Public Ban List Proposal

Author: bsh1

Posts

Total: 59
#31
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@bsh1
Reports are anonymous. I can only see who was reported, not who did the reporting.
It seems like that could be abused. If I don't like someone, what is to prevent me from just reporting every post they make?

Ideally each reported post is evaluated independently based on its content, but we know that the more someone has been reported, the more likely their borderline posts are to be judged as crossing the line. Also, knowing who is a chronic reporter would help you take their reports less seriously.

Topic's author
#32
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Stronn
It seems like that could be abused. If I don't like someone, what is to prevent me from just reporting every post they make?
I would eventually like to consider the possibility of making it non-anonymous, if only because there already has been a large quantity of spam reporting. That being said, it's not an urgent issue and it's not an issue on which I've made up my mind.
#33
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
it is very confusing the first few times that the flag doesn't do anything permanent when reporting so you don't know if it's gone through or not from the click. This encourages you to click-click-click until you realise there's no glitch it just works that way.

Debate reports at least fill the flag in and empty it depending on your status of reporting it.
Topic's author
#34
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@DebateArt.com
@RationalMadman
That's something to bring to Mike's attention.
Topic's author
#35
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Having reviewed the comments on this thread, I've decided that my initial instinct jibes with where the usership is at. There will be no public ban list. Thanks to all those who offered their views and feelings on the subject.

#36
DebateArt.com
DebateArt.com's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,403
3
3
8
DebateArt.com's avatar
DebateArt.com
3
3
8
-->
@RationalMadman
The flag here also changes the color after one click so there's no need to click more than once, the hover effect is messed up though, I agree, I'll try to do something about it.
#37
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
Given that banned members appear with a strike-thru on their user name it's aleady public that they are banned - what is missing is any explanation of why and when.


#38
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,166
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I'm for it. Any concerns anyone might have about it causing the banned user problems, I could care less about any problems they may have. Don't like it? Leave and never come back. Otherwise take your medicine like an adult and suffer the consequences of being banned and everything that goes with it. Or you can follow the rules like 99.9% of all the other users and not get banned. Isn't rocket science. Don't need a PhD in Psychology to figure this out. 
#39
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@bsh1
I think you made the right decision. Although, i was thinking to myself what if a user i am friends with gets banned... i doubt anyone i am close with would get banned in the first place, but i was thinking if it does happen... i would want to know why. Although an open list i don't think would be appropriate... What if i ask why a user i am friends with got banned through PM to put my mind at ease? I imagine a users friend would get mad and start a bunch of drama in threads by speculating. The only problem i see with that is people pretending like they were friends to know why and talk smack when they find out. So... i don't know. 
Topic's author
#40
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
Users are given an hour's notice from the moment the log on to see the ban notification. They can use that hour to protest to the mods, reach out to friends, make their impending ban public, or take some other action. Users therefore do have the ability to reach out to friends on the site prior to their ban coming into force.
#41
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@bsh1
I see. But still, what if in the case they didn't get to or think of reaching out to their friends on the site? I'm only bringing this up bc i've noticed threads that get out of hand due to speculation. That only brings negativity and doubt towards moderation. Although, them being able to protest it is a good way to go about it. I almost think that's enough since if someone gets banned for a bad reason... they will most def. voice that. I don't know. If they do make a thread to contest it... does that thread stay up or get erased after their ban's in effect? 
Topic's author
#42
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
I can't make special exceptions, and I won't know who is genuinely a friend of the banned user. Unfortunately, then, it's not possible for me to divulge private details of a conversation to friends.
#43
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@bsh1
That's what i thought the problem would be... but if you said they can contest it, and that thread doesn't get erased... then, they made it public themselves and people could see why they got banned. So that would work just fine. 
#44
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@bsh1
There have been some users who have called for a public ban list to be created to make the usership aware of why banned users were banned and, indeed, whether a user was banned at all. 

I am quite wary of such a list, and feel like it runs counter to the privacy interests of the banned members. I am concerned also that such a list would make it harder for banned members to reintegrate into the site, and that such a list would not be truly different from call out threads, which are otherwise prohibited as personal attacks.

I am curious, however, to hear other voices and perspectives on the question. No user has yet been banned by me or my team, but it is almost inevitable that, at some point, that action will have to be taken. I am interested in hearing the arguments on both sides of the issue, so that I can carefully consider whether to implement such a policy for moderation.

Please feel free to comment, particularly on (a) whether such a list should exist in the first place and (b) how much detail should be included in the list should it be implemented. 
These are valid concerns. I admit I would've liked a list for convenience and transparency, as it gets pretty annoying trying to find out what happened every time without any kind of information resource to refer to, but user privacy is obviously more important than my convenience.

On sites where you could friend people, I always wished there was a feature where you got a message if someone on your friends list was banned.
#45
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Reports are anonymous. I can only see who was reported, not who did the reporting.
It seems like that could be abused. If I don't like someone, what is to prevent me from just reporting every post they make?
Especially when the mods only skims the reported posts and concludes violations at raw words and not meanings.

That abuse has, and is happening.

#46
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@ethang5
Would I recognize the thread or threads where it's happening? I've been away for a spell.
#47
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Castin
No. Somehow bsh1 has gotten Mike to turn over Dart sans oversight the way DDO was turned over to Max and his clique.

All moderation decisions are opaque. And though bsh1 says one can protest, he means "protest" secretly to him, as one cannot divulge a mods pm, and it is in the mod's pm that one learns why one was banned. Neat trick huh?

So if a mod unfairly bans you, or "allows" himself to be manipulated into sanctioning you, your recourses are fewer and less certain if your sanction was unfair. The mod would have an incentive to keep the reasons for his decision hidden.

Ideally each reported post is evaluated independently based on its content, but we know that the more someone has been reported, the more likely their borderline posts are to be judged as crossing the line
So you "protest" asking the mod to show the CoC violation, and the mod replies, "This is not a discussion." You can see no CoC violation in the post he referenced. The mod is more likely to maintain the abuse if in fact there was no CoC violation!

This is what we have now. A clique member from DDO, who 'consulted' on moderation issues with Max, who has become Max to Mike's juggle here. No real oversight. No real consequences.

And his old lackies are setting up shop. Shredding the language filter, openly attacking the religion board and it's posters, and constantly pushing to bring every half-baked, drama-prone, DDO idea here.

Maybe Mike was one of them all along. Either way, we're locked in. When you see Airmax join the site with fanfair, then you'll know the age of Mike is drawing to a close.
#48
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,087
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
-->
@ethang5
openly attacking the religion board and it's posters

To be fair, the Religion board on DDO has always been a cess pit for a long time.
#49
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Earth
And you'd know cess pits. You've probably known cesspits for a long time too.

Your expertise is obvious. But really, the mod knew about your bias already. Guess the urge to westboro baptist out proved too much for your self control.

Excuse me, I need to disinfect my....keyboard.
#50
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 696
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
-->
@bsh1
How about you just include a basic description of why they were banned. You don't need to say "they did this and that and this in these threads and then PM'd several members with this". You can literally just post that they were banned and include the rule(s) broken and leave it at that. If people want details they can find out on their own. The public ban list is just so people know "they were banned, for breaking X, Y, and Z" 
#51
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Earth
openly attacking the religion board and it's posters

To be fair, the Religion board on DDO has always been a cess pit for a long time.
Yeah, but I never understood why that meant I'm an undesirable just because I was a denizen there.
#52
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@ethang5
No. Somehow bsh1 has gotten Mike to turn over Dart sans oversight the way DDO was turned over to Max and his clique.

All moderation decisions are opaque. And though bsh1 says one can protest, he means "protest" secretly to him, as one cannot divulge a mods pm, and it is in the mod's pm that one learns why one was banned. Neat trick huh?

So if a mod unfairly bans you, or "allows" himself to be manipulated into sanctioning you, your recourses are fewer and less certain if your sanction was unfair. The mod would have an incentive to keep the reasons for his decision hidden.

Ideally each reported post is evaluated independently based on its content, but we know that the more someone has been reported, the more likely their borderline posts are to be judged as crossing the line
So you "protest" asking the mod to show the CoC violation, and the mod replies, "This is not a discussion." You can see no CoC violation in the post he referenced. The mod is more likely to maintain the abuse if in fact there was no CoC violation!

This is what we have now. A clique member from DDO, who 'consulted' on moderation issues with Max, who has become Max to Mike's juggle here. No real oversight. No real consequences.

And his old lackies are setting up shop. Shredding the language filter, openly attacking the religion board and it's posters, and constantly pushing to bring every half-baked, drama-prone, DDO idea here.

Maybe Mike was one of them all along. Either way, we're locked in. When you see Airmax join the site with fanfair, then you'll know the age of Mike is drawing to a close.
These are serious concerns, eth. I don't like to hear you sounding so fatalistic. When I came back to DART I did notice that the religion forum is a bit worse in terms of hate and contempt posts, but I didn't think things were this bad.

Forbidding users to publicly protest their charges before banning seems like a policy aimed at containing spectacle or controversy, and ensuring the moderator's decision is carried out quickly and discreetly.

But I'm not sure what the point of allowing a user to protest is if all the moderator will say is "this is not a discussion". I'm also surprised by the idea of a moderator refusing to explain how you violated a CoC rule. The CoC itself says they have to. I hope I don't have the full story here.

I know what it felt like to be outside that clique on DDO, and yeah, it did not rock. Some of them just sort of sat around making fun of the religion forum and high fiving each other, blaming the people within the forum for the state it was in, rather than placing any responsibility on those in power for refusing to remove troublemakers or police the forum in any way, even when members within the religion forum made appeals for help. They championed a laissez-faire approach because they felt DDO was fine the way it was, and the only forum that wasn't fine the way it was they dismissed as a worthless cesspool whose wretchedness was its own fault. It did not inspire, shall we say, happy flowery "Smile On Your Brother" feelings.

But Mike and bish have done more in the few months DART has been up than I saw in three years on DDO. And whatever their decisions have been, they've listened to feedback the whole way, which I value highly and also did not see on DDO. Juggle didn't give a sh*t what we thought. I've seen bish stand by the rights of even banned members, which has impressed me. And I do assign some responsibility to myself for never leaving the religion forum on DDO to make myself known outside it. I just didn't feel welcome, so I stayed in my own little circle. Classic human tribal instinct.

Topic's author
#53
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Castin
Forbidding users to publicly protest their charges before banning seems like a policy aimed at containing spectacle or controversy, and ensuring the moderator's decision is carried out quickly and discreetly.
No user is ever prohibited from publicly protesting charges leveled against them. To repeat: no user is ever prohibited from publicly protesting charges leveled against them. 

That any user has chosen not to make such a protest should not be misconstrued as them not having had the opportunity to make such a protest. There are only two restrictions on a user's speech rights in this regard: (1) they may not quote directly from a PM with a moderator without first giving the moderator ample notice and (2) they may not quote directly from a PM with a moderator if the information they wish to reveal is likely to impinge on the privacy or safety rights of another user, moderators excluded. Users must also understand that by posting content from the PM in protest to a certain moderator decision, they waive their privacy rights for any and all discussions which pertained/pertain directly to the decision they are protesting. This is done to allow the moderator the chance to reply to the criticism, and to prevent selective release of information. This is all to say that users do have the right to waive their privacy rights in PMs with moderators, with only two reasonable restrictions on that right to waive.

When I came back to DART I did notice that the religion forum is a bit worse in terms of hate and contempt posts, but I didn't think things were this bad. 
If you see posts which may violate the COC, please report them. We can't do anything about misconduct as moderators if that misconduct has not first been brought to our attention.
#54
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@bsh1
Consider me set straight. So to be clear, this means a member can publicly protest a charge so long as they don't quote directly from a moderator's PM?

I didn't see anything in the religion forum that explicitly broke the rules. If I do, I won't just complain about it. But I'm not gonna report someone for a contemptuous attitude if they aren't making any direct personal attacks. My understanding is that the CoC does not forbid contempt. Just certain ways of expressing it. Since I'm talking about the kind of borderline behavior that isn't easy to prosecute, I feel like I'd be wasting your time bringing it to your attention.
Topic's author
#55
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Castin
Consider me set straight. So to be clear, this means a member can publicly protest a charge so long as they don't quote directly from a moderator's PM?
That would be correct. They may summarize what was said. Moderation, of course, would be free to address any arguments made by the user, but also would not quote from the PM.
#56
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@bsh1
If we're notified of the charge one hour before it takes effect, what happens if we open a protest thread and the discussion runs over an hour?

Topic's author
#57
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Castin
The user would be banned at the end of their notice period, unless the moderator overseeing the issue was persuaded by the protest or chose to extend the deadline. However, case of extending the deadline would likely be rare, in order to avoid unequal treatment of users. The hour notice period does, however, give the user the opportunity to start a conversation and to make the community aware of their grievances. The user, upon their return to the site, can then pick up the discussion where it left off.
#58
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,238
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@bsh1
Sounds fair to me. Thanks.
Topic's author
#59
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Castin
Sure thing. Glad I could help clarify.