Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Topics of Concern- Banning

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6 7

XK

19:54 / 05.09.07

ok so if you will indulge me in some process mapping can we discuss some reasonable models of how quick banning *might* be implemented on the proposed open board? I'd like to use Haus' model of presentation to Tom and yes I fully understand this could all be an exercise in futility HOWEVER I think if we could reach a plausible idea it would be like a thermos/cooler for our wee snowball traveling through hell.

If the board technology supported it, would people accept a 3 Policy mod vote to ban and implement said ban with a lockout? Would we need a group discussion or could Policy mods be empowered to make the decision based on links to relevant threads?

so for example if there was an obvious clear cut troll there might be a small thread in policy wherein troll heads are hung as trophies ( suit sexysam3000 has been banned ) and more elaborate ones if the issue is less clear?

among the benefits of empowering the Policy mods I can think of would be fast clean up of shouty mcshoutpants blantant trolls without tiring out the main community with trial like structures, and locking out/freezing posters who need some time off board.

20:35 / 05.09.07

If the board technology supported it, would people accept a 3 Policy mod vote to ban and implement said ban with a lockout?

Yes, I think. I'm not sure if this should scale with delete post/delete topic or not - it's a different kind of decision.

Would we need a group discussion or could Policy mods be empowered to make the decision based on links to relevant threads?

Yes on the second. Whatever it should be, I'd like it to be *fast*.

Janean Patience

20:50 / 05.09.07

Janean, did you really sign up in June 2006?

Yes, but I did my research. Unless I am HIM... no, I've done enough research not to joke about that. Anyway, all trolls are the same. They love to talk about themselves in the third person. Like male porn stars.

West Baltimore Hausing Project

18:44 / 13.09.07

Well, what do you know. We got banning.

Immediate questions, much as XK said:

1) We need to keep track of who has been banned, and who has not been banned. Dedicated thread for such announcements, possibly.
2) Do we want to have banning threads, still, where the voices of the board as a whole can be heard before mods start voting? or do we only want those if the mod-driven banning is vetoed successfully? We risk a situation with no transparency, where bannings take place without anybody apart from those who voted on them knowing it. On the other hand, a) returning trolls may target their banners and b) banning threads can be rather disspiriting and joy-sapping.
3) At the moment we have 70 moderators. I would expect about half of those to be active. Since it isn't just Policy mods, we'll need to do the roll call before going any further with the questions raised by that.

Mordant
(prev. This is *my* hole.)

18:49 / 13.09.07

Much as I find the average banning thread a lot like a 57-course barium meal, I think we'll probably need to keep them, won't we? I can see things getting really ugly without that degree of transparency.

the andromeda mouse

18:58 / 13.09.07

I agree with MC/Aunty. If we do open the gates wide again, we may need banning threads to point problematic posters at. Hopefully it might to some extent replace painful discussions over why some behaviours are intolerable. But then I'm an optimist.

19:02 / 13.09.07

The new process allows an admin to ban out of hand - there aren't many admins. I may be the only one, and it allows any moderator to propose someone for a ban. They'd need another seven mods to agree and if two disagreed then it would be abandoned immediately.

19:02 / 13.09.07

We can nuance that, by the way, if people don't like the numbers.

West Baltimore Hausing Project

19:06 / 13.09.07

Well, they will at least come to a conclusion - say, three days of discussion, after which the moderators are free to propose/vote bannination, according to their conscience.

West Baltimore Hausing Project

19:09 / 13.09.07

I suggest we have, if possible, a couple more admins, for dealing with sudden, unexpected, multi-suit and sustained trollng, essentially - that is, egregious situations that can be analysed later but require immediate action. I'll volunteer - Randy would also be a good option, or olmos or Aunt Beast - users 658, 8, 45 and 754, respectively, I think.

19:19 / 13.09.07

I'd also like to vote for there being more administrators on the board, if that is possible, and I'd be happy for any of the members proposed by CHaus to have that sort of banning power to exercise in trolling emergencies.

Or failing that, reduce the number from eight moderator approvals to five or even three. Eight approvals seems a bit excessive and unnecessary, especially if we are still going to have the banning threads - which would probably be a good idea for the sake of transparency.

West Baltimore Hausing Project

19:21 / 13.09.07

Speaking purely personally, five or three sounds too easy to game. I'd rather have admins, who were immediately identifiable with and accountable for the actions they take.

Mon Oncle Ignatius

21:35 / 13.09.07

For what it's worth I'd vote for Haus' list of admins too; the numbers for banning I'm less certain of, as I've yet to be in a shooting troll war - as I gather was seen in the days before the board was closed.

If we don't have more admins, I can't really judge how the numbers would slow things down, or not, in the event of a troll emergency, say at the weekend, as they currently stand. I imagine they might possibly do so; but if there were more admins, at least one of them is likely to be around at a time in case of dire need.

I'd also definitely prefer transparency in banning to remain, though possibly not with a week-long thread to do so.

22:49 / 13.09.07

As long as other people are happy for me to be in the list that haus proposed, then sure, I'm game. I'd second his other suggestions, but would also add grant, Stoatie and/or Boboss. None of them have been as active as me, Haus or Mordant in the flare-ups that have taken place here in the past, but all have unquestionably good judgement in issues of trolling and would, I think, ease any potential tensions - or, to put it slightly less diplomatically, shit-stirring - that may otherwise kick up about a solution like this.

Bots'wana Beast
(prev. Wasn't in your 'crowd', at uni)

00:41 / 14.09.07

I think grant probably qualifies as a 'moderate' in comparative terms, so if he wants it, I'd go for that. Also, while we're here, why not just give Flyboy the banhammer? In an attempt to satiate the/my nonmoderate urges, also. His instincts have proved pretty much unerring, in retrospect. All other votes sound eminently sensible to me. Additionally, say: XK, alas, gourami might freshen the mix - I would like the process to remain as transparent, and thereby however unfortunately occasionally painful, as possible.

Time, Please!
(prev. 5 Days Clean)

00:53 / 14.09.07

Also, while we're here, why not just give Flyboy the banhammer?

I feel much the same way about this that Frank Castle and Clint Barton feel about the Captain America costume this week, I'm afraid. I'm happy with the level of responsibility that comes with being a moderator, including the new ban button - although the new functionality does bring some questions about what being a moderator means, and there are a few causes for concern already in the sounding off thread.

01:10 / 14.09.07

At least a few more administrators (I concur that any of those suggested sound good) would probably be a good idea for really screwed-up situations. Announcements of any quick bans in a dedicated thread and some discussion of potential bans that are less clear-cut would be good as well.

01:33 / 14.09.07

I'm not a good choice. I'm not around consistently enough and I would almost never vote for a ban. However strenuously I might've argued for bans in the past, I see the role of an admin as being very different from that of a member, and I wouldn't, frankly, want to give up the privilege of being able to argue from a point of personal anger.

16:15 / 14.09.07

I'm fine with being given the banhammer; however, I should mention that by either coincidence or just as a general reflection of my life, a couple long banning threads have taken place (or taken on a specific direction) when I wasn't around, either on a long trip or just doing something else for three days or so. So I'd hate to hang up a fast decision if everything depended on me - if the decision had to be unanimous among a certain group.

In other words, I'm fine with being in the group as long as there's no such thing as a table veto.

I should probably also ask what exactly banning means in this new system.

Does it mean:
* User X is deleted/ password scrambled?

Or does it mean:
* User X deleted/password scrambled
* email entered on a "do not pass" list?

OR
* User X deleted/password scrambled
* email entered on a "do not pass" list
* IP address logged and blocked?

Because honestly, if it's the first - if it's just a matter of making someone start over with a new ID and a newbie posting limitation - then "banning" doesn't seem like it'd need that much heavy thought. A simple discussion (if such a thing is possible) with a simple yea/nay vote.

17:04 / 14.09.07

Christ, for reason I've managed to miss this discussion today. Been busy at work, I suppose.

Admin responsibility? Eeeek! I'm not sure I really want the responsibility but I would be... happy isn't the word... okay with taking it on. I'm around often enough, and I think that despite the odd mistep here and there, that I am selfaware enough (when it really counts) to remain impartial even when my blood is up*. Also whilst I try to remain friendly with people, I don't really have a leaning when it comes to the question of banning.

Basically, I think I could do it if called to, but I don't particularly want to.

*I know that I occasionally get all stroptastic, but I'm also pretty good at checking myself when called to.

XK

17:24 / 14.09.07

In the past I haven't wanted to mod in the Temple because the mod/non mod tension comes up in disagreements every once in a while and I find it useful to be on the non mod side of the line and still throw in for the community's standards. This was more important when solid voices like Gypsy Lantern's were on hiatus and pretty much all the other long term posters had mod status.

However if more posters means more workload I'm on the board enough to be helpful in whatever capacity the community would like. I trust the people listed above to make good calls so I don't feel a burning need to get in the mix. I'd like to improve my troll whispering skills but it's backfired in the past and when it does work it does pretty well on the ground (non mod status).

17:35 / 14.09.07

With the advent of these new powers and an open board I'd really like a few more quality members on the mod books.

Happy Quadrangle

17:42 / 14.09.07

Is there a thread around to volunteer for modding? Only been around for a year and a half (although I lurked for nearly three), but I feel invested in Barbelith for the first time, properly, with this new functionality coming in, and I'd like to mod.

17:48 / 14.09.07

That would be here, Quadders

Happy Quadrangle

17:52 / 14.09.07

Appears to be locked...

XK

17:54 / 14.09.07

you sure Boboss? Reading it seems to indicate the thread was up for locking?

Happy Quadrangle

18:01 / 14.09.07

T'is locked, I just tried to post to it. I'm going to start a new one.

18:04 / 14.09.07

Sorry, guys, didn't actually delve inside. Work dontchaknow.

18:12 / 14.09.07

Banning, if I remember correctly, stops the user from logging in, so they can't post or anything. It doesn't scramble their password and they can't get a new one, they're just marked in the database as verboten.

It also does some other things designed to stop people just collecting a new user name and reregistering based on IP address and stuff like that.

19:17 / 14.09.07

Oh, cool. So it's (as much as possible) an actual ban on a person, not just a go-back-to-start button.

I suppose that means the barium meals make more sense, alas.

02:59 / 15.09.07

So a real ban, eh? That's certainly reassuring.

I also agree with the suggested list of admins, providing those posters feel comfortable enough with the job.

19:49 / 15.09.07

there are a few causes for concern already in the sounding off thread.

What concerns do you have? What are the causes?

20:03 / 15.09.07

People not giving a fuck, apparently.

Stoatie's power level is >9000

21:47 / 15.09.07

there are a few causes for concern already in the sounding off thread

To be honest, I agree with Life Critic in that this is something that needs to be addressed specifically, seeing as how we seem to be at a point where decisions are going to have to be made about this shit. That there are "causes for concern" is one thing... what they actually are is the more important one.

Barbelith is, after FUCKING AGES, finally in a position to start sorting its shit out. It needs to know what that shit is, really.

West Baltimore Hausing Project

12:27 / 16.09.07

From the moderator additions thread:

Out of curiosity, in that case, how quickly afterward can another banning request be put through?

Ah - that's a good question. How do we deal with the aftermath of an unsuccessful baning thread? Would it be fair to keep submitting banning requests untiil one got lucky, or until the behaviour of the person who was constantly being put forward for banning changed their behaviour to the point either where the person who is being proposed for banning is no longer being proposed for banning, or where the people who are vetoing that banning decide to stop vetoing the banning.

My instinct is that an unsuccessful attempt to ban somebody should probably mean no more attempts to ban that person, at least until or unless they do something else banworthy, and occasion the starting or revival of a banning thread. This leads to plenty of problems of its own, however - especially if a small number of moderators disagree strongly on what constitutes banworthy behaviour. The model one suspects might happen is something like:

Short banning thread - move to ban - ban vetoed - banning thread revived - move to ban - ban vetoed - eventually admins ask who actually does or does not want user banned - banning thread becomes conventional banning thread - user banned by admin.

This provides a lot of checks and balances, but will take a very long time...

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6 7