BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Policy & Help >

Banning of users

  
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:40 / 22.10.07
It's also worth pointing out that some of them have stuck their keys back through the letterbox and really oughtn't to be on the mod list anymore.

Regarding G&G mods having posted their keys back through the door: well, or they have said that they have left, or have said that they have scrambled password and email, but there is no evidence at all that they have actually done so.

Otherwise, I think Glenn Medeiros/Zahir, in t'other thread, is essentially worried about abuse by those high-profile members we hear so much about from Glenn Medeiros/Zahir lately.

Certainly, we could do with thinking about process. Since the bug where the ban proposal only gets to be voted on by moderators in the forum where it is proposed is unlikely to be fixed in the nearness of time, it ought to be dealt with, but it also ought to be treated as a bug.

As such, the core mechanism of the decision to ban probably has to remain the banning discussion in Policy. Occe that has run for however long - three or four days, if active attacks on the board are not taking place? - the vote starts.

The main question there, really, is whether the ban should be proposed by a moderator of the most affected forum, the Policy (if the potential bannee has posted there) or whether, as in the case of Darkmatter, open season was essentially declared, with any moderator who could find a post by him in their forum being free to propose the banning, or by some combination.

Honestly, we have a highly imperfect system here, so we have to major on dialogue. This solves one problem - _anyone_ can post to the Policy starting a banning discussion, moderator or non-moderator, and anyone can express their opinion, as is right and proper. The banning moderation action should only come at the end of that. We need a way to track who has proposed banning of users, specifically to avoid abuse - a moderator who proposes a ban without discussion in any but the direst circumstances should stop being a moderator. For that, we probably rely on people coming to the Policy if they see such a proposal and flagging it, unless Tom can do something that autogenerates a Policy thread when the ban is proposed, which seems at present not too likely. We should agree that any banning proposal that does not contain a link to the foregoing discussion should be disagreed at once, I think.

Personally, I am starting to feel that this banning functionality may be worse than ban-by-appeal-to-Tom, but genies and bottles.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
17:02 / 22.10.07
Otherwise, I think Glenn Medeiros/Zahir, in t'other thread, is essentially worried about abuse by those high-profile members we hear so much about from Glenn Medeiros/Zahir lately.

Not at all, Haus old bean. Rather, I'm concerned that if it's going to be fair to all concerned, it might take up an awful of the Mods' time. As for the whole high-profile members thing, I think we're in Last of the Summer Wine territory again. Might not be funny, but is certainly not serious...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:07 / 23.10.07
Just shut the fuck up if you have nothing to add but bullshit, Glenn.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:26 / 23.10.07
I think what you're proposing makes sense Haus. We've got the tool to ban now, and we definitely need to have an established policy for it's use. Consolidating all ban-discussion and enaction within the Policy forum would be the way to go.

Would it make sense to have all moderators made up as Policy moderators though, if it's decided that this is the route we want to go down? I guess it's not really necessary as the mods are (in theory) only enacting the will of the active posters by pushing the ban-button. But there aren't a lot of Policy mods.

I'll chuck a link to this thread on the Pager in Conversation. I think it'd help to get moderator consensus on this. You never know, this might be the one time when nearly everyone agrees on the same thing.
 
 
Glenn Close But No Cigar
11:31 / 23.10.07
Hi Petey! If you read my post in that thread, you'll see it's not bullshit, but rather a description of some potential problems with the new banning process. Here's a link. I do rather like your sweary internet hardman persona, though. I imagine you as a sort of desk-bound Andy McNabb.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:32 / 23.10.07
The main question there, really, is whether the ban should be proposed by a moderator of the most affected forum, the Policy (if the potential bannee has posted there) or whether, ...with any moderator who could find a post by him in their forum being free to propose the banning, or by some combination

Behaviour that is unacceptable to the degree that someone should be banned should be unacceptable across barbelith. If a moderator of any of the fora finds a post that is worthy of a user being struck off but they feel it only affects one forum (to the extent that the person is very reasonable in the forum they specifically moderate) they need to question their own action in moving to ban. (It might be irrelevant in that the user only posts hit and run comments elsewhere but it might be strong subjective emotion linked to a particular subject.) Otherwise we're using the function in the wrong way. Basically in banning someone we need to feel the negative influence stretches outside of the fora to barbelith as a whole, either its representation in the outside world or as a negative affect on all of its members and at that point banning becomes relevant to all moderators, not simply those who moderate one part of this space.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:50 / 23.10.07
Flyboy fights with weapons and exclusion, Zahir by counting coup and inclusion. I think we've done this one.

Tryphena, are you saying that if somebody is only trollish in one forum they shouldn't be banned? Certainly, a single _post_ should be discussed before any move to ban, but then we already know how banning works around here - people are talked to in-thread, and only very rarely does that end up as a banning thread. I think you are saying that if, after a banning discussion in Policy, people feel that someone's behaviour is to the detriment of Barbelith as a whole, then it is open season on that person - any moderator can move to ban in any forum they moderate in which the potential bannee has posted. What I think this means is that the banning itself is a technical process, and one slightly more awkward than necessary, that rounds off a discursive process, and in most case should be oriented towards achieving through moderator action the result agreed by Barbelith as a group through discussion in a banning thread - so, anyone can then move to ban, anyone can vote on a move to ban, across whichever fora where a ban has been proposed. This potentially means that moderators who operate across several fora have a slightly greater likelihood of being involved in a successful banning than those who do not - one could, if one felt like it, institute an honour system where multiple-forum moderators only voted on one move to ban, but if the engine of the decision to ban is the open forum discussion rather than the moderator vote, that may be overcomplicating matters.
 
 
Quantum
12:31 / 23.10.07
We should agree that any banning proposal that does not contain a link to the foregoing discussion should be disagreed at once

I think that's fair, if we're taking the discussion itself to be the banning and the mechanics as a subsequent hurdle. That's certainly how I see it, we collectively decide to ban and then jump through hoops to get the ban enacted. If that's the case, why does it matter who proposes the ban and who votes on it?
In fact, is that the case- do we agree that the discussion of the banning is the important bit? Everyone?
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:49 / 23.10.07
I think so certainly.
 
 
jentacular dreams
12:51 / 23.10.07
Aye. Crucial in fact. If consensus is reached I can't see anyone minding too much which set of mods got to push the eject button. But I'd also like to avoid any actual voting (as a mod action rather than a posted opinion) prior to said consensus point. If a ban is going to reflect the will of the 'lith, voting to do so prior to that will being confidently determined is basically only voting on the basis of one's own opinions.
 
 
Ticker
12:55 / 23.10.07
so in this model a blatant spam-troll would get maybe a one page banning thread very rapidly reaching consensus?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:04 / 23.10.07
Yeah, the discussion's the important part, whoever gets to propose it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:10 / 23.10.07
I think somebody who was causing actual damage to the board on the level of repeated and intrusive spamming could get basically a notification, yes. If someone was doing bannable things, but was not acting in a way intended purely to attack the board - spamming, mass flaming, pornlinking and so on - there would be a slower discussion thread. Generally, people like Shadowsax have been polite enough to stand reasonably still while we very slowly took aim at him and decided to pull the trigger. If someone loses it and starts attacking the board, that probably truncates the process, but whoever pulls the trigger on the banning move should signal that they have in-thread. In most cases, it should be safer to let the thread run to the agreed time and then go from there.
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
13:16 / 23.10.07
Yes. In the case of those things which Tom would traditionally summararily ban for ie holocaust denial, blatant attacks on the board, being K****e I wouldn't have that much of a problem if a ban vote was proposed and began to be voted on straight away, but in the case of the more common bannable behaviour then the discussion should be the main thing.
 
 
HCE
13:48 / 23.10.07
A lot of the concern about this process could probably alleviated if mods were essentially interchangeable, which is what I think Tryphena was saying (sorry if I misread you). Ideally, mods would all be able to understand why fetch and others at that level were banned without having to have it explained to them. For people like PW, the ideal moderator would be able to understand the various pro and con arguments. The third quality a mod would need would be forum-specific, a particular interest in Games, for examples, and a willingness to spend time in there keeping conversations going as well as cleaning up html and so forth.

I don't know, maybe this idealized vision isn't possible.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:07 / 23.10.07
A lot of the concern about this process could probably alleviated if mods were essentially interchangeable

We could achieve this, in theory, by making all mods Policy Mods too, and agreeing (and it'd have to be a gentlepersons agreement I guess) not to ban except via Policy. That can be done without too much hassle yes?

I'm all for Insta-Ban on the topics Shiny mentions above. Outright hate-speech should probably go in that category also. A quick discussion in Policy should be all it needs (just so there's no danger of people screaming Barbelite).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:16 / 23.10.07
We could achieve this, in theory, by making all mods Policy Mods too, and agreeing (and it'd have to be a gentlepersons agreement I guess) not to ban except via Policy. That can be done without too much hassle yes?

I think that would achieve almost exactly the opposite of what KB was saying, as it would load the Policy with moderators of wildly varying ability and competence. KB was rather, I think, suggesting that it would be nice if all the moderators had the same baseline level of ability to identify bannable behaviour, and a shared understanding of what it was, which at present is not the case.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:56 / 23.10.07
I'm saying if someone is so trollish that we want to ban them from one post or discussion then they clearly have an effect on the board and its member that stretches beyond one forum. At that point it becomes relevant to every moderator.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:57 / 23.10.07
... I think the discussion should in most cases happen within the banning structure. If it can't be compounded in that way then we shouldn't start a thread before a Policy discussion has taken place.
 
 
grant
16:09 / 23.10.07
we want to ban them from one post
??

Isn't that what the "delete post" is for?

Or are you saying if one post is deletable, then member is automatically worthy of banning discussion?
 
 
Quantum
16:23 / 23.10.07
I read it as 'is so trollish that we want to ban them from one post or discussion' which is pretty damn trollish. If the post in question (for example) was a virulent attack on a minority group or the discussion was whether or not women should be allowed to vote because of their innate girly silliness or something, I'd be behind a rapid banning for sure. As XK said, trolls get banned quick in this model, the discussion going something like-

'Troll! Let's ban please'
'Agreed'
'Agreed'
'Agreed' (repeat for a few hours or less if troll is spamming)
*BANHAMMER DESCENDS*
 
 
grant
17:27 / 23.10.07
Oh, that makes sense. Yes.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:11 / 23.10.07
I'm saying if someone is so trollish that we want to ban them from one post or discussion then they clearly have an effect on the board and its member that stretches beyond one forum. At that point it becomes relevant to every moderator.

I totally agree, which is why I don't have a problem with a proposal only being allowed from the forum which has been shat in. If someone's behaviour is banworthy and the mods of the forum in which it happened DON'T think it is, then questions should be asked about either the behaviour or the mods.
 
 
HCE
04:33 / 24.10.07
I think that would achieve almost exactly the opposite of what KB was saying, as it would load the Policy with moderators of wildly varying ability and competence.

Exactly.

Insofar as moderators have any more say than non-mods in who gets banned, variable mod ... and I'm trying to come up with a value-neutral term ... congruence is going to be an issue.
 
 
Evil Scientist
05:29 / 24.10.07
I'm happy for the Policy mods to be the ones who pull the trigger then. As we seem to all agree that it is entirely a mechanical action to be performed after discussion has taken place. With a proviso for fast-tracked Insta-ban in the case of single-post obvious trolls (pretty rare these days anyway).

Are all Policy mods currently active? There are at least two who, AFAIK, don't post these days. Are they still moderating?

Mind you that still leaves 12 respected elders to hit the vote button.
 
 
Quantum
07:23 / 24.10.07
12?
Goodness Gracious Meme and Ganesh are no more, if Tom were regularly moderating all this would be moot, I'm not sure how often Olmos, fridgemagnet and cusm are about, which leaves-

Honolulu Dancepants
Lurid Archive
sleazenation
grant
West Baltimore Hausing Project
Grey Area
Smoothly
Olulabelle

so if it's kept at 8 they'd all have to be involved for a ban to work. With 5 pulling the trigger it gets more possible, but even then in some fora we'd be hard pressed. We need a thread to discuss the expectations placed on moderators I think, and what the criteria should be. If there are concerns that some moderators aren't fit to mod then those need to be addressed at some point too, don't they? Oblique comments about G&G aren't going to clear it up IMHO.
 
 
jentacular dreams
08:06 / 24.10.07
But if policy mods also modded all other fora (or at least had the ability to do so, even if they only actively did so for the banning function) then all fora would have enough mods to function under a banning scenario, surely.

Plus getting policy to pull the trigger assumes that every troll will be kind enough to step into policy in the first place. Periodic spammers such as Darkmatter suggest this is not the case.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:43 / 24.10.07
Plus getting policy to pull the trigger assumes that every troll will be kind enough to step into policy in the first place.

True.

In which case we, as moderators, would have to agree to abide by the decision of the ban-thread and forum mods can enact the ban. If anyone feels they might be obliged to veto a ban vote because of personal objections then, well, perhaps they would have to re-think being a moderator.

Easy for me to say perhaps. I don't remember a trolling incident in Lab (probably due to the fact that Lab is, occasionally, like waking up in London in 28 Days Later sans zombies) so I'm unlikely to have to worry about the ethics of having to agree to ban someone I didn't feel deserved it.

If there are concerns that some moderators aren't fit to mod then those need to be addressed at some point too, don't they?

Definitely.
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:14 / 24.10.07
I don't remember a trolling incident in Lab (probably due to the fact that Lab is, occasionally, like waking up in London in 28 Days Later sans zombies) so I'm unlikely to have to worry about the ethics of having to agree to ban someone I didn't feel deserved it.

Well yes, but James Watson now has a lot more free time on his hands...

If there are concerns that some moderators aren't fit to mod then those need to be addressed at some point too, don't they?

Absolutely. Sooner the better though, as I don't think oblique comments help the situation at all. Perhaps some sort of moderator 'contract'/expectations/Ts&Cs thread would be helpful once it's decided just how the banning and moderator venns intersect? It would also be useful in that agreeing it would provide a clean start for any mods who have made the odd error of judgement in the past, and therefore might hope to bury some disagreements over previous modding decisions?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:12 / 24.10.07
If anyone feels they might be obliged to veto a ban vote because of personal objections then, well, perhaps they would have to re-think being a moderator.

Any objections would be dealt with in the discussion thread, surely?
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:34 / 24.10.07
Any objections would be dealt with in the discussion thread, surely?

I would hope so yes. My only concern would be if someone still doesn't agree with the decision at the end of the thread that they don't use their veto to block ban-age. Basically we'd be asking mods to not veto any banning that happens as a result of a Policy discussion thread.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:40 / 24.10.07
And, alternatively, to veto any ban without a banning thread, or at least a banning notification in the case of a crisis situation - so, one puts the URL of the policy thread in the request. Without the URL, the move should be vetoed.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:49 / 24.10.07
Agreed.
 
 
grant
14:20 / 24.10.07
It'd be really nice if there was a second "reference" link in the banning screen, actually, to go the discussion thread. Hmm.

I guess by hand is the way to go for now (and for as long as it takes).
 
 
HCE
15:51 / 24.10.07
I'm not sure what's "oblique" about my posts or anybody else's -- how people got to be moderators has been gone over in some detail, most recently in response to MattShepherd's protestation that if he's (I don't recall the exact words he used) trusted and mature enough to mod in one place then he should be good enough for others. Guidelines for moderation have been gone over in detail as well, and some discussion of what should qualify/disqualify somebody for mod duties came up then. I can provide links if you'd like, Quantum and Mice.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
  
Add Your Reply