Criteria for Banning Someone

Greg's overmoderation thread got me thinkin about decisions about banning a member for life.

What is it mods? Someone once said of that they couldn’t define pornography, but they knew it when they saw it. Is it like that or do you guys have guidelines for doing it?

What do non-mods think about banning? I personally don’t think anyone should be banned unless their presence basically stops the board from operating. Of the people I know of who have been banned that wasn’t the case.

Gawd- I am so easy to bait today. Mods should ban whoever they believe is purposely or recklessly undermining the purpose or spirit of the board. Second chances- I may be in favor of that, although who knows how many chances some of the banned have already been provided.

This is a dark topic, I'm not sure I want to go there...

I kinda asked about it after getting blasted for talking about the mods on the Andyzone..
I shot back and said at least we do it in public not in smokey rooms..

- We know it's not discussed in back channels on the message board... nobody has told me how the communication goes down. I can only assume that one person made the last banning decision.
- It's done to someone after an extended period of abuse.
- It's not influenced by anybody NOT a moderator.
- Some people get away with more then others
- And in some cases it's not reversible.
-BAABAA BOOEY BAA BAA BOOEY

I can't see banning anyone for life. To me it goes against the spirit of skiing and the outdoor way of life. I do understand the "time out" thing and maybe something along those lines would be appropriate at times. It the internet for gosh sakes--- sometimes people are taken out of context and others take crap way too serious.

dmc said:

I kinda asked about it after getting blasted for talking about the mods on the Andyzone..
I shot back and said at least we do it in public not in smokey rooms..

- We know it's not discussed in back channels on the message board... nobody has told me how the communication goes down. I can only assume that one person made the last banning decision.
- It's done to someone after an extended period of abuse.
- It's not influenced by anybody NOT a moderator.
- Some people get away with more then others
- And in some cases it's not reversible.
-BAABAA BOOEY BAA BAA BOOEY

Click to expand...

Not exactly. This is a topic that is not easy for us to discuss and banning is something that we don't like to ever do. We do discuss the decision to ban as a group and take a vote after lengthy discussion...usually this is a super majority or even unanimous decision.

We do apply the same test in each case. If someone is an obvious spambot, they are banned without discussion. But if it is a person who has been a member of the community, we discuss a number of factors including if the person follows the rules, has been contacted regarding their behavior, if that person respects the community, if the community respects and values the individual's contributions, if the person's behavior deters others from posting, and if the person has repeated problems. We take many steps to avoid banning. Despite urban legend, very few members have been banned, relative to the number of members, active or not, that we have.

I do take this board serious. I've said from day one I wanted it to be a place where everyone feels comfortable contributing, and that includes people that some deem hypersensitive. As far as the permanent banning, I've followed this approach because we don't ban someone before warning them several times, and asking politely for them to chill. Often times banning is also a result a clear disrespect for other members and/or the mod team. Given the chance people usually don't ultimately change all that much, and I'd simply rather not deal with the headache a second time.

Finally, banning is not something we take lightly, and it's only after numerous chances, warnings, etc. that I push the button, often times reluctantly. It's also handled on a case by case basis. Something else you all should remember, thousands of people visit these boards each day. Even if only 1 or 2% are certifiable whacked out of their skull, that's a significant number, and the percentage is probably actually higher than that. At the end of the day, the number of members that have been banned is relatively small, and this forum has grown a lot larger than I ever expected to so we must be doing something right....

Thank you both for the eloquent and nonjudgemental explanations...

Now - can we free GSS....??

Greg said:

I do take this board serious. I've said from day one I wanted it to be a place where everyone feels comfortable contributing, and that includes people that some deem hypersensitive. As far as the permanent banning, I've followed this approach because we don't ban someone before warning them several times, and asking politely for them to chill. Often times banning is also a result a clear disrespect for other members and/or the mod team. Given the chance people usually don't ultimately change all that much, and I'd simply rather not deal with the headache a second time.

Finally, banning is not something we take lightly, and it's only after numerous chances, warnings, etc. that I push the button, often times reluctantly. It's also handled on a case by case basis. Something else you all should remember, thousands of people visit these boards each day. Even if only 1 or 2% are certifiable whacked out of their skull, that's a significant number, and the percentage is probably actually higher than that. At the end of the day, the number of members that have been banned is relatively small, and this forum has grown a lot larger than I ever expected to so we must be doing something right....

Click to expand...

I certainly can appreciate that type of honesty.

Next question, how long would this guy last here?

I'll report back later

I have a few bullet points I need to finish for my lecture

deadheadskier said:

I'll report back later

I have a few bullet points I need to finish for my lecture

Click to expand...

Please no... Really... everythings ok... thanks...

okay fine

I only moderate or ban people I don't like

Pardon the new guy here, but how many people have been banned? I can tell that Grilled Steeze has obviously recently been banned, and that there is an issue about it. Has anybody else posted thousands of times, then been banned, or is it mostly people who come on immediately in a darkly trolling way, with some sort of agenda?

deadheadskier said:

okay fine

I only moderate or ban people I don't like

Click to expand...

Do you agree with Greg and TrailB? Cause they said it great..

Greg said:

Even if only 1 or 2% are certifiable whacked out of their skull, that's a significant number, and the percentage is probably actually higher than that. At the end of the day, the number of members that have been banned is relatively small, and this forum has grown a lot larger than I ever expected to so we must be doing something right....

Click to expand...

Is there an "un-official whacked out of their skull" list :lol:

Sorry, I've had a lot to drink tonight :beer:

RootDKJ said:

Is there an "un-official whacked out of their skull" list :lol:

Sorry, I've had a lot to drink tonight :beer:

Click to expand...

I think this guy could have been considered very whacked.

dmc said:

Do you agree with Greg and TrailB? Cause they said it great..

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with what they say. Not because of their 'seniority' here, but because I think the overall moderation goals are very sensible. That's not to say every individual decision/action by any of us is without fault. We all are aware of situations that could have been handled better.

A big part of handling things better is making sure the 'right' moderator addresses certain situations. Some members will respond to a polite call to cool it from one moderator better than another moderator. You yourself have admitted greater respect for Greg and Jim G than the rest of us. Therefore, if you ever have a problem, it probably makes better sense for them to handle it than the rest of us.

andyzee said:

Next question, how long would this guy last here?

Click to expand...

As long as he wanted. Shane respected the sport and the people who participate.

Philpug said:

As long as he wanted. Shane respected the sport and the people who participate.

Click to expand...

Shane had a certain persona , he came off as a free spirit, a nut, and a madman (for God's sake, take a look at my avatar, take a good look at that video). That is what I am using as my basis for believing that he may not last too long on such a site with it's rules and moderation, I believe his persona just would not allow him to be told what he could or could not say, or how he should or shouldn't act. That is what I am using as a basis for believing that he may not last too long here. If correct, I would find that very shameful in that such a person would be limited on a ski forum of all places. I could be wrong, but that is my reasoning.

I'll give you one thing, he probably would stay as long as he wanted, but that would not be because of his behavior, it would be because of his celebrity status. It would be because he would add to the legitimacy of this site as a ski site and it would be because he would help generate income. For that I could in no way fault the administration of this site or any other site. But if he were treated the same as any other shmoe on here, no, I do not believe he would last too long at all.

Now Philpug, you say "Shane respected the sport and the people who participate" I'm not at all going to argue that.
But what I would like to know is how do you believe that would translate to what his behavior might be on a site such as this?
Especially if you take into consideration his persona.
Do you truly believe Shane would allow for a bvibert to dictate to him what he could or couldn't say?
How he should or shouldn't act?