Imatron's secrecy policy

[DEATH PANDA]

Imatron never announces a ban, leaving us in the dark if someone has been banned or not, and if he bans someone on the basis of "numerous complaints by people", he never mentions the names of the people who whined.

Should he stop it, or should he continue?

Reasons he should:
-Announcing bans will warn us to stop messing about
-We won't have to be left guessing when he mentions what they did without mentioning their names.

Reasons he shouldn't:
-If he mentions the names of the whiners, they will get their rears kicked and sent running away from MoD crying, especially if the member they whined to have banhammered was popular (in which case they should probably have shut their yaps, or Imatron should have not listened to their whining).

I say he should stop it already. F*** this policy of keeping whiners and b& people anonymous.

[Luke]

I agree with you on a couple parts but there are also things that I must address.

When someone is banned it would be nice if there was a notification so that we will not be confused when that person hasn't posted for a long time. However, I don't think there needs to be a long explanation as to the reason why the person was banned. Sure, it might be a good idea to give a general idea as to what rules the person was breaking and why they needed to be booted, but if specific examples are referenced it might stir up anger and frustration that will only lead to more rules being broken by members who are in disagreement.

Whining and reporting are two very different things. If the accused member was blatantly breaking forum guidelines then an other member has every right to report them. This is not an example of whining. The term "whining" would most likely be used when a person reports another member simply because they disagree with what that person says and stands for.
In short, reporting is when someone rightfully informs an admin or moderator because of misbehavior, and whining is when a member wants to get back at another member because they have taken personal offence to what that member did even though they did not break the rules.

[PREDATOR]

No he should not. His site his rules.

[Monasti]

Exactly.

But i think it would be a good idea to say who is banned, but not what for. It would get rid of a lot of confusion.

[Panakalego]

But think about it, wouldn't it make more sense to know why instead of who? If we know why, at least we can narrow it down to whoever might have done it. Besides knowing why gives more of a message then who, anyway.

[carbunicle]

The 'why' is already known. Violation of the board rules. If it's simply by whim, that would be cause for complaint. But to who?
The 'who' might be a source of embarrassment to the person banned. Who wants an admin who does that?
The question might be better framed as "Is it anybody's business other than the banned and the admin?"
"Sending a message" assumes a set of users who need to be controlled rather than encouraged. That is not a very happy worldview.

[feliznavidad]

Great success so far, Sonar. Now everyone, CAPITALISE! Not like that.

[Luke]

Jan 10, 2009 13:00:55 GMT -5 carbunicle said:

The 'why' is already known. Violation of the board rules. If it's simply by whim, that would be cause for complaint. But to who?
The 'who' might be a source of embarrassment to the person banned. Who wants an admin who does that?
The question might be better framed as "Is it anybody's business other than the banned and the admin?"
"Sending a message" assumes a set of users who need to be controlled rather than encouraged. That is not a very happy worldview.

The embarrassment factor doesn't really come into place, because everyone is obviously going to find out eventually.

[Timekeeper]

Jan 10, 2009 13:00:55 GMT -5 carbunicle said:

The 'why' is already known. Violation of the board rules. If it's simply by whim, that would be cause for complaint. But to who?
The 'who' might be a source of embarrassment to the person banned. Who wants an admin who does that?
The question might be better framed as "Is it anybody's business other than the banned and the admin?"
"Sending a message" assumes a set of users who need to be controlled rather than encouraged. That is not a very happy worldview.

The 'why' rule was broken when Aegis was banned for outing a staff member on something questionable.

It wouldn't be embarrassing them, because they were BANNED.

[Panakalego]

Banishmenyt is embarrassing, because sometimes they're allowed to come back.

[Luke]

We still should know so that way there won't be questions thrown around in a lot of the forums.

[Panakalego]

Yeah, let's say I got banned (I don't plan on it, but it's an example): First I'd probably get a very reprimanding message from Immy or Nate. Then everytime I got on just to see what's going on here, I'd keep seeing: "Why'd he get banned again?" And then users would post the reason all the time. I'd probably never come back.

[Luke]

But like I said people are going to find out eventually anyway. It would be much better to tell who got banned immediately so the confusion could be cleared up then and there. However, if the members find out on their own then the arguing will be much worse, because instead of just complaining about the reasons why the person was banned they will also be angry as to why it was being "covered up."

[Panakalego]

I thought I said that... >_<

[Luke]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just wanted to give a contrasting example so we can know the differences if each scenario was to happen.

[Panakalego]

The word "but" sorta threw me off. But we agree! Go AGREEMENT!

[DEIMOS]

>.< RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAGE!!!!!!! FIGHT DA PAWA!!! LET US KNOW NOT ONLY who WAS BANNED, BUT why THEY WERE BANNED!!!

[Specceh]

I think it is the mark of a good moderator to let the public know when and why someone is banned, and who that person is. It's rude to keep us in the dark.

[Monasti]

Yes, but if a moderator banned someone, and told everyone why, they might then get criticism from certain members on the reason that they banned the banee, such as people saying that what the banee did wasn't that bad, let them back on. The moderator may then get continually harassed by posts like these.

A good idea is to say WHO got banned, but NOT WHY, because the above may happen. Anyway, it is Immys choice, its his site, his rules. To be honest, if i was banned i wouldn't want people to know why.


Edit: Wow, i think that is the longest proper post i have ever made...

[DEATH PANDA]

I think people have a right to know who's banned and why. Even if it leads to people constantly going "wait, why was he banned again?" and then posting the reason again and again like copypasta. Why? Because they WILL eventually more or less forget said member and stop asking.

But there should be reasons given for bans. If you ask me, the policy on nMoD of "YOU GOT BANED FOR PHAILING HARD" is better than "IT'S A SECRET TO EVERYBODY".

And do not keep people who complained a secret either. Because without names, the phrase "numerous complaints" might as well be "complaints from my grandparents, the gnomes living in my pants, and the red monster in my toilet who's waiting to come out at night and eat my skin oh my god AAAAAAAAAH.", or "GOOD EVENING LITTLE WORM I AM YOUR RULER, WHATEVER I SAY GOES! I AM NEVER WRONG! I AM- OUCH! SOMETHING RED AND SMELLY IS EATING MY SKIN"

[Madaraki]

Okay, speaking as someone who's been doing admin/mod work on a fair number of forums for about four years now...

Regarding the overall policy: Ick. Bans/reasons for banning shouldn't be kept secret. The sooner everything's cleared up and explained, the sooner everyone can move on with their lives. Obviously if a "So do you agree with the reasons?" discussion comes up, it can be looked at and handled appropriately (and no, "appropriately" doesn't necessarily mean "lock the thread"). I saw one case a few years ago where someone was banned, no supported reasons given or anything, and the entire affair turned into a cloak-and-dagger myth for about two years with blame being thrown at everyone. It was not pleasant.

Regarding "His site his rules": That's no excuse/reason for anything. It may be the admin's creation, but the bottom line is that a site's real status and quality comes from the members who make up its population. That doesn't mean I support anarchy and heck-with-rules, but speaking as an admin/mod of several sites, normal members are just as important to a forum as that forum's staff. People have a right to know what goes on.

Regarding potential criticism of staff members who carry out suspensions/bans: Neither one of those actions is to be used frivolously anyway. All alternatives should be exhausted first, and if that's carried out appropriately and cleanly, there shouldn't be much of a question as to "why" by the end of it (Speaking from experience, it also helps things if you consult the ban with the other staff members/unbiased reliable members to essentially build an unbiased case for the reason first).

[MercenaryXero]

Yamamura is awesome.

[Luke]

Good job Yamamura. The font also gave a +1 to the awesomeness of that post.

[Panakalego]

Ditto, Dude.