curiosity on banning

[terra]

I searched on "banned" and checked through the rules, so if someone else has posted something this and I missed it, I'm sorry :).

Anyway, to my suggestion. Sometimes when I see a member with the definitive "Banned" above their avatar, I get very curious as to, er, exactly what they did to get banned. This is less interesting to me when it's someone with 5-10 posts. But when it's someone with over 1000 posts who's been here for a long time, I have to wonder just what happened, and if I could screw up as badly as they seem to have done to get banned after such a long time of being at the boards.

This may be some sort of invasion of privacy, but I was wondering if there could be some sort of short description on why members who were banned got banned? Simple categories, like, "Banned: spamming", "Banned: vulgar language", or things along those lines. As much as it seems this is only to satisfy my evil curiosity :p, I think it could also help to see just what people got banned for, even though guidelines are clearly stated in the rules. It might pack that extra ... in-your-face punch ... or something.

[AzureWolf]

Yeah, I see that all the time, and it makes me wonder. Good idea, IMO.

Additionally, I wanna know if there's any way to get un-banned. Just in case... :D

[Transtic Nerve]

Usually the story of banned members who have been here a while goes beyond a few words.

[Semjaza]

Yeah, really.

I've only personally banned heavy spammers that were here to ruin it for people on purpose. There are some bannings I'm not even sure about at times, I admit heh. You have to remember that you might not even see half the problem, considering posts might be removed or whatever else.

In the case of people that have been here awhile and then are banned, it's like TN said. It's not generally just one thing that suddenly happens that you can pinpoint exactly and fit it within a two word maximum. It's generally the case of a last straw. All the crap they did over time that finally added up to the point that it just wasn't worth dealing with anymore.

Not everyone fits into that, but I think that's the general idea.

I don't feel that there needs to be an explanation as to why someone was banned. All it would do is feed the already ridiculous levels of gossip around this place.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B] You have to remember that you might not even see half the problem, considering posts might be removed or whatever else.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Exactly. When people tell me "So-and-so did nothing to get banned", I know that they haven't seen what I have. And that's okay; I don't expect them to. It's just something I notice.

Obviously, staff are not going to ban someone based on some random thing. We're not going to sit there and say "let's have fun and ban this person". It doesn't work that way.

Generally, people are banned for one of three reasons. Either they break the rules frequently (regardless of post quality), their post quality is almost too hard to read or they are a mass spammer.

The second case is the most subjective, but Category Moderators are allowed the discretion in those cases. And for the most part, they make the right decision. So, I'm satisfied with that.

Also, you have to realize that you don't see most of the bans that occur. People are usually caught out well before they have the chance to stick around longterm. A relatively large number of people are banned (maybe a handful every couple of weeks) due to the sheer size of the membership. When you reach a certain point of growth, you know that a certain number of people will inevitably be banned for whatever reason.

In most cases, people are either warned or told to clean up their act before a ban. We used to get very involved in this process (a PM warning before a ban), but we no longer do that unless the time is available for it. As our membership grows, we'll be less and less able to have that kind of detailed interaction.

The same can be said about some kind of custom title. Banning members is enough of a chore (some people slip past being banned because the senior staff simply don't have the time...and they get caught up with later on), but adding custom titles to every banned member would take forever. It's generally unnecessary and it's something that needlessly slows down the work.

Fundamentally though, myself or Adam can ban members based on any of our own criteria. I mean, the bottom line is that we own/run the boards and due to that, we have the right to choose who participates and who doesn't. It's like inviting people into your house; yes, you want to be fair to everyone. But you also want to keep things running smoothly.

Of course, we have [i]chosen[/i] to create a set of rules that we use as criteria for banning. In almost every single case of banning, a member has "broken rules". Either because of constant swearing/double posting/etc, or because of sloppy post quality. 99% of the time, it's a result of that. Or, as Semjaza said, an accumulation of minor "offences". The other 1% encompasses either mass spammers, or people who we (the staff) simply don't want on the site (past cases have included impersonation of other staff, or harrassment of members/staff over AIM or PM). We don't have specific rules for every little case, so sometimes we have to use pure discretion to make a decision.

So, yeah. I hope that goes into a bit more detail for you.[/color]

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B] Or, as Semjaza said, an accumulation of minor "offences". [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah, someday that'll be me.