Banning Members

Folks - The admin's have been working on criteria and a process by which we will ban users - if, perish the thought, we have to. And we would like your input on the following.

First, here's the criteria statement:

When considering banning a member we should use the guidelines in the New Members Start Here folder as well as the first post of the Family, Brotherhood, & Kindness thread.

Specifically, the guidelines say "We are a group of people who enjoy the 1980 - 86 Ford trucks and want to help each other use, maintain, repair, and upgrade them. It is family-oriented, which means we don't appreciate obscenities or provocative pictures, but we do appreciate each other, which means we don't yell at nor talk down to others."

And that is further refined in the Brotherhood post as:

Dogmatic Approach: This is defined as "the expression of an opinion or belief as if it were a fact: positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant". Just because we remember it one way doesn't make it so. And just because it is in print or on the internet does not make it so.

Opinions: I have many opinions, but my opinions aren't any more important than yours. So if I try to tell you that mine are more important than yours then I'm "talking down" to you from my perceived lofty perch.

Argumentative: Continually pushing a view/opinion and having to have the last word. State your opinion, gently, and let it go.

So if a member's actions/words do not follow those guidelines/rules then they need to correct them.

And here's the draft process we've devised:

In general a member should have a warning. However, there may be some situations that require immediate action, so these are just guidelines. Here's an approach for a member who seems to have just gone awry for the first time:

1. Send Email #1, cc'ing the other admins, which reminds the member of the guidelines and points out what was said that doesn't comply. And, Email #1 asks that the wrong be righted w/in 24 hours and that we get an email back pledging not to do that again.

2. If the wrong is righted and the pledge is received w/in the 24 hour period then a one-year clock is started, and if no more instances are observed then the wrong is forgiven/forgotten.

3. If the wrong isn't righted or the pledge isn't received w/in the 24 hour period then the member is temporarily banned and Email #2 is sent. If subsequent to the banning and the email being sent the wrong is then righted and the pledge received w/in 24 hours then a one month clock is started.

4. If another offence occurs w/in the one-year or one-month timeframe then the user is permanently banned.

Emails #1 and #2 have not yet been drafted. But your thoughts and suggestions about the criteria and process would be appreciated.

I believe you may have it backwards.

If a wrong is immediately righted, it should be a lesser clock due to their quick attention to the matter. If the wrong is not immediately righted, and the user is banned, that should net a year long clock since it is a more serious offense. Repeat offenders may necessitate a permanent ban, if possible.

In my opinion 24 hours is a bit too close of a time frame for corrective action to be applied. Say I post something against the rules at 5pm today, and then log off of the forum for the night. Tomorrow I decide to work on my truck, and do not log onto the forum until 8pm, 27 hours later. That puts me out of the time frame and nets me a ban, even though I hadn't even viewed the forum since the initial incident. 48 hours may be a more reasonable time frame, since some of us aren't mobile users and only view the forum/emails at night.

Good thinking on the one month vs one year, Shaun.

And, I see what you are saying about 24 hours vs 48 hours.  The issue is that in the 48 hours a lot of harm can be done.  Why is why an email is sent.  Do you check your email often enough to catch it?

I don't know about Shaun, but I (a) do not go on forums etc. on my phone unless I have to look for something (b) do not use gmail on my phone unless I am expecting something I need to see (c) when I am in my garage it is a steel building and well grounded so with the doors closed I have little or no reception (d) when working on something I generally ignore my phone as getting my hands on it, unlocking it and hoping I have a good enough signal to actually answer it results in 10-15 mins or more of nothing getting done and being totally PO'd at what was probably a spam call.

Bill - Are you advocating for more time than 24 hours?  Or more time than 48 hours?  Or?

After seeing it written out. Two thoughts.

1. I am 2nd guessing the chance given, and time (in hours) to correct the offending post. Shaun and Bill brought up a good point. Some folks could be off a computer for days. I suggest that ANY offending post be immediately swept by an admin if it breaks a guideline. No chance should be given for the user to correct.

2. No clocks. 1st email sent immediately after thread sweep, reminding user of guidelines. If the user cannot comply immediately, permanently ban them. If they comply, then all is good. 2nd offense anytime after 1st email, ban them, no warnings, no explainations.

This simplifies it. Also, who wants to keep tabs on how much time its been since joe schmo got a warning? Not I.

I check my email maybe three times a week. Sometimes I can go a whole week without checking it unless I am expecting an email from somebody. So an email notice would go unnoticed by me otherwise.

Ok, so email notification isn't going to be a good avenue via which to contact the member in question.  And leaving the offending post for however long it takes for the poster to correct it isn't a good approach.

So, maybe we need to immediately move the post to quarantine, which is good because when you move a post you also get the responses to it.  But that requires the admins to be very involved.

Keep those thoughts coming, please.

I am responding only to Gary's last post but before it's ruled out completely I think email is the way to go. We all realize that not everyone is monitoring their emails 24/7 and that's great for a number of reasons (I am in full support of this) but we are talking in the context of an online forum. When dealing with technology it's expected that communication via technology will be used. It's really the only option if the plan is to first give the user a chance to correct/clarify/apologize for/delete their post.
If they don't respond in the time or manner that the rules specify then that is on them and up to the admins to deal with on a case by case basis regarding extenuating circumstances - IF it means the final strike was dealt. If it means they have a non-banning strike on their record for a period of time because they didn't check their email in time, so be it.


Regarding admins removing the posts and replies I will say that I've seen that done well and done poorly. Of course it all depends upon the post in question but usually the more transparent the better regarding the reason for posts disappearing.

Have you ran this by an admin on another site (no name needed) to see if he has any suggestions? Something all online public forums go through so might be worth taking an existing set of guidelines and tweaking them if needed.

Bottom to top: Good idea on the admin from the other forum.  The guy you met in September.  I've talked with him about this kind of thing before, but not the specifics.  I will.  

As for transparency in removing posts, if we get on it quickly before someone else posts it is easy and clean.  Not so later, and it can become very tedious.

Concerning email, if we remove the offending post then we could wait a few days before the member gets back to us.  In the interim we might want to put a temp ban on so that member isn't posting on another thread and, possibly compounding the problem.

Thanks.

I like the temp ban idea.

I've always been a fan of if an admin removes a post that they make one of their own along the lines of (just making the wording up but you get the point):
---
A previous post was removed as it violated the rules all members agreed to upon registering for this forum. The admins are handling the situation and will only discuss it with the necessary parties.
---

Again, I just find that some level of transparency is better than posts just disappearing - don't get me wrong, I am not saying the content should be left. Hopefully this will be a very few and far between situation.

kramttocs wrote

Hopefully this will be a very few and far between situation.

We don't need to worry about 95% of users. It is my experience on other forums that there is always one or two guys that have a need for validation, cannot admit they are wrong, and somehow find themselves in the middle of all the controversy.

This forum is still so small, we all pretty much have an general understanding of the "regular's" personalities. As membership grows, it is important to have swift disciplinary action.

I got in real early with a start-up company. There are a lot of similarities between this forum, and a young company. I do believe my experience with the startup can lend some valuable advice as this forum progresses.

I say +1 to the temporary ban idea. I already mentioned to Gary via email that I think it is important that the member not be allowed to post until the problem has been addressed.

I like the idea of removing the content of the post, and replacing it with a notice that something inappropriate has been deleted. Not only for transparency, but it may help validate the member(s) who were wronged. However, before removing it I think the content should be copy pasted or quoted into a new post in the quarantine folder. That way if there are further issues the exact words are still there for future reference, and are preserved for the other admins to look at.

I also think Ray is on point regarding tracking time limits. It is starting to sound like a union contract or corporate attendance policy. I think 3 strikes and you’re out (for the lifetime of the user) is fair enough, with the understanding that each situation is up to the discretion of the admins.

Jonathan, I think that everyone should be given a 2nd chance.

1st chance is at website registry. You are given the guidelines and told not to cross the line.

2nd chance comes after you cross the line the FIRST time.

If a grown man can not act civil in an online forum after being given two chances..... what do you need to give him a 3rd for?

Im in favor of swift justice, so we dont have to waste energy on the foolish.

Thats my $0.02

For dealing with run of the mill snarkiness or dogmatism I don’t think that two warnings before perma ban is unreasonable. I’m okay with one warning, but it does make me feel a little less free to use it. It would have to be pretty bad. Ultimately it is up to our discretion to perma ban. If someone was ugly enough they might deserve it on the first offense with no second chance.

Ray Cecil wrote

1st chance is at website registry. You are given the guidelines and told not to cross the line.

That's a pretty valid point.

Jonathan, I think a little snark is okay, say between acquaintances, or  in the lounge for example.

I know I have jested with Matthew and Gary on the forum, but never in a mean spirit, and usually with a wink or tongue out.

Hard snark in reply to a members question, or ANY ad hominem should result in an immediate ban imho.

We're all here to share, not only what we have in common (Ford trucks) but our differences as well.
There seems to be a wide variety of socio-economic backgrounds here, though demographically I'd expect the vast majority of us are white males, I did see that Emma signed up.

In an earlier thread about starting the F.O.R.D. Lounge I expressed my reservations with regard to the subjects of politics and religion, and provided examples of what I would be comfortable with.

The Friendly Open minded Respectful Discussion guidelines are not hard to follow, and if you can't, you really don't belong here.

And I agree with Scott.
A simple statement that ~' this post (or thread) has crossed the line and its contents have been quarantined' is much better that sweeping it under the rug and pretending it never happened.

ArdWrknTrk wrote

Jonathan, I think a little snark is okay, say between acquaintances, or  in the lounge for example.

Yup. This is what grown men do. We poke fun at each others flaws...its not bullying...its a friendship thing. My best friends and I are always being "snarky" with each other. Its how we re-inforce our friendship. Its all in good jest.

Jim and the regulars here know where the line is. Anyone can move from poking your buddy for fun to being condescending really quick. Im 33, less than half the age of some other admins, so all the above is a lesson learned by them many moons ago, so I am not saying anything new to most users here.

However, texting, online forums, emails etc make it more difficult to give your buds friendly jabs. Social media has created a bunch of whiners and cry babies because typing words into a screen is cheap and still somewhat anonymous. It effectively draws out some people's insecurities. Those who are aware of this can spot the insecure person immediately. Its best to ignore them, just like in real life. Sometimes you have to ban them so that their attitude doesnt infect the group.

We've had to deal with this issue at work recently. Somehow we hired a SJW snowflake....he wont be around much longer. We'll need to "ban" him very soon. He doesn't play well with alpha personalities.