A "Do Not Ban" list: Pros and Cons

Post Reply New Topic

If a moderator was like me, then he or she would likely have to reach a consensus agreement with the more compassionate moderators before banning someone. I think the moderators already do something like this whenever the possibility of banning someone arises. Can a moderator verify this for me? Thank you.

We have had at least one member here who would cause drama, provoke members, insult them, always see insults and attacks in posts that were not even there and they hated being ignored so they would act worse to get a response. That member had been banned here several times and hasn't been back in five years now thank goodness. This member was so toxic the line has to be drawn to these types of people. The rest I haven't seen I think who should be permanent ban.

There should be no ban-exempt members because:
1) People will lie to get exempt status.
2) People will abuse the exemption to be azzhats.
3) Many people here have suffered one or more traumas in their lives. Whose needs, then, would be prioritized?

This would definitely be abused. Also where would one draw the line?

I generally think the mods do a pretty good job taking the totality of people's circumstances into account when deciding whether to sanction someone and how severely, and when I think they aren't, I let them know. I'm also aware that unless they're told about, say, other members repeatedly provoking someone into misbehavior, they're unlikely to go back through the posting logs to see if there's more to the story than the reported posts, so I try and provide links, quotes, and contexts if I'm trying to make the case that someone is being treated unfairly, or that someone who's playing innocent is far from it.

"it sounds bad, even though some may benefit"

just because someone has mental instability, emotional and/or behavioral challenges, even a terminal illness, it shouldn't exempt them from being treated fairly in response to how they treat others. i don't think its helpful at all to let a vulnerable person to exist in a fake reality where they are treated with respect to their issues despite treating others with disrespect. on an individual level i do think its important to consider how to interact with a vulnerable person so as to not wreak havoc, but in reality not everyone is able or willing to do this, and vulnerable person who is prone to bad behavior may need to work through situations like this in order to learn how to better deal with them in the future. if a person doesn't have to face the external consequences of their behavior because of the mental issues they can't control, then things can only get worse. warnings and temporary bans can help people calm down and rethink their behavior, but not banning them at all based on their mental disposition is unfair to them as well as other members.

I don't agree with Dox47 all that often, but in this case we are of one mind and I'll second all that. Skillpadde also did an excellent job explaining why we should not do this.

People do need to be held accountable for their actions, and moderators have enough work to do without being straight-jacketed by such a list. If anything, I think moderation here can be a little too lenient sometimes but that's probably a factor of how much traffic there is compared to the amount of time moderators have rather than a policy issue. They're generally level-headed, reasonable and effective when they act, based on what I've seen.

I say keep the current "unofficial list" policy. I think there are enough problems on WP without trying to fix what does not seem to be broken. Probably most here have had too much exprerience with bullying and are more vulnarable then most to bieng attacked then most people. Our need for protection should not be ignored because banning may or may not hurt further some very fragile people who need help beyound what any forum can give.