Topics

moderated Temporary ban #suggestion


YT9TP - Pedja
 

It would be good to have an option to temporarily ban member, meaning ban would be automatically removed after set period expires.


Duane
 

You can easily un-ban a person if you change your mind.  (I would never do so because anyone that is banned will never be allowed back.)  No reason that I can see to use valuable programming time on something like this.

Duane


 

I agree with Duane that I would never want a temporary ban. However, maybe you mean something like "suspend membership," which I recently suggested here?
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/suspend_membership_action/25140223?p=,,,100,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fsticky,,,100,2,0,25140223

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


YT9TP - Pedja
 

On 17.09.2018 01:10, Duane wrote:
You can easily un-ban a person if you change your mind.  (I would never do so because anyone that is banned will never be allowed back.)  No reason that I can see to use valuable programming time on something like this.

Its not that black and white.

Temporary banning is actually effective measure to let people know that they have to behave properly.

Some call it temporary banning, some call it warnings.

It is not practical that admin has to manually pay attention when someone is banned and then manually unban.

--
73,
Pedja YT9TP

Checkout:
https://pedja.supurovic.net/
https://yu1abh.uzice.net/
https://www.facebook.com/yu1abh/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/yu1abh.konstruktori/
http://www.radio-amater.rs/


YT9TP - Pedja
 

On 17.09.2018 04:03, J_Catlady wrote:
I agree with Duane that I would never want a temporary ban. However, maybe you mean something like "suspend membership," which I recently suggested here?
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/suspend_membership_action/25140223?p=,,,100,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fsticky,,,100,2,0,25140223
Sure it can be done that way too.

But suspended membership is more likely administrative measure but ban is punishment measure. Difference is in the message user gets when his access is limited or when he tries to post to the group.

For an example: if someone do not extend his membership in organization then he is suspended and he gets notice that reason is membership not extended. If someone acts badly then he is is banned and message is that he behaved badly.

That said, it actually may be the same functionality if we are able to set message explaining reason why member is suspended.


--
73,
Pedja YT9TP


 

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 10:43 PM, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
it actually may be the same functionality if we are able to set message explaining reason why member is suspended
A lot of this is semantics. And there is no required user notification for when they're banned or even removed from a group - each group can already set its own notification, or have none. I assume "suspended" would be the same way.

The functionality of suspension would be similar to removal or banning, but not exactly the same. A banned or removed member would, upon reinstatement, receive the group's welcome notice (and guidelines if those are sent out upon join), whereas a suspended member would simply not have access to the group's content or be able to post during suspension. The reason I suggested the suspension is exactly that: they would not be treated as a brand new member upon reinstatement. A banned member has the further difference that they can't even reapply to the group (as opposed to a removed member). They're all slightly different. 

As for what constitutes a punishment vs. warning vs. whatever, that's just a matter of interpretation and semantics.

The suspension idea would have to be hashed out as to whether reinstatement or removal would be automatic after some period of time. You can see that conversation in the thread I posted a link to. 

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:36 AM, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
Temporary banning is actually effective measure to let people know that
they have to behave properly.
For 'problem' users, I put them on moderation and send them the Group Guidelines.  Very effective since their posts won't make it to the group unless I approve them, and I can reject one (or more) with a reason, if I choose to do so.

It is not practical that admin has to manually pay attention when
someone is banned and then manually unban.
I would consider that to be a normal part of a moderator's duties.

Duane


 

I have seen temporary bans used effectively in general discourse forums where one or two members start posting in a heated discussion, and they really just need some time to calm down. It turns off their ability to post for a couple of days without locking threads for everyone, and when the time expires, they're automatically able to post again. If they start misbehaving again, they can be banned for longer, or eventually, you just ban them permanently.

If this feature is added to Groups.io, though, you have to ask how much this ban affects. Are they also banned from subgroups? Can they still upload files and photos? Can they write to the Wiki? Can they reply privately to messages through the web? Do they still get emails if they want them, which would allow them to reply privately directly, which Groups.io couldn't stop? Can they enter chats or schedule things in the calendar? By the time you think through all that, it might just be easier to moderate the members and approve their posts, removing their moderation when they seem calmer.

JohnF


 

I agree 100% with Duane on this.


On Sep 17, 2018, at 6:46 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:36 AM, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
Temporary banning is actually effective measure to let people know that
they have to behave properly.
For 'problem' users, I put them on moderation and send them the Group Guidelines.  Very effective since their posts won't make it to the group unless I approve them, and I can reject one (or more) with a reason, if I choose to do so.

It is not practical that admin has to manually pay attention when
someone is banned and then manually unban.
I would consider that to be a normal part of a moderator's duties.

Duane

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

JohnF,

If you’re talking about which parts of the group they have access to, etc., then you’re not talking about removing them, let alone banning them. You’re talking about some sort of temporary suspension.

A lot of this is semantics (what do you and the OP mean by ‘ban’). But in groups.io, ‘ban’ means they’re removed and can’t even reapply for membership. And if and when their membership is restored, they’re starting from zero and treated like a brand-new member (except that their Activity History is not wiped out). So I think what we’re all really talking about is a temporary ‘suspension’ of some sort, and for clarity in this discussion I would suggest sticking to that term. Because ‘ban’ has a specific meaning here.

On Sep 17, 2018, at 6:51 AM, JohnF via Groups.Io <johnf1686=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

I have seen temporary bans used effectively in general discourse forums where one or two members start posting in a heated discussion, and they really just need some time to calm down. It turns off their ability to post for a couple of days without locking threads for everyone, and when the time expires, they're automatically able to post again. If they start misbehaving again, they can be banned for longer, or eventually, you just ban them permanently.

If this feature is added to Groups.io, though, you have to ask how much this ban affects. Are they also banned from subgroups? Can they still upload files and photos? Can they write to the Wiki? Can they reply privately to messages through the web? Do they still get emails if they want them, which would allow them to reply privately directly, which Groups.io couldn't stop? Can they enter chats or schedule things in the calendar? By the time you think through all that, it might just be easier to moderate the members and approve their posts, removing their moderation when they seem calmer.

JohnF


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Duane at 9/17/2018 01:46 PM UTC:

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:36 AM, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
It is not practical that admin has to manually pay attention when someone is banned and then manually unban.
I would consider that to be a normal part of a moderator's duties.
Amen!!!

I don't think there's any substitute for direct contact with members who behave so badly that suspension or banning - two entirely different things - are being considered.

Jim H


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I will "third" the agreement with Duane.

If one wishes to ban, as in permanently remove someone, then do it.

If one wants to put them on notice and on a short leash then the group owner or a moderator first needs to tell them so then keep a close eye on what they're doing for some "adequate" [the definition of which will vary] time period afterward, which means putting them on moderated status.  They should also be told they are on moderated status.

Those familiar with the situation that brought all this about should be more than able to determine when to unleash/unmoderate or outright ban said member.

And if you've got more than one or two of those in a group of hundreds at any given point in time then someone has not been doing their job in ongoing enforcement of group decorum from the get-go.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:23 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
I don't think there's any substitute for direct contact with members who behave so badly that suspension or banning - two entirely different things - are being considered.
I agree, 100%, with there being no substitute for direct contact with members who behave so badly that suspension is being considered.

Banning, though, only occurs, both in my personal opinion and in my experiences with same, for offenses so egregious and so clearly against the venue's formal rules and customs that no "direct contact" other than a notice stating, "You have been banned and cannot appeal due to [reason here]," is sent.

On one venue where I moderate, as an example, spamming is strictly forbidden.  If a member joins and their first post is spam, and unquestionable spam with not a shred of doubt about it, they are simply banned.  No notice is given at all.

For someone bends or breaks a rule, or has an uncharacteristic but serious outburst (not a simple fit of pique, which should be tolerated among adults), they get a warning, and often in public.  If they persist in the heat of that moment, they get a private sterner warning and are put on moderated status before it's sent, and are told they are being moderated.   If they persist after that, whether in a private response to the moderation notice or as soon as moderation is lifted, they're banned and sent a notice saying so, without explanation, because by that point they absolutely know why they've been banned based on what has come before.

None of the above, other than spammer banning, happens at all often.  I can only think of one non-spammer banning in all the groups.io groups I frequent in the entire time I've been here, which I think has been since opening week.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Brian Vogel at 9/17/2018 08:52 PM UTC:

I agree, 100%, with there being no substitute for direct contact with members who behave so badly that suspension is being considered. Banning, though, only occurs...
[ snipped for brevity ]

We think enough alike that you probably need to be a bit worried. ;-)

Jim H


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 05:32 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
We think enough alike that you probably need to be a bit worried. ;-)
Oh, I've been worried about my mental state for decades now!!   I guess so long as I am worried I have little to worry about.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore