Banned Members

[Mr. Clean]

Just a suggestion but having a branding (if you will) on banned members profiles or perhaps a dedicated thread. Not so much worrying about past banning being labeled but perhaps the newer ones. They would serve as an example of what not to do and also give a few of us nosey bastards something to cure our curiousity or at least try to fill in the void. I bring this up not only because I'm somewhat nosey sometimes but because I noticed franklintip was our newest member but on the newest member chart he wasn't listed so I clicked his name and to my surprise BANNED. Just an idea Good one or bad one. It is what it is.

[clanglee]

A lot of the new members that you see banned turned out to be spammers or even bots.

[Mr. Clean]

My guess was a banned members from the past creating a clone but that makes sense too.

[clanglee]

That is possible too. If the Mods catch on. . .and they can. . .then they'll boot em in a heartbeat.

[Danny]

This isn't a community that likes to put people, even ones we had to get rid of, put out on display for any sort of ridicule. many banned accounts are from people who left over grievances and the number of actual dickwads is not high at all compared to most that are spam bots. Of course sometimes certain folks with a personal internet tough guy vendetta start up in a second account - usually to attempt to "poach users to there up and coming competitive website" but they don't last long and theres no point being "that guy" and acting like a self righteous douchebag.

[Andy]

It's our policy to respect the privacy of all our members, including former members so none of the staff here will discuss the details of any warnings or bans issued except with the member involved and via pm only. I don't see this policy changing soon. (tbh 99% of banned members are spambots anyway)

[Mr. Clean]

99% of spambots would lead to be a pretty damn boring thread. The privacy thing I don't understand so much. Not sure why it matters but you have your policy and it makes sense to you admins so that's all that matters I suppose. Well, Thanks for humoring my suggestion even though it went down in flames jk with the

[Andy]

99% of spambots would lead to be a pretty damn boring thread. The privacy thing I don't understand so much. Not sure why it matters but you have your policy and it makes sense to you admins so that's all that matters I suppose. Well, Thanks for humoring my suggestion even though it went down in flames jk with the Hey its all good, i think a big part of being a good admin is encouraging people to read rules and policies and more importantly, to encourage people to question them. You guys arnt children and we know that, the rules and policies we have are to protect the forums integrity, cover ourselves legally or simply to maintain a nice atmosphere on here and your more likely to respect us if you fully understand the reasoning behind any rule or policy so i always encourage people to question anything they dont agree with in the FAQ or in general, i will always listen to opinions and take them on board and over the years here, the FAQ has changed significantly to fit in with what we all think is acceptable. The privacy thing was brought in becuase me and neil like to consider ourselves mature guys and we dont want to encourage gossiping and bitching by making public 'so and so had a warning for doing this today', also as far as we're concerned once a warning or even a ban is issued, thats the end of the matter and we all move on unless its contended by the member concerned. As far as we can see, there's no need for other members to be involved. If you want us to look at this policy and make changes, talk it up. convince me

[Trin]

I do not disagree with the privacy policy concerning circumstances of bannings, and I think it is a very mature and respectable thing to keep unflattering situations discrete. I'd add that if these things turned into a big public airing of differences then it would make atonement and possible ban lifting even more difficult. That said, it is naive to think that the matter is ended just because the admins declare they are done dealing with it. From the members' perspective the ban is often the first thing we have visibility to when the admins are dealing with a disruptive member. So from our perspective that's when the matter is first opened. And to say that there's no need for the members to be involved forgets that we are a community of people who interact with each other almost daily. When someone gets banned it's like coming in to work and finding the guy in the cube next to you got fired and walked out the door. Whether you liked him, hated him, didn't know a thing about it... it affects you. And it sends ripples throughout the organization. Bans are public, visible things. They aren't private. And in a vacuum of information members will gossip. When they get into back-channel speculation it's bound to be more negative and damaging than the reality of the situation calls for. My opinion is that it would be wise for a ban to be followed up by an announcement. Not an explanation or a defense of the action taken. And definitely not a list of unflattering grievances against the banned member. Just an acknowledgement and some basic facts. "Just letting you all know that Trin was banned today. Several members lodged complaints regarding some of his recent posts and upon review we decided he was in conflict with the rules of the forum and the culture we want to have here. We made every effort to work with the situation, but it turned out to be untenable." Blah, blah blah... The benefit to the members is that they don't hear about it through the grapevine which is often ripe with added speculation. The benefit to the admins is that it shows they're doing their jobs and willing to be stand-up about the tough decisions that sometimes have to be made. It also puts the matter and ensuing discussion out in the open where you can see it and respond to it, even if the response is by virtue of the circumstances, "We won't discuss specifics." Just my thoughts. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the status quo. And obviously this wouldn't be worthwhile for spambots.

[Andy]

Points well made, the only thing i disagree with you on is that people will gossip whether they know the truth or not. Particullarly friends of the banned member will not want to beleive their friend has done something, ive been a mod/admin on alot of forums and whether the admins reveal ban reasons or not, gossip is always rife. Also there are very few reasons that warrant a ban alone, most things we will give warnings for first (which the general member population will never be alerted to anyway) which will build up if the member continues to break the rules, they are allowed 10 warning points before they are banned so say if you get 9, absolutly anything will give us grounds for a ban.. even a 1 point offense. So then are we to post that 'Trin was banned today for having a large signiture and refusing to consider the size of it when asked.' or are we to post the entire warning history too which would otherwise be kept private? I Apologise for bad wording in my post, i understand that the first a member will know about a ban is when they see that line through someones name, what i meant with that is as far as we are concerned, the matter is dealt is. We dont revisit it unless we decide to lift the ban further down the line.

[DjfunkmasterG]

We have rules here?

[clanglee]

We have rules here? Two men entah!!! One man leave!!!

[rongravy]

Two men entah!!! One man leave!!! That, and that we can never talk about Fight Club...

[Andy]

You should all know by now how i feel about crap in my ask staff forum, if you dont have anything to ask or anything to contribute to a topic, please dont post here.