and horrible as typing "i no my english is bad, but u r able 2 read it, c?"? Is that one strike or is that a dozen?
    [/quote:8ab2ef3b2e]
    And this is immediate disabling/banning of account.

    I don't think it is possible to make nice and accurate rules. Broader guidelines is the way to go, and update these guidelines with specific examples as we come across them.

    In most cases, people can be given a day or two to get the feel of the place .. since this board seems friendlier than the previous one, people are likely to lurk less and so end up posting without getting an idea of what we are like.

    Edit to say: I think I am repeating myself.
  27. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    I think we should make the rules as clear as possible, but give ourself a few vaugue ones along the lines "act in a manner that is aggressive or anoying to the community."

    So if someone is doing loads of little things, that are really agianst the rules, but our still pissing people off, and they contue to do it even though we've asked them not to, we can give them a strike on this account.

    I think we should have a different topic for the rules though. One based on the Old FAQ, we can take out what we need, decide what is a majour and minor rule breaking. Then write in all the new rules.

    We should keep this topic for dicussing how the banning will happen once the rules have been broke.
  28. colonesque10 New Member

    I'm not sure if this has been brought up before but what if when someone has broken three rules (or enough to be put up for a ban) that said person then begs forgiveness and says it was just teething issues and promises not too do it again?

    Also I think the rules system should be a little like the points system on a British license. Where as you only get 3 points for doing 15 mph over the speed limit or 6 for over 15 mph or banned for drink driving or worse. I know this may confuse the issues a bit more maybe but it may also be more fair. :)
  29. colonesque10 New Member

    I'd just like to point out that I haven't read all of the temple posts yet so if i've gone over something in my previous post that has already been discussed I apologise and please ignore. I will catch up tomorrow when I have a free day. :)
  30. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    there is room for leeway, I think it should be once you've got three strikes, you *can* be up for banning, but might not nesscarilly be so. It depends on the persons reactions, if they say sorry, then don't seem to make any effort to stop making mis-stakes then i say they'd be up for a ban. If they, do seem to be really trying, I say we'd give them stern talking to and see what happens.

    Or even if they do get put up for a ban, they could get voted to stay in. In which case, a week where they could only view the board, but not post would be the perfect way for them to learn how the board works, so they don't make silly mistakes. It'd kinda be like forced lurking.

    When some one starts a mod starts a ban thread. He'll quote and list all the relivant posts. and maybe give his opinion on weather or not the community should ban him. The community can deciede weather or not to keep him.

    If anything, I think a week of not beening able to post is a good enough punishment for people who are survive a banning. It gives them time to think about what they've done.

    Assuming, that we make the votes a week long. And that We can stop people from posting but not looking, mal?
  31. colonesque10 New Member

    I agree with that Rinso. If we had banned or been able to ban people from the old board for the last few years we may have lost some people we now call friends. :)
  32. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    okay, so, if someone does a Juggy, they can be immediately banned. other people MIGHT be up for a banning if they get three strikes...

    this is NOT "clear" rules.

    what we need to do is simpliy it further and say simply "after someone has been repeatedly warned for violating board rules or alienating the community, they may be subject to banning or having their IP blocked."

    as for begging forgiveness after three strikes...

    why not beg after one?

    the thing is, someone like plaid wouldn't have been up for banning after three strikes, because she was coherent and at least listened to what we said. someone like jaunty never listened at all, and someone like steve or juggy was only there to try and get my goat.

    well,

    YOU CAN'T HAVE MR BILLY ANYMORE!
  33. Rincewind Number One Doorman

    If juggy turns up, he can be insantly banned becuase he has been banned before.

    Re forgiveness.

    After some gets a strike, they should be re-directed too the rules. Therefore they shouldn’t really be making ‘mistakes’ anymore. Because they should be up to date on the rules.
    But, I’d still like to leave us some room to judge it on a case by case.
    I think adding the ‘after 3 strikes you *can* as aposed to *will* be up for public voting’ means we’re not constricted to putting people up for banning if we don’t want too.

    Say, for example someone gets 3 strikes over a period or a year or two, but all the other times their fine? Do we still put them up for Banning? Have they really done anything that wrong? They’ll probably survive the ban, but will be forced to lurk or a week. Which I’m not sure I’d like.

    Also, is there a definite answer to weather or not we’re able to block people from posting but not given a full ban?

    Also, Voting, how is it going to work? Is it going to be open or blind? If it’s blind how can we stop vote altering by trolls?

    Garner has some good things to say about this. So maybe he’ll post later?

    What other potential problems can you guys see?
  34. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    Garner has nothing but snot and phlegm at the moment, and has deleted the email with all the clever things to say.

    still, garner has never let that sort of thing stop him:

    Saying we MIGHT ban you if you act like a cock means that we MIGHT actually do something about it and we might not. "We might give you three strikes, we might give you a million"

    now, Im not going to single anybody out from our current crowd, and I'm not going to cite any examples from our past, but let's just leave it at a given that there are ALWAYS people who say "lets give them one more chance" after we've already given them plenty.

    I think we need to look at things on a case by case basis regardless of the rules. If we say rude language is bad and can get you banned, doors and I are gone immediately, and a lot of other regulars. Now, i think the fact that I've been here for ages and doors has been around long enough to learn a few people's names should count for something there. Likewise, i simply don't think that profanity on its own is worth banning or really even warning someone.

    if they call people wankers or assholes, that's an unprovoked attack. if they just say "shit" once in a while, they is - to me - not an issue worth considering.

    I think that we shouldn't let people post when they're up for a banning vote. if they have anything to say in their defense, they should be able to say it before the voting starts, when they get their warnings.

    i think that there's nothing wrong with having a procedure for appeals, perhaps a subforum or a special thread within The Temple. if someone gets banned while Rinso's on vacation and he had an awful lot to say in favor of not banning the person, he should be allowed to say his peace. If it's sufficient to reverse the banning, we unban and probably send an apology.

    moderator oversight is not a bad thing.

    as for voting...

    i think we should make it a custom to say that you voted. i think saying how you voted is optional and always needs to be. there might be some issues where we don't want to do a private vote, and for those we can just add our names like a petition, as in the old days.

    what i'd suggest at this point is that we all vote on an issue and once the voting is closed THEN we say that we voted. if we want to say how, we can do that too. that's the only way to preserve anonymity and ward against fraud, as i see it. my reason for this is that if we say we voted as we vote, it becomes easy enough to figure out how each person voted. if we are going to say how we voted, then all the damn poll does is just give us a visual aid to go along with it.

    now, if 19 people vote yes and only one person votes no, i think that person who voted no should come forward - of their own accord - to explain their point of view. maybe they know something the rest of us dont.

    ...

    i think that's the main stuff. rinso, if there's anything we'd discussed via email that you think needs to be brought up, go ahead and say it man.
  35. Buzzfloyd Spelling Bee

    [quote:605df1581e="Garner"]I think we need to look at things on a case by case basis regardless of the rules. If we say rude language is bad and can get you banned, doors and I are gone immediately, and a lot of other regulars. Now, i think the fact that I've been here for ages and doors has been around long enough to learn a few people's names should count for something there. Likewise, i simply don't think that profanity on its own is worth banning or really even warning someone.

    if they call people wankers or assholes, that's an unprovoked attack. if they just say "shit" once in a while, they is - to me - not an issue worth considering.[/quote:605df1581e]
    You're talking about the distinction between swearing and swearing [i:605df1581e]at[/i:605df1581e] someone. This is just the same stuff I've gone over a lot recently about insults.

    I am in full agreement with Garner's post.
  36. Garner Great God and Founding Father

    i am indeed talking about the difference between swearing and swearing at someone.

    sneezing as well. sneezing, just as sneezing, is not wrong or bad. sneezing on someone, however... that's bannable behavior. i think it counts as three strikes and a vote all rolled into one, but she should definately give ourselves six to eight weeks to think about it first.

Share This Page