Possible changes to the warning/ban system

Moderator note: I have split off phlogistician's and adoucette's complaints about my moderation of specific posts of theirs to a separate thread, here:

[thread=108161]Should moderation be applied equally to all posters - even theists?[/thread]

Please keep discussion in the current thread to the topic of the warning/ban system.
 
Randwolf:

Thankyou for a very helpful post. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into it. I'm sorry that there isn't more interest from the general membership in this topic.

Randwolf said:
As to strategy, I presume that the following represents at least a subset of what we are trying to achieve. This focuses mostly on the site level, as opposed to the subforum level.
  • To provide an environment that is conducive to the exchange of ideas, opinions and knowledge.
  • To allow for the formation of a “community” that inspires a sense of “belonging” amongst the members.
  • To formulate a fair and consistent doctrine that fosters a sense of justice in the community.
  • To design policies regulating behavior that may inhibit productive discourse.
  • To establish a set of “rules” designed to enforce policy whilst not unduly stifling free speech.
Is this interpretation of the desired “Strategy” correct?
Click to expand...

From my point of view, this is a good summary.

Would you, as a “regular member” or part of the staff:
Prefer more or less judicial discretion on the part of the mods? Agree with the institution of “Mandatory minimums and maximums” for various offenses? If so, would you like to see “Sentence departure guidelines” for said “Mandatory minimums and maximums”?
Click to expand...

The issue of the amount of discretion is a tricky one. Most of the time, I think the mods do a reasonable job with warnings and bans. So I can't see a pressing need to reduce the level of discretion. But nor would I like to see it increase much above where it's currently at.

I disagree with mandatory minimums and maximums for specific types of offences. In imposing sentences, I think it is more important for sanctions to take into account the posting history of the relevant user.

Believe that Moderation powers be separated? Should Mods be able to post in the forums that they moderate?
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with idea that moderators should be prevented from posting in forums that they moderate. Our moderators are volunteers. The moderators for particular forums often moderate those forums because they have some level of expertise in the topic area of the forum. To prevent them from posting would be to remove a valuable contributor to a subforum.

Think that the same set of rules be enacted and attempted to be enforced site-wide, as opposed to different rules for different sub-fora?
Click to expand...

I advocate a single set of site-wide rules. This is not, however, the topic of discussion in the current thread, except as the rules regard the implementation of the warning/ban system.

Want to know what goes on with other posters during and after disciplinary hearings? Remember, that would mean that your record was open to viewing by others as well…
Click to expand...

If possible, I'd like for all members to be able to view the infractions of all other members.

Have faith in the concept of Rehabilitation? If so, does there come a time when it’s just too late? (Perma-Ban / Death penalty) How would we best go about rehabilitation?
Click to expand...

I advocate a system of infraction points where points expire over time. An alternative would be never to forgive and never to forget. In that case, infractions points would just mount until a certain total was reached, then permaban.

We don't have programmes to rehabilitate offenders. We have neither the time nor the will to attempt that. sciforums is not a reform centre. Members are expected to control themselves. If they cannot, they are not welcome here. Besides, how do you propose to rehabilitate your average internet troll? They have no desire to be rehabilitated. Quite the opposite.

Should there be a "sunset" provision for any given set of rules / procedures? In other words, should a new "version release" be debated every x period of time? How long? Should the Members have the chance to debate and vote on said "release", causing the site to be more "democratic"? (i.e. Transparency on the legislative side as well as the Judicial.) Also, I don't believe this should preclude minor tweaks or "builds" by the Mod / Admin team in the interim.

I have no particular opinion on this, other than that if a time limit were to be imposed I would want it to be a long time (at least years). These kinds of reform take a lot of time and energy.

Do you want the right to trial? By jury of your peers or by tribunal of the Mods / Admin personnel? How about an "Appeal" process? How would that work, procedurally?
Click to expand...

As a practical matter, we often need to shut down a troublesome poster before they can cause more damage. So, like arresting a suspect, posters need to be put into a situation where they cannot cause damage pending any "trial".

One option would be to put banned members into a temporary "limbo" (like a holding cell), in which they could only post to a single dedicated subforum pending their "trial". That subforum could be visible only to moderators, or it could be generally visible. If made generally visible, it would probably be necessary to also impose post-by-post moderation on offenders in limbo, again to avoid them making provocative public statements.

Another option would be that banned posters would not be prevented from posting all together, but would simply be put into a group where all their posts needed to be approved by a moderator before appearing. We could then have a dedicated "trial" forum to hear the case.

All this seems to be a complicated and labour-intensive system, though.

A "trial" would necessarily take time because a "jury" would need to be assembled, then presumably we'd have arguments back and forth. The end result could be that the offender might be in "limbo" far longer than the original offence warranted, pending a trial.
Click to expand...
 
That is the thing James . I call it " Over analysis leads to paralysis. Committees are famous for that . Human production is extremely stifled by the indecision of comity. So ya trials can be good for getting down to nitty gritty but production levels fall . Business people say and we learn this in leadership training " Better to take the chance and do the right thing and ask forgiveness latter if it don't work out . There is always risk no matter what you do, if there isn't risk your not doing anything, your just talking about it.
So what and why would I join a forum like this . What is the appeal ? For Me it is all about the potential for discovery . It is like watching the discovery channel , but you are in the show and not just an observer . I think it is the same appeal as it is for people that watch reality shows except you get to play and interact on personal levels . That makes the forum have value . I think as more people become aware of them selves and there environment they to will seek out knowledge silos like science forums . It is a great community even with all the personality defects . Hell that is what makes the world diversified. Can you imagine a world with perfect little robot people that all think and acted the same. One size does not fit all is my best solution , and how true is that ?
 
set up a point system like debating christianity

From Debatingchristianity post
I've added a feature to get tokens for posts in the debate forums. You get 5 tokens for starting a topic. And 1 token for each reply for a topic you start. You get 2 tokens if you reply to a topic. Also you get a token for each 100 characters for any post (with a max of 10 per post).

Once you amass some tokens, here are some things you can do with them:
- Create your own usergroup
- Give a MPG donation
- Donate tokens to another user
Click to expand...


with a system like this in place the Infraction points will mean something.(specially if you can't create a usergroup when you keep losing your points to infractions)

i think MPG is a reward for excellent posts..
 
all individual ban privileges should be rescinded.
bans will be executed by a committee consisting of the admins and supermods acting in complete consensus

give bells supermod status
 
Amendment to the banning system:

"You shall not ban anyone for stating correctly another poster's weak state of mind."
 
Why can't everyone just be nice and civil to each other? This whole "ban" and "suspension" thingy? How about we just get rid of it and all promise to be nice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top