Sometimes I'm just curious to why some get ban. Rather than having to ask in a thread, would it be possible to have a link to their last post in a thread in the automatic ban list thread? Some of them are funny like Feuerbach's ban.

brian

United States9642 Posts

April 04 2006 11:56 GMT

the idea has been put out there before and i still think its a great one.
i dont know how much work it would take coding wise, i cant imagine too much, and it would pretty much stop forever the "why was so and so" banned.

last time it was brought up the argument against it was "its an admin privilege" or something of that nature, so why give it to those who arent MIR/staff.

why not? what is it hurting? and i too am curious to see the reason behind stimey being banned yet another time. im not writing this entire post just because of that, rather its just one example of why its a great idea. more often than not im curious as to what a person has said to get banned.

Hot_Bid

Braavos36402 Posts

April 04 2006 12:20 GMT

this topic got an amazing amount of views for a feedback thread. considering how many people bother to visit the feedback thread, this may be the most read thread (relative to the activity of the forum it's in) in the history of tlnet.

since this topic was first started, a closed thread was added so that people can more easily see when a ban is done, and who did it. this means that people can PM the banner if they want to understand a ban better.

but i think people are still left wondering just what will get them banned. that is why the commandments were made--not to define future moderation, but to generalize current and past moderation for the benefit of forum users. those commandments were made a long time ago--could more, or different generalizations be made about moderation now? more helpful ones that would leave less people with less questions about how to not get banned?

compared to the 10 commandments, some more brief, helpful, and perhaps accurate answers to this question were already posted here. i will outline those below:

On July 01 2005 05:38 Liquid`Meat wrote:
as long as you:
- don't only post one-liners (especially non contributing)
- are respectful to other members
- not incredibly stupid

you should be alright

this could very well replace the 10 commandments. maybe it should.

but at the same time, it could be analyzed.
1. respectfulness is not easily quantifiable, and clearly something less than absolute respect for all members is the standard on tlnet. so this still leaves people unsure of just how much disrespectfulness will get them banned.

2. stupidity, again, is not easily quantifiable. arguably this could be the only rule, as one could argue that only an "incredibly stupid" level of disrespectfulness is banned. but how subjective is this? can a member really read their post and say "by making this post, am i contributing to a conclusion that i am incredibly stupid, thereby risking ban?"

so in some ways, the 10 commandments is more helpful: avoid racism, avoid flaming. these particulars are considered "high risk" in terms of making one appear incredibly stupid. but how complete is this list? and just how do people really know what will be banned and what won't be? "incredibly stupid" is a hard thing to know unless you're the mod with the finger on the trigger.

On July 01 2005 08:39 Liquid`Meat wrote:
well ya, regulars do have more credit but it surely isn't infinite

this is also covered in the 10 commandments, but this version is much more brief.
again, there is something to analyze here. i think there is a reason why regulars get more credit: because they regularly "contribute." on some level, those that offer valuable contributions to the site are desirable to keep. so in a way, bans are not so much about removing negatives as removing those "not worth it"--those with negatives and no positives, or those with negatives that justify losing the positive. this is only my conjecture, of course.

On July 02 2005 13:19 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
On July 02 2005 09:03 labcoated wrote:
if you can't write a sentence fragment explaining why you're banning someone do they really deserve to be banned?

I don't see why not, this forum has always been moderated based upon the opinions of the admins. We put out rules to make it easier for people to understand what will keep them from getting banned and what won't, but there was never any promise that we would justify every ban. Maybe we should add a disclaimer at the top that says "We reserve the right to deny access to the forums to anyone" like the restaurants do?

Regardless, we're lazy, we're busy, we don't feel the need to justify every ban, the end.

I completely agree with Cyric's above post. The point is that the rules were put out to make it easier for people to understand what will keep them from getting bannd and what won't, and by the popularity of this thread (long after the issuing of the 10 commandments), it seems that people would like more.

They got more when they got the topic that says who was banned and by whom. But to this day, the 10 commandments have become the answer for everything. What happened to the message that the 10 commandments wasn't enough? And that it has come to be used for what it was never intended for?

Why did X get banned? Broke the commandments.
What are the commandments? General info on what the mods do.
Therefore, X got banned because that's what the mods do. <--Is that really an explanation that helps people avoid getting banned?

The question is still "well what do the mods do?" and the 10 commandments _kind of_ answer it, _maybe_... but really no.

On July 03 2005 11:47 Liquid`Meat wrote:
if you see someone banned the reason is he didn't comply with the commandments.

I wish it were this simple. But the 10 commandements are vague enough that almost anyone here could be banned. That's why they are always the answer. But that means that they don't really help people know what will get them banned and what won't--only that they could be banned at any time, that others aren't, but they still could be for the same things. There's no reassurance to the contrary.

brian

United States9642 Posts

April 04 2006 12:52 GMT

and such is hot_bid's research paper.
A-.

Locked

United States4182 Posts

April 04 2006 13:50 GMT

On April 04 2006 21:52 Gene wrote:
and such is hot_bid's research paper.
A-.

F for shameless plagiarization

brian

United States9642 Posts

April 04 2006 19:22 GMT

aw really? and i was so impressed.

ToKoreaWithLove

Norway10161 Posts

April 04 2006 22:24 GMT

And they say kids today don't do their homework!

x2fst

1272 Posts

April 05 2006 01:17 GMT

Hot_Bid?

OR STIMEY??!?!

Doctorasul

Romania1145 Posts

April 06 2006 06:22 GMT

On April 05 2006 10:17 x2fst wrote:
Hot_Bid?

OR STIMEY??!?!

That would come as more of a shock than "I ... am your father!"

a-game

Canada5214 Posts

April 06 2006 16:02 GMT

#10

i think a lot of the time the last post is irrelevant to why a poster was banned.

NeoIllusions

United States37500 Posts

April 06 2006 17:28 GMT

#11

Actually, a person being banned probably made too many transgressions but it's usually the last post that pushes a mod over the edge and makes the ban.

a-game

Canada5214 Posts

April 06 2006 17:35 GMT

#12

sometimes it works out that way, i think a lot of the time it takes a few hours before an admin will read the post(s) and by the time the admin reads them the victim-to-be has made other posts that have nothing to do with his ban...

a-game

Canada5214 Posts

September 09 2007 02:58 GMT

#13

figured this as good of a topic as any to say it,

i noticed the automated ban list now includes a 'reason for ban' description. thanks for implementing this!