Poll: Injustice of the Permaban

[ShadowKatt]

The problem is when the moderation permabans someone and the quality of the forum drops. Take for example when they banned Danyal and the quality of R&P went down. I think the mods need to decide which is more important, the rules or the quality of the site?

This is absolutely ridiculous. It would mean that the same rules don't apply to everyone anymore, and posters that are popular can't be touched. Think about it, it's crazy. Everyone, regardless of their popularity, should abide by the rules as everyone else, no exceptions. Quality doesn't drop because of some jerks getting banned. And if you think it did, you are more than welcome to try and crank it up.

Anyway, like I said in another topic: Just follow the rules, it can't be that hard. Think before you submit.

Yeah it does sound bad but it's not like other people are treated differently. Jim Sterling is allowed to be as offensive as he wants and he's never even gotten a warning.

I've made that point before too. Insults? Got them. Inappropriate content? He draws dicks on everything and has a dildo sword. It's the most hypocritical part of the site as any of that done by a user wouldn't get a warning, it would get them banned instantly. The system would not apply, but since he's a content provider, free pass. One law for the ruler and one law for the ruled. The last time that was the case in the real world it ended with bloodshed.

 

[Legion]

Yeah it does sound bad but it's not like other people are treated differently. Jim Sterling is allowed to be as offensive as he wants and he's never even gotten a warning.

I've made that point before too. Insults? Got them. Inappropriate content? He draws dicks on everything and has a dildo sword. It's the most hypocritical part of the site as any of that done by a user wouldn't get a warning, it would get them banned instantly. The system would not apply, but since he's a content provider, free pass. One law for the ruler and one law for the ruled. The last time that was the case in the real world it ended with bloodshed.

In their videos, yes. As the staff mentioned in another similar topic, the creators of content on this site follow the same rules as we do on the forums, user groups and other forms of communication. The site rules are for those places, not the content of the site. Just like low content isn't against the rules when on Facebook.

If the rules applied to the entire site, then the articles and reviews would be against the "no advertising" rule, wouldn't they?

There is no "inequality" because they follow the same rules when in the same situations that we are. If Jim and the others were allowed to come onto the forums and call people whatever they liked without moderation, then there'd be an argument to be had, but they don't and they can't.

 

[anthony87]

Katatori-kun got banned? I had him blocked for giving me a stomach ulcer so didn't know.

I had him blocked, too. I just went and looked at the post that got him banned, though, and it sorta seemed dodgy to me.

Why did you have him blocked? I'd never seen you and he really disagree strongly on things.

 

[freaper]

You can still be interesting, offer a varied opinion, completely disagree with someone and personally dislike a person without being a dick about it. All the previous warnings should've maybe given you a hint that you're not proceeding too well.

 

[Kross]

If it helps, here's a count of users with more then 1000 posts who have logged in over the last few months - i.e. currently active forum users who aren't lurking much

 ban_level 	amt
0         1529
1         172
2         129
3         127
4         76
5         70
6         46
7         28
8         47

Note that all banned users can do everything on the site except post in the forums. Perma banned users also cannot send private messages.

Warnings are just that. Warnings.

This is a community of thousands of people. Behavior that is acceptable in small groups can quickly snowball into unreasonable proportions (low content posts are the best example) when presented inline in a forum thread. Many people are trying to read the interesting content of a given thread, and such things make reading more difficult, driving people away from the forums due to a frustrating and time wasting experience.

 

[ShadowKatt]

In their videos, yes. As the staff mentioned in another similar topic, the creators of content on this site follow the same rules as we do on the forums, user groups and other forms of communication. The site rules are for those places, not the content of the site. Just like low content isn't against the rules when on Facebook.

If the rules applied to the entire site, then the articles and reviews would be against the "no advertising" rule, wouldn't they?

There is no "inequality" because they follow the same rules when in the same situations that we are.

Actually, reviews and articles would NOT be the same as advertising, as the forums have an entire section devoted to reviews of various things. If that was true, then it wouldn't be a subforum; it would be a bear trap to permaban anyone that posted there. So that point is moot.

As for the first point about content creators being held to the same accountability on the forums...well, I can't argue that. Some of them post on the forums, some of them don't, but I can imagine that while they might be held to the same CoC, it would be much more lenient. More than that though, I think your comment speaks more to the Escapists content standards. If these things are bannable on the forums, but just a-okay in their FEATURED CONTENT ON THE FRONT PAGE, well, you can see the implications. I still believe that the equality between the classes on the escapist is an issue.

 

[Macgyvercas]

The moderation here is fine as it is, it's only when the big names at the time get banned the moderation suddenly becomes a damn problem.

Seriously. No one was complaining about this til a week or so ago.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Vault was still around, these things only crop up when someone people actually liked, get banned

Who was Vault again? Sorry, I may be an oldie, but I don't know everyone. Now if NeonBob got banned...I'd definitely notice that.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Everyone gets 8 chances, everyone regardless of join date, post count or pub club membership. Seems pretty fair to me, says the goody two shoes who hasn't got on the wrong side of the mods yet

Granted it does suck when you see users banned for the minor infraction that push them over the edge, however it was not really that minor thing that got them banned it was the 7 other previous ones that really did it. And really if people cannot learn to take a minute to think twice before posting when their on the line then they know full well the risk they run and consequences that could have.

 

[Macgyvercas]

If it helps, here's a count of users with more then 1000 posts who have logged in over the last few months - i.e. currently active forum users who aren't lurking much

 ban_level 	amt
0         1529
1         172
2         129
3         127
4         76
5         70
6         46
7         28
8         47

Kross...How in the hell did you get your post count to be the square root of negative one? Don't you know that's almost as bad as dividing by zero?! ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL US ALL?!?!

 

[Drathnoxis]

I still don't understand how permaban is useful
For example, I get permabaned
Fine!
1.I try to make new user. If it's tied to email, then
2.I make new email and try one more time. If it is tied to IP, then
3.I go to another place (I have 4 spots to access net on the daily basis). If all of these spots are tied to my current user, since I visited Escapist from all of these, I go to public library, icafe, etc. If all fails I can call my provider and ask to change my IP, for "security reasons" (or some other BS)
Either way, I'LL BE BACK!!!

So how this circumvention is better than 1y extended ban?
(after ban ends you have 1-2 warnings before another extended ban)

If a user becomes a constant problem on our site by repeatedly returning after being asked to leave, we can and will escalate to the relevant ISP abuse department; the user that posted the dead baby pics is now on this route. They may get a polite 'please use our services responsibly' letter or email, or they may find their service cancelled - and yes, the latter has happened more than once. If they connect from where they work, they may get a nice long chat from their supervisor - this, too, has happened before. People are not free from the consequences of their actions, despite common belief that you can do and act however you want on the 'net.

Regarding changing IP addresses and other tactics to mask your identity: we've seen it all over the years, and we have plenty of tools and experience matching data and behavior patterns. Same with ISP Network Abuse admins, and they don't enjoy having to deal with repeat problem users any more than we do.

 

[Kross]

Um yeah, you have to be super inoffensive around here.
DON'T even try to argue with other people much or you WILL rack up permanent warnings and good luck arguing with the moderation about the reasoning behind those.

The perspective about "arguing with moderation" is part of the issue. You don't argue with them, you reasonably and rationally present your side of the discussion. The moderators are just trying to keep the forums readable without the trolls, or even just people not used to discussing things in an online environment muddying any discussion or content.

MANY of the people who get these warnings are just not familiar with the way written text can come across to other readers. Things are more blunt then intended, but still "true" to how they feel (so don't get edited - and causes umbrage when moderators action it), which over time can add up to an abrasive and unpleasant Internet person. If one person in 100 presents their discussions in this manner, that can quickly add up among thousands of people browsing a forum, tainting everything with poorly constructed bile.

I'm reminded of this nearly every time I talk to my Dad via instant messenger or email. He's a rational and intelligent engineer, and for years his non formal text communications read like an angry 14 year old.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I've made that point before too. Insults? Got them. Inappropriate content? He draws dicks on everything and has a dildo sword. It's the most hypocritical part of the site as any of that done by a user wouldn't get a warning, it would get them banned instantly. The system would not apply, but since he's a content provider, free pass. One law for the ruler and one law for the ruled. The last time that was the case in the real world it ended with bloodshed.

Yeah, but here's the thing: Stern Jimling is a content provider. He creates original content, not only on here, but... places. All over the universe. People come here to see him speak, spout, drivel, drool or wear a wig - even those that don't like him much. People like Jim generate - at the very least - clicks. Clicks are proof of life. Clicks are one form of desirable currency in the online world as we know it.

Forum users are more like bio indicators of the site. The forums offer no manna, no free drinks and no random sex after the lights go out. They offer but the dream of a feeling of being a functional member of a mostly random community. Some people are happy with this. Some people move on to the next level and make things real. Some people are trapped in their country, city, neighbourhood, basement or just their own personal headspace. If Jim, content provider, steps down from his imaginary multi-trick Sancho Panza pony, he's just as controlled, gentle and humble as the best, nicest and most boring amongst us. It's called common sense and being a responsible human being, no matter your age, sex, gender, colour, race, creed, religion, political affiliation or level of intoxication.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

The problem here is that a lot of people (including several mods) don't like to go into R&P.
Due to the mods not visiting the R&P forum themselves, the only posts they see is the flagged ones. Post flagging is irregular even on the more popular forums, but I think most of the R&P regulars don't flag anything unless it's very out of line (ie the dead baby picture yesterday). However whenever a new poster (to the R&P) section goes in there they tend to flag a lot more posts. The regulars have come to a reasonably workable status quo I think, but the newbies don't knwo this and get flag happy.
At least that's what I think is happening in R&P.

This agrees with what I suspected. In this case it makes even more sense to enshrine this self-policing nature by finding someone from over there to take on a mod-baton for the section - it would make the moderation efforts more consistent in that regard and someone who reads around anyway might see posts that are unreported but worthy of moderation. Implementing something like this would also make the board more accessible for the newcomers as a single or maybe a pair of mods could work closer together and clearly state the rules about how to treat insults to minorities or very controversial opinions - a question that I think a lot of the criticisms that were levied back then and resurface sometimes these days are based on. To peruse my example from my previous post: if someone repeatedly describes homosexuality as a choice or immigrants as "toxic" is this just a very controversial opinion or an attention-worthy offense?

 

[Phuctifyno]

Your third paragraph had some good points, but I still voted no. I think the rules are well enough accessible and explained that they shouldn't be a problem to follow, regardless of posting frequency. It's their house we're pooping in, after all, so they have the right to tell us not to do it in the sink.

The only rule here that bothers me at all is the low content rule. Sometimes, a couple of words is all you need to make your point, but you'll get nailed if you keep it low. The favor seems to be for the literal amount of words and not for the amount of content within the words.

I think it discourages concision - which in and of itself isn't a bad thing; I understand that concision can discourage discussion as well, and discussion is the main priority of these forums... but I'm a fan of brevity. I'm also a fan of succinctness, and wit. Brevity is the soul of wit, or one could say that they are synonymous, meaning that they mean the same thing, or are close enough to be liberally used interchangeably. These forums sometimes like those qualities, because an idea that could be perfectly communicated with a word or two, must be unrolled and dissected into at least a sentence to meet the mod's standards. This causes further problems, because sometimes when you unroll a couple of meaning-packed words into a sentence, it loses much of the impact and some of the meaning, and you have to keep writing sentences to fabricate context that would have been pre-established in the tone of your original comment idea, but was destroyed when the tone got changed with the comment's structure. Before you know it, you have a paragraph. This massive, long, unending string of sentences that doesn't come close to having the impact, meaning, wit, conciseness, succinctness, brevity, punch, pizzaz, provocativeness, depth, electric boogaloo, bite, panache, coolness, clarity, terseness, or sweaty rightiousness of your original idea. For instance, everything I've just said could have been said in one word. Can you guess what it is?

 

[Daveman]

Well, I only once got in trouble that I recall. Might have got a warning for some piece of dicketry but I only remember being suspended over some silly thing. Twas Mod Sass I believe, though I consider it a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to be harsh. Since then I've gone to a clean record, but I'm always careful.

I note that I don't say "YOU are an idiot", I instead go for "people who say [what person I deem an idiot just said] are idiots". Maybe I haven't been insulting enough, but considering some of the petty things that people get warnings for I feel that that has helped me avoid wrath for a while. That said, other than the occasional gun control thread I rarely feel angry enough to bother any more. More often I'll write out a huge ranty reply, realise I've constructed the perfect reasoned argument, realise that it will be ignored or misunderstood by the idiot and not bother posting it.

Also if I want to post something and it's only one sentence, I just rephrase it and say it again with a line space between. But then the low content post rule is a bit of a stupid rule in my opinion.

 

[incal11]

I assume you'd have them come back with only one "life" left on their healthbar?
All you're doing by doing that is simply adding an extra block to the forum healthbar; - a 1 year suspension.

Not to mention, it would be exploitable to all hell.

If you unbanned people after a year had passed from them being banned, they could just not post anything, let their healthbar recharge to a more 'safe' level, and then proceed to troll the hell out of the forums all over again.
[small]In fact, I'm surprised Zeel didn't do that. He missed his opportunity there...[/small]

I guess repeat offenders could get a true perma-ban. Anyway 1 year is a relatively long time, not even taking the health bar into account. Which is very slow to empty itself. 2 years, then?
Apparently some popular posters get themselves perma-banned regularly, and they are just the most prominent among those who could learn from their mistakes. If only they didn't get the equivalent of a summary execution after one too many speed-limit infraction.

The serious personality problems and "dead baby pics" posters aren't that many. Though they might not be easy to get rid of sometime, they should still easy to process separately.

If I had to guess the whole "the moderation is blatantly unfair!"-argumentation seems to suffer a lot from the psychological drive to think as oneself of being right, or how Guppy put it so succinctly,

GOOD MODERATION: The guy I reported gets a warning. Tee-hee!

BAD MODERATION: The guy I reported doesn't get a warning. Outrageous!

APPALLING MODERATION: I get a warning. Clearly there is a conspiracy against me.

I did get warnings for things mods posted themselves without trouble. There is a double standard in action. Someone putting it sarcastically won't make it untrue all of a sudden. But I can admit that I've seen much worse on other forums.

This is a community of thousands of people. Behavior that is acceptable in small groups can quickly snowball into unreasonable proportions (low content posts are the best example) when presented inline in a forum thread. Many people are trying to read the interesting content of a given thread, and such things make reading more difficult, driving people away from the forums due to a frustrating and time wasting experience.

Just one line can still be relevant to a discussion. I'm not talking about the "first" and "lol" kind of posts.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

MANY of the people who get these warnings are just not familiar with the way written text can come across to other readers. Things are more blunt then intended, but still "true" to how they feel (so don't get edited - and causes umbrage when moderators action it), which over time can add up to an abrasive and unpleasant Internet person. If one person in 100 presents their discussions in this manner, that can quickly add up among thousands of people browsing a forum, tainting everything with poorly constructed bile.

Ya know what would be good for the low content warnings? If we could edit the post in question to add more content and thus revoke the warning.

I remember getting a low content warning for posting a list of female characters in response to a thread asking what your favorite female characters were. I overlooked the OP requesting we not simply post a list, so mea culpa, but I would've LOVED to go back and add context. But I couldn't. Because once it was warned, the post could no longer be edited.

I realize this likely isn't possible inside the current warning system, but hey...it's been changed before...

I did get warnings for things mods posted themselves without trouble. There is a double standard in action. Someone putting it sarcastically won't make it untrue all of a sudden. But I can admit that I've seen much worse on other forums.

Whether or not something gets moderated will often come down to:

1. Did it get reported?
2. Did the moderator who looked at it find it problematic?

Both of those are relatively random factors, so you're never going to get absolute consistency in moderation. It's impossible. If you think you've been unfairly moderated, there is an appeal process. However, from experience I know that "Other folks are doing it too!" is not viewed as a salient defense.

 

[Edguy]

Next, for the most part it seems that when a regular user gets banned, it only detracts from the conversations that take place here on the Escapist. A lot of the frequent posters I've seen banned seem to have opinions that differ from the norm. I believe that they are more likely to get banned because they tend to be ganged up on, get frustrated, and therefore (understandably) resort to acting a bit more like a jerk than they usually would. Also, I believe that people are more likely to report people they disagree with rather than ones that they are in alignment with. This leads to a homogenization of opinion and I for one don't think it makes for interesting conversation when everybody stands around agreeing and patting each other on the back. Another thing people that get banned tend to have is passion. Passionate posters make more interesting posts that are usually reasonably well defended. Weeding these people out leads to those remaining in the forum to be wishy-washy posters who don't really take a firm stand on any topics.

I so agree with this. If you've ever been to the SuperHeroHype boards, then you'd know that this is a major problem there.

Overall, I feel like there's no popular casual forums to go to. Most forums are too strict, and then you have boards like 4chan on the other extreme..

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

I've had an account for almost two years, so not long, but I've been on this site even longer. It wasn't until about a month or two ago that I really started paying attention to the forums. I made one small mistake in posting, and that was due to the advertisement that disappeared as I clicked on something and I posted on the wrong persons quote. Sure, I only have one warning out of 10, but it makes me look bad when really I just post about the topic at hand. I understand there needs to be moderation on the internet to make sites more accessible, but apparently moderators can't tell the difference between an actual infraction and a simple mistake. If someone gets banned for something like what happened to me, then I absolutely think that it's not fair to permaban someone.