Dumpshock Forums > Members List class

Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Dumpshock News, Bug Reports, Feature Requests, & Discussion

tisoz

Jul 14 2007, 03:11 PM

How about including all the classifications for members in the Member List roll. We have Admin, Freelancer, Dumpshocked, etc.. How about listing the others that are not shown? I am pretty sure there is A Banned classification, but I do not know what others there may be.

It would clarify what happened to some members we have not seen around for a while. Example: SL James. I have no idea what got him banned, nor do I care. I do wonder if it is permanent or for a set time. With this member as an example, we could see if the ban was over and the member quit frequenting the forum, or if the absence was because a ban was still in effect.

It might be enlightening to also know what behavior warrants a permanent ban so members have an idea where the line is presently being drawn. Links would even be nice.

Bull

Jul 14 2007, 09:59 PM

QUOTE

They're generally pretty meaningless, most of the time. I'll see if I can dig up a list. The core ones are the various Targets (Default titles), Dumpshocked (Donors in the couple fund raisers we've held), Admin/Moderator, and Freelancer. There's also Freedonian Expatriate for a couple former FASA employees. The rest are custom titles given out pretty much on whim.

QUOTE

It would clarify what happened to some members we have not seen around for a while. Example: SL James. I have no idea what got him banned, nor do I care. I do wonder if it is permanent or for a set time. With this member as an example, we could see if the ban was over and the member quit frequenting the forum, or if the absence was because a ban was still in effect.

Generally, we don't publicly discuss folks when we ban them, mainly because we don;t want to be seen as bashing them or dragging their name through the mud. Plus we'd rather avoid potential fallout and/or bitching that comes from a move as drastic as banning someone.

As a note, I think maybe there are a half dozen perma-banned folks here, at most. There are more, but they're usually spam-bots. And of those, only a couple were in the last few years. Dvixen was a little more Ban-happy back in the day.

QUOTE

It might be enlightening to also know what behavior warrants a permanent ban so members have an idea where the line is presently being drawn. Links would even be nice.

Right now, the guidelines are a bit... verbose, and at the same time, not as clear as we'd like. We're in the process of revamping the TOS, but it's slow going since as I've mentioned elsewhere, my freetime is limited and Adam's a slave to BT and SR publishing schedules. Fisty, Eido, and Caine are helping where they can, but it's a slow process.

There's not a clear "Do this X times and your banned" rule currently in place. The TOS state what is and isn't accepted behavior, and somewhere in there says something to the effect of "Break these rules, and we can ban you." Which, in theory, says that we could do so after a single violation. We wouldn;t do that, obviously, and for now we try and take things on a case by case basis.

My personal method of handling things generally goes something like:

I'll warn you a couple times, maybe a couple more if it's for something pretty minor. We do have a way of flagging users when they're warned, as well as noting what they've been warned for, so repeat offenders tend to stand out.

After that, I'll explain what you've done wrong, and give you a suspension, generally one week. I've only had to do this a few times.

Next, depending on what's been going on, I'd move to a two week suspension. The next step after that is permanent posting revocation.

If a decent amount of time goes by between warnings/suspensions, I'll generally slack off on them. Just because I gave you a 2 week time-out 2 years ago doesn;t mean I'll drop the ban-hammer on you because you got into a heated argument with someone and called them a fucktard. But if I had to suspend you for that sort of behavior just last month, it's gets dicier.

As for links and the like... While it would be useful for saying "THIS is what got X banned", that's a treacherous slope. For starters, it's very rarely one or two incidences that will get you suspended or banned. It's usually a whole pile of things. Posting behavior and attitudes over a lengthy period of time. At best, a link to a specific post would just show the Straw that Broke the Camel's Back, so to speak.

Also, honestly, look around some of the threads here in regards to the Lounge, and Moderation in general. posting links would only lead to people trying to argue with us, saying "But *I* don;t think that's offensive", or "*This* thread/post was much worse and he didn't get warned!" Dumpshockers love to argue. And sometimes, they'd even be right. But as I mention above, it's not usually a single statement, or a single post or thread... It's a person's overall posting behavior, attitudes, etc.

The fact is, it's not up to debate with the general populace. We have an entire forum taht only the mods can see, and anytime we see something, we post about it in there for commentary by other mods. If it's minor, we'll post without taking any action, to get a consensus. If it's a thread that obviously needs locked down or a moderator to step in and say "hey, keep on topic or keep it civil", we'll do that. But we still post for commentary and opinions from the others.

Even me

As a note, despite our rather "heavy" moderation style, there are only two banned users currently. One forced our hand despite waaaay more warnings than he should have gotten and several temporary suspensions, and the other pretty much demanded we ban him.

Bull

fistandantilus4.0

Jul 14 2007, 11:16 PM

QUOTE (Bull)

As for links and the like... While it would be useful for saying "THIS is what got X banned", that's a treacherous slope. For starters, it's very rarely one or two incidences that will get you suspended or banned. It's usually a whole pile of things. Posting behavior and attitudes over a lengthy period of time. At best, a link to a specific post would just show the Straw that Broke the Camel's Back, so to speak.

Expanding on this a bit, I understand it's difficult to see consistency in the moderating at times. There's going to be plenty of instances where you'll see something that deserves a warning without one posted. That's because after a few in-thread warnings on the same person, we go straight to PMs, which we keep track of. Those sorts os warnings are alos the things that are reviewed by multiple Mods before being sent, as Bull mentioned, to make sure it isn't just one guy over reacting.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.