How many days should a poll for banning a poster at least be open?
[Clarification: The question is intended to be independent of the poll being in a dedicated thread or for example in the problems posters discussion thread.]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
14
0voters
Should a mod be able to contain the poster in question to threads where the ban is discussed and temp ban them if they break containment?
I’m voting no and yes, but I feel like some people will think that even voting on the second question presupposes a yes vote on the first. Allowing dedicated threads is not the same as requiring them.
I’ll clarify. The question is intended to be independent of the poll being in a dedicated thread or for example in the problems posters discussion thread.
I don’t think there necessarily needs to be a separate thread for each ban, but using a forum announcement (like the one used for this thread) would be a good idea to let people know when a banning vote is in progress.
I imagine that mods discuss things among themselves, at least on occasion. So perhaps “unilaterally” is not the correct word. Of course, mods are generally aware of community opinions before they take any action.
In any event, it seems like we are asking ourselves where to draw the line for mod action permissible without a community poll. My view, seemingly shared by most, is that temp-bans and containment should be mod-allowed but perma-ban should require a community vote.
Should point out that there are bound to be scenarios where a snap ban is preferable to a 24-hour committee period if a Trump fan is going on a mad hate posting spree or similar. But overall I like the idea of community voting on perma decisions and I trust the current and future mods to do all other mod stuff.
But what if a non-troll changes his ways and makes solid posts in other threads demonstrating this. (My vote would differ based on 1 vs, say, 10 day probation.)
I’ve suggested this before but i dont see why we cant have a group of 3-5 mods that make these decisions by a committee vote. And just leave it up to their best judgment. If people disagree they can start a vote or take their ball and go home.
I am comfortable letting the mods make banning decisions - generally against banning though.
Starting banning threads seems like a bad look for the site. Why dont we do it like literally every message board and subreddit/fb page are already doing it? This is a solved problem guys.
I dont think that incident was a reaction to a banning in and of itself - it was a reaction/disagreement to the policy in which the banning was going to be enforced.
Are we talking about the same “incident”? If we are talking about Cuse and NBZ, I think that example clearly shows that we as a community reject the mod-as-cop model.
I voted yes for separate thread because otherwise things get really jumbled and its not obvious what people are talking about. Sometimes a poster needs to banned immediately so not really sure what the open thread thing is about but that was my thinking there. I think containment is probably best because it gives someone a cooloff period while stuff gets sorted out if someone is out of line so they can chill and decide whether they really want to be allowed to continue to post or not.
Not super strong feelings on any of this and god bless anyone who would want to mod a politics forum of any flavor.
Too damn bureaucratic to have a thread open for a week to discuss a ban that takes a second. Having a thread at all is questionable at best. Gives way too much of a chance for the poster to go HAM before getting canned.
Some autonomy in obvious situations should be warranted. If a troll is an immediate attacker with no good-faith posts, then mods shouldn’t have to ask for our permission for the obvious.