|
|
#61
10-17-2007, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bans
I am not banhappy and I do not enjoy bans or get some sick satisfaction out of it. That being said, when I was bbv4l/bbv mod combined I probably tempbanned more people in one day than an average mod does in a week. Back when it was just me in bbv4l it was sometimes 20-30 a day (I am not exaggerating). It's a necessity of the job and it's really our only firm hold over problem posters.
|
|
#62
10-17-2007, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bans
I'm not seeking to criticise mods of any busy forum for banning - I remember how hectic oot used to be when astro was away - but I feel the use of clearly demarked progressively longer banning for repeaters is an underused approach.
1st dumb - 1 day 2nd dumb - 2 days 3rd dumb - 3 days sort of thing. I appreciate this would only really work against those attached to their username, but I think it'd be very effective against those. my 2c
|
|
#64
10-17-2007, 11:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bans
You are going to have a tough time taking on a bear with a knife, but it's a helluva lot better than using your bare hands.
Talking to posters just does not work on a macro-scale without some kind of threat that a mod can actually do something. That may be fine for the strat forums, but BBV4l probably has 80 regular posters...OOT maybe 150. There is just no way. We're not guidance counselors. This is coming from a mod who has a lot of personal relationships with people in his former forum(bbv4l) and has tried to lead by example. If anything I think we are being too soft on regular posters as it is. And making a standardized system is going to take away autonomy from mods to run their forums the way we want to run them. Dids is going to run his forum much differently than Nick B., and neither is better or worse. Fitting all forums in a cookie-cutter mold point system is not really ideal. It might work for the big obvious stuff like spamming and profanity filter use, but that's about all I can see. I do like the idea of not letting certain people start threads though.
|
|
#65
10-17-2007, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bans
That's why the points should be all custom. There is already is a degree of cross forum moderation that goes on. If you see a guy with four note entries from OOT and NVG mods you're likely going to be a little tougher on him.
The points just quantify that in an organized way that also sets a clear limit for the user when they're not going to have many excuses to come to admins with. [ QUOTE ] without some kind of threat that a mod can actually do something. [/ QUOTE ] I've never suggested otherwise. I'm almost entirely talking about the overuse of temp bans as a method. It doesn't really work most of the time regardless of whatever other problems I have with them, and using other available options seems better. Soon we'll have more of those.
|
|
#66
10-17-2007, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bans
Ryan's right inasmuch as bans don't do anything to stop people like The Accountant from spamming us.
I do think that they've got through to a few of the folks in BBV4L who want to be part of the community, but idiocy or immaturity requires them to be hit on a head a few times before they get it. Withouth a USB taser device, I think that's the best we can hope for. I typically do a 2 day ban for a first offense, or slightly less if it's something small. Then I'll progress to a 5-7, then 14, the gonesville. The thing is that typically on that 5-7, people just start making new accounts, and then everything gets banned. The only possible way to really make a ban mean something is to require manual approval of new accounts, but given the volume, I'm not sure that's viable at all. I think we're pretty much doing the best we can. The biggest change I'd make is just to make sure that when we're banning people in the name of rehabilitation, that we take the time to explain why we're banning people in a more productive way.
|
|
#67
10-17-2007, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bans
That caused me to nod several times, so I doubt we're that far off.
[ QUOTE ] I typically do a 2 day ban for a first offense, or slightly less if it's something small. Then I'll progress to a 5-7, then 14, the gonesville. [/ QUOTE ] I think maybe that's one too many before permanent. Overall though I do like using escalation if I'm going to be temp banning like that. When I was just modding politics or BBV as an admin it would be warning or 3 days --> 5-7 days --> permanent. What I really like about moderation in the new software is that all of you will finally have quick information and more tools, including the ability to nuke newly created accounts. It does show through right now that we can't do enough to prevent people from posting here. Once they find out things have changed they're going to pay more attention to what mods say and any infractions. You'll always be within a few clicks of being able to run a deeper ip check than even I can from the panel in UBB. Spam will be severely reduced through the nuke button and hopefully the spambuster modification. Additionally, our ability to tweak permissions and more easily use different types of usergroups presents a whole other set of choices. Maybe the thought I really want to put out there is that I know it's easy to get into a routine with how you deal with posters. Every once in a while, no matter how good things are, stepping back to evaluate isn't the worst idea. I've been frustrated in this thread because it became about what I think people are doing wrong rather than discussing alternatives. That's partly my fault.
|
|
#69
10-17-2007, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bans
Based on notifications everyone is all over the place with how they use temp bans. I can't even tell you who they are or what for without going back and digging through several thousand PMs, but it does seem to come up often enough that somone will get banned 7 days for a first offense, then e-mails the site with, "What? No warning?"
It's logical to use escalation, so I assume most try for that. But it ends up not working that way often enough.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
