To the moderators of the Escapist:
- Thread starter scotth266
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, much like that. However, I was thinking, if a Hall of Shame thread was made, more along the lines of a number of posts, or examples of posts, detailing, or indeed just showing, the types of posts that are unacceptable for members of the Escapist to post, while also maintaining anonymity of the example posts, so people wouldn't know who posted them, thus taking away the idea that members would troll to get into there and be remembered whenever a user takes a look through the thread.Anarchemitis said:
*note: general comment, not related to any particular episode on this board 
*
..*shrug* it's always a problem on boards even with the most soft- handed moderators. If you stay out of their sight, don't complain and push back - you're usually not going to be so harshly dealt with as others, or pressed so hard when you finally do post something ban- worthy. All boards have this, whether the rules are detailed and specific, or more like guidelines.
The question, I guess, is if the mods are aware of the problem, and try to avoid getting into situations where they construct reasons for a ban that seem logical, but neither the banned poster (when he or she has calmed down) or other posters would understand.
I mean, I've been a mod on a site with a huge number of posters a while now. There are internal feuds, there are people who intensely dislike others. There are mods who made some horrible mistakes. And there are people with a history from other boards and sites, etc. There were small wars going on on the board that had no reason and no end. The reports were flooding in for a while, since apparently people thought it was amusing to beat other posters with the rules (as interpreted by one of the more aggressive mods). On that board I've used my superpowers once in over six months. It was when deleting a double- posted thread, when the one who posted it asked. Instead - and I know this is much worse than just a ban, of course - I've had private and public discussions with people who feel slighted by other mods, that their reports are not taken seriously, or who can't censor their thoughts a tiny little bit when typing them down on the keyboard.
But I've done that because I know I can't hope to police the board on my own. I need just about every poster to understand what makes the community work. So instead of getting people constantly edging towards the limits set by one of the superpowers, or even encouraging every fight to end in a ban. We've used the rules as a guideline active posters really understand. And suddenly the vast majority of posters don't feel the need to spam the boards with comments that are not designed to actually create any debate. In the same way, many posters became willing to look for good points in a post that might not have been the best in the first place.
And suddenly my job is easy, and few people ever get banned. So if this is something the mods would like to see, which is always - whether it's possible depends on if the mods are reactionary, and see the boards through the report- console. Trying to shave off behaviour they don't like, one ban at a time. Or if they lean more towards being janitors, serving the community and dealing with all the crap. I mean, there are always going to be morons. But you really don't have to orient everything around what they do, right?
*..*shrug* it's always a problem on boards even with the most soft- handed moderators. If you stay out of their sight, don't complain and push back - you're usually not going to be so harshly dealt with as others, or pressed so hard when you finally do post something ban- worthy. All boards have this, whether the rules are detailed and specific, or more like guidelines.
The question, I guess, is if the mods are aware of the problem, and try to avoid getting into situations where they construct reasons for a ban that seem logical, but neither the banned poster (when he or she has calmed down) or other posters would understand.
I mean, I've been a mod on a site with a huge number of posters a while now. There are internal feuds, there are people who intensely dislike others. There are mods who made some horrible mistakes. And there are people with a history from other boards and sites, etc. There were small wars going on on the board that had no reason and no end. The reports were flooding in for a while, since apparently people thought it was amusing to beat other posters with the rules (as interpreted by one of the more aggressive mods). On that board I've used my superpowers once in over six months. It was when deleting a double- posted thread, when the one who posted it asked. Instead - and I know this is much worse than just a ban, of course - I've had private and public discussions with people who feel slighted by other mods, that their reports are not taken seriously, or who can't censor their thoughts a tiny little bit when typing them down on the keyboard.
But I've done that because I know I can't hope to police the board on my own. I need just about every poster to understand what makes the community work. So instead of getting people constantly edging towards the limits set by one of the superpowers, or even encouraging every fight to end in a ban. We've used the rules as a guideline active posters really understand. And suddenly the vast majority of posters don't feel the need to spam the boards with comments that are not designed to actually create any debate. In the same way, many posters became willing to look for good points in a post that might not have been the best in the first place.
And suddenly my job is easy, and few people ever get banned. So if this is something the mods would like to see, which is always - whether it's possible depends on if the mods are reactionary, and see the boards through the report- console. Trying to shave off behaviour they don't like, one ban at a time. Or if they lean more towards being janitors, serving the community and dealing with all the crap. I mean, there are always going to be morons. But you really don't have to orient everything around what they do, right?
Two words: IP Ban.megapenguinx said:
Maybe it's just me, but at the point where I'm banning you from my forums for good, I don't want you on my forums, ever. So I'd just ban the entire IP.
Again, maybe it's just me. But I can't think of an instance when I'd have a different opinion. It's possible to make an IP ban with an exception for existing accounts, so if someone is banned and has a sibling, the sibling can be protected.
![[Gavo]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/33/33764.jpg?1620201950){kind=avatar}
huh. weird. i figured if people cared enough to make a new profile they'd be willing to cause less trouble. but maybe not.berethond said:
The Escapist standard is that it trusts its members to be able to discern for themselves that standard.DemonGuy792 said:
A thread like that would just conveniently show the Anti to up for new trolls.
The guidelines include a section on flaming and tolling, which was reinforced by additional warnings in the March Mayhem sub-forum, and again at the start of the individual threads themseslves. If you charge headlong into a flamewar, and, in complete disregard of all warnings, fan the flames higher, I'm not sure how you'd expect not to be banned.ph3onix said:
As for the severity of one punishment over another: prior offenses will get you harsher punishments; as will sending threats, warnings, or 'sass' in general to the mods or staff.
Regarding why X got punished and Y didn't: Was Y reported? Does X have a lengthy 'record'? Perhaps a warning was sent to Y, instead of a probation or suspension. Perhaps X is 'ban jumping'.
I agree, like in the case of Necro, he just made a single bad post, why not just a suspension, for 2-3 days? perma-ban seemed a bit harsh.
I'd like my name added to that list as well.
I'd like my name added to that list as well.