Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Topics of Concern- Banning

Page: (1)2 3 4 5 6... 7

11:41 / 26.01.07

To go along with the admissions and naming threads, a banning thread. Let's try to keep it about the process we'd like to have rather than thrashing over specific bannings please.

So at the moment we have a shenanigans* system of banning- some people protest a poster's behaviour, we have a big argument in policy for a few pages and then ask Tom to ban them, which he does.

How can we improve the system for banning troublesome troll types? Does it need improving? Since Tom has the only banhammer are we deciding on what gets you banned, the threshold when we ask Tom, or is there room to consider giving banning powers to moderators? All your banning ideas here.

*To "call", "claim," or "declare" shenanigans is to rhetorically and ironically label something as officially deceitful, improper, or otherwise incorrect.

12:36 / 26.01.07

I don't know if the system, as is, really needs any work.

Without wishing to go over the events of last year (as in The Archers!) I'm not sure if anyone involved was deliberately trying to cause trouble. Rather, they were just saying what they genuinely thought. Which after a while became unpalatable to too many people for the user ID's in question to keep on going, at which point the banning process kicked in; I'm not sure how it could have been done any earlier. All right, this is only an interweb message board, so up to a point who cares, but I still think it would be a poor thing to ban anyone on the basis of what they're likely to say, as opposed to what they've actually come out with. It doesn't seem reasonable to try to anticpate these things, as would pretty much necessarily follow from a more structured approach, I'm guessing.

Also, everyone's a grown-up here, presumably. I do wonder about these characters who've left Barbelith because they couldn't stand the atmosphere, or whatever - surely if you feel that way, then the thing to do is confront it? I mean if you can't do that over the interweb, under an assumed name, where can you?

My 2 cents, goddamnit.

12:45 / 26.01.07

(With apologies for the somewhat bullish tone of the above - not everyone wants to go 'Conan The Barbarian' if pushed, I appreciate.)

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:46 / 26.01.07

Basically, at the moment our joining and banning system is backwards. It's hard to join, and actually, technically, very easy to be banned - it just takes Tom killing your suit. The preamble to that is more difficult, however, and it depends on a mix of personal decision (the decision being Tom's) and consensus opinion.

Now, these concepts go hand in hand. We can't open the board totally without also allowing moderators the sort of powers they have on regularly bulletin boards - specifically, to suspend and/or ban suits without consultation. So, we get into balancing. For example, anyone who provides a real, verifiable email address can join (that is, passwords are sent to an email address), but moderators can change a suit password as a moderator action. Leisurely bannings can be discussed in Policy, if they must be. Emergency bannings can just be effected, with subsequent post-banning analysis. All bannings are reversible - one can just send the bannee a password reminder.

I think, after a lot of thought, that my ideal situation would involve a very small number of people having the right to scramble user passwords. Doing so would automatically flag an alert to Tom and the moderator would be expected too start a thread in the Policy notifying everyone that it had been done and why.

In non-emergency cases, banning is done as it is at the moment, except:

1) There is a clearly defined code of conduct.
2) Anyone starting a banning thread must be able to point to a breach of that code of conduct - racism, homophobis, harrassment, trolling.
3) At least the first time such a contravention occurs, unless it is really pissing egregious, the potential bannee must be contacted and made aware that his or her behaviour is unacceptable, and if an awareness of this and a readiness to avoid such conduct in future is made clear, status quo is restored.
4) No banning discussion to last more than one week, no banning discussion to be restarted within a month. If the consensus is that someone should stay, the consensus can just deal with the consequences for a while.
5) How to decide consensus is a problem - simple majority probably won't cut it. This needs more thought.

Banning threads to follow the belief + links format used for Shadowsax and 33, where this is at all possible.

13:24 / 26.01.07

Problem with 1) there is both deciding the code and amending it as the board evolves. If in future swearing (for example) should become a banning offence what would be the protocols on adding to the code of conduct?
I think getting a bunch of members to agree that we should have a code of conduct is the first hurdle, then agreeing how we decide what goes in it, then actually deciding what goes in it. Unless a whole load of people say they're happy to have a code of conduct pretty much without objection it's going to be a cat herding triathlon.

Personally I'm all for an explicit guide to conduct, naming the -isms that get a banning and with examples of what to avoid. I'd probably take equal opportunities legislation as a starting point, but of course harrassing, spamming and abuse need covering. In my mind the code of conduct will be easier to agree if it follows the form of rules we follow in real life.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:36 / 26.01.07

I think getting a bunch of members to agree that we should have a code of conduct is the first hurdle, then agreeing how we decide what goes in it, then actually deciding what goes in it.

Not a hope. This is one of those top-down things, I fear.

14:04 / 26.01.07

We do have a code of conduct that's relatively clear, but very, very broad (in my way of looking at it), and not always applied identically. PW didn't actually violate it, but hir meltdown started making functions of the board (that is, policy discussions) not work.

So -- should we tighten the definition of what is acceptable, or should we simply try enforcing it with a bigger hammer?

I do think that these discussions often overlook the fact that consensus is built into the moderation system. I think most moderators have had moderation requests vetoed at one point or another (I know I have). So it *is* possible to view moderation requests themselves as a kind of discussion.

21:36 / 26.01.07

board code changes aside for the moment...

What if the mods had a mod action of a post restriction? So a poster could only post in policy?

The process I imagine would be in a regular forum a poster becomes problematic. Other posters engage directly in thread and via PM, the behavior continues and the mods decided via a mod request style thingy to restrict the person over to Policy.

Once in Policy a board inclusive discussion could happen but it would keep the problematic poster from disrupting the entire board. If need be Tom could review the thread in Policy but if the poster in question mellowed out the mods could simply unrestrict them.

3 restrictions would equal an automatic ban...?

Jake, Colossus of Clout

23:55 / 26.01.07

What if the mods had a mod action of a post restriction? So a poster could only post in policy?

IIRC, that's been discussed, but it was impractical from a coding standpoint.

07:03 / 27.01.07

Hasn't Tom indicated that he's resistant to extending password-scrambling or other suit-freezing powers to anyone other than himself? Kinda pointless discussing it seriously if there's no chance of it ever happening.

07:11 / 27.01.07

Without wishing to go over the events of last year (as in The Archers!) I'm not sure if anyone involved was deliberately trying to cause trouble. Rather, they were just saying what they genuinely thought. Which after a while became unpalatable to too many people for the user ID's in question to keep on going, at which point the banning process kicked in; I'm not sure how it could have been done any earlier.

Fair points AG, and in general the current system, whilst lengthy and (to some) draining emotionally, does ensure that the potential banee gets a chance to argue their case and works fine with the occasional passing troll.

I personally think that we do need some type of temporary "rapid-response" action that the moderators can call on to deal with someone who's not listening to reason and is flaming everyone in site. Not wanting to carp on about it but the suit-freezing option we discussed a while ago is one such measure (yeah, I know, it all comes back to the coding question again).

If, as a result of the admissions discussion thread, the site's joining process is made easier then (as I said over there) I do think that we'd need to have additional countermeasures in place to deal with trolls. Even with the joining process as it is now we still get the occasional tagnut who joins having no idea how to behave on the board, I can only see the level of tagnuttery increasing with an easier joining process (not to say I don't support an easier joining process, I do).

As I say, the way we handle banning at the moment isn't so much the problem in my view. It's not having any less-harsh alternative.

07:14 / 27.01.07

Cross-posted with Ganesh there.

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:18 / 27.01.07

Hasn't Tom indicated that he's resistant to extending password-scrambling or other suit-freezing powers to anyone other than himself? Kinda pointless discussing it seriously if there's no chance of it ever happening.

Possibly so - in which case we have to devote a lot more time and a lot more resources to the admissions process, I think, and even then acknowledge that we are going to be excluding a number of people by essentially behaving as if each one is the worst troll we have ever had until proven otherwise.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:24 / 27.01.07

Even with the joining process as it is now we still get the occasional tagnut who joins having no idea how to behave on the board

Just an aside--the apps process as it is now doesn't really include general anti-tagnut measures. Just anti "a couple of specific guys who we know from experience suffer from chronic and untreatable tagnuttery" measures.

Tryphena Absent

16:26 / 27.01.07

I do wonder about these characters who've left Barbelith because they couldn't stand the atmosphere, or whatever - surely if you feel that way, then the thing to do is confront it?

Oh go drink a whisky you old lush.

06:40 / 30.01.07

Just an aside--the apps process as it is now doesn't really include general anti-tagnut measures. Just anti "a couple of specific guys who we know from experience suffer from chronic and untreatable tagnuttery" measures.

S'true. But I would have thought the length of time between application and acceptance would, itself, be tagnut limiting. Although that doesn't seem to be the case with people like Rural Savage who'd apparently signed up without even looking at the board.

jentacular dreams

09:12 / 30.01.07

Hmmm. As 'trolls' go I'm not sure he was all that bad to be honest. He came across badly, and had a couple of ill thought-out ideas, but I think his major problem was expressing his ideas (ill thought-out or otherwise) in a way that didn't sound slightly terrible.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:15 / 30.01.07

I don't think Rural Savage was a troll, no, and the system is not set up to keep out people who are unable to interact, as long as they are unable to interact and have a paid-for email address.

I'd be happy to accept a revision to the admissions system where I can let people in or exclude them based entirely on whether or not I like their covering email. It will do as good a job in achieving the stated aims of the process - to prevent persistent trolls from registering multiple suits and attacking Barbelith - and it would be a lot quicker. However, I suspect that other people would _not_ be happy with that.

14:08 / 30.01.07

I don't think I'd have a problem with that in theory. I mean, we'd have to set up a system to distribute responsibility, but that wouldn't be impossible.

How many people would have to say "let em in" to get a person in? What criteria are we judging the applicants on? I'm not currently involved in the applications process (which I wouldn't mind helping out with if someone could tell me where to sign up), so I don't know how many applications the board is getting. Would it be far too ridiculous to have the application email reprodced on board and discussed individually? I'm guessiing yes, but still, in a fantasy world...

It would also give Barbelith a sort of "gated community" feel to it, which I wouldn't mind, but others might.

14:11 / 30.01.07

Would it be far too ridiculous to have the application email reprodced on board and discussed individually? I'm guessiing yes, but still, in a fantasy world...

do you really have to guess?
are you sure you can't figure it out?

14:17 / 30.01.07

Um, I'm entirely outside the system, so yes. I do have to guess. I can read the relevant threads all I want, but until I get involved in something anything I say about it is going to be just a guess.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:23 / 30.01.07

I don't think I'd have a problem with that in theory. I mean, we'd have to set up a system to distribute responsibility, but that wouldn't be impossible.

Ah, but I meant specifically _me_. If the primary aim of the selection process is still to exclude particularly insistent and vicious trolls and prevent the registry of multiple seats by same, then there are few people around who could do it, and fewer still of those would be willing to. If it is to stop people who are unlikely to be much use to Barbelith, then that's a change of philosophy and would need to be discussed, at the end of which one could set up some sort of court o' judgement.

15:03 / 30.01.07

sorry, i seem to have spoken clumsily.
i was asking you if you had to guess about the idea you put forward, the public posting of emails for group dissection.

i appreciate you are on the road to fame and long for the public gaze, but can't you see how hideous that might be for those who arent? quite apart from the shitstorm we'd concivebly start when someone didnt like the way their email was taken apart, can you imagine what it would be like to have no right of reply to the critique of the clique?

we'd come across like a bunch of wankers, man.
i think if we did something like that we'd be a bunch of wankers.

i sorta thought that would be obvious, is all.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:13 / 30.01.07

This should be in the "Topics of Concern - Admissions" thread, you know.

Jake, Colossus of Clout

16:12 / 30.01.07

we'd come across like a bunch of wankers, man.
i think if we did something like that we'd be a bunch of wankers.

STRONG TRUTH.

That would be a fucked thing to do. I would never want to join Barbelith if I had to go through something like that, and I would expect that few other people would, too. Neither would I want to be party to it as a member of the board.

19:09 / 30.01.07

Ah, there inability to respond is an issue I suppose. Scrap that.
Although, I really can't see what's so horrendous about having people read the letter. It would be no different from posting.

Other than you couldn't reply of course.

Yeah, probably best if we forget it.

Continue with your ontoppica

Jake, Colossus of Clout

19:16 / 31.01.07

I really can't see what's so horrendous about having people read the letter. It would be no different from posting.

Except that one's application letter is not written to be viewed by the entire board. It has an intended audience of one, the person who is handling the applicant's admission to Barbelith. Putting their application out there to be picked over by the board at large would be a very unpleasant act.

If we were to insist that applications be written with the board at large as the audience it would be different, but I still wouldn't like it, and the letters themselves would probably end up being less honest.

19:24 / 31.01.07

plus, this isnt X-factor.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:23 / 31.01.07

I think that kind of thing is only sensible on a closed forum that's closed for a damn good reason. For example, I'm on a couple of witchy-witchy-woo-woo type lists where people talk about quite personal, intense stuff that they might well not want people to read who aren't also into the same kind of thing. Same with BDSM lists etc.

On a public board like Barbelith, not so much.

11:15 / 02.02.07

Basically at this stage of things I think we can only look at a way of making the process of banning more efficient whilst ensuring we aren't making it unfair.

Perhaps what is needed is not new powers for moderators, but a standardised system for dealing with trolls (which are pretty rare these days) and offensive posters who won't/can't back down (more common but still not frequent).

Now I know that, in the past, people have been against the idea of locking a thread in which a troublesome post(s) appear. It's true that doing this basically punishes everyone in the thread for one person's mistake and potentially halts a good discussion (ignoring the offensive posts).

So, how about this for an idea:

When a post deemed to have caused offense appears in a thread (and I think a quick discussion in the Moderation Requests thread can do that), the moderators lock the thread and leave a final post that states that the thread has been temporarily locked due to possible offensive content, and a link is provided to a thread here in Policy where the actual discussion can take place.

This would, in theory anyway, mean we don't have the discussion running in two places at once (people involved in the original thread would hopefully hop onto the Policy thread to join in the discussion). Once the situation has been resolved the thread is unlocked and allowed to continue.

This has a number of flaws to it. Obviously it wouldn't really stop trolling as the conflict is the intent so they'd just start a new thread, or go onto an pre-existing one. It also assumes that the person who made the potentially offenive post will want to discuss it on another thread and won't just sally off. Plus there is, of course, the fact that a large girder will have been dropped on the tracks of a thread and people may not bother coming back to it if the situation runs on for more than a couple of days.

It's just a sketch really. Shoot some holes in it, and add any suggestions for a way to improve it. It does have the advantage of being something we could implement without additional coding (as far as I can tell).

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:14 / 02.02.07

Obviously it wouldn't really stop trolling as the conflict is the intent so they'd just start a new thread, or go onto an pre-existing one. It also assumes that the person who made the potentially offenive post will want to discuss it on another thread and won't just sally off. Plus there is, of course, the fact that a large girder will have been dropped on the tracks of a thread and people may not bother coming back to it if the situation runs on for more than a couple of days.

Well, yes. And, as far as I can tell, no actual advantages - in an ideal world, it's just doing what we already do, but with the thread locked, and in a no-ideal world, you just get the trolling spread across more threads. This feels like a solution without a problem attached.

However, this does neatly bring us back around to:

Perhaps what is needed is not new powers for moderators, but a standardised system for dealing with trolls (which are pretty rare these days) and offensive posters who won't/can't back down (more common but still not frequent).

This is not an accident, but a direct result of the way we process applications... people either have to be serious or have to surrender the anonymity that the troll demands. This very exacting, labour-intensive and hand-made entrance process allows us to have milk-weak banning procedures.

12:58 / 02.02.07

This feels like a solution without a problem attached.

I guess. But if anything's going to be changed then it really needs to be done using the tools moderators already have.

This very exacting, labour-intensive and hand-made entrance process allows us to have milk-weak banning procedures.

I wouldn't call the current procedures milk-weak. They've (eventually) dealt with problematic posters. The problem seems to be more to do with the amount of time it takes to boot someone off once the decision is made to ban them. But is that ever going to change? Seems unlikely at this point.

To some extent we're just pissing in the wind with threads like this. We've had similar discussions after most major "event" bannings and the upshot always comes back to not being able to do much else without more coding (which isn't going to happen).

We'll just have to live with it I suppose. It's not like we get that many problem posters over the course of a year is it?

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:44 / 02.02.07

No, because the process for letting people in is very, very complex. We're going in circles.

Short version: if there is no will whatever to change the functionality of the board as it stands ever, there is neither any point in making minor alterations to how that functions. Known trolls or people whose behaviour is close enough to known trolls as not to matter will be identified, usually by me for as long as I am here, Tom will be alerted and, depending on how soon he gets the message and acts on it, the troll will be ejected before he does more damage. People who are not specifically malicious, just a suitable mix of combative, offensive, stupid and demented, but are prepared to shuffle off to the Policy to talk about themselves, will be subject to the lengthy discussion procedure we have at present. That's unbroken, and locking threads will have no effect on it, as if someone continued to pursue it in an inappropriate thread, they would graduate to full-on troll and we could skip a step.

So, yes. If the technicals are never going to alter, then there is no point in discussing this, and we are probably also putting an expiration date on Barbelith. If the technicals may in the future alter, it boots us to work on what those changes should be. If Tom is able to say definitively right now that he will never be able to change either the banning system or the admissions system, then the piss will indeed be in the wind.

07:49 / 03.02.07

Fair enough. I didn't mean to come over as unduly grouchy there.

As you point out, you're often one of the key people who deals with situations where banning takes place. What would you like to see done with it, and what do you feel could be improved?

10:16 / 03.02.07

Good point, what would you prefer Mr H?
I'm for an easier entry into Barbelith and an easier exit, because at the moment the admissions process is like handpainting everyone's passport in tempera on blown glass and the banning process is like trying to stone someone to death with Angel Delight.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5 6... 7