Forum Rules/Banning Issue
-
Peace all,
In a discussion with the mod (Zein) we are looking at ways to regulate the 'bad behaviour' of visitors to the forum without resorting to the outright banning that is being applied from time to time (and which creates bad feelings no matter how it is handled).
I would like to use this thread to poll the options and listen to better options if they are available.
Zein Wrote
I agree with the banning issue not not being an entirely effective tool. It only seems to create some resentment or other. I realize also that whatever method we choose, some will always find a fault and create an issue out of it. In other words, it's a lose lose situation to some extent. I guess what I'm trying to say is, whatever method thats chosen, there'll always be something wrong with it.I thought the 'temporary ban' was an effective way of putting the message across. Maybe thats the way to go, with probably '3 strikes and you're out' kind of deal. Locking a thread helps to a small extent, although the persistent ones always find a way to bring up their favorite subjects over and over again.
Check the thread I posted about "Can we start afresh..?" in the general section also to see what I wrote in regard to this subject.
Update Changes have been incorporated into the forum rules based on the poll/discussions on this thread.
-
Hi Layth,
I should say its a very good thing indeed, that u r reconsidering the 'banning issue'.
Here are my suggestions.
I think, people who come here to spam with any kind of posts(casino stuff, porn, and just plain spammers and people who are offensive from the very first post) and who have no real intentions of genuinely being part of discussions should be banned immediately without notice.
As for other people who participate genuinely in discussions, I think they should have
2 Pm warnings(something that says ''ur post is in breach of forum rules and hence u r formally WARNED not to continue such language in ur posts, else u are likely to get banned from the forum'') ------------------------> Temporary ban for 1 or 2 weeks(depending on the severity of the offensive posts)--------------------->Temporary ban for 4 or 6 weeks------------>Permanent ban.And also, I'd suggest when any such disciplinary action is taken, both side of the story be heard and examined and investigated, before making the decission. Say, give them 2 days to present their explanations, if any.
Coz if a person is banned permanently without notice, he seems to have no way/means of explaining himself to u or presenting his side of the whole thing. In that sense, the person, who complained seems to have an unfair advantage over the person who got banned. So, if the person who got banned for use of offensive language, wants to clarify that he was doing so in reply to offensive posts, by the person who complained itself, he seems to have no chance to do that. So, I'd suggest the admins/mods hear both sides before comming to a decission.
And one more suggestion, I think offensive posts and also spamming posts, should be deleted by the mods/admins whenever they come across them. Coz that will help people not to respond to those. Why wait for people to make official complaints? If posts are of insulting nature or in breach of forum rules, they should be deleted by the mods/admins wherever & whenever they see them. Otherwise, everyone tries to defend themselves in response to such posts and so, U see it turning to a long exchange of abuses, dragging very often to pages.
I agree with Zenje, regarding locking threads. It serves no purpose coz people who talk crap continue doing so in other threads, on the same subject. A disciplinary action would be better (if need be in addition to locking the thread), in order to stop that behaviour. Merely locking the thread serves no purpose at all. And it also puts an end to the original discussion, for which it was intended. So to say, the spammers win by stopping the discussion on the subject altogether.
These are merely my suggestions.
Peace!
-
Peace Layth,
I think option 4 is the best of the bunch. I would add only a verbal warning preceding the initial 1-week ban. I think this method practices tolerance, and patience, and gives people a chance to correct themselves as well as explain themselves.
Peace,
Tay -
I agree with Zenje, regarding locking threads. It serves no purpose coz people who talk crap continue doing so in other threads, on the same subject. A disciplinary action would be better (if need be in addition to locking the thread), in order to stop that behaviour. Merely locking the thread serves no purpose at all. And it also puts an end to the original discussion, for which it was intended. So to say, the spammers win by stopping the discussion on the subject altogether.
Just thought I'd clarify one point. There are times (though rare) that locking a thread does have it's uses. If the thread is meant as an announcement and is not debatable, etc. Also, if a thread is created for a particular question, for example, and the question has been answered, yet it only continues because others decided to go off on a tangent or other reasons not pertaining to the intention of the thread.Peace
-
Hi all,
I agree with Zenje, regarding locking threads. It serves no purpose coz people who talk crap continue doing so in other threads, on the same subject. A disciplinary action would be better (if need be in addition to locking the thread), in order to stop that behaviour. Merely locking the thread serves no purpose at all. And it also puts an end to the original discussion, for which it was intended. So to say, the spammers win by stopping the discussion on the subject altogether.
Just thought I'd clarify one point. There are times (though rare) that locking a thread does have it's uses.I agree.
If the thread is meant as an announcement and is not debatable, etc.
Again, i agree
Also, if a thread is created for a particular question, for example, and the question has been answered,
I am not sure what kind of thread u mean here, Zenje.
But in general, Everyone would have their views and opinions to offer, on the subjectof the thread. By locking the thread, that gets prevented.yet it only continues because others decided to go off on a tangent or other reasons not pertaining to the intention of the thread.
Well, yeah, some do overtake the thread altogether by spamming with irrelevant stuff, but then, by locking the thread, the discussion on the intended subject comes to a complete halt. So, I personally think, in such cases, offensive/rude posts be deleted and/or disciplinary action taken, rather than locking the thread as such.
Just my 2cents on the subject.
Peace!
-
Peace,
Based on the feedback thus far, here is what I envision as the ban rules going forward (please help modify if I miss anything)
Ban Policy
Please note that all banning/discipline action on this forum will require consensus between at least 2 of the mods.
The following action will be taken against members of the forum who are found to be rude/offensive or disrespecting of the rules of the forum until such action/behaviour ceases
Step 1. A formal 'warning' will be given to the offending member via private message with a reference to the post/link where the offence took place.
Step 2. A '1-week' ban will be instated on the username and IP of the offending member.
Step 3. A '1-month' ban will be instated on the username and IP of the offending member.
Step 4. A permanent ban will be placed on the username and IP of the offending member.Note Spammers/Advertisers will be banned without notice.
-
Hi Layth,
Based on the feedback thus far, here is what I envision as the ban rules going forward (please help modify if I miss anything)
Ban Policy
Step 1. A formal 'warning' will be given to the offending member via private message with a reference to the post/link where the offence took place.
Step 2. A '1-week' ban will be instated on the username and IP of the offending member.
Step 3. A '1-month' ban will be instated on the username and IP of the offending member.
Step 4. A permanent ban will be placed on the username and IP of the offending member.Note Spammers/Advertisers will be banned without notice.
Sounds reasonable and fair.
But have a query regarding the ban.
Will those who get banned(either temporary or permanent) be notified the reasons for the ban, before they actually get bannned?
coz under the exsisting rules, when he/she gets banned, they seem to have no clue ''why' they got banned', unless someone else from the forum communicates with the admins and finds out and communicates the information to the person. I think, he/she should be made aware the reasons for the ban (before the ban itself) and also given a chance for clarification, if any. That would be a fair thing to do, in my opinion.
Peace!
-
Peace,
Will those who get banned(either temporary or permanent) be notified the reasons for the ban, before they actually get bannned?
If the ban is being conducted with the requirement of 2 mod's agreeing on the offence, then I don't see what point there is to notify the member before the ban...Such action would lead to endless and time wasting discussions where the person about to be banned would defend his/her position justifying that they were being intimidated or that so and so attacked them, etc..
-
Peace Peaceful,
It seems to me that the person would have their clarification and reasoning laid out in Step 1
Step 1. A formal 'warning' will be given to the offending member via private message with a reference to the post/link where the offence took place.
After that, it would be redundant to continue explaining.
Peace,
Tay -
Hi Layth,
Will those who get banned(either temporary or permanent) be notified the reasons for the ban, before they actually get bannned?
If the ban is being conducted with the requirement of 2 mod's agreeing on the offence, then I don't see what point there is to notify the member before the ban...Such action would lead to endless and time wasting discussions where the person about to be banned would defend his/her position justifying that they were being intimidated or that so and so attacked them, etc..
Well, if 2 mods do look over the issue in an unbiased manner, I suppose it would be a fair decission and may not necessitate any further clarifications.
I understand ur point over endless discussions over justifications etc. I would still give the offender one pm chance to say if he has anything to say, before the decission is made. But then its ur call and ur forum and I've already spoken much. )
But anyways, Layth, the weird aspect is, the person who gets banned, under the exsisting rules, seems to have no clue of the reasons for which he got banned. So, if u think its not a good idea to let him know before the ban, because of the problems u foresee, I think, it should be done atleast when he is banned, through an email or so. All of us have our email ids registered in the site. So, the reasons for the ban could be mailed to the person atleast to let the person know, why he got banned.
I mean, to wake up one day and to realise u r banned (from the forum u fondly visit everyday) and have no clue why, is kind of weird, I feel.
Peace!
-
Hi Tay
Peace Peaceful,
It seems to me that the person would have their clarification and reasoning laid out in Step 1Step 1. A formal 'warning' will be given to the offending member via private message with a reference to the post/link where the offence took place.
After that, it would be redundant to continue explaining.
I get what u r saying, Tay.
But each time would involve different posts and can involve posts of different nature as well.
Just to let the offender know, ''these are the posts for which u r banned'', might be a beter idea, than him having no knowledge what his offence was.Peace!
-
Peace Peaceful
If a person is forewarned I think it should be expected of him/her to realize that they should not go down such a road again, especially when the forum rules are given to them to observe. I believe it is counterproductive to baby people in such a way, explaining that they broke the rules again when they are asked to review them and not break them again.
Joe
-
Peace Nabi,
If a person is forewarned I think it should be expected of him/her to realize that they should not go down such a road again, especially when the forum rules are given to them to observe. I believe it is counterproductive to baby people in such a way, explaining that they broke the rules again when they are asked to review them and not break them again.
How is informing the offender, ''this is what u r banned for'' counterproductive? Can u explain ur view? Infact, I think it can be productive coz it sends out a clear message, each time, that such posts wont be tolerated here.
In any court of Law anywhere in the world, the guilty normally, has the right to know the exact offence for which he is punished. How is it babying people?
Peace!
-
Peace
I think the first warning to an individual should make it clear that such posts (that are disruptive) will not be tolerated.
I think it can be productive coz it sends out a clear message
I'm telling you peaceful, "Do not do this again because it is against the rules and is causing disruption! Try to remaim aloof from such things."
Is that not clear enough the first time around?
In any court of Law anywhere in the world, the guilty normally, has the right to know the exact offence for which he is punished.
Indeed. You are on probation, violate it and you know the consequences. You are warned beforehand.
How is it babying people?
A person should learn to abide by the rules. Simple as that. Children grow up learning how to abide by rules and are constantly punished. Some adults act like children when they continually violate rules and become offenders.
Joe
-
Peace Nabi,
I'm telling you peaceful, "Do not do this again because it is against the rules and is causing disruption! Try to remaim aloof from such things."
Is that not clear enough the first time around?
OK, this clearly doesnt sound like a ''warning'' to me. It sounds more like friendly advice/ reminder.
In any court of Law anywhere in the world, the guilty normally, has the right to know the exact offence for which he is punished.
Indeed. You are on probation, violate it and you know the consequences. You are warned beforehand.
To be honest, I clearly dont see what the fuss is about, in merely letting a person know 'these are the posts u were banned for'.
Peace!
-
Peace
To be honest, I clearly dont see what the fuss is about, in merely letting a person know 'these are the posts u were banned for'.
Sorry, but you're the one fussing so why would you be complaining about the 'fuss'? I gave a different opinion and you chose to (in your word) 'fuss' about it.
Since you see a 'fuss' I will say this is my opinion and I do not agree with your idea. The forum rules are very pragmatic and simple. One who cannot live up to them should be banned.
Joe
-
Peace Nabi,
Sorry, but you're the one fussing so why would you be complaining about the 'fuss'? I gave a different opinion and you chose to (in your word) 'fuss' about it.
Oops! I wasnt complaining about anthing. Was merely trying to understand. My bad! ''fuss'' was propably a wrong word to be used. I meant, I dont see the problem in merely letting one know his offence.
Anyways, Nabi, let's let it go. Thanks for ur views on the subject.Peace!
-
peace Elena,
do you usually expect to be informed by the users when a rule is broken?
A big YES!
Users have a duty to inform the admin/mods if a rule is broken. They should reference the specific post and what rule was broken if its not obvious.Its like being in the real world and you see someone robbing a bank, do you just do nothing or would you try to put things right?
Wakas
ps - I like your avatar. I love playing basketball.
