Thread Bans

[Grey]

I was thinking on the way some conversations in general discussion (and sometimes roleplaying discussion) can get really heated, often between a small number of users in the thread rather than everyone participating.


I know on a few other sites, there's a method and policy whereby someone at risk of derailing a thread can be banned from that thread only, either temporarily or permanantly, allowing cooler heads to continue the conversation rather than shutting it down because some people (like me) eventually can't keep their lids on. Ideally, the ban expires after a day or so when the belligerants have likely calmed down and ideally are ready to express their apologies. Or it's permanent, because some people (understandably, in some cases) cannot maintain their equilibrium over certain topics.


Obviously, this requires moderators to exercise their discretion potentially in the absence of an actual report and to routinely monitor threads, which I understand may be an impracticality on a number of levels.


I just thought I'd throw it out there as food for thought. 

 

[fattiest fat cat]

the problem with something like that is that it allows people to abuse that power very easily.  like, it allows user to say "i personally think you're being irrational about this, so im just going to ban you from the thread."


plus the moderation team already seems overwhelmed, and this system would require them to keep an even more watchful eye, which i doubt they're capable of.

 

[Grey]

the problem with something like that is that it allows people to abuse that power very easily.  like, it allows user to say "i personally think you're being irrational about this, so im just going to ban you from the thread."


plus the moderation team already seems overwhelmed, and this system would require them to keep an even more watchful eye, which i doubt they're capable of.

I personally don't believe the site's staff are likely to abuse such a power, but it's a reasonable concern. 


And yeah, putting more work on the mods is not necessarily workable - I did note that in the OP. I'd volunteer to do it, but I'm ill-suited for staff positions generally and specifically in this case I'd understand not being trusted with the responsibility.

 

[cupidcreep]

the problem with something like that is that it allows people to abuse that power very easily.  like, it allows user to say "i personally think you're being irrational about this, so im just going to ban you from the thread."

The whole staff team discusses reports that users have sent in- it isn't just one person making all of the descisisions. It wouldn't be like this at all and we would think about things before banning someone from a thread straight away.


@Grey


This, in my opinion, is a good idea as in some cases it is only a certain user causing arguments or issues in a thread. We will take your suggestion into consideration and discuss it  thanks.

 

[Inner Power]

I actually like this idea, a lot.

 

[Shireling]

Yes, but sometimes the point of a thread is argument and, unfortunately, sometimes arguments are not all that nice. While the idea seems admirable, its really a Trojan horse for censorship. 

 

[fattiest fat cat]

The whole staff team discusses reports that users have sent in- it isn't just one person making all of the descisisions. It wouldn't be like this at all and we would think about things before banning someone from a thread straight away.


@Grey


This, in my opinion, is a good idea as in some cases it is only a certain user causing arguments or issues in a thread. We will take your suggestion into consideration and discuss it  thanks.

Unless I misundertood, the idea is that the user would have the power to ban someone temporarily from their thread without approval from a moderator, which means you folks would have to work extra hard making sure no one was abusing this power (which they would).


Of course I understand multiple people look at a report.  I also know that one of my friends had their thread reported for off-site linking when there was none, which I only know because I guess multiple people looked at it and said it was a valid report, and she got in trouble for something she hadn't done, and is now going through the steps to clarify what is going on.  I've also had a thread moved when I asked for one post to be deleted because the mod felt it was a superior option to my request, and I then had to ask them to move it back.


So clearly, you folks already have a lot on your plate, and I'm not sure adding the task of making sure people aren't censoring each other to that plate is a great one.

 

[Enuky]

I honestly feel the staff is not consistent enough for this to be fair.


It would always be the little people being kicked out. Whoever the most disagree with. 

 

[Enuky]

So clearly, you folks already have a lot on your plate, and I'm not sure adding the task of making sure people aren't censoring each other to that plate is a great one.

Second. 


If you think about it this idea isn't very different from the current system. Currently, staff gets complete discretion when they "shut down" a topic. I think ultimately this is more fair because a system that yanks individuals will also be very hurtful and make people feel very excluded. At least in the current scenario everyone is treated evenly. The staff doesn't pick and choose who is right and wrong. 


The "controversial" topics this thread is primarily addressing usually relate back to peoples beliefs. With this system, the staff will be showing support for some beliefs while rejecting others. It would no longer be an impartial staff.

 

[Grey]

Unless I misundertood, the idea is that the user would have the power to ban someone temporarily from their thread without approval from a moderator, which means you folks would have to work extra hard making sure no one was abusing this power (which they would).

Oh, man, no - I meant mods can ban people from specific threads instead of having to shut down the thread. You're absolutely right that it'd get abused by regular users.

 

[The Mechanist]

I'd say let's have it cuz time and time again I've seen the same person antagonizing others, and the worst part is they're not doing it to actually defend their argument, they're doing it just to rile people up 

 

[Enuky]

I do not support the idea of staff no longer remaining impartial. I just can't. That could very easily cause rpn to become exclusive of others. It's not the staff's job to police individual beliefs, and that's essentially what you're asking for. It is the staff's job to ensure everyone feels they are included and treated fairly. If a person is acting out of line a warning will suffice. "Banning" people from threads is just an all around ugly can of worms to get into...

 

[Trombone Geek]

It would probably ruin a bit of chance for discussion because anyone who was especially touchy might ban someone just for speaking their mind, or for some other stupid reason. There's no guarantee it would be used fairly site-wide; if there was, then it'd be great, but some people on here aren't the best sort of people.

 

[Enuky]

Imagine how much drama it would cause if instead of simply ending heated discussions the staff was.... choosing sides?


Because I imagine that would cause a whole bunch of really upset users whenever this is taking place. 

 

[Grey]

I do not support the idea of staff no longer remaining impartial. I just can't. That could very easily cause rpn to become exclusive of others. It's not the staff's job to police individual beliefs, and that's essentially what you're asking for. It is the staff's job to ensure everyone feels they are included and treated fairly. If a person is acting out of line a warning will suffice. "Banning" people from threads is just an all around ugly can of worms to get into...

The purpose of a thread ban is thus:


1. Five users are politely sharing and discussing their beliefs.


2. Two users disagree violently and start insulting each other.


3. The angry users are banned from one thread for 24 hours so they can calm down.


4. The once-angry users come back, apologize to each other, and rejoin the conversation.


5. One of the once-angry users becomes openly hostile, then starts insulting again - it could be argued they have been provoked by the content of the thread, so punishing them in the usual fashion might be excessive, so instead they are just banned from that one thread where they keep losing their cool and attacking people. Hell, if they're clearly being provoked maybe the provocateur is kicked out of the thread for trolling, but still free to use the rest of the site.


I'm not suggesting staff ban people for disagreeing with someone. I'm actually advocating for easier discussion, rather than interesting threads getting shut down just because someone can't hide their white supremacist leanings.

 

[Enuky]

If political posts are what inspired this, you have already proven my point lol. This is glorified censorship. 


If "white supremacy" is truly going on around here you can certainly report it and the staff would be quick to take action. I imagine the user responsible would also be in trouble. 


Bottom line, if a user is being abusive they should be reported. If a discussion has become abusive it should be shut down. 

 

[Flooffy]

Expressing beliefs is one thing. Insulting or ridiculing someone because they have a different idea is another. The staff would not side with someone in that case, just disable a person that is being disrespectful and hurtful. 


The rules clearly say:


1. Respect - Users are expected to respect all other users. Users may not attack, demean, or insult other users of RpNation. This includes staff members.

 

[Little gasmask]

I disagree because I think this might bite me in the future when I disagree with someone ill just get reported banned etc...

 

[Enuky]

I disagree because I think this might bite me in the future when I disagree with someone ill just get reported banned etc...

Agreed. and Im very nervous now about this and wish staff would reply soon with an update. 

 

[Grey]

I disagree because I think this might bite me in the future when I disagree with someone ill just get reported banned etc...

1. You disagree with someone.


2. They report you.


3. The staff assesses the report, and sees all you did was disagree.


4. Nothing happens to you.


If you're afraid of being punished for disagreeing with someone, protip: you could be banned for that right now if it was actually going to happen!


It's almost as if the people most opposed to this idea know they're likely to be affected by it. I wonder why that is. I mean, if you'e not breaking the rules you have nothing to fear, right?

 

[Flooffy]

1. You disagree with someone.


2. They report you.


3. The staff assesses the report, and sees all you did was disagree.


4. Nothing happens to you.


If you're afraid of being punished for disagreeing with someone, protip: you could be banned for that right now if it was actually going to happen!


It's almost as if the people most opposed to this idea know they're likely to be affected by it. I wonder why that is. I mean, if you'e not breaking the rules you have nothing to fear, right?

As I said, expressing beliefs is not something that will ban you; being disrespectful about it will.


(aka, ^what he said)

 

[Enuky]

It's almost as if the people most opposed to this idea know they're likely to be affected by it. I wonder why that is. I mean, if you'e not breaking the rules you have nothing to fear, right?

Making hurtful suggestions about people is abuse... @sunkissed


The person who suggested this was clearly motivated by their own interests. It's all over this post now.


Ya know I haven't posted in the forums in a long time, and the reason I had to stop was because of people treating me like this. This "suggestion" would make it much worse. You clearly can see I did not start this or say anything to be called out. 


Please. Please. Please. Do not encourage abuse by adopting this suggestion. 

 

[Dusky]

Let me make some things very clear.


Under no circumstances will Staff discriminate against people they disagree with.



Staff makes decisions and disciplines people because that is their job.


In no way is moderating content an instance of abuse. If you receive a warning, it is because you broke a rule. We will even specifically tell you which rule you broke, and how.


In the unlikely event that you are treated unfairly, you can create a Support Ticket for the admins to look at. That's the entire reason we have that feature.


Staff is held accountable for their actions.

 

[Alexandra]

Gosh, this would be useful; I've seen far too many interesting threads shut down because of howler monkeys.

 

[Daisie]

I agree with @Grey on this one. Sometimes there's a perfectly good conversation happening, and people start arguing. It's not any of the other people's fault, and it really sucks when the thread is closed down, because there were some good thoughts or something they wanted to finish. They were having a good time. Instead of muting the entire thread, I think it'd be much more efficient to just ban the people causing the ruckus in the first place. Even if only temporarily.


The power isn't going to be abused because it's in the hands of the moderators. If they abused the power, they'd probably be fired. Or at least talked to seriously. It would not be used for simple disagreements, only serious disruptive behavior.


And besides, if the moderators were going to abuse this power, they'd already be abusing the power they had. I have confidence that they're capable people, because they've proven themselves already.


So either way, you shouldn't be worried. You won't be targeted unless you plan on breaking the rules, and being disruptive. And if you are wrongly accused, send in a support ticket. You'll talk to someone.


And even if the site does eventually go downhill (Worst case scenario), it's really not the end of the world. Sure, it may suck at the time, but there are plenty other things to worry about irl.


Hope I made a few points, and don't end up looking like a babbling idiot. XD