The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here

[lackofabetteridea]

At what point does the ban process start though? 

It's more an issue of which behaviors are sufficient to warrant banning a poster rather than determining which steps should be taken after a poster's behaviors meet whatever criteria. 

It seems unreasonable to expect moderators to follow a complicated process that would require tracking reported/violating posters across any number of threads over indefinite periods of time.  Given that we only hope moderators will respond to reported content (and no expectation of anything at all, let alone active monitoring of the entire content of the site) we have to depend on user-reporting.  It's impractical to implement a process that asks moderators to do anything more than assess reported content (according to a set of standards) and then issue some sort of warning (re the thread generally or specific posts when those standards are violated) before having the option of banning the poster.  We are in the process of nominating potential moderators based at least in part on our trust in their ability to fairly assess content.  This means we should rely on their judgment to ban posters after a poster is reported and certain standards are violated and some sort of warning has been issued and then only if the moderator makes the determination based on a subsequent violation or violations. 

/edit missing word

[lackofabetteridea]

i.e. moderators should take some sort of action against a subsequent violation of a given standard after providing clear notice/warning of an earlier violation.

[Jamie Stringer]

Perhaps it might be helpful to have a certain number of new moderators for each different board?  Perhaps one or two for the ones that get the most traffic and then split up responsibility for the others with less traffic so that there's a point person for each one.

[sheltron5000]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the moderation process was pretty clear:

1. Get "report" notice or see moderation worthy post

2. Evaluate thread/poster history

3. Move/delete thread if necessary. PM warn poster to correct behavior, or if obviously ban worthy move immediately to banning (spam bots primarily)

4. Number of warnings before banning contingent on the seriousness of the poster (Mondatta/suck vs. xoxo types).

5. Ban.

Obviously this leaves a lot up to the moderators discretion, but that's the nature of the game, right?

I don't see that there are many other options, unless the mods can do a kind of suspension?

[sheltron5000]

Then you can add that to the list before permanent banning.

I think the only thing left to discuss is what is ban worthy, which I think as long as the mods are careful about who they choose to be moderators is really up to them. Other than what Sands already posted, I don't see that there's anything left to discuss. Some people will always be unhappy with the choices moderators make.

['blueskies]

I know when people talk about lsat test material before scores are released, they do a 2 or 3 week ban

[ISUCKATTHIS]

This thread and the moderator thread it spawned have really taken a turn for the hilarious.  Now we have a bunch of regulars deciding how and when to exclude outsiders, all the while patting themselves on the back for being gracious and tolerant enough to have an open discussion about how they want to exclude outsiders.  Thank you for the lesson in irony, LOL.  Certain mullahs in Tehran, quite frankly, are more welcoming of disparate voices and democratic process.

I also find it hilarious that it's been virtually admitted that there is no objective standard for "ban-worthy behavior."  The poster mentioned by Scentless  escaped banning because no regulars complained about him/her.  Say what you want so long as you don't run afoul of Miss P and her ilk.  Then you're banned, even if all you did was disagree with them about, say, whether or not a faulty test at Drake university should be re-administered or something.

Peace out, people.  I want to hang with you about as much as you want to hang with me.

[Jamie Stringer]

This thread has really taken a turn for the hilarious.  It's basically a bunch of regulars deciding how and when to exclude outsiders, all the while patting themselves on the back for being gracious and tolerant enough to have an open discussion about it.  Certain mullahs in Tehran, quite frankly, are more welcoming of disparate voices and democratic consent.

I also find it hilarious that it's been virtually admitted that there is no objective standard for "ban-worthy behavior."  The poster mentioned by Scentless was not banned because no regulars complained about him/her.  Say what you want so long as you don't run afoul of Miss P and her ilk.  Then you're banned.

You're a modern day Joan of Arc.  Never has a greater martyr lived than you.

With regard to objective standards for "ban-worthy behavior," in the words of Justice Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it..."  And if you weren't dead set on being a contrarian, I think you would, too.

[ISUCKATTHIS]

I have no doubt that you and the others know it when you see it.  I just think you should be a bit more honest about what it is that you're seeing.

JofA is a personal hero, even though Besson's movie sucked.

[CTL]

I have no doubt that you and the others know it when you see it.  I just think you should be a bit more honest about what it is that you're seeing.

JofA is a personal hero, even though Besson's movie sucked.

When you say peace out, you leave.