Banning Whackjobs

Slopeshoulder · Post by **Slopeshoulder** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:57 pm

There are all sorts of people here that each one of us may find puzzling how they could believe what they believe, think what they think, and write what they write. I imagine I fill that role for some folks too.
But this is not a problem.

And there are some who break the rules over time and get banned eventually.

But there is a third type of person that shows up occasionally (religion seems to attract them) that are pretty clearly nutcases. Conspiracy theorists, mentally ill, messiah complexes, mission from god types. For all I know they are fakers just trolling. We just banned one the same day he arrived, a real loony. That is a good thing.

Clearly they break the rules and will eventually get booted. But it seems reasonable to assume that the mods can spot them and take quick action at the first or second sign of crazy. Can/Do the mods make quick "I've got a bad feeling" judgments about these people when they show up, in order to minimize the damage and distraction to the forum? I get the impression that happened today, and I applaud it. Is it a matter of policy/practice to sort of speed things up a bit when a real whackjob shows up?
I do hope so. And thank you.

Lux · Post by **Lux** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:12 pm

Oftentimes, the line between someone who holds unusual beliefs and someone who is what we might call a nutcase and/or a troll is quite blurry.

The "official" procedure is:

Warnings
Formal warning
Probation vote (among mods) - Probation
Ban vote - Ban

Except in the case of spammers, blatant trolls or banned users "respawning", we try to always follow this. It certainly can be frustrating when you know someone will eventually be banned and it takes some time, but we have to give people the benefit of the doubt... most of them at least

For instance, I don't think being a conspiracy theorist is grounds for instant banning. Odd as the belief might be, if the user follows the rules, they can stay. That being said, they usually do end up banned, because they seem to be more prone to breaking rules than other people. I still prefer to know we banned them because of the rule-breaking than because we thought their beliefs were leaning towards the cuckoo side.

EduChris · Post by **EduChris** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:37 pm

Lucia wrote:...It certainly can be frustrating when you know someone will eventually be banned and it takes some time...

Is there any way to flag someone early on, if they initially appear to be a nutcase, so that they are limited in the number of posts they can make in a single day? This would still allow for a time factor before they were banned, but it would also protect the forum from the appearance of being overrun by obvious nutcases.

Lux · Post by **Lux** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:48 pm

EduChris wrote:
Lucia wrote:...It certainly can be frustrating when you know someone will eventually be banned and it takes some time...
Is there any way to flag someone early on, if they initially appear to be a nutcase, so that they are limited in the number of posts they can make in a single day? This would still allow for a time factor before they were banned, but it would also protect the forum from the appearance of being overrun by obvious nutcases.

I'm sure it could be done, but honestly I don't think it's necessary. Blatant nutcases usually get reported about 2-5 times on their first day here, and I really doubt there has been a lack of moderators online for as much as 24 hours, at least in the last year. We can ban users instantly if they're spamming the forum with either links or nonsense, and we can delete posts. Reports are always much appreciated

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:52 pm

It would be quite a subjective call. I prefer the current system which presumes innocence until they clearly demonstrate their own lunacy.

However, the idea of a probationary period, no more than n posts per day for the first d days after their registration, might help minimize disruption. I'm not quite sure what the optimum values for n and d might be or how much work it would be for otseng to implement.

Post by **otseng** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:20 pm

Slopeshoulder wrote:Can/Do the mods make quick "I've got a bad feeling" judgments about these people when they show up, in order to minimize the damage and distraction to the forum?

I have recently given all the moderators the power of instant banishment. They have promised me though that they will use this superpower with discretion.

McCulloch wrote:I prefer the current system which presumes innocence until they clearly demonstrate their own lunacy.

I prefer it too. It has worked ever since this forum started 7 years ago.

Lux · Post by **Lux** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:40 pm

otseng wrote:I have recently given all the moderators the power of instant banishment. They have promised me though that they will use this superpower with discretion.

Actually, I was the only one that promised to use the superpowers for good rather than evil. I'd keep an eye on the others...

In seriousness, I think that the fact that we can ban people plus delete posts makes a post number restriction unnecessary. It would be very useful if we didn't have 6 moderators or if we weren't online as often as we are (I spend way too much time here...)