Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Community vs Moderator Moderation
  • Subject: Community vs Moderator Moderation
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Community vs Moderator Moderation
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

If a thread that may or may not explicitly break a rule falls off the first page into obscurity through 'self-moderation' by the community, is it still necessary for a moderator to deal with the thread?

I have been in situations where threads I didn't think I would be banned for ended up getting me banned when they were several pages deep in the forum. At this point no one saw or cared about the thread and it was causing no trouble, so why the need to lock and ban?

Is this an example of bans serving simply as a punishment, and not in order to "Keep it clean"?

  • 05.11.2012 1:52 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

“Strange,” mused the Director, as they turned away, “strange to think that even in Our Ford’s day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption.”

The Black Chapter!

Should a person who posts a shock site link avoid being banned for it, even if the thread has fallen off the first page?

  • 05.11.2012 1:59 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Yes, of course.

Should a person who bumps his thread once or twice be banned for bumping, when his thread is on the fifth page and long forgotten about?

Should a person be banned for double posting in a thread that hasn't been on the front page for hours?

Should a person be banned for posting a thread with "no discussion value" when the community has already moderated them by not posting in their thread, causing it to disappear from the first few pages of the forum?

[Edited on 05.11.2012 2:04 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2012 2:01 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

“Strange,” mused the Director, as they turned away, “strange to think that even in Our Ford’s day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption.”

The Black Chapter!

Should he be banned for bumping if the thread is on the first page? Is the ban dealt in order to stop that thread being bumped (in which case, why not just lock the thread and never ban thread-bumpers?) or is it to teach him not to bump threads?
If the latter, why does the thread's position matter?


Same for "no discussion value".

[Edited on 05.11.2012 2:07 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2012 2:04 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: r c takedown
Yax is a shining beacon in these dark times. You should all strive to be more like Yax.

The short and easy answer to all your questions is: yes.

  • 05.11.2012 2:06 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Exactly! Are bans punishments or solutions?

The OP of a thread on the fifth page being banned isn't a solution for anything, because there is no problem.

  • 05.11.2012 2:07 AM PDT
  • gamertag: ALI217
  • user homepage:

I'm gonna finish it. Just like Jigga did to the pyramid.

Dude chill out, what is with all these threads in the seventh column? Are you trying to say we deserve better or something?

  • 05.11.2012 2:07 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Dude, don't tell me to chill out.

  • 05.11.2012 2:07 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

“Strange,” mused the Director, as they turned away, “strange to think that even in Our Ford’s day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption.”

The Black Chapter!

I think of a (non-permanent) ban as being a way to reinforce the message that the user's conduct is unwanted. It is a solution to the user's inability to follow the rules, rather than to the thread in which the offence took place.

  • 05.11.2012 2:11 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Does it work?

How many people leaving prison end up re-offending?
How many people only have one ban on their profile (relative to the amount of time they've been on here)?

  • 05.11.2012 2:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag: ALI217
  • user homepage:

I'm gonna finish it. Just like Jigga did to the pyramid.

The Purpose of Punishment

Listen up kids.
1> To reprimand
2> For protection of the masses (banned for posting links to a shock site)
3> To deter others from committing the same act.

  • 05.11.2012 2:19 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: r c takedown
Yax is a shining beacon in these dark times. You should all strive to be more like Yax.

It's obviously not as black and white as my previous answer, but it's definitely not as black and white as you put it either.

Posted by: Skibur
Exactly! Are bans punishments or solutions?
Both. The punishment is also the solution, just post-offence instead of pre-.

The OP of a thread on the fifth page being banned isn't a solution for anything, because there is no problem.The problem is that that particular user thinks it's okay to post x or break y rule. Just because there thread is no longer active doesn't magically mean they'll never do it again.

Posted by: Skibur
How many people leaving prison end up re-offending?
Taking your ability to post away for a couple of days is a lot different to being locked up with other criminals who enforce a barbaric pecking order for years.

  • 05.11.2012 2:23 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member

“Strange,” mused the Director, as they turned away, “strange to think that even in Our Ford’s day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption.”

The Black Chapter!

Posted by: Skibur
How many people only have one ban on their profile (relative to the amount of time they've been on here)?
Don't know. I'm not a ninja, I don't see ban histories. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me?

But if the purpose of bans is to deal with the problem thread rather than the user's posting habits, then why does anyone get banned at all?

  • 05.11.2012 2:25 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Skibur
Does it work?
I'm not sure how we'd be able to tell whether or not it worked. I think it does once in a while, usually in a case where a person just wasn't aware that their thread broke a rule and the ban was how they found out.
How many people leaving prison end up re-offending?A fair amount don't, but for the ones that do, there are escalating punishments to address that, like there are here, right up to a "life sentence", more or less, and that definitely stops repeat offenses for that account, right?How many people only have one ban on their profile (relative to the amount of time they've been on here)?I don't know, but I'm one of them.

  • 05.11.2012 3:51 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: L00
Posted by: Skibur
Does it work?
usually in a case where a person just wasn't aware that their thread broke a rule and the ban was how they found out.
This is a perfect example of where a ban totally doesn't work, in my opinion.

  • 05.11.2012 3:54 AM PDT

Key

I think that if someone gets away with something, but it's been said to have been taken care of via "Community Moderation", they're more likely to do it in the future because of a perceived level of (most likely accidental) implied consent of that sort of behavior/posting style and/or manner. Therefore a ban is necessary to let that person know that, "No, what you're doing is wrong and we're not okay with it."

However, I do believe if something falls off of the first page, that more discretion on the part of the moderator should be used. There's a difference between nabbing a profanity-filter-bypasser on the first page and sniping "bumpers" on the 15th, but discretion nonetheless should be increased the further back they go into the archives, IMO.

  • 05.11.2012 4:00 AM PDT


Posted by: Skibur
Dude, don't tell me to chill out.


uh oh, somebodys getting angry...maybe you should have put an exclamation point at the end to let him know you mean business!

  • 05.11.2012 4:04 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: r c takedown
Yax is a shining beacon in these dark times. You should all strive to be more like Yax.

Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: L00
usually in a case where a person just wasn't aware that their thread broke a rule and the ban was how they found out.
This is a perfect example of where a ban totally doesn't work, in my opinion.
Well, mostly it does, it's just rough/harsh (which could lead to them resenting the mod and rebelling, which is one of the scenarios where it doesn't work).

I think a PM or a warning is best in those circumstances.

  • 05.11.2012 4:05 AM PDT

"We live in a special time; the only time where we can observationally verify that we live in a very special time" - Lawrence Krauss.

I was a finalist :P


Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: L00
Posted by: Skibur
Does it work?
usually in a case where a person just wasn't aware that their thread broke a rule and the ban was how they found out.
This is a perfect example of where a ban totally doesn't work, in my opinion.

Bans can't work in all circumstances, but there are ways to minimise problems which can be caused through them; the top of the chain being the rules themselves, which are there to give an idea as to what can/can't be posted. Part of understanding has to come with a user taking the responsibility to go through said rules, and the site assuming that they do.

[Edited on 05.11.2012 4:10 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2012 4:09 AM PDT

Posted by: Skibur
Is this an example of bans serving simply as a punishment, and not in order to "Keep it clean"?
Of course.

Sometimes people need to understand the consequences of their actions before they change their behaviouur.

To make an extreme example... Imagine a murder went unsolved for 10 years (or even 20). Assuming it was only a one-time occurence for the offender, should they still be punnished once the case is finally solved? Of course.

Now, clearly the severity of the incident in my example is well beyond what we are talking about in this topic, but the principle is the same.

  • 05.11.2012 4:35 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Your analogy is right, and maybe could be compared with a mass spam attack or linking to shock sites, but what I'm talking about would be comparable to stealing a loaf of bread or pirating a movie.

  • 05.11.2012 4:40 AM PDT

Posted by: Skibur
Your analogy is right, and maybe could be compared with a mass spam attack or linking to shock sites, but what I'm talking about would be comparable to stealing a loaf of bread or pirating a movie.
And neither of those should be punished, just because a person wasn't caught at the moment it happened?

  • 05.11.2012 4:43 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
Your analogy is right, and maybe could be compared with a mass spam attack or linking to shock sites, but what I'm talking about would be comparable to stealing a loaf of bread or pirating a movie.
And neither of those should be punished, just because a person wasn't caught at the moment it happened?
Should or would?

If you're the kind of person who says they should, then good for you, but I don't think they would.

In saying that, there are always the reasonable law enforcement/litigation teams, and there are always the difficult ones... Much like the team on here ;)

  • 05.11.2012 4:45 AM PDT


Posted by: Skibur
Posted by: Big Black Bear
Posted by: Skibur
Your analogy is right, and maybe could be compared with a mass spam attack or linking to shock sites, but what I'm talking about would be comparable to stealing a loaf of bread or pirating a movie.
And neither of those should be punished, just because a person wasn't caught at the moment it happened?
Should or would?

If you're the kind of person who says they should, then good for you, but I don't think they would.
In that case, I really hope it's your loaf of bread that gets stolen and not mine.

  • 05.11.2012 4:50 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Sure, if the bread was sitting on my dining room table as I was eating dinner, but I would not care one bit if the bread was out of sight and out of mind, hidden at the back of my pantry, never to be seen again.

[Edited on 05.11.2012 4:58 AM PDT]

  • 05.11.2012 4:58 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2