Does everyone ban the same?

[SoftWareRevue]

Do your moderators all use the same calculations when banning a member?

Is there some threashold that must be crossed?

Do some members deserve banning without warning?

How do you advise staff when it comes to bannings?

[Scott]

Staff are staff because they can use their discretion when it comes to questionable threads. However, we have it set up so that moderators themselves cannot ban a member. They have permission to move/edit/lock topics obviously, and using IPB's warning system, they can add a warning if they feel it is justified.

In extreme cases, they can place the member under Mod Queue, which stops their posts going public without approval. It is then up to an admin to decide if further action, such as banning, should be taken. Normally, there is no rush to decide whether the user should be banned, and it can be discussed in the staff-only section.

[Jan]

Interesting Scott, what about when members just join for the sole purpose of spamming their get rich overnight schemes. Those types need to be dealt with quick. If they are not nipped quick, they will spam every forum you have. Or don't you get spammers at your forums? :P

[Scott]

Thankfully, a lot of spammers don't validate their email address therefore can't get posting. It's still a cozy little place and therefore isn't a big problem. If it does start to appear more frequent, it might be that moderators will need to suspend users...however at the moment Mod Q works quite nicely.

[SoftWareRevue]

. . . they can place the member under Mod Queue . . ./me looks into Mod Queue. :beer:


[edit]

/me wonders what happened to the /me hack.

[writespeak]

Is there some threashold that must be crossed?

IMO except for those who clearly come just to spam, or who have already been banned under a different username, members should be warned before being banned. Newbies in particular may have overlooked the rules, or they may not be aware of the presence of mods. I've seen many members change their posting habits after having the rules pointed out to them.

Not all, of course, which is why we have banning as a possible step after warning.

Breaking a rule such as self-promotion/spamming after being warned about it, or being warned several times about other rules such as being rude, is where the threshold is for me. IMO the last warning should be a clear warning, though, along the lines of "If you continue to break the rules, your account may/will be disabled."

Do some members deserve banning without warning?

IMO only those who clearly have absolutely no regard for the rules or interest in taking part.

How do you advise staff when it comes to bannings?

Discussion with examples is invaluable. :)

Lois

[SoftWareRevue]

. . . IMO only those who clearly have absolutely no regard for the rules or interest in taking part. . .How about those that are not even violating guidelines, but are being disruptive to the community nonetheless?

Example:

Jimmy joins because he wants to share his perceived horrible experience with a provider.

He starts several threads (so he can warn everyone in every forum category).

He searches for the provider and posts to every thread they're mentioned with no regard to date of those threads.

Of course, the sooner you ban him, the better off the community is.

You don't really have time to warn him and tell him to stop this disruptive behaviour. By the time he'd read your warning, he would have spammed (spam can be such a harsh word for some situations) to the point of causing way too much work for moderators and too much disruption for members.

This is just one example of someone needing banning before warning. There are more. But the point is, it is sometimes a necessary response by the moderation team.

Of course, going with Scott's Mod Queue suggestion would have the same positive effect for the community.

[writespeak]

How about those that are not even violating guidelines, but are being disruptive to the community nonetheless?

It's the same for me except that I think warning/discussion is even more necessary. Generally speaking, that is.

You don't really have time to warn him and tell him to stop this disruptive behaviour.

I've banned spammers for that type of behaviour. They come under "those who clearly come just to spam" and "those who clearly have absolutely no regard for the rules or interest in taking part." The Jimmy-types you described fit in the second of those descriptions. But..

By the time he'd read your warning, he would have spammed (spam can be such a harsh word for some situations) to the point of causing way too much work for moderators and too much disruption for members.

I haven't seen the Jimmy-types post that fast, just spammers. But I suppose it happens, and I agree that that would be a time to ban. Most of the time, though, there's time to contact the member and inform him about the problems with his posts.

Of course, going with Scott's Mod Queue suggestion would have the same positive effect for the community.

I'd like to see that implemented for some types. It's less harsh than banning, and as you said, it would serve the community in the same way. :)

Lois

[A_Jelly_Doughnut]

I tried the mod queue on a small board that was getting major spammed...and got slapped with a large trout for it.

By spammed, there were multiple threads where the whole point was to take them to 20,000 posts or some similar goal.

Banning the members would have been a much better option for the situation, in hindsight.

[Jan]

It should be dealt with on a forum to forum basis. I was once part of a bird forum (set it all up and did a lot of work as admin, as the hostess didn't know a real lot). Most forums have competitors and troublemakers and it will depend on the main vision of the forum as to how you deal with it. Some thrive on a lot of noise, AKA flaming, and accept it till it gets way out of hand.

Then there are others who expect a high standard who will not tolerate any unrest at all. That's why it is a fantastic idea to read the rules of a forum before you sign up :) No surprises that way ;)

But as we are addressing how particular forum owners within this community handle such things on their own forum/s, it should be interesting to see more responses.

[sirius]

You don't really have time to warn him and tell him to stop this disruptive behaviour. By the time he'd read your warning, he would have spammed (spam can be such a harsh word for some situations) to the point of causing way too much work for moderators and too much disruption for members.


It's also important to note that Jimmy is likely not going to care. He registered for the sole purpose of being as disruptive as possible and to get everyone's attention on his issue. These folks, need a good swift kick out the door.

Sirius

[Webdude]

with no regard to date of those threads.

Two words...
"Expired Threads"

You know where to look for it :D
I use it, it works.