Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Warning/Ban Messages
  • Subject: Warning/Ban Messages
Subject: Warning/Ban Messages

Take a step back with me and enjoy a taste of the bittersweet that is our current generation.

I enjoy Battlefield and Call of Duty, and Gears of War.

20 years old, manager of my family's business, aspiring officer of the law.

I love anything political.

This is a perfectly fair point and I think it would only benefit the community at large.

  • 07.12.2011 11:23 AM PDT

Rock Chalk Real Talk
Minnesotan, currently going to school at KU.


@Geegs30

I don't think a warning should affect a users trust rating. If it's something you haven't been warned/banned for before, and it's not a major infraction, you ought to get a warning about it. Repeat the behavior and be prepared to see a ban come your way.

I'd be curious to see the average numbers for 3 day bans and warnings given out each week.

Also, I agree that mods could take the time to be a bit more descriptive in their messages. It would probably actually save them time because the user will be more informed and less likely to get banned again.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 11:38 AM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 11:34 AM PDT

@Helveck

Just an Average Joe...

You may right in some manner...

But if I go into a bunch of topics, and post well enough in regards to maintaining focus on the topic, but then sidetrack somewhere else and as a result I'm banned... Well I'd hope I'd be intelligent enough to put a simple 2 and 2 together.

I'd assume the Moderator in question may have felt it was a simple enough equation for the Member to put together and to realize where their fault lay.

  • 07.12.2011 11:36 AM PDT

GT: j0sh291
"Gentlemen. I be placed at a bewilderment. There I were, resting, when I hear a frightful row on deck. What be that first mate?"
-"Mutiny. And what fate befalls mutineers? I think we know the answer to that, don't we? Mutineers...HANG!!!"

Twitter:@j0sh291
Follower of Christ!

][-][ //-\\ ][_ ((_))

Perhaps for them is very annoying to write why? and that's why they ask for more info as for why he/she was warned/banned by PM's.

  • 07.12.2011 11:41 AM PDT

Now, in the quantum moment before the closure, when all become one. One moment left. One point of space and time.

I know who you are.

You are Destiny.

Posted by: Jose291
Perhaps for them is very annoying to write why?
Their job is to enforce the rules which requires well-written ban/warning messages, and not to get annoyed. If a mod is annoyed by doing the simplest of task then they should resign since bans/warnings are an important part of the job.

  • 07.12.2011 11:52 AM PDT

The Stig is dead to me
-Carrick


Posted by: acnboy34
Posted by: Jose291
Perhaps for them is very annoying to write why?
Their job is to enforce the rules which requires well-written ban/warning messages, and not to get annoyed. If a mod is annoyed by doing the simplest of task then they should resign since bans/warnings are an important part of the job.


there's nothing to stop them creating categorised template messages that they can just edit a bit...

[Edited on 07.12.2011 12:12 PM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 12:12 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

Yo Halo53, I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best bungie.net profiles of all time. OF ALL TIME!

Alright, I've just finally caught up on this whole thread... but I know by the time I post this I'll be a dozen posts behind

Warnings

On this issue of warnings, Skibur's right that they should not act a punishment. A warning is your parent, your teacher, or a police officer saying "Hey, cut that out before I punish you." When you proceed to continue said behavior, then you get punished because the teacher, parent, or officer now knows that you know you're doing something wrong, but you insist on doing it anyway.

The whole purpose of warning is to let someone know that what they're doing is wrong, and to educate them so they do not duplicate the mistake. A moderator taking an extra 30 seconds to type out an extra sentence or two might go a long way to helping setting a user in the right direction.

However, the issue about the effect it has on the title system is a little irrelevant. The warning does not ban the user, which is the only real punishment since as a member of this community its assumed you want to continue contributing to the community, so not being able to is a punishment itself. You can look at it this way, an elementary school teacher might have some sort of gold star sticker system where they reward children for good behavior. While a student may never have been punished by having their parents called, if they've been warned a couple times they are far less likely to get the gold star.

Intent

I think it is very important to take intent into account, and more often than not a person should be given the benefit of the doubt. While there certainly are rotten eggs on this site who purposely break rules, the majority of users here continue to come back because of either a love for Bungie or a love for the community itself. You're only here because you choose to be, no one forces you to log into this site.

I'll use myself as an example. The one time I was banned, it was for being off-topic. There was a lengthy thread that I made 2 or 3 posts in, and after clarifying with the moderator, I was told I was banned because none of my posts answered the question of the original OP, therefore were not on topic, and therefore deserved a 3 day ban.

Now if a Moderator interprets the rules like that, there is nothing I can do but accept the banning.

However, I've been a member of this site for many years. I had never at any level been given any kind of warning or ban before that. Not once have I ever derailed a thread, attacked a user, or done anything that would indicate that I was posting fully knowing that someone would perceive what I was doing was wrong, yet I was banned as well. The honest truth is I did not think I was violating the rules, and my off-topic posts were merely quips and minor jokes about the situation at hand. As skibur previously mentioned, moderators do this all the time but it is let off the hook because you know they mean no harm. I am not saying moderators should be super serious and every single post has to directly relate to the immediate topic on hand, but I am saying users should be given the benefit of the doubt because just like moderators, most people here are well-intentioned users here for entertainment just trying to get a laugh or add to a conversation for the sole purpose of contributing to the community.

Time and time again I see moderators saying to members "We're fans just like you, don't view us like Bungie Employees" and I agree with this sentiment. However, sometimes moderators need to "view us as fans just like you." Its not often and it's not everyone, but to say I should have known better... I honestly didnt. And the reason for that is I had seen similar behavior from others and even exhibited similar behavior before never getting anything such as a "knock that off" so why would I think what I was doing was wrong?

But at the end of the day it didn't bug me as much as it might other people, but that's because I don't necessarily post here everyday on the one hand, and on the other I've been here long enough that I know I'm coming back... and that brings me to my next point...

Bans do more good than bad

Skibur brought up this point too, and I think it is absolutely something worth discussing. Bans can also act as a deterrent that keep well-intended but poorly-educated individuals from becoming contributing members of the community because they were scared away before they realized why. The purpose of a ban really is simply this: It either acts as a way to physically remove a member from the community because the community is a worse-off place for having them there (a way to cut down on the amount of spam/flaming on the forum by taking it out at the source) or to punish a member of the community by letting them think about their actions, realize if they continue that pattern of behavior they will be permanently banned, and come back having learned something that they couldn't have learned via any other punishment/interaction.

Back to my case, as I'm trying to stick to the only one I have all the facts on.

Were the forums a better off place because I was gone? Or did the ban educate me in a way that couldn't have happened with a warning?

If it was believed that the forums were a better off place without me having access to them, I'm sure somebody would have let me know it by now. As for the 2nd point... no, not at all. If a moderator either would have sent me a PM or if I was simply let off with a warning that said "Hey, what you were doing in that thread is not on-topic, cut that out" ... well then I simply would have. What does the 3 day break from the forums tell me that couldn't have been communicated any other way?

Now I'm not saying give members with a cleaner track record complete free reign, or that there should be an instance where someone got off of a ban specifically because they've been around, but I'm simply saying if there is any doubt as to whether or not you should ban someone who knows what they're doing and doesn't have a pattern of behavior of intentionally trying to push the envelope, then they should get the benefit of that doubt. If you tell them "hey, I know you didn't mean anything by it but nevertheless, don't continue that pattern of behavior" and they persist, then by all means the banning is deserved,

Listen, I understand the moderators are not school teachers and they should not have to sit here and hand-hold every single member, but the bottom line is the 30 second difference between just pressing the ban button and typing a short explanation versus pressing the warn button and typing an extra couple of sentences might do more good than you'd think. When to do which is of course a case-by-case basis that ultimately requires the human judgment of the moderators which can lead to inconsistencies of course which is why sometimes giving members a heads up before jumping to action can lead to a little bit more consistency from both sides. Really when you have X number of moderators, SOMEONE has to be the most "strict" or "least lenient" of the bunch so these inconsistencies occur. I'm not saying each moderator should necessarily change their interpretation of the rules because of this, I'm just saying taking intent into consideration and realizing you can better the forums without using the ban button is something that should be recognized.

It seems like anytime there is some sort of confrontation/disagreement that the initial response is "troll?" and not that there is simply an impersonal difference in opinions.

Oh, and brevity is the soul of wit or something ;-)

  • 07.12.2011 12:15 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

Yo Halo53, I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best bungie.net profiles of all time. OF ALL TIME!


Posted by: Recon Number 54
The moderator has a similar thought process and evaluation and I can assure you, just like most members are well intentioned, no moderator is gleefully rubbing their hands together wondering whose day they can ruin next.


Exactly, which is something everyone needs to take into account. When the issue I previously mentioned about my own banning occurred, I realized that the moderator in question was not trying to kick me off the forums because of a personal issue, he genuinely believed what I had done was a violation of the rules. As it is his position to make these judgments and not mine, I respectfully disagreed with him and let the issue go. However, my issue was more on the punishment than the violation. As you said Recon, moderators should believe most members to be well intentioned but the members should reciprocate as well. If everyone is well intentioned yet there is still a problem, I believe a more open dialogue should occur when issues arise, which is why a moderator should be more likely to warn or PM a member with an explanation as to why they were wrong.

If a moderator bans a member and they believe the member is well intentioned and the ban message is simply 2 words long, how does that clarify anything? They did something they thought was within the rules and they're gone for it without really knowing why.

  • 07.12.2011 12:24 PM PDT

Posted by: aBlueBookshelf
Goat was famous. Irie was infamous. Gh0st was FaMaS.

SK got banned again? Ouch.

  • 07.12.2011 1:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: x Foman123 x
All you're doing is creating a hypothetical example and pretending it's a real one as a way to make whatever point you're trying to make. But doing so is a disingenuous way to argue and proves nothing at all.
Arguing based on a hypothetical is disingenuous? The -blam!- are you on. Arguing based on a hypothetical is the most useful way to argue and is absolutely the only way to prove anythingg.

Posted by: Halo53
he genuinely believed what I had done was a violation of the rules.
Wait, so you actually know what "Spam; off-topic posts creating to thread derailment." means? Well, spill it out son because 40+ private messages later to a spread of individuals and I've still not a clue.


Also, that reminds me. Can we please oh please have the specific post that the moderator took action against included with the ban message? You've no idea how irritating it is to receive a message that links to a page containing several of your posts, and the most vague of ban reasons telling you what you apparently did wrong, with no actual reference to what you posted and what was actually wrong with it.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 2:09 PM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 1:59 PM PDT

Now selling HHDDVVDDBVDs. HD DVDs, but with better marketing.


Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: x Foman123 x
//pretending it's a real one//


That part is key. Skibur was using a hypothetical situation as evidence of a real occurrence.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 2:04 PM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 2:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Viva la Vache
That part is key. Skibur was using a hypothetical situation as evidence of a real occurrence.
If skibur's hypothetical had no connection to reality, then so be it, but that doesn't change the correctness of his argument, nor does it change the fact we've all seen dozens of instances of what he was talking about. Trying to tie in the hypothetical we're talking about with a real example, even mistakenly, is far from disingenuous, and in fact calling it disingenuous is a perfect example of the malicious action some have alluded to in this thread.

He wasn't being disingenuous, he was trying to flesh out a hypothetical argument into reality given the information available to him. Were he intentionally misrepresenting the reality, then he'd be being disingenuous, but as Foman so haughtily pointed out, we mere peons are NEVER ALLOWED TO KNOW what goes on atop that ol' ivory tower, so he quite clearly was not being disingenuous.

It's that difference between intentional, malicious mis-posting and honest mistakes in good faith that huge tracts of this thread have been about.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 2:22 PM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 2:13 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Member
  • gamertag: smyf
  • user homepage:

If I hypothetically argue a disingenuous post will it haughtily misrepresent the reality?

  • 07.12.2011 2:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Smyf
If I hypothetically argue a disingenuous post will it haughtily misrepresent the reality?
Theoretically.

  • 07.12.2011 2:21 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

Yo Halo53, I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best bungie.net profiles of all time. OF ALL TIME!


Posted by: elmicker
Posted by: Halo53
he genuinely believed what I had done was a violation of the rules.
Wait, so you actually know what "Spam; off-topic posts creating to thread derailment." means? Well, spill it out son because 40+ private messages later to a spread of individuals and I've still not a clue.


As I stated, I disagreed with it, but the issue here isn't "are the moderators misinterpreting the rules?" but its "should the moderators be more explanatory with their actions?" If more explanation was initially given at that time, you wouldn't be in the dark about what it meant, or at least what the moderator interpreted it to mean.

  • 07.12.2011 2:24 PM PDT

Wake me, when you need me.

Wait... Wasn't Skibur a ninja? I really need to get back in the loop...

  • 07.12.2011 2:35 PM PDT

GROSSMAN: Do you think of the Culture as a utopia? Would you live in it, if you could?

BANKS: Good grief yes, to both! What's not to like? ...Well, unless you're actually a fascist or a power junkie or sincerely believe that money rather than happiness is what really matters in life. And even people with those bizarre beliefs are catered for in the Culture, albeit in extreme-immersion VR environments.

KOTOR

Ohohoh, SK got banned, uhgain. No surprise there then.

Anyway, back on track, warnings should be concise and effective. If the moderator has to go through a lot of posts, they don't want to write out wordy warnings for each user, when a few words will suffice.

If it means they can do their jobs more efficiently, then that's fine.

  • 07.12.2011 2:50 PM PDT

hello

i got a warning but i dont get it

  • 07.12.2011 3:00 PM PDT

Be a part of The Intel Agency


H3ITWP is now The WorkPLace

I think OP is just upset that he's no longer a forum ninja.

  • 07.12.2011 3:02 PM PDT

Posted by: WolfmanMaverick
You people have just sent my sides into orbit. A bunch of MLG try hards sucking the dick of some supposed pro half the thread hasn't even heard of. Classic.

Bub. You are way off the mark. Trust me.
Posted by: MarXXXisM
I think OP is just upset that he's no longer a forum ninja.

  • 07.12.2011 3:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: deltahalo UK
Punishment breeds resentment, education breeds elmicker.

lol

  • 07.12.2011 3:38 PM PDT

The Stig is dead to me
-Carrick


Posted by: Achilles1108
Bub. You are way off the mark. Trust me.
Posted by: MarXXXisM
I think OP is just upset that he's no longer a forum ninja.


I have not seen someone use Bub in a loooong time :)

  • 07.12.2011 3:42 PM PDT

δόξει τις ἀμαθεῖ σοφὰ λέγων οὐκ εὖ φρονεῖν.

Euripides, Bacchae. 480.

Posted by: Skibur
"Off topic" is more descriptive than the "Play nice" I received when banned for three days a few months ago; "harassment" is the latest attempt at justification. The trouble is that most moderators here are no more intelligent than the average member of the community they police, so asking them to elaborate is equivalent to demanding of a toddler a translation of The Peloponnesian War.

Don't expect said community to act, either: the culture of sycophancy here ensures nothing changes with any purpose.

  • 07.12.2011 3:43 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

Yo Halo53, I'm real happy for you and I'ma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best bungie.net profiles of all time. OF ALL TIME!


Posted by: Heliossoileh1
"Off topic" is more descriptive than the "Play nice" I received when banned


Exactly, and that's the issue at hand. A rule-breaker falls into 1 of 3 categories; One who intentionally breaks the rules (minority), One who does not really know the rules and therefore needs to be told what they did wrong, and One who does know the rules and therefore doesn't understand how what they was did wrong. Simply saying "Play nice" either implies you are in the first category or ignores the issue at hand.

[Edited on 07.12.2011 7:30 PM PDT]

  • 07.12.2011 3:58 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

ODST Expeditionary Force I The WorkPLace I Mythics
Technically Mythic
Posted by: Cobravert
I just saw a green monkey nut shot a small tan lizard(?) in a gunny sack.

Sounds like someone was warned and didn't like it.

  • 07.12.2011 3:59 PM PDT