Uh... hmmmmm... not really
Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
Uh... hmmmmm... not really
NinjaBoiX
Member
I dunno, I don't particularly disagree with either of my bans, it's just my second was doubled with no reason given, felt kind of rude.
Also, what's "the L"?
The difference is people come to Neogaf expecting a degree of anonymity. They are able to reveal their identity or speak about their bans if they want. Don't forget Neogaf is privately owned.
The ideal system in my eyes would be somehow differentiating between permabans and suspensions and maybe offering a link to the offending post with a "USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST REASON: BECAUSE REASONS" tag at the end so people know what not to do. Doesn't reveal for how long to avoid arguments, but let's people know what they shouldn't do and whether or not they're gone for good.
Some of these bans are a joke and it's just a shame to see a number of good posters go grey with people grouping up and celebrating it. ( Edit: By this I meant the general orchestra surrounding the bans. )
When banning will naturally be EXTREMELY inconsistent, I would appreciate the decisions to be in relation to the overall quality of the posters in question.
If I'm a doctor I will naturally receive many patients complaining about a headache. What do I do? I'll give them medicine for the headache. IF, a person comes three times in a row complaining about a headache, what do I do? I will know there's likely something more to it and will research it further. This example can be applied to a forum environment.
Don't go after mistakes, because you can't catch them all - go for the people.
A few of the bans were very tongue-in-cheek and would have gone unnoticed 99,99% of the time. Similarly, in football/soccer or any other sport, sometimes you might as a referee rule out a clear-cut goal. So in this comparison how do you prevent these mistakes? You get video cameras to ensure the decision is correct.
This ban spree somehow reminded me of this one from a few weeks back.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42206836&highlight=#post42206836
An inside joke, in most cases harmless. ( Though I do agree it was poorly worded ) Yet this time? A _PERMA_ban. Permanent over that? REALLY? While you can of course lean to your own interpretation in the most obvious scenarios of ignorance and such, sometimes you have to look further to the person's post history and general input.
TL;DR: It would be nice if the person banning would review the whole picture first and not randomly ban one when the 'time is right'. Certain practices are inevitable thus you go for the main offenders. How did it being illegal and your parents telling you not to prevent you from drinking when you were underage?
Edit2: I'm also aware this is subconsciously applied in most cases, when the poster is known. The problem arises, when the moderator has no knowledge of the poster's background and thus _sometimes_ proceeds to do a decision based on that single occurrence.
When banning will naturally be EXTREMELY inconsistent, I would appreciate the decisions to be in relation to the overall quality of the posters in question.
If I'm a doctor I will naturally receive many patients complaining about a headache. What do I do? I'll give them medicine for the headache. IF, a person comes three times in a row complaining about a headache, what do I do? I will know there's likely something more to it and will research it further. This example can be applied to a forum environment.
Don't go after mistakes, because you can't catch them all - go for the people.
A few of the bans were very tongue-in-cheek and would have gone unnoticed 99,99% of the time. Similarly, in football/soccer or any other sport, sometimes you might as a referee rule out a clear-cut goal. So in this comparison how do you prevent these mistakes? You get video cameras to ensure the decision is correct.
This ban spree somehow reminded me of this one from a few weeks back.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42206836&highlight=#post42206836
An inside joke, in most cases harmless. ( Though I do agree it was poorly worded ) Yet this time? A _PERMA_ban. Permanent over that? REALLY? While you can of course lean to your own interpretation in the most obvious scenarios of ignorance and such, sometimes you have to look further to the person's post history and general input.
TL;DR: It would be nice if the person banning would review the whole picture first and not randomly ban one when the 'time is right'. Certain practices are inevitable thus you go for the main offenders. How did it being illegal and your parents telling you not to prevent you from drinking when you were underage?
Edit2: I'm also aware this is subconsciously applied in most cases, when the poster is known. The problem arises, when the moderator has no knowledge of the poster's background and thus _sometimes_ proceeds to do a decision based on that single occurrence.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
You've been here two years, we've been through what? 3 major server upgrades? Not to mention general forum updates. I think it's silly to think that the forums have been neglected in some way.
Devolution
Member
A lot of users aren't banned for single posts but a continued attitude. Even linking to a single post wouldn't put it in perspective. That's why the mods have discussions and come to agreements.
They're on the internet, this is a public forum that anyone can look at. Members can view your post history. That's public.
So ban discussions on the topic? What discussion does there need to be when it says why someone got banned? It either is or it isn't, and the only discussion on WHY/WHYNOT should be up to the mods. There's nothing wrong with knowing why someone got banned. It's basically a "don't do this" for everyone.
Yeah, SA has a ban reason for exactly that purpose. When you get banned you get a message saying why. Just make that public and put it in a list.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
This is a private forum that is open to almost anyone
You don't have be approved to be born so I would real life and GAF are quite different
Devolution
Member
See above.
Guy literally passed on a million dollar offer (I forget the exact number) just to keep this site away from becoming a conglomerate-owned outpost. If the argument is to be made that he doesn't care about the site or is not using any profits gained to improve or maintain the experience, you should at least look into the recent history of developments.
Doesn't matter if he payed for it with the golden eggs he shits, that's all irrelevant to the way the site is run or kept up to snuff, since we're entitled to literally nothing enhancing as it's a completely free experience. If you think otherwise, you have to be kidding yourself.
I believe they're taking steps in that direction, which we should see when they push out the major redesign sometime in the near future. That'll be fun for everyone when it happens.
You must have been reading a different thread to me. I could have sworn most posters in here were not celebrating bans, and several mods have described the ban process.
elrechazado
Banned
Didn't bish make a huge public spectacle with the whole countdown thing?
Professor Beef
Banned
Loss.
It's still privately owned, and you can't say/post whatever you want. You're in EviLore's territory.
ColonelColon
Member
Could you define creeper? What makes someone a creeper? Could you specifically name the creepers in that thread?
Perhaps linking to the post with a tag "REPEAT OFFENSIVE JOKES ABOUT SENSITIVE SUBJECTS" or "REPEATEDLY MADE SAME UNFUNNY COMMENT OVER MANY THREADS" would illustrate what posts can be tipping points.
Also I've decided the comments should be in caps because they convey a sense of power.
Devolution
Member
But what if it's a laundry list of shit? I mean you can generally figure out for yourself if you've been posting like a douche lately and need to pull back on some stuff, especially if you've already eaten a ban.
Professor Beef
Banned
Creeping up on people and taking pictures of unsuspecting people's asses and other parts. While I can't name specific people in the thread, the act of defending the practice makes people highly suspect.
This shouldn't even really have to be explained. C'mon now.
Problem is it's oftentimes an accumulation of posts that lead someone to get banned, not just a single post, so adding a 'user was banned for this' wouldn't always work and thus be counterproductive. I do agree with the differentiating between suspensions and perm-bans, though.
Devolution
Member
They just enter another dimension never to be seen or heard from again.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, making those 2 threads stickies was totally the best way to handle it. Definitely didn't turn into a spectacle or anything.
Or do the opposite and have a 'currently banned members' part just below the who's online bit.
Hyuk hyuk hyuk.
That's actually pretty clever. Probably way easier to code in VB.
Partial Gamification
Banned
The spectacle came from the community, as a byproduct of the stickied threads. Perhaps they were there as an example or just as placeholders for a more collected review.
elrechazado
Banned
Completely contradicting the message of "we don't want banning to be a public spectacle".
Doesn't matter to me, I don't need public ban lists like people are asking for. But you can't say that the mods don't cultivate a culture of public banning and spectacle through these kinds of actions and condoning threads full of this stuff and then turn around and use the desire to not have that happen as the reason you don't provide more ban information.
I seem to remember a forum (I don't know if it was here), where banned users didn't know they were banned and continued posting happily, but no one could see their posts.
Look for grayed out names.
Perhaps a simple standard explanation saying how they were "REPEAT OFFENDERS ON PROBATION" or something to that effect. Or maybe even instead if linking to a post have the reason be embedded in their profile, with the banned/suspended tag linked there as well.
You don't see a problem with that post? Telling someone "to get the f*** outta here" and saying they're a "fanboy" contributes absolutely nothing to that iPhone discussion. Conduct yourself as you would if you were talking to someone face-to-face. Just because you are in a somewhat anonymous setting doesn't mean you should become a jerk to everyone else.
Seriously, we went through this already.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Then as members (even me junior), it is our responsibilities to be mature and not turn into a pack of hyenas tearing apart the latest carcasses.
[edit:] and it reads: "don't want" not "won't"
elrechazado
Banned
You're missing the point somehow.
Devolution
Member
I think that's more conducive to people who want to know rather than just banning the person and everyone moving on, and them coming back and conducting themselves in a more discussion worthy manner. I get curious but I figure the whole point of less info is that moderation has come to the consensus that they don't want people to dwell. This thread has kind of been contradictory to that but I can see their point.
Partial Gamification
Banned
Then forgive me for my ignorance. I just see it as "policy." Whatever that is, it is not my role to decide; I just try to contribute.
legacyzero
Banned
I would dare say that I kinda enjoy the spectacle. I think it's a third of why I love GAF so much. And it's rewarding as a member to know that this place is kept clean.
Otherwise things like Bish-banned gifs probably wouldn't be allowed. Although the mods being transparent on why/when/how members are banned is a bit too far.
Although I'd say that it'd be nice to know if the bans are perm or not. Like with Dennis, he's one of my favorite posters. It's he gone forever?
Otherwise things like Bish-banned gifs probably wouldn't be allowed. Although the mods being transparent on why/when/how members are banned is a bit too far.
Although I'd say that it'd be nice to know if the bans are perm or not. Like with Dennis, he's one of my favorite posters. It's he gone forever?
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
This sounds brilliant.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
There is hope for the future
I'd let banned members keep posting.
It's just that their posts remain hidden/blocked from other users.
So they're in a special type of hell where nobody knows they exist.
Kind of like my current GAF existence.
EDIT: lol just like alr1ght was suggesting.
It's called 'tachy goes to coventry' on whatever this forum runs on and was hell on the db if I recall. It was brought up in that gaf fireside chat thread when MAF was mentioned.
Professor Beef
Banned
Although I'd say that that it'd be nice to know if the bans are perm or not. Like with Dennis, he's one of my favorite posters. It's he gone forever?
Possibly not forever, but personal attacks are frowned upon.
You kinda had to be there, GAF was a more lenient place back then moderation wise. Though where did you read the thread?
This puts too much strain on a server and while it's cute, it's not sustainable. Especially as the poster can then "Troll" by bumping old threads mysteriously.
nckillthegrimace
Member
It would be like gaf is haunted.
Hellbanning is a practice used by some online community managers for protecting a community against Internet trolls. The practice involves making a user invisible to all other users. From the hellbanned user's perspective, however, they seem to be participating normally in the community. The purpose of hellbanning is to make it impossible for other users to respond to a particular user by rendering their contributions invisible and thereby enforcing the community best practice of "not feeding trolls".
Software developer and Stack Overflow co-founder Jeff Atwood describes a theoretical use of hellbanning for Stack Overflow on his popular programming blog Coding Horror, explaining that when nothing the hellbanned user posts ever gets a response, he or she would be likely to get bored or frustrated, and leave the site.[1][2]
Hellbanning is or has been used at sites such as Something Awful, and Hacker News. It is sometimes criticized as sneaky or dishonest, because the hellbanned user is unaware they have been hellbanned.
Hellbanning is similar to the practice known as selective invisibility, in which individual comments are rendered invisible to everyone except the poster in order to eliminate disruption they might otherwise cause.[3] Hellbanning is sometimes also called "Coventry" or "ghost posting" or "shadowbanning."
Here is a good example of a ban sheet for reference:
This is fine and all; I get Gaf isn't a democracy when it comes to moderation policies, but posters have a point here. Why give such contradictory messages with what happened here today?
Placing 2 soon to be graveyard threads in the 2nd most visible spot on the entire forum with a final message of "Pray to whatever deities you prefer" most certainly seems like a spectacle to me.
It got posted ages back in this thread actually. It's been a while.
Brilliant, especially for those who repeatedly try to incite the same shit in every thread. They'd eventually get bored of everyone ignoring them and leave permanently, and no one would know why (but would probably rejoice regardless).
However, this would be best reserved for special cases, as generally constructive members who were just being foolish in the moment deserve to know their fate and embrace the rest.
Just because the internet gets treated as public property in casual usage doesn't actually make it public, else Facebook would be the digital commons
- Status