Banned Members

Following on from Jon's series of polls regarding the forums and moderation, we've identified a number of areas to be re-evaluated and hopefully improved. One of these areas, which has been the cause of some confusion in the past, has been the policy of dealing with banned members.

We've never had any official line on the treatment of members that have been permanently banned. This was perhaps because it was assumed that those that had been banned would not wish or attempt to rejoin the website. Clearly this hasn't always been the case - often the circumstances vary - sometimes it's clear cut, other times it's borderline. Sometimes it's for a single, albeit severe, breach of the site guidelines, other times it's been a number of less severe but re-occurring breaches.

All the same, I think everyone would agree, we need a well defined policy over whether previously banned members may ever be allowed back on the website.

Having discussed it with the other moderators, it's felt that in a narrow set of circumstances, banned members may be allowed back. But only when various conditions have been met, namely the following:

1. Apology to the person(s) who was on the receiving end of the behaviour that led to the ban (as is often the case).
2. Willingness by the aggrieved member(s) to permit their return (unless the aggrieved is no longer on the site, in which case the decision would be taken by the t2w team).
3. Genuine commitment not to repeat the behaviour that led to the ban.

Plus, T2W admin will always have a right of refusal where reinstatment is deemed not to be in the best interests of the site.

Otherwise in no circumstances will a previously banned member be allowed to rejoin the website. Hence, banned members will not be permitted to simply re-register and continue posting. Of course, it's not always easy to identify when someone has re-registered. But if it's beyond reasonable doubt that this has occurred then the moderators will be compelled to ban them with immediate effect - even when there has been no further breaches of the site guidelines.

Furthermore, in future, we will maintain a thread that lists any bans that do occur, detailing the reasons why they were banned. This is to ensure there is utmost clarity and transparency over any such decision made. I should emphasise that banning IS a last resort - and is never a decision taken lightly - members can expect plenty of warning that their behaviour is in breach of our site guidelines, and that if continued could potentially lead to a permanent ban. Of course in severe cases, or when for example, someone has registered to merely spam the boards, we reserve the right to take immediate action to ban that member.

The actual warning of members is detailed in the site guidelines, but is currently being reviewed - and it is expected that a more robust, clear and consistent approach will be adopted shortly. More details to follow.

I hope this also applies to all previously banned members and not from now on?

That's correct - the policy will be applied retrospectively. So previously banned members have a set of conditions which they can meet in order to rejoin, and existing members using the website who have previously been banned, must now meet these conditions in order to remain on board.

I should also add that any banned member permitted to return would naturally be under close scrutiny for a period following their return. Once the warning process is better defined, this can be accomodated within whatever framework we decide to have. So, for example, if we were to go down the route of having a yellow card, red card system in place, then that member would initially be on a yellow card, or equivalent, until sufficient period of time passed to acknowledge their commitment to reform.

May I suggest publishing a list of potential "parolees" so that those who consider themselves "aggrieved" will have an opportunity to comment before the banned member is reinstated?

I think it should be an extremely rare occurence for banned members to be allowed back

and T2W should be especially tough on banned members coming back under different names. They should be immediately stopped from posting.

I think people who attempt to rejoin under different name should never be allowed to be 'unbanned' under any circumstances, it is clear from the fact they keep trying to sneak in that they cannot be trusted and any apology is completely hollow and just another way of getting back on the forums again

Once we have a system in place to track who's been banned and why, it will be easy to see who the aggrieved are. That might just be a thread, or something more sophisticated. I should point out though, that the mere fact that certain members didn't 'get on' with the person banned - is not in itself sufficient to give them 'aggrevied' status, not unless the reasons for the ban materially involved those people. Bascially I would apply the 'common sense' approach to determine who that is.

In terms of giving the aggrieved an opportunity to publically comment on the reinstatement, and equally for the banned member to publically apologise - this perhaps is best left for the aggrieved to decide how they wish to handle it.

Something that shouldn't be overlooked in this whole process, is that if someone is banned then in the majority of cases that will be the end of the matter. There are no guarantees that members will ever be allowed back in (not unless we choose to have some arbitrary time period, say a year or two - but this is a separate issue for consideration) - unless they can resolve the reasons for why they were banned. I think this is an important point, there needs to be some form of reconcillation otherwise it causes the agrieved further distress and breeds discontentment on the boards. My advice is, don't get banned in the first place!

Racer, that's entirely the point. Unless the aggrieved member/s grant them a pardon - then there's no coming back. Re-registering under a different nick is no way to circumvent this requirement - and is indeed a breach in itself of the guidelines - members must only ever have one registration.

Sharky said:

Once we have a system in place to track who's been banned and why, it will be easy to see who the aggrieved are.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, particularly with regard to PMs. I'm thinking primarily of the individual who expressed such glee at the collapse of the World Trade Center and the deaths of thousands of people and his regret that I was not among them. He was eventually banned, though it took quite some time, and if he were to reapply, I'd like to be notified and have the opportunity to comment.

--Db

Well it's important that any such pms or posts are brought to the immediate attention of the moderators. We'll be adding a 'Report PM' facility shortly. I'm not aware of the circumstances of that comment, but such a dispicable thing should warrant a ban in itself. So, certainly if the site guidelines and warning procedures were being applied properly and consistently then you would have been an 'aggrieved' member and therefore your permission would have to be sought before they could return.

Sharky said:

Well it's important that any such pms or posts are brought to the immediate attention of the moderators. We'll be adding a 'Report PM' facility shortly. I'm not aware of the circumstances of that comment, but such a dispicable thing should warrant a ban in itself. So, certainly if the site guidelines and warning procedures were being applied properly and consistently then you would have been an 'aggrieved' member and therefore your permission would have to be sought before they could return.

Click to expand...

An excellent idea, people should not be allowed to think they can get away with offensive behaviour by PM

I brought it to the attention of the moderators, but this is old business by now and I've long deleted all that. However, the Report PM idea is a good one, particularly if the report makes its way through the proper channels. If you are not aware of this particular situation, perhaps you could discuss with the moderators the specifics of which complaints should be forwarded to you, e.g., threats. You can't be expected to review every complaint, but clearly there are at least some which warrant your attention.

And if any of this gets you down, keep in mind that at least you don't have moderators posting members' addresses and phone numbers, as has happened on other sites, enabling those with grievances to send stuff to the targets through the mail, phone them, come to their homes.

dbphoenix said:

I'm thinking primarily of the individual who expressed such glee at the collapse of the World Trade Center and the deaths of thousands of people and his regret that I was not among them. --Db

Click to expand...

Db, I've taken umbrage in the past at some of your comments and confess to directing a few negative thoughts in your direction, but the quote above is truly shocking and totally unacceptable. Anyone making comments along these lines by whatever means should, IMO, be banned instantly and permanently and never be afforded the opportunity to re-join the site. I can't get over the idea that anyone would articulate something so vitriolic, even if it was meant as a joke, albeit in exceptionally poor taste.
Tim.

As I said, it's old news. But you'll understand why I'm not moved by the "sticks and stones" argument.

I guess that general irritability, pomposity, and self-righteousness won't be a reason for banning?

Well to share my experience too about receiving a PM attack, I only ever received one and you'll never guess who it came from. Well a little while back it came from Mr Marcus himself ..

" receiving bottled it mate.....
.....lost face now havnt you..more repest in future required."

See, I'm quite fond of half-literacy, because it does brighten things up when things are a bit dull. I particularly liked 'repest ' because this is how language develops, doesn't it . You know a particular malapropism can be become quite popular, can't it? And now the thing is I've been able to share that little experience.

...wow...thats abusive...we had an argument...started by your rudeness to certain respested :cheesy: board members.....dealt with....stop trying to cause trouble..its so obvious you enjoy this kind of thing...the site is disrupted by the same ole few.what exactly are you trying to achieve? .the same names always come up ..over and over.
just take note of the smilies which end all your posts...the wind ups and rudeness are just one big laugh arnt they.....oh dear.

fudgestain said:

Well to share my experience too about receiving a PM attack, I only ever received one and you'll never guess who it came from. Well a little while back it came from Mr Marcus himself ..

" receiving bottled it mate.....
.....lost face now havnt you..more repest in future required."

See, I'm quite fond of half-literacy, because it does brighten things up when things are a bit dull. I particularly liked 'repest ' because this is how language develops, doesn't it . You know a particular malapropism can be become quite popular, can't it? And now the thing is I've been able to share that little experience.

Click to expand...

I remember several posts on threads by a particular person and they weren't from mr marcus that were removed

...mmm...dont know how to merge posts ...sorry mods.

ok FS....its christmas ..season of good will and all that....were having a west london meet next week,...everyone is more than welcome...bit of a curry bash...time to move forward.....this other stuff is not what t2w is really about.....what say you.come on down...hey if you manage to eat a hotter curry than me then the beers and curry are on me for the night.cheers mark j[/QUOTE]

mr.marcus said:

...wow...thats abusive...we had an argument....dealt with....stop trying to cause trouble..its so obvious you enjoy this kind of thing.....give it a rest mate.the site is disrupted by the same ole few.what exactly are you trying to achieve? .the same names always come up ..over and over.
just take note of the smilies which end all your posts...the wind ups and rudeness are just one big laugh arnt they.....oh dear.

Click to expand...

Only because this thread had already quoted PM attacks did I also quote the one I experienced.