Rules around banning?

[TheUnworthy]

Feeling a little nervous after the recent thread that went 'poof' and reports of people being banned and not knowing why/not having any deleted posts beforehand.

Is there a three strike rule? No strikes?

The problem is, she doesn't know where she's gone wrong.

And you are refusing to reply

MNHQ I think you must have spoken at wannabe rather than to her. I am guessing anywat or you wouldn't be doing this right now. But not my business to share.

I think when poster after poster hasn't noticed this behaviour bad enough to be banned then maybe being very rigid about slaps on the wrists is a bit misguided.

But hey ho.

@GloopyGhoul

I don't know the back story re:wannabe, and I'm too sporadic a poster to get banned (I've only been deleted once, and that was on a trolly cannibalism thread) but I don't think consistency is too much to ask for, HQ.

We'd agree and we do try our best to be as consistent as possible but the variants here are enormous and so absolute consistency is impossible.

Mmm. Have to be honest HQ some of this doesn't feel quite right. It's sounds like people get banned because x number of people report them. Surely not, that would be like mob rule?

People should be banned or suspended because they have significantly broken a rule or rules. It doesn't matter if it was reported by 1 poster or a zillion.

Thanks Rebecca.

In the hypothetical situation that you described above, does the poster's history ever get 'reset' or will reports from years before still get used against them?

I agree buttered.

Rebecca, sorry, not yesterday, I said it today! doh. It's been a long day already

If it's three strikes then bye I must be on my last warning (been posting here since 2001 - pretty hard not to upset a few people in that time).

Yes, buttered, I wonder about that too.

I can't imagine they would be so short sighted as to use how many reports they get on a post as their ruler for whether or not someone is banned. That would allow bullying and (as you said, Buttered) mob rule, which is hardly the way a professional site would run.

I would, however, be interested in knowing the basics of any hard and fast rules, so we know where we stand.

@Butteredpars1ps

Mmm. Have to be honest HQ some of this doesn't feel quite right. It's sounds like people get banned because x number of people report them. Surely not, that would be like mob rule?

People should be banned or suspended because they have significantly broken a rule or rules. It doesn't matter if it was reported by 1 poster or a zillion.

Hi Buttered,

Agreed and that's why we read every report. You could be reported a gazillion times, but if none of your posts break the guidelines then we won't take action.

MNHQ, would it be worth just rethinking about the way in which people hear they're banned?

Ie, you're still able to log in but when you do you get a zombie thread- style alert saying "your posting privileges have been suspended, please contact MNHQ or check your emails for further details"?

@bumbleymummy

Thanks Rebecca.

In the hypothetical situation that you described above, does the poster's history ever get 'reset' or will reports from years before still get used against them?

We certainly take the whole picture into account.
If someone is breaking guidelines 5 years ago and then we hear nothing and then there's another minor issue, we wouldn't necessarily hold their history against them, however, if there were consistent minor issues over many years then we will have to stop it at some point.

@NavyandWhite

2 suspensions then banned then?

Whilst in an ideal world, we'd work on 3 strikes and we do loosely BUT and it's a big BUT - it all depends on the issue that arises at the time. If it's a big one then and they are on a 2nd strike, we may ban or even on a first if the issue is bad enough. It's not an exact science.

By big issue we mean really vile things posted or huge nasty personal attacks, out and out racism and alike.

TBH, that is rare from a MNetter who has been around for a while, more of a newbie thing.

We have and do mail MNetters if they post in an out of character way, just in case someone else has posted from their account, which has happened in the past.

@OhYouBadBadKitten

I agree with ItsAllGoingToBeFine.

Firstly, there should be a consistent set number of warnings when people are sailing too close to the wind. Then if they cross the line something like the following could work:

Adding a divert to a page when they try to log in with either -

1)If it's for a dodgy comment and the person needs to be reviewed:
Your account has been suspended while we review it. If you have any queries then contact.....
This then should be reviewed within a stated, consistent and suitable time frame (2 working days?)

2)If it's for spam or something so so so outrageous, then:
We have removed your account for infringing site rules. If you wish to appeal then please contact....

Because just banning people without any word or reason could frankly drive some people over the edge and while mn aren't responsible for people's mental health, it's really not nice for them to end up being a direct contributor to their stresses, especially when people may have snapped and said something because they are already struggling.

The please contact us email address should not be the general contactus page, because it can feel like you are emailing into a black hole when mn get very busy. It also minimises acknowledgment that something potentially upsetting and big has been applied to a person. It should be a separate email address.

It would be much better for both users and mn I think if a consistent framework were applied.

Thanks OYBBK, We'll have a chat about this one. It would mean Tech work so not something we could do immediately but we will certainly consider it.

TBH, we tend to find folks who are really bothered will mail in, many will know full well why they have been banned and some are just trolls who we'd rather not engage with.
We'll have to gather some figures but I'd hazard a guess that the vast amount of bans happen to out and out trolls and not RL MNetters.

I'm sorry to keep bothering you Rebbecca

I understand you don't want to discuss it with me. That's fair enough. I don't expect you to

I also understand you don't want to talk to trolls. Again fair enough

But the poster in question is not a troll. She has never been suspended or banned before so this seems to be very heavy handed for someone who was never on the radar before.

Is it possible you have a mistaken identity for her?

PolterGoose

@Soubriquet

I'm sorry to keep bothering you Rebbecca

I understand you don't want to discuss it with me. That's fair enough. I don't expect you to

I also understand you don't want to talk to trolls. Again fair enough

But the poster in question is not a troll. She has never been suspended or banned before so this seems to be very heavy handed for someone who was never on the radar before.

It's not a bother at all, we will and do look and I know it can be hard but please do trust that we don't ban folks lightly. There could well be a reason that you are unaware of.

Apologies that we can't be more specific.

Ok thank you very much