AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
By the way, ThunderPhillips and Dr. Mantis Toboggan have used the same IP at times. Not the same guy, but obvious friends or relatives. Next violation is a ban.
RotoRiot/Moos is Loos/huskerfan22/Cheezypuff
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
Changed my mind. I see no reason to let him come back and spew more crap. I banned the account. If he asks, feel free to tell him that I did it.
zoogs
New member
AR, that makes sense. However I think it also makes sense for a website to notify users when it takes this kind of action. We tell everyone when and why they were warned, and I think it legitimately makes everyone uneasy when they consider the possibility that they, too, will get axed with no notice and find themselves with no recourse for explanation.
At the least, for a regular, maybe a simple notice that they have been banned, after review by the team, for the reason that we feel they are no longer interested in being a civil participant here, and that the decision is final.
This is not so much for their sake as it is for everyone else's, to put them at ease about what kind of treatment they, too, can expect. I think that "social contract" between site administrators and users is important.
But, I totally agree that we are simply going to lose the people who want to have made the call themselves. I feel to others, who are good members and wouldn't get in this kind of trouble anyway, it's totally clear and respected that this is 100% any decision the admins make. They need to feel assured that IF they ever do something we consider bad, whatever that is, they will at least get *something* other than silence.
At the least, for a regular, maybe a simple notice that they have been banned, after review by the team, for the reason that we feel they are no longer interested in being a civil participant here, and that the decision is final.
This is not so much for their sake as it is for everyone else's, to put them at ease about what kind of treatment they, too, can expect. I think that "social contract" between site administrators and users is important.
But, I totally agree that we are simply going to lose the people who want to have made the call themselves. I feel to others, who are good members and wouldn't get in this kind of trouble anyway, it's totally clear and respected that this is 100% any decision the admins make. They need to feel assured that IF they ever do something we consider bad, whatever that is, they will at least get *something* other than silence.
huskeraddict
New member
Put me in zoog's corner on that one. If anyone at any time gets banned, there should be an email sent to them to let them know of that decision. It'll be kind of hard to back track on that now with the recent sweeps we just had but something that needs to be implemented in the future, in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
Yes. I don't know whether the ability has always existed and I never noticed it, or it has been added from some of our recent updates. This is the first time I've used it. Kinda clunky; you go to the Control Panel, locate the member, and there is a Log In button. Click it, and it spawns a new Huskerboard window under the member's account. Then, it's just navigating as you would your own. What's not intuitive is that when you close that window and return to "your" window, you are REALLY still logged in as the member. You have to log out and then log in under your account. I have no idea why it spawns a new window and leave "your" window at the same time when both windows are then logged in as the member.
I can see, as in this case, reasons for the use. However, it's not something I see us using routinely. If we have reason to do so we will, but none of the Admins are going to just pick members and start reading for fun.
huskeraddict
New member
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
I don't think that we are far apart on this. But I can see instances when informing the member isn't required.
Before I get into that, though, it might help everyone if I go through how I handle bans. Since the most common reason for a ban is a personal attack, I'll use that as an example. First, I quote the offending post in a reply. I do this so that everyone can see the violation. Second, in my reply I state that the person is banned, and the reason. A good example is HERE. Since the account is banned, the banned member cannot read PMs or the board, so I inform them of the ban via email and I usually say something similar to what I said in the post, but may not precisely quote them.
Why do I do this? Two reasons. The reply to the post is for the members - it lets them know we're taking action, it may stop a flame war in its tracks, and it reinforces the rules. The second - the reason I notify the violator - is so simply to save a step. If you ban without notifying them, many times you get an email asking why they can't get on the board. So, you end up doing it anyway.
So, as you can see, I'm in GENERAL agreement.
Having said that, there are instances I don't bother with it. Today had two examples - ThunderPhillips and beanman. Alex handled beanman and I banned ThunderPhillips, whom Mavric has suspended for a week. Alex informed beanman via email; I did not inform ThunderPhillips. Why? Because he was looking to be banned. He wanted to go out in flames. There is absolutely no reason for me to inform him. In fact, had I done so, it most likely would just feed his ego. It would be acknowledgment of his misdeed. I see absolutely no reason to do that. If someone can give me a good reason for doing otherwise in a case like this, fine, and I'll reconsider. But when someone is looking to be banned and acts like that - well, whatever argument there is for notifying him would have to be VERY persuasive for me to consider doing so.
Now, had that happened in a post rather than in a status update, I would have still done the first part - posted a reply stating the ban and the reason why, for the reasons I stated above. But like a status update, I would not have sent the violator any notice. Not only do they know precisely why they are banned - hell, they were WANTING to be banned - I feel no obligation to be civil to someone like that. Alex, you mentioned a "social contract". Here is where we agree...and disagree. I agree with the concept as to the members, at least in most cases - the recent purge being an exception, which I'll address below. I do not agree as to the person banned when they act like that. That kind of conduct is reprehensible and does not deserve any recognition. Again, I want to stress that this is for posters looking to be banned. If it's a "normal" ban, I completely agree the violator needs to be notified using email.
I also disagree - more as a matter of degree than an absolute position - how not explaining bans (in the case of this purge) make people uncomfortable. From my reading, there are two camps here, both pretty evenly split. One camp has no problem with it. The other camp is complaining long and loud - but not really giving many reasons why. The only reason I've seen articulated to justify them being informed is the argument Alex made about making people uncomfortable. Two points come to mind here. First, the ones complaining for that reason seem to be members who like to push the envelope, are friends of the banned, or both. Second, given that almost all bans are transparent and have been since the inception of this board, it is at best specious, and at worse disingenuous, for them to argue that we are just doing it to be doing it and that they don't know where the line is drawn. They know what will cause a ban.
No, the real reason they want to know is so they can simply find fault with the action. The more detailed we are, the more "surface area" we present for them to attack. Simply put, it will only prolong the unrest. And let's not forget, what we are talking about is a vocal minority. The rest of the board either is happy with the bans or - and this is the far greater number - don't give a damn.
So, let me summarize this way:
1. MOST of the time, we need to be transparent and let the board know why a person was banned.
2. MOST of the time, we need to inform the person banned.
3. There are exceptions under which number 1 or number 2 or both won't apply or are not necessary.
4. Because of this, we can't promise the members that we will provide the reason for a ban every time. At least, I won't make such a promise, knowing that there are times I won't follow through.
I don't want this to come off as a edict. It is not. If you want to notify the board and the violator for every ban, that's fine. Alex, you in particular have the ability to do it in a way that doesn't escalate the situation. I do not. Therefore, there are times I won't. So, I won't promise the board I will.
Finally, I want to stress that the standard should be that we DO notify the board and the violator...UNLESS there is good reason to not notify.
Thanks for raising this concerns. We need to discuss them. Fortunately, this is one time were we can each act in accordance with our nature. If you want to notify the board or the violator every time, please do so. If you feel there are times that it is justified to not do so - real justification - don't.
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
Your Schedule Wallpaper saved you from a fate worse than death...you bastard.
zoogs
New member
AR, we're definitely in pretty general agreement. I wouldn't have notified ThunderPhillips either, and I gave Sebastian the Ibis (a clear troll) the boot a while ago without notice.
Beanman did the same thing in asking to be banned and the only difference was that he had been a regular here. It wasn't necessary to do, but I thought it best given the circumstances.
I think the key point for me here is that 'surface area' we give for criticism. In this case, I would argue the surface area for criticism has been quite substantial simply because they have been allowed to say, "I didn't get a response. I asked why I was banned and they won't tell me." Rather than, "I didn't get a satisfactory response." Maybe I'm misunderstanding you a little here, but I think that's a huge difference.
I would be happy to volunteer contacting any banned *regulars* another mod or admin doesn't wish to notify, or at least to have their questions directed to me (or anyone else who wants to take it on). I think even a bare minimum, perfunctory statement is OK. They can keep emailing and we can ignore them at that point, having already told them it's final. Our goal, I think, is the same, which is to cut down the opening for attacks that could make the board look bad.
Beanman did the same thing in asking to be banned and the only difference was that he had been a regular here. It wasn't necessary to do, but I thought it best given the circumstances.
I think the key point for me here is that 'surface area' we give for criticism. In this case, I would argue the surface area for criticism has been quite substantial simply because they have been allowed to say, "I didn't get a response. I asked why I was banned and they won't tell me." Rather than, "I didn't get a satisfactory response." Maybe I'm misunderstanding you a little here, but I think that's a huge difference.
I would be happy to volunteer contacting any banned *regulars* another mod or admin doesn't wish to notify, or at least to have their questions directed to me (or anyone else who wants to take it on). I think even a bare minimum, perfunctory statement is OK. They can keep emailing and we can ignore them at that point, having already told them it's final. Our goal, I think, is the same, which is to cut down the opening for attacks that could make the board look bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
The surface area - you have a legitimate point. But given the PM exchange with Eric, I'm absolutely convinced that informing them of the reason - and, again, they know the reason - would not have helped. Yes, they can complain about not being formally notified. But had we done that, then they would have simply slanted the reasons - as they did with the truncated, biased PM string - and we'd be hearing their friends b!^@h about that. I guess I'm saying that I see this as a no-win scenario from the our side.
Again, I'm far too cynical, but that's the way I see it.
NOTE: I quoted Alex's offer to volunteer just to emphasize it. Folks, Alex truly has a talent in this regard. He can either handle the notification for you, or provide you with language you can use.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
This is me being forgetful. I logged in as me on my phone - which I never do. Nevermind.
Last edited by a moderator:
