Moderation Decisions

[Archon]

“Go ahead and ban me if you think I’m wrong” or “if you think that guy deserves to be banned, then ban me too” ends up being an invitation to a massacre.

Oh no, no, just no. I know we’re still in the process of hashing out the moderation policies, but I’d like to state right off that I’d be against banning someone making either of those statements.

I’m certain that @waetherman was also wanting to make damn sure we didn’t ban anyone/further enflame the situation around those circumstances, rather wanting to avoid them instead. That aim I also heartily agree with as well.

Ah! Now that might be a very viable alternative. Does Discourse offer such a possibility?

Not that I know of. However, I know that new feature requests are a thing, and can think of at least two ways of bodging it in in the meantime:

• If we can get a MAILTO: into a topic post or topic Wiki HTML, then we can receive a fairly automated email from the user’s registered email, and flag it very clearly in a standard format for​ the ban reason. _{(If Discourse can’t do this, a link to a specific page on whatever CMS our articles-front-page ends up being - maybe direct triggering a mailto there?)}

• Or, just accept an email to BANMEFORADAYPLEASE@happymutantemail.cx from registered emails, a là automated unsubscription from mailing lists.

  Part or all of the handling of the auto email may even be scriptable outside of Discourse.

But I’d certainly suggest requesting the feature. I can only think of one BBS that I know of where a self-ban hasn’t been requested (that I know of), so it’d be a common-use addition.

[Nonentity]

“Go ahead and ban me if you think I’m wrong” or “if you think that guy deserves to be banned, then ban me too” ends up being an invitation to a massacre.

Oh no, no, just no. I know we’re still in the process of hashing out the moderation policies, but I’d like to state right off that I’d be against banning someone making either of those statements. My assumption, of course, is that the person making these statements hasn’t engaged in other behavior to warrant a ban. I might consider it a bit of posturing and PM the person, but would be very much against a ban simply over that.

I view these statements as nuanced differently from a limited self-ban, if only due to circumstances.

In some ways, those types of statements kind of strike me along the same lines as the “I know you’ll just delete my post for saying so, but…” ones. The statement by itself shouldn’t be cause for the action, because if the person actually has a valid point then taking the action is just going to make things worse. Circumstances definitely matter, of course, but I’d feel the action should have supporting cause in that kind of case.

[garymon]

I’m not even sure I agree with the concept of self-banning. If someone doesn’t want to comment, step away.

I really don’t understand the whole requests to be banned trend but that doesn’t mean it is a valid need of some people. I guess. I’m trying to be nice…

a button to push to let an unhappy neo-mutant self-ban for 24 or 48 hours. No chance of either mod misinterpretation of user, or userbase misinterpretation of mod actions then.

Now this I like. Put the user in control. Give them to tools to take them self out of the conversation when they get too heated. A site wide time out would be nice as mentioned. Also a hide this thread from me would allow them to continue participating here if it’s just one thread that is the problem.

[Archon]

Also a hide this thread from me would allow them to continue participating here if it’s just one thread that is the problem.

The notification status options for each thread go so far in that direction, with thread muting - hiding the fact that the thread has been updated in multiple ways, including updated and latest lists unless you actually​ go look.
You can still go find it under its category, of course.

_{(Which if someone has a rampaging case of the 'Something is wrong on the Internet’s, might not be enough.
It’s not bad, though.)}

[garymon]

The notification status options for each thread go so far in that direction, with thread muting

That’s great. Half the battle is finding the existing features.

[Archon]

And promoting them - I was hoping I wasn’t just explaining something you already knew, mind.

Maybe a ‘So you’re really steamed about this topic’ page in the user help (or other html page, so it can be pointed-to by people), detailing flagging, and complaining to mods, but also topic muting and even the time-out, if it can be implementable. Would need phrasing carefully though.

[garymon]

I was hoping I wasn’t just explaining something you already knew, mind.

I switch between Normal and Tracking all the time and yet never noticed or at least never registered the Mute option. Users are lazy.

[Archon]

Just good old Attention Management - we learn the useful subset of options, and then filter thereafter. The perils of using meat-that-thinks to, well, think with.

[enceladus]

I’ve used thread muting before, but I exhaust a lot more emotional energy on writing than reading. Ban was helpful in this case.

[ChickieD]

A page and then also some social media type posts from the mods that pop up every so often. A screenshot, a little blurb of text.

[Archon]

Maybe a wooden ruler that pops-out from the side of the keyboard and raps your knuckles…

(We can do that in JavaScript, right? )

[awfulhorrid]

We can do that in JavaScript, right?

I think I have a jQuery plugin for that … or at least, I sometimes wish I did! It would certainly make users pay more attention to my validation messages.

[Archon]

It would certainly make users pay more attention to my validation messages.

I still argue that keyboard specs should carry an amp or two available for ‘corrective earthing’.

[awfulhorrid]

‘corrective earthing’

Buried somewhere in a CI controller …

if ($errCount > 3) {
  echo "I said INTEGER! Does that look like an Integer to you?!";
  $this->zap($user, 1);
}

Ah, I can dream, can’t I?

[Archon]

That’s the one!

[emo_pinata]

This might be a dumb question, but can’t bans be undone?

[LockeCJ]

Absolutely.

[CleverEmi]

Oooh, oooh! Can you make one for replies to emails where you ask two questions and they only answer one?

[KeisterButton]

About moderation guidelines: do the moderators have an agreed-upon grid or table of bans and suspensions determined by frequency, volume and severity? I’ve seen instances at another BBS where a moderator gives one user a medium-length suspension, and another moderator extends the suspension to the middle of the next decade. What is the likelihood of that happening here? When a moderator takes action, does she take it independently and the other moderators accept it without question, or is it possible that another moderator would think “nah, three months is much too light. This needs to be eight years or longer.”

Judge One: “Deary me. You stole a car. First offense. Three months in jail for you.”

Judge Two: “WTF dude?! The user STOLE A CAR! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!”

[LearnedCoward]

nah, three months is much too light. This needs to be eight years or longer

I resemble that remark

Seriously, re-banning someone who’s already banned is a dick move.