Can the forum warning points and banning process be changed?

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@padamchen

There’s no coordinated effort to ban anyone on the forum side. We don’t discuss issuing warnings, post deletions or bans as a team unless it is a permanent-ban. Moderators are trusted to act on their own (we don’t have time to review every decision as a team) and GHQ is an option for contesting warnings/bans etc.

 

[padamchen]

But Levina lives in UAE and doppelganger lives in Bombay. Was he ready to go all the way to UAE for a cup of coffee ??

But I remember distinctly about an Indian member in UAE also asking out Levina for a cup of coffee. She handled that well.

Doppelganger used to travel.a lot.

Dubai was a layover for many of his Frankfurt flights.

@padamchen

There’s no coordinated effort to ban anyone on the forum side. We don’t discuss issuing warnings, post deletions or bans as a team unless it is a permanent-ban. Moderators are trusted to act on their own (we don’t have time to review every decision as a team) and GHQ is an option for contesting warnings/bans etc.

You also have to keep in mind that new moderators can be a little trigger happy in the beginning as they get used to the new role.

I think there is some rethinking needed on this points autobanning feature. It seems to be serial banning the same persons too many times.

Take the example of nilu Pule.

As it's most recent.

He literally lasted one evening.

None of his posts were ban material.

Either someone banned him again.

Or he picked up another point and the older points were still in effect, whereas everything should be reset to zero after you serve a ban.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think there is some rethinking needed on this points autobanning feature. It seems to be serial banning the same persons too many times.

Take the example of nilu Pule.

As it's most recent.

He literally lasted one evening.

None of his posts were ban material.

Either someone banned him again.

Or he picked up another point and the older points were still in effect, whereas everything should be reset to zero after you serve a ban.

We'll discuss if there are ways to tweak the system.

The default settings are as follows:

Apply warning points: 1

Points Expire after: 1 month

So assuming the mods are following the default settings, warning points will remain active for 1 month (each) and you have to accumulate 3 warning points that are active at the same time in order for the system to auto ban. As the points fall off, the ban comes off.

So you could have one point that has been there for 29 days, one point that has been there for 15 days, and then a moderator gives you a third warning point. The system auto bans you with the third point, but that ban will only last for one day because the first point will drop off the next day and then you have 2 active points. Now you get banned for one day and come back and get another warning which makes it 3 points again which means the system auto bans again till the next point drops off.

Make sense?

Like I said, I'll talk to the admins on whether warning points and their expiration is visible to the user that has them.

 

[padamchen]

We'll discuss if there are ways to tweak the system.

The default settings are as follows:

Apply warning points: 1

Points Expire after: 1 month

So assuming the mods are following the default settings, warning points will remain active for 1 month (each) and you have to accumulate 3 warning points that are active at the same time in order for the system to auto ban. As the points fall off, the ban comes off.

So you could have one point that has been there for 29 days, one point that has been there for 15 days, and then a moderator gives you a third warning point. The system auto bans you with the third point, but that ban will only last for one day because the first point will drop off the next day and then you have 2 active points. Now you get banned for one day and come back and get another warning which makes it 3 points again which means the system auto bans again till the next point drops off.

Make sense?

Like I said, I'll talk to the admins on whether warning points and their expiration is visible to the user that has them.

Agno this is the problem.

Once a warning (points) has been used for a ban, it should get deactivated regardless of how much time is left on its meter.

Otherwise technically, seeing as bans escalate from one week to 2 weeks the next time to then 3 weeks or a month (I can't recollect as after 2 weeks I lose interest and do something else), the same warning can cause the member to get banned thrice in the space of a month.

Thats triple jeopardy.

You've served your time. One sentence is over. You cannot use that for a second and a third.

Which is what's happening.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno this is the problem.

Once a warning (points) has been used for a ban, it should get deactivated regardless of how much time is left on its meter.

Otherwise technically, seeing as bans escalate from one week to 2 weeks the next time to then 3 weeks or a month (I can't recollect as after 2 weeks I lose interest and do something else), the same warning can cause the member to get banned thrice in the space of a month.

Thats triple jeopardy.

You've served your time. One sentence is over. You cannot use that for a second and a third.

Which is what's happening.

What you're suggesting is that all the points fall off after a ban is served, correct?

That may also require a tweak on the length of the ban. It may have to become a default one week ban and perhaps increases in duration if you earn multiple bans within a specific time period. Not sure if the forum software has the options to do that but I'll move these posts to their own thread in the suggestions section and see what the admins have to say.

@WebMaster @Horus & rest of the moderator team.

Your views on the suggestion made by @padamchen about tweaking the warning points and auto-ban feature on the forum?

Also, can you confirm if a user is able to see the warning points they have accumulated and when they expire?

Thanks

 

[padamchen]

What you're suggesting is that all the points fall off after a ban is served, correct?

That may also require a tweak on the length of the ban. It may have to become a default one week ban and perhaps increases in duration if you earn multiple bans within a specific time period. Not sure if the forum software has the options to do that but I'll move these posts to their own thread in the suggestions section and see what the admins have to say.

@WebMaster @Horus & rest of the moderator team.

Your views on the suggestion made by @padamchen about tweaking the warning points and auto-ban feature on the forum?

Also, can you confirm if a user is able to see the warning points they have accumulated and when they expire?

Thanks

Yes exactly.

Otherwise it's like those ridiculous multiple life sentences of 370 years pronounced by judges, to be literally served back to back, which is often what is happening.

It would also help, as webby agrees, to look into the system (and people) who actually give these warnings.

It's not possible to review all the warnings. We can't knock on your or webbys door 24x7.

And let's face it, there are serial abusers as part of your team who weaponise the power to give negative ratings willy nilly.

All of those add to bans. Because of the automated non humanized system put in place.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Alternately, we could increase the number of warning points required to trigger a ban.

I'll let the rest of the team weigh in. Just an FYI, they are working through a backlog of over 1200 reported posts on the forum to clean them out.

Our goal is that once the backlog is cleared, we'll be able to stay on top of the reported posts better. I think right now none of the mods wanted to go look in the reported posts section because of the backlog.

 

[Kompromat]

For our part we do our best to avoid handing out bans. The current system is robust and we keep check over mods. If anyone is treated unfairly, they have a right to appeal.

 

[WebMaster]

So you could have one point that has been there for 29 days, one point that has been there for 15 days, and then a moderator gives you a third warning point. The system auto bans you with the third point, but that ban will only last for one day because the first point will drop off the next day and then you have 2 active points. Now you get banned for one day and come back and get another warning which makes it 3 points again which means the system auto bans again till the next point drops off.

Actually, if a member gets another point after he comes back from the ban (with 3 active points), now the he has 4. It means the severity of ban increases and he gets banned for 3 weeks rather than 2. Once he comes back from 3 week ban, hope is that first 3 point have expired elsw next point will increase severity further. The goal here is to punish members more severly if they have been banned before.

 

[padamchen]

Actually, if a member gets another point after he comes back from the ban (with 3 active points), now the he has 4. It means the severity of ban increases and he gets banned for 3 weeks rather than 2. Once he comes back from 3 week ban, hope is that first 3 point have expired elsw next point will increase severity further. The goal here is to punish members more severly if they have been banned before.

Webby you are the experts man.

From a robust international forum you've made it into a Pakistani forum with UN observers.

I don't see the system as working in terms of quality.

Especially if you look at the type of posters historically over the past 10 years and kind of debates.

And the irony is that you still are swamped.

 

[WebMaster]

The problem previously has been lack of moderation and enforcement of rules. With a mixture of banning based on disagreement or banning too harshly, going beyond the systematic points in place. We are looking to fix this.

Another problem is the use of multiple IDs in case of Nile Pule, people don't want to serve the bans and instead use their spare ID to continue discussions. We have stopped this too.

 

[padamchen]

The problem previously has been lack of moderation and enforcement of rules. With a mixture of banning based on disagreement or banning too harshly, going beyond the systematic points in place. We are looking to fix this.

Another problem is the use of multiple IDs in case of Nile Pule, people don't want to serve the bans and instead use their spare ID to continue discussions. We have stopped this too.

If someone is not spamming every discussion.

Not being outrightly abusive or personal.

Not getting religious (which is totally one sided here) offensive

Not insulting country or leader or military (again totally one sided)

Why ban?

People have the option of ignoring. That takes the oxygen out of a troll.

And if it gets out of hand, warn openly by name where and when you see the offense.

If repeated, ban.

Let it be human. You have a robust reporting system in place, even if there are not enough moderators to cover all threads.

 

[Philosopher]

@WebMaster

May I propose something. What do you think of the idea that if a particular post receives certain number of reports, then it is removed from view and awaits further action by the moderation team?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If someone is not spamming every discussion.

Not being outrightly abusive or personal.

Not getting religious (which is totally one sided here) offensive

Not insulting country or leader or military (again totally one sided)

Why ban?

People have the option of ignoring. That takes the oxygen out of a troll.

And if it gets out of hand, warn openly by name where and when you see the offense.

If repeated, ban.

Let it be human. You have a robust reporting system in place, even if there are not enough moderators to cover all threads.

Doc,

Again, let me be clear, moderators do not 'ban' - we issue warnings. The system auto-bans based on the criteria we explained.

I and most of the moderators do not look at the warning history of a particular poster when we issue a warning point. We're too busy moderating posts etc. We just assign a warning based on whether or not we believe a particular post deserves a warning.

So, for example, when I 'banned' you a while back, I gave your post a warning not realizing that you already had existing warning points that would result in my warning causing a ban. That has happened with multiple posters - I've issued a warning and the system bans them and I find out they are banned when their name turns pink.

@WebMaster

May I propose something. What do you think of the idea that if a particular post receives certain number of reports, then it is removed from view and awaits further action by the moderation team?

It is a good idea in principle, but you have the possibility of members ganging-up together and coordinating on discord or whatsapp, email etc to target particular posters they disagree with or dislike.

And depending on whether there are enough moderators online, it could take a while for false reports to get resolved. In essence you would be allowing the 'herd' to moderate, at least temporarily.

 

[padamchen]

Doc,

Again, let me be clear, moderators do not 'ban' - we issue warnings. The system auto-bans based on the criteria we explained.

I and most of the moderators do not look at the warning history of a particular poster when we issue a warning point. We're too busy moderating posts etc. We just assign a warning based on whether or not we believe a particular post deserves a warning.

So, for example, when I 'banned' you a while back, I gave your post a warning not realizing that you already had existing warning points that would result in my warning causing a ban. That has happened with multiple posters - I've issued a warning and the system bans them and I find out they are banned when their name turns pink.


It is a good idea in principle, but you have the possibility of members ganging-up together and coordinating on discord or whatsapp, email etc to target particular posters they disagree with or dislike.

And depending on whether there are enough moderators online, it could take a while for false reports to get resolved. In essence you would be allowing the 'herd' to moderate, at least temporarily.

I understand this.

I was proposing a different system to the one you have currently.

Which is serial banning too many of us.

Driving many away out of boredom and frustration.