fyi- Thread level banning tool is now implemented

[David A. Goldfarb]

A convenient side effect of this policy is that your judgement is never scrutinized by ordinary users of the site.

This is true, but it is also true that ordinary users of the site usually have less information about these situations than the moderators do, and they may involve things like harrassment that happens outside the forums, and some of the parties involved may not wish for such things to appear in public.

Internet forums are not democracies, but as far as they go, APUG is pretty well behaved and as such doesn't require too much intervention on the part of the moderators. If Sean thinks what we're doing is working, then he'll probably stick with it. If not, it's his site, and it's up to him to decide what to change.

 

[copake_ham]

I saw that post, and I think you posted to a similar, related thread. Check your own recent posts, and you should find it.

Thanks, David.

The old "multiple thread" thing.

No need to repeat except to say - please, dear Mods, use this tool very lightly and endeavor to resist the natural human temptation of permitting personal biases to influence your decisions to employ it.

 

[jd callow]

This is true, but it is also true that ordinary users of the site usually have less information about these situations than the moderators do, and they may involve things like harrassment that happens outside the forums, and some of the parties involved may not wish for such things to appear in public.

Internet forums are not democracies, but as far as they go, APUG is pretty well behaved and as such doesn't require too much intervention on the part of the moderators. If Sean thinks what we're doing is working, then he'll probably stick with it. If not, it's his site, and it's up to him to decide what to change.

The process almost always works like this:

1. The same user has multiple posts reported.
2. We send a polite note
3. they ignore it and more posts are reported
4. or they attack us for being nazis or worse
5. and or they start a new profile
6. more posts are reported
7. We discover the multiple id's
8. more notes
9. often more attacks (via pm as well as post in threads)
10. more reported posts
11. a vote to ban or restrict
12. a banned or restricted user

More often than not the community might never see the offensive posts (we may have deleted them, closed the thread or the thread went unnoticed by the majority) or never see the threatening PM's.

 

[Dave Parker]

Myself personally have no problems with any of the policies that Sean or the moderators have implimented, and this comes from one, who has been at odds with both parties at times, for the most part, with a few exceptions, they do a pretty good job and have for several years now.

Dave

 

[MattKing]

It might be a good idea for the mods to consider posting something when they decide to ban someone from a thread.

A sort of "we have decided that "Matt King" needs a time out from this thread", post would be both transparent to the community, and educative.

This is assuming, of course, that at least some of the posts that led up to the banning remain for viewing.

Matt

P.S. not that you'd ever want to ban me!, of course

 

[Andy K]

Maybe a public 'sin-bin'? Like in that funny game they have over there in the good ol' US o' A and Canadia . Where a member/subscriber is restricted from posting for 3 days or so and then let back on the forum. Multiple transgressions within a set time period would then be met with banning. Sort of a three-strikes-and-you're-out system. Then the rest of the membership could see that people brought banning upon themselves and also had adequate warning.

 

[mark]

Sean it is your site. Do what you want.