# sgf: A Case Study in being banned



## Mike Bobbitt (17 Apr 2008)

All,

It's not uncommon for me to receive questions about why a particular user was put on warning or banned. Answering those is certainly part of my role here, but I've come to realize that we (as the Staff) don't do a very good job of communicating the motivation for some of our actions. At times, this lack of information can result in incorrect conclusions.

Let's take a look at a recent user ban as an example. Yesterday, sgf was banned, which was duly noted in her warning thread. However to a user reading this thread, it sure sounds like Bruce had a political disagreement with sgf, and brought his mod powers to bear on her as punishment. I'll admit it: given the public information, I'd have concluded the same thing too. I'm not the only one, as I had a concerned user approach me on the issue.

Let me share my reply, in the hopes that it will shed some light on the "back room" activities happening on a continuous basis here.



Thanks for the message, and I do see where you're coming from. It's certainly easy to work under the assumption that Bruce banned sgf based on a political disagreement. The reality is, sgf has been given many chances and many warnings leading up to this, all for undesirable posting habits or breaches of the Conduct Guidelines. Certainly not for having an opinion. We recognize that banning someone because you disagree with them is begging for trouble, and trust me: that's the last thing we want to bring to our own doorstep.

When someone is banned, there's plenty that goes on in the background, it's not a simple "one man decision." In this case, we have 6 pages of discussion around sgf in the Staff board, and we've weighed each move carefully and collectively before taking it. Obviously we'd prefer to have a contributing member over a banned user any day. The former is an asset while the latter is a drain on our limited resources, so we try as much as possible to guide rather than simply smack someone down. This guidance typically goes on behind the scenes - in part because it would be a disruption to the flow of discussion to do it in public posts but mostly because quite frankly, it's nobody else's business. (A public dressing down is much less effective than private guidance.)

In addition to the internal discussions and private guidance, 31 of sgf's posts have been removed all together. These were posts that were clearly counter to the Guidelines, or added nothing to the conversation. (Or worse, actually worked to derail a well-flowing discussion.) Hopefully you can start to see a picture forming here... what you saw as a hair trigger response to a opinionated post is actually the culmination of 3 months (as of yesterday) of Staff work.

Once again, I'll reiterate that we don't take bans lightly and see them as an option only when all other avenues have been exhausted. Because we respect the privacy of our users - even the ones we end up banning - we deliberately hide much of the mentoring, clean-up work and strategizing that's involved in such a decision. I realize that this often serves to shoot us in the foot, especially on occasions like this, but it's a necessary evil.

Hopefully this helps clarify the situation, but if you have further questions, I encourage you to ask.


Cheers
Mike



Likewise, if anyone has any comments or questions about how we operate, please let me know. There's a tangible benefit to being transparent in our processes as much as possible.


Thanks
Mike


----------



## Yrys (17 Apr 2008)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Likewise, if anyone has any comments or questions about how we operate, please let me know.



Question toward moderators job in general, not sgf in particular : where do you  get the patience ?
I sometimes change thread or don't read when I see a specific person posting, because I know I may "lost it".

Do you have any specific exercise (physical or mental) to remain posses of all your faculty (not joking, I'm really curious) ?


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Apr 2008)

Well, we all have different personalities. This certainly gets noticed sometimes when it comes to applying subjectivity. The Moderators often have certain users which "push their buttons", or certain issues that we are more sensitive to. We try as much as possible to let other Moderators watch a thread when there is a poster involved that fits that description.

Plus, there is far more discussion than most people realize going on. Not only regarding users, problems, specific threads, etc., but also we do a lot of self-analysis regarding our own actions - either as a group, or as individuals.


----------



## GAP (17 Apr 2008)

From day one, sgf did nothing but stir the pot. Multiple mods and members tried to "discuss" what ever the thread's issue was, but she had a determined focus, and nothing was going to change it....I think this is the "definition of a troll"...


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Apr 2008)

I had no issue with the banning of sgf.  As far as I was concerned she was given many chances and chose not to abide by the forum guidelines.  The explanation is appreciated Mike.
What I notice is that some people get banned and there is no reason given at all.  Not that it's really any of our business as the Mods do their discussions and make their (great) decisions.  
I, too, would not have the patience.  However, I do read the warning/banned threads and I believe others do too.  I guess it's a purely educational thing.  ;D


----------



## Yrys (17 Apr 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I guess it's a purely educational thing.  ;D



I do it for entertainment  :-[ ... It is sometimes almost SO funny (cause I ain't a mod )!


----------



## Greymatters (17 Apr 2008)

I was a bit confused about it too but figured there was a reason, thanks for coming forward and explaining...


----------



## Franko (17 Apr 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Question toward moderators job in general, not sgf in particular : where do you  get the patience ?
> I sometimes change thread or don't read when I see a specific person posting, because I know I may "lost it".
> 
> Do you have any specific exercise (physical or mental) to remain posses of all your faculty (not joking, I'm really curious) ?



Yep....just one exercise.







Regards


----------



## aesop081 (17 Apr 2008)

RBD, when are you going to start drinking real beer ?


----------



## armyvern (17 Apr 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> What I notice is that some people get banned and there is no reason given at all.  Not that it's really any of our business as the Mods do their discussions and make their (great) decisions.



I'm curious about this one. I know that the topic board "User Warnings" where we post the bans to, was just started up on 10 Feb 2007. This was the same time that the "User Name Change" board was added.

Anyone banned prior to that date may have had a thread with the reasoning posted, or not. It just wasn't part of the SOPs prior to that date. So, some of the persons that you see showing up as "Banned", may very well have been banned prior to then. If you can't find a "XXXX Now Banned" thread on them, check their profile to see their "last active date". If that's prior to the date above -- that would explain it.

Upon checking their "last active date" and finding that the user has been "active" since 10 Feb 07, but has no "Now Banned" thread, feel free to PM a mod if you'd like an explanation.

It may be quite simple:

Banned User: Some previously Banned members manage to find ways back in here -- creating a new account. Sometimes, we pick them up right away, sometimes it takes us a few days etc. They were banned for a reason the first time, and they do eventually revert to old habits and pique our interest ... and are ultimately discovered. They are immediately Banned again. Some of them will even have managed to make quite a few posts in their "new" persona before being discovered by the staff. In these cases, you will see the "Banned" banner on their posts/profile, but a new "Now Banned" thread is not necessarily started; rather, as occured last week, we simply edit the "Now Banned" thread for their original username and make an entry about their latest incarnation. This saves bandwidth as, believe it or not, some people just can't seem to get the hint and do this multiple times ... requiring a great many "bans". A search of the word "Banned" with "CombatCamera" or "Frankie_Future_Infanteer" will best example that of which I speak. It is simply a matter of bandwidth to post each successive username account "Ban" for these irritating few (but many accounts!!) persons into one thread on them, rather than have all 20 of their usernames listed in it's own "XXX Now Banned for the 20th time" thread.

The other possibility that we frequently deal with is spammers. Real spammers. Not trolls. When we mods go to activate a new users account, it is quite often very obvious to us that it is an electronic registration caused by a spammer, bulk emailer etc. In these cases, we immediately ban the account which is created. Therefore, the "Banned" banner will show in their profile, yet, more often than not, they will have a post count of "0". We have had a few spammers who got a post or two in hawking cellphones etc before we got the ban on them. If we are banning one of these "spammers" immediately upon activation (ie no account activity), we do not post a "XXX now Banned" thread. A review of their profile, if you're curious, would show that they have a "0" post count and that their "last active" time would read "never".

Hope that answers some of your questions. As Mr Bobbitt has said though, if you want to know why someone was banned and you can't find a thread on them, ask. We're busy, but someone will eventually get a response to you.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Apr 2008)

Thanks for the explanation, Vern.  No, this one was banned recently (can't remember the name) but as you say, it may have been someone with multiple accounts, etc.


----------



## armyvern (17 Apr 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Thanks for the explanation, Vern.  No, this one was banned recently (can't remember the name) but as you say, it may have been someone with multiple accounts, etc.



"Civvy" was banned for racism by me last week; aka Frankie_Future_Infanteer, and many many more names; just last week, but I did start a new thread on him.

Unfortunately, when I banned his latest and greatest persona, I inadvertantly banned someone else too ... who did come here to the site right afterwards. That persons account (and posts) would have displayed the "Banned" banner as a result of my screw-up. I did try my best to fix my error, but ultimately I couldn't fix it; Mr Bobbitt had to come online (trust me, I hit him up as soon as he did login again!!) and fix my "breaks" again.  :-[

That other persons profile no longer shows as "banned" and is all back to normal now, though I'm not so sure that I am.  

I suspect that inadvertant "ban" by me is the one to which you refer, as they are here quite often and post quite a bit <--- nothing worthy of a "ban" though!!  :-[  (I apologized to them too ... profusely!!)


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Apr 2008)

Breaking photo galleries, inadvertent bans, boot expert.......is there no end to your phenomenalism?  

I know, I made that word up!!


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Apr 2008)

chaps?


----------



## armyvern (17 Apr 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> chaps?



Always.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 Apr 2008)

Good call on SGF.

How long does someone stay banned?If someone gets the two warnings over 3-4 years do they get banned?Or is it the verbal and recorded warning allowed per year?

Little confused on that.Wouldn't seem right to ban someone over a few poorly worded post/angry posts over years of good postings.

keep up the good work.

Having recieved some great PM's from SGF, I hope she gets the help she so desperately needs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Apr 2008)

Most people stay Banned for good. There is a slight chance the Ban will be revoked but you can bet that person is watched a little more closely. Unfortunately we have revoked the Ban on some people only have it bite us on the ass.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Apr 2008)

Does one have the option of challenging a ban through direct comms with Mike B or some type of consortium/group? That is there is any doubt or an actual question to perhaps an unobvious reason. Some are quite noticeable and need no explanation.

Yes, and what about mods behaving badly? Not that I am saying some do, but there is always the possibility, that certian topics/personalityclashes may cloud the judgement of someone in the capaicty of authority. Just because one disagrees with a mod, does not, nor should it be greeted with a threat of a warning, or a warning, or a ban. Although in some cases this is warranted.

Speaking of moderators, what about a moderator tenure, say for 6 or 12 months in the mod seat, thus allowing new blood, fresh ideas, and a different point of view for new mods. Call it a breath of fresh air, and cull in you wish. All of course for the betterment of this site. Perhaps having the 'same old same old' breeds a wee tad of some complaciency, and maybe contempt in some cases. I am only generalising, and seeking an opinon from other members, including moderators.

I think after a while one would need a break from such as position. We are all basically people, some of us with families, and being a mod may put pressure on from the home front.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Mike Baker (17 Apr 2008)

I like the idea of 'intern Moderators' as well, I think that it would be a good idea, as Wes said. But we should keep the moderators we already have as well.


Mike I have a question, if you could answer it. What percentage of people who are put on a Warning end up progressing to being banned? I know, somewhat of an odd question, just curious 

Baker


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 Apr 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Most people stay Banned for good. There is a slight chance the Ban will be revoked but you can bet that person is watched a little more closely. Unfortunately we have revoked the Ban on some people only have it bite us on the ***.



Cheer's for clarification.
No doubt they were banned for a good reason to start with.


----------



## armyvern (17 Apr 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Does one have the option of challenging a ban through direct comms with Mike B or some type of consortium/group? That is there is any doubt or an actual question to perhaps an unobvious reason. Some are quite noticeable and need no explanation.
> 
> Yes, and what about mods behaving badly? Not that I am saying some do, but there is always the possibility, that certian topics/personalityclashes may cloud the judgement of someone in the capaicty of authority. Just because one disagrees with a mod, does not, nor should it be greeted with a threat of a warning, or a warning, or a ban. Although in some cases this is warranted.
> 
> ...



OK.

I'm locking this. Mr. Bobbitt can address that last one from Wes' post quoted above when he gets back online. 

When it turns into another post about "bad" or "inappropriate" mod behaviour -- best for Mr. B to answer; And, best it be locked lest one of us mods post something we may regret. And usually when you see that occur in public -- it's precisely because the mods have been dealing with said member privately -- to no apparent effect as per Mr. B's original down below.

Until then, there's plenty of threads already out there on the boards where most of the below questions have been adressed before ... more than once.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff

_Edited to include post this responds to._


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2008)

I just wanted to add that this discusion is not new.  It has been held several times over the years.  Rules for the site are posted, which also detail the Warning System and how one goes about redressing a Warning or Ban.



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> Armyboi has been banned again. Because of his posting style, failure to heed the Staff's guidance & instructions and generally posting out of his backside we have shown him the door for the last time, there will be no forgiveness again. The Staff have come together on this case and have decided to post this publicly so that there will be no doubt whatsoever in our reasoning behind this ban.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (18 Apr 2008)

Wes,

As a standing rule, if a mod is directly involved with a user or thread, they don't take administrative action on it/them. There are occasions - for example when no other mods are around - where this may not be practical, but it is our SOP.

When mods behave badly (they're people too - it happens!) We deal with it behind closed doors. Heck I've been dealt with behind closed doors when I make a bad call.  But no public hangings. We have quietly dismissed mods on a couple of occasions.

Mod tenure is something we've considered... actually the consideration was more that it be 12 on 6 off or something similar. The problem with that is if you're given a set time when you're in the mod seat, there's a much stronger expectation that you'll do the job on a regular, consistent basis. That's counter to our volunteeristic "Army.ca Staff takes a back seat to life" approach. Whenever a new mod comes on, I make it clear that family, jobs and general life must take priority, and Army.ca must not interfere.

In fact, the reality is that most mods do find themselves taken away from the site for extended periods of time. Whether it be deployments, a new job, or changed in their personal life. However the door is always open for them to return when life calms back down again. So in effect, we have an ad-hoc system in place already.

I stand by this "low pressure" approach as a good way to allow Army.ca Staff to back off when they feel they need it, not based on a strict schedule.

Hopefully this all makes sense, and again hopefully it highlights that internally, these are all concerns we've discussed at length. As a staff cadre, we truly are interested in the best for the site. Sometimes we get it wrong but if we do it's a mistake, not an attempt to circumvent or undermine.


Cheers
Mike

(unlocked)


----------



## leroi (18 Apr 2008)

Hi All,

As a newbie I'm very impressed with the high level of moderation here.

From what  I've observed the Mods seem to give everyone a fair chance to rectify errant behaviour.

To be a Mod here seems to require the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon and the skin of a rhinocerous ...  

( I guess beer would help, too!! ;D)

leroi


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Apr 2008)

I offered to be SGF's assisting officer should army.ca charge her but she politely declined, I believe she wanted to represent herself.

Clearly the wrong choice


----------



## kratz (19 Apr 2008)

FD's post adds some fun and a smile to the case study. While banning is a serious issue, the statement is still worth a +1  ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Apr 2008)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> As a standing rule, if a mod is directly involved with a user or thread, they don't take administrative action on it/them. There are occasions - for example when no other mods are around - where this may not be practical, but it is our SOP.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the insight Mike.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (20 Apr 2008)

My pleasure Wes, it's a discussion I think is long overdue.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Jaydub (20 Apr 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Most people stay Banned for good. There is a slight chance the Ban will be revoked but you can bet that person is watched a little more closely. Unfortunately we have revoked the Ban on some people only have it bite us on the ***.



Here's something I've always wondered about...

Scenario:

Some recruit, fresh out of high school, comes here and gets himself banned.  10 years later he's at the MCpl or Sgt level, has actual life experience, and has matured considerably.  He wants to come back to the site and actually contribute.  Is it ever possible to come back if the banned individual has genuinely changed?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Apr 2008)

Jaydub said:
			
		

> Here's something I've always wondered about...
> 
> Scenario:
> 
> Some recruit, fresh out of high school, comes here and gets himself banned.  10 years later he's at the MCpl or Sgt level, has actual life experience, and has matured considerably.  He wants to come back to the site and actually contribute.  Is it ever possible to come back if the banned individual has genuinely changed?



In all honesty: Yes.  Not that it would really matter.  After 10 or so years, 'our young High Schooler' has matured quite a bit (one would hope ) and has moved away from his original home and High School computers.  New Life.  New IP address.  New Screen Name.  New outlook on Life.  As far as we would be concerned, a whole new person.  If, however, they should revert to their prepubescent ways, a little research and they would soon be off the Ramp.


----------

