Banned Member (quickest one i`ve seen so far)

I am curious to know why Voice_of_Reason was banned on the day that member joined.Looking in there profile they only posted once and that didn`t contain anything that would break Terms & Conditions.

Anybody any ideas as people seem to be getting binned alot lately

multiple reasons. He could have been a previously banned member(with the same IP address) or he could have been u2u spamming, or have a VERY innapropriate post, or tryed to hack onto ATS

Its probably one of those.


---pineapple

I just want to chime in and plug my recommendation that the disciplinary process be more transparent on ATS.

Specifically:

1) All members should know where they stand in the process at any given time.

2) All other members should be able to easily find out, as well.

3) Banned members' names should not be changed to "(banned member)". The name should remain unchanged, especially at the "scene of the crime", so post attribution is never in doubt.

4) Instead of a name change, change the red-letter title of the member to "Banned Member".

I also think there should be a forum for appeals, but the main thing is removing the need for "Why Did _____ Get Banned?" threads.

Having said all that, I am very impressed with what the staff is up to these days, and can understand why my recommendations might not be implemented right away, if ever.

Thanxs for the input.

Would be nice to know why members are banned.Especially the ones that you have come accross in disscussion and then have suddenly disappeared especially ones who have been around a while and seemed perfectly normal.

I don't think explanations for bannings are necessary. It will just cause more fighting because then you end up with endless debates about whether each of our thousands of members feels that the ban was deserved. The staff has proved on countless occasions that they are fully capable of making such decisions. They should not be subject to debate as a source of needless drama.

The staff has showed that they never ban anyone who didn't deserve it. I personally, after two years, trust their judgement enough not to question it.

Thanks for the list, Majic, we'll take that into consideration. If you want to know where you stand in a process, rather than writing lists of policy changes, read the T&C and you'll know where you stand in the process. You say you were a mod at another board, you know that depending on the severity of the violation the process can be swift or slow. If, for example, you're spamming the crap out of the board, you get banned immediately. If you are hardheaded about long quotes, we work with you to get it through to the brain cell.

PUD was exactly right, by the way. And, in case folks don't realize this, there is no need in a justification of a banning and whether or not you believe this, we aren't time benders, we have only 24 hours in a day, real lives, and don't have time to sit down and explain to you all the gossip surrounding every banning.

Just concentrate on the topics of discussion and rest assured that we a) work to keep this board running as smoothly as a large board can be run, and b), we only ban as needed, we do not ban for sport, fun, or because we do not like someone. If you doubt this, it is because you have not been here long enough to know us.

Thanks for the back-up, Djarums, it's nice to know that your sentiments are out there.

I don`t care if a member is banned just curious and noisy especially when you have spoken to that person and they didn`t show any signs of madness.

Maybe we could get a Hall of Shame and dedicate there madness.

Citizen One: Where's Joe? I haven't seen him around lately.

Citizen Two: I hear he got arrested.

Citizen One: What for?

Citizen Two: I don't know.

Citizen One: When? Why? Who arrested him?

Citizen Two: I don't know. I guess he did something wrong.

Citizen One: I see. Thanks. [Looks over shoulder.]

I have tremendous confidence in the staff of ATS. To date, I have yet to see the proverbial "bad call" by any staff member, and assume that there must be at least one as more a matter of principle than observation.

Opinions will naturally differ regarding how to handle discipline on a public discussion forum, and I don't think anything should be read into those differences other than that they are simply differences of opinion.

Personally, I think the mods are probably working harder than they have to, and my response is to automate and demystify processes as much as possible in such cases. At least, that's what I used to get paid the big bucks to do, so it's my natural reflex when confronted with a problem.

However, I really don't know what goes on behind the scenes, so I must accept that my position is underinformed. All I can comment on is the view from here as a member of the community, and not of the staff.

And lest I be misunderstood, I know it is easier to make recommendations from my armchair than to carry them out in a manner that makes sense within the current framework and infrastructure of the board. That does not mean that the impetus for the recommendations is necessarily invalid, however.

The fact that we keep seeing these sorts of threads pop up, and that so many members -- myself included -- feel somewhat in the dark about the topic suggests that there may be an opportunity here to Deny Ignorance.

Majic,

As with any iceburg, there is alot below the surface than on top. As you pointed out, banning can occur for stuff not even posted on the public forum, or a quick staff member handled the issue so fast, any public violations of the T&C may not be appearance on first glance.

A public announcement of a banning would no doubt while slaking the curiosity of everybody, also generate a needless amount of drama IMHO.

In regards to the increased number of bannings, if you measure them against our huge growth just in the last few months, we in all likelyhood are banning less per capital as it were.

Iceberg, Ahoy!

Originally posted by FredT
As with any iceburg, there is alot below the surface than on top. As you pointed out, banning can occur for stuff not even posted on the public forum, or a quick staff member handled the issue so fast, any public violations of the T&C may not be appearance on first glance.

I certainly agree that there have been, are and will be cases where you simply have to unceremoniously kick a member out the door. Posting porn in the forums or sending threats of violence via U2U's comes to mind. And there are plenty of other cases like that.

Still, it would be nice to be able to, for example, click on a banned member's profile and see a short blurb from the responsible staff member explaining why Member X won't be posting ever again.

As for the iceberg, my mental picture of what goes on behind the scenes at ATS is reminiscent of how movies portray CIA headquarters: lots of glass-walled offices, people rushing to and fro, and the constant clacking of typewriters. I'm sure my thick, heavily-flagged ATS member dossier is being updated right now by a staff member wearing a suit and mirrored sunglasses

The Gallows Pole

Originally posted by FredT
A public announcement of a banning would no doubt while slaking the curiosity of everybody, also generate a needless amount of drama IMHO.

I don't think we need to execute offenders in the town square, but the questions that frequently arise surrounding bannings (witness the existence of this thread and many others like it) often amount to drama of their own.

But even if it were a choice between the Public Execution model or the Star Chamber model, I think most members would be more comfortable with the first option than the second one.

Index Of Banicity

Originally posted by FredT
In regards to the increased number of bannings, if you measure them against our huge growth just in the last few months, we in all likelyhood are banning less per capital as it were.

For the record, I don't think there are enough bannings (although the need for them does, in fairness, seem to be diminishing -- to my amazement). I'm from the "hang 'em high" school of forum administration.

Okay, maybe that's a bit extreme, but seriously, I haven't seen a banning I disagreed with yet, and should the hammer fall upon me, I am sure I will have earned it (although I really don't ever want to see that happen!).

When the hammer does fall, however, it is natural for bystanders to want to know why, and I don't think it's unreasonable in most cases that we be able to find out without starting a thread about it.

More importantly, knowing why members are being banned may help surviving members to better understand what not to do on ATS, and that is never a bad thing.

The Right Tone

It occurs to me that busy staffers cruising through my posts might find my tone rather strident, like I'm demanding immediate compliance with my implacable demands.

I'll admit I do come across as a cranky toddler at times, but I want everyone reading this to know that my recommendations are intended to be helpful, that I am blown away by the recent changes and improvements that the staff are implementing, and that I have never been happier with ATS.

So just in case I have been remiss on this point, let me make it clear: Sure, I have criticisms, along with ideas and suggestions that I would like to see implemented in one form or another, but the ATS staff has already shown that they can do a damn fine job of solving problems and improving ATS without my help.

I'm just always full of opinions, is all.

As for tone, think of me as pontificating over a cup of coffee at a quiet cafe, or over a beer at the local pub when you read my posts. My polysyllabic style may come off as ostentatious and impersonal (it's a product of my childhood reading habits), but in reality I'm a pretty laid-back, casual sort of guy.

No, really!

Originally posted by Majic
When the hammer does fall, however, it is natural for bystanders to want to know why, and I don't think it's unreasonable in most cases that we be able to find out without starting a thread about it.

More importantly, knowing why members are being banned may help surviving members to better understand what not to do on ATS, and that is never a bad thing.

In many cases, those who are posting in the topics when the deed is done usually have a pretty good ides what happened.
I can think of several cases when the to-be-banned was quite vocal about MOD mistreatment, often a prelude to being gone.
However, the vast number of people here don't even know when a banning happens, IMO.
I don't see the need to broadcast the banning's particulars. It reminds me of how we think we need to know all the dirt about movie stars and politicians. Of how we need to know about someone else's misfortunes.
disclaimer:
Weirdo, I am not saying that are your intentions. Nor are they always the intentions of those who are curious.

Giving undo attention to bannings could also further trolling, and crate more banning. Some people come to forums for the attention, even if it is negative attention.

What drives me nuts is when someone is deleted. A banned member whose posts are still there ( even after an edit to remove something offensive may have reduced it to nearly nothing) is not quite so confusing.

I was recently re-reading parts of one of the game threads....one player's posts were completely gone, only leaving a stray quote in another player's response that still mentioned the name I was looking for....( her (?) contributions to the game had contained some key info - or so I thought- that was why I had gone looking for those particular posts) .her(?) name was even deleted from the member list.

you know what really bugs me?

stupid posts about why a member gets banned.

they OBVIOUSLY did something to deserve it, so why question it?

our mods know what the hell they are doing, so why doubt them? for the sake of an argument?

give the posts regarding bannings a rest.

I was puzzled by Voice of Reaons banning as well. We may have been a little trigger happy over this issue. His IP address closely matches that of 2 other banned members, and on that basis it appears he was given the boot.

There are common instances of banned members reregistering as new members and trying to get back in. (Recently there was a banned member advertising a porn site who made over 6 new members in order to advertise his site. Actually it may have been worse but I forget the details). Such cases are common and part of the modding process. However we may have had a false positive kill here, and so he has been unbanned.

There is a thorough debate and concensus approach to banning members, its not undertaken lightly. The thread which holds a record of our individual activities, that we make a post in when we do something, is over 65 pages long.

The underlying consensus is that the majority of members by far like the way the board is run, our no abuse policy seems to give a clean board where everyone can contribute. The more public our modding becomes the more drama will be invoked. We have learned that from bitter experience in the past with factions trying to get their banned members readmitted.

Its like weeding the garden, the flowers are not told when their weeds are removed, but it makes the place nicer for them anyway.

A "no drama" no fuss" approach to modding reduces trouble on the board.

Coupled with this a visit by the secret police at midnight, and a bullet adminstered to the back of the head for persistant abusers, then dumping the body in an unmarked gave in the forest, keeps the board happy and productive.


[edit on 4-12-2004 by Netchicken]

This is getting tedious. You may have been a mod somewhere else, but that was there, this is here. I thought we solved these issues in another thread.

Originally posted by Majic Still, it would be nice to be able to, for example, click on a banned member's profile and see a short blurb from the responsible staff member explaining why Member X won't be posting ever again.

No way. Never. Not going to happen. Is that clear? This opens up a deep and time-consuming drama-pit where this banned member will attempt to return and "clear his name". No. We're not going there. We have experience with this, and that idea is not for ATS.

ATS has no Bill of Rights that must explain to the public the charges brought against an offender. You break the rules and it should be a U2U between the member and ATS explaining to the offender why the action was taken. Its a privately owned website. Others............No need to know. I believe the Terms of Service explain that.

[edit on 12/4/2004 by just_a_pilot]

Ohhh..the drama of it all...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This is getting tedious. You may have been a mod somewhere else, but that was there, this is here. I thought we solved these issues in another thread.

Originally posted by Majic
Still, it would be nice to be able to, for example, click on a banned member's profile and see a short blurb from the responsible staff member explaining why Member X won't be posting ever again.

No way. Never. Not going to happen. Is that clear? This opens up a deep and time-consuming drama-pit where this banned member will attempt to return and "clear his name". No. We're not going there. We have experience with this, and that idea is not for ATS.

I agree with you completely Skeptic. Man, that would cause so much un needed fighting and accusations that I belive it would take away from the real reason we are all here. I know it's only human to be curious but as in life there are some things that just need to be discreet or the drama would be to distracting. The only benefit I could see from knowing why someone was banned, is to know where not to push it, but then, that is why there is a warning system in place. It's obvious though, that on a site dealing with material such as this, there is going to be people calling foul. After all, that is why we are here.

I know it gets annoying, and understand, and have said what I have to say on the topic.