A "Do Not Ban" list: Pros and Cons

Post Reply New Topic

Some members have proposed the idea of a "Do Not Ban" list. WP members on this list would be given greater dispensation for their posts, due to emotional issues they may have. These emotional issues would include, but not be limited to:

• Depressive disorders
  
• Cognitive Deficiencies
  
• Personal Trauma (i.e., Death in the family, Physical assault, Sexual assault)
  
• Terminal Illness

PROS: Being on this list would flag the moderators of a member's delicate emotional state, and give the moderators more leeway in deciding what to do when a member acts out and violates the website's rules. This could also raise the awareness of the moderators with regard to anyone picking on or harassing a member whose name is on the list, and give them justification to act more swiftly and strongly against "harsh" members.

CONS: Members might abuse this idea, and claim to have an emotional issue when they actually don't - there is no way for the moderators to verify such a claim one way or another. Just as some people will abuse the sympathy of the public and use Asperger's Syndrome as a "Get Out of Jail Free Card", so too could any member claim to be going through a rough period just to enjoy the privilege of acting out with impunity.

So, what do you think? You can change your vote at any time.

No flame wars, please - address the ideas, and not the people presenting them.

Thank you.

heh, i was thinking about something like this just earlier today. [i have no life i know]

i think you hit the nail right on the head with regard to the cons you put out.

we do keep an unofficial tally on vulnerable members, or members with issues, and we already tend to give those more leeway with their content, as they may not be fully themselves or be totally aware of what they say. sometimes, simply being super drunk was all it took (but i would advise steering clear from a computer entirely should that be the case...)

but i'd stay away from a total "ban on bans" because of what you mentioned. that, and obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. you can't have someone lashing out and spreading filth that i won't exemplify here because of a precarious state they might be in. there's a very real chance of non listed members ending up very distressed, possibly traumatized or driven to leave because of that, and that can't be had either. and sometimes the help people need is something on the scale WP just can't offer.

but i bet you already knew that.

so...refraining from banning entirely might not be the best way of going about things, but simply allowing more leeway in rule enforcement depending on the member, is something that has continually been done, as far as i can recall.

I don't believe in Permanent-Banning. Temporary Restrictions are fine if it is found that they are becoming too disruptive, but must also be accompanied by explanations of being for purposes of letting them have enough time to calm down for a bit, before they end up posting something that they might regret that may put damage into their own reputation. People sometimes need to be protected from themselves but doing things that resemble locking one up in a prison for-ever is not the answer.

I believe that everybody deserves a chance (difficult as they might become sometimes). Even I once was planning on destroying the entire world and every living thing that existed, also learning recently that men like Hitler suffered insane levels of abuse during his childhood like I did, but look where I am now, somehow managing to move from a complete have-zero-remorse psychosis into a Peace-Promoting Pacifist.

I know there was a recent fiasco some posts that I made with another member from a day or two ago, but having experienced much of the same or similar turbulences for myself, that otherwise seemingly disruptive behaviours can be seen to surface, I also understand that nobody lashes out at others unless they have themselves been unfairly abused or have been dealing with extreme forms of experiencing injustice, and so I am forced to look at myself or what I did or said or or wrote or posted if I trigger any kind of confrontational-behaviour from others. I can only try to self-reflect in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

Permanently banning someone should occur as a last resort, afte several warnings and at least one temporary suspension.

Personally, I believe that everyone should be treated equally, all the time, and with no exceptions. I also realize that if this was not tempered with mercy, I would likely have been permanently banned long ago. Some of us do take longer than others to "soften up" than others.

I think users shouldn't concern themselves so much with moderating and upholding the rules when that is not their job, 'backseat moderating' is against the rules on many of forum as it just ruins the discourse of places. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on things but it eliminates certain users from developing a hall way monitor attitude that elevates them above normal users, we don't need people trying to prove their moral superiority to each other nor do we want to foster an environment where certain users can try to push their own version of the rules on others. Backseat moderators are drivers of forum drama themselves, I've posted on forums for a long time and it always follows the same pattern.

Reporting infractions of the rules does not ban people. Reporting merely draws moderatorial attention to the infraction. It is then up to the moderators to determine what interventions, if any, should occur. Then it takes a conscious decision and a willful act on the part of the moderators (or Alex) to actually ban someone; but only after several warnings and at least one temporary suspension of access to the website.

Besides, this thread is not about whether or not reporting infractions is moral or ethical. This thread is about how a member who has committed infractions should be handled, and if people with certain 'issues' should be given preferential treatment when they break the rules.

Flagging posts for moderators to see is not what I mean, one should do that if it is so egregious and offensive but it's rather the public declaration and elevating of one's self as morally superior to other users that is the problem. Users like this should not be encouraged as they tend to go looking and eventually fishing for rules violations, it's is very damaging to discourse and a problem that is very common on forums. This type of poster is just one of your classic archetype problem posters.

As for bannings, I don't think people should be banned unless they are so damaging to forum discourse that other people can't use or enjoy the forum. Even then, I don't believe permanent bans are a right unless the 'crime' warrants it. 3 strike rules are bad in real life, they're bad on the internet. People usually get the message after being in timeout.

It seems that you do not like people who report infractions, and that you are soft on the people who commit the infractions. Am I right so far?

Is that what I said?

What is this "softness"? I would say a support forum probably should have more leeway than to be total stifflers for the rules. I mean nobody likes snitches right?

You said ...

This seems to imply that you don't like users who flag offensive posts. You are not exactly expressing love for them, are you?

You also said ...This seems to imply that you are soft on people who commit infractions.

Reporting infractions is not only a right, it is a duty of every member on WrongPlanet. The moderators cannot be everywhere, so flagging offensive posts for their attention is the best way to get them to weed out offending members. The alternative would be for Alex to hire full-time moderators for pay, and set up a quota system for them to meet on a daily basis.

With as many reports that have been made against me for just disagreeing with some of our more sensitive members, it seems reasonable to poll the membership to see if there is any positive interest in setting up a "Do Not Ban" list. But if you want to derail this thread into a different discussion, then please start one of your own in another thread.

Thank you.

I think we a have a good discussion going, topics are fluid so lets allow the free exchange of ideas.

Also I pretty explicitly said it wasn't wrong to use the report button to flag posts that warrant moderator attention, it's a problem when certain posters make a public show of it for the sake of elevating themselves.

And I would like this discussion to stay on topic.

I support this as long as we can also have a "block user" feature to not show stuff from people of our choice. Or, maybe the "block user" would prevent the need to call for bans.

There's just some people that I know are going to be no fun to read, and I mentally keep a list of icons or names to skip them or roll my eyes as I skim by. But I don't mind 'em posting actually.

There should be no ”no ban” list. Some aspects will be taken into consideration, like cognitive deficiencies and to some degree their emotional state.

It is my personal opinion that while it may sometimes be fair to keep in mind the vulnerability of a member, for the most part people should be treated the same here. We are all here because we need a place like WP. We all have our problems to deal with and taking them out on other members is unacceptable, especially if happens repeatedly. The need of the one cannot outweigh the need of the many, and one member should not be allowed to make others feel uncomfortable by being allowed to make personal attacks or generalizations about any group due to their state of mind.

As I said we all have our problems to deal with, and most of us are adults, and need to take responsibility for our actions. I will use a personal example: When I lost my turtle Nemo, I suffered situational depression on top of the grief, which lasted for about 3 years. Most people on the sites I went to seemed flippant and immature to me then, and they really got on my nerve because of the state of mind I was in. But rather than taking my feelings out on them, I realized that they hadn’t changed, it was my circumstances that had changed, and I reacted differently to them because of the enormous pain I felt. Instead of starting crap with other people (which I may have felt like, I admit that), I decreased my activity on those sites and was very careful with what I posted.

Other people need to do the same. Think before you post, don’t reply in anger, log off and make a reply in Word or in your mind, but don’t post in anger. Being on sites that matter to me have taught me that. It really isn’t that hard. Just be aware of what you feel and remove yourself from the situation when it’s needed. Most people here manage to do so just fine, and have no warnings as a result.

It has already been pointed out by others that such a system could be abused. IMO there is another problem with it too. How do we do determine which reasons are good enough to count as a mitigating circumstance? We all have grievances in our lives, some of us struggle with other disorders, some of us are driven nearly up the wall on daily basis because our special interests are illegal where we live, which obviously affect us. So who are gonna determine what reasons are good enough and why? I think it would be a policy that would feel very unfair to a great deal of people here and would contribute to divide us and cause friction.

A former WP moderator told me they have a vulnerable member list. I think that is good enough.

+1

also I am really not in the position to write a long post but Fnord, I like this thread so good job on looking past logic and into peoples needs. While I like the thread, I don't like the idea so much, just moderators knowing who might have issues is good enough for me. I suck at communication and the moderators have treated me fairly so I respect their final decision though the end result might really suck. The thing is, people with issues don't get a free ride in real life so they shouldn't on Wrong Planet. However, people with these needs do often get special consideration and I believe that is all they should get here.

Mercy only goes so far but I think we need a healthy balance of logic (Thats you Fnord) and compassion. Thats not to say your not compassionate Fnord, but I think we need different prospective both on the more logical side and the more compassionate side before we ban someone.