[Discussions]Temp bans for users facing ban polls

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-09-17 10:10pm

Fellow Senators:

The recent final flailings of psyborg have illustrated an unfortunate phenomonon: some of our trolls, facing a ban poll which they're sure they'll lose, they take the opportunity to troll around the board with no real consequences, since their banning is already certain. Outright deletion, either of the trolling or the troll's entire posting history, is possible, but the former can be time consuming and the latter, in the case of a troll with many hundreds of posts, can put gaps in threads all over the board.

To combat this, I promose the following amendment to the Senate rules:

Section 1. When a user, for violation of the Board Rules, is the subject of a permanent ban poll in the Senate, that user shall be temporarily banned for the duration of the poll.

Section 2. Should the Senate elect to impose a temporary ban as punishment for violation of the Board Rules after considering a permanent ban, the Senate may elect to count the time spent banned during the poll towards the user's sentence.

Section 3. No ban poll shall excede five days in duration.

I also have an alternate version of Section 1:

When a user, for violation of the Board Rules, is the subject of a permanent ban poll in the Senate, that user may be temporarily banned for the duration of the poll at the discretion of any administrator, or upon request by any two Senators.

So what do we say? I think it's a reasonable measure to take, and if you've done something to earn a ban poll, a maximum 5 day temp ban is hardly an unfair additional punishment.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2006-09-17 10:20pm

I agree.

Once under a banpoll, these trolls get the urge to 'go out with a bang' and spam, troll, and insult whomever they please without regard. The last gasp of the damned is getting damned annoying.

I second the motion for a tempBan on those facing banpolls.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-09-17 10:44pm

Its oppressive. I like it.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-09-17 11:05pm

I prefer the alternate version in that it makes it a discretionary act. Yes most ban polls are almost foregone conclusions (assuming we muster a quorum) but some aren't and I think we should at least allow that the temp ban doesn't need to be used for all circumstances. By making it a two senator / 1 admin request there is a level of control. The only thing is I think it should be at the request of two senators / one admin other than the individual initiating the ban poll.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-09-17 11:19pm

Of the choices, I much prefer the second one. When a user is facing a ban poll, he or she has the opportunity to make some effort to fix things. Concede arguments, make a sincere apology, etc. Granted, that rarely happens.

However, if someone facing a ban poll does decide to violate more rules and make more blatant trolling attempts, then I wouldn't mind if an admin simply ban the troll then and there. Of course, in that situation, a discretionary temp ban until the end of the poll followed by a perma-ban would have the same effect for the troll, though it requires slightly more work for the staff.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-09-17 11:43pm

Mad wrote:Of the choices, I much prefer the second one. When a user is facing a ban poll, he or she has the opportunity to make some effort to fix things. Concede arguments, make a sincere apology, etc. Granted, that rarely happens.

However, if someone facing a ban poll does decide to violate more rules and make more blatant trolling attempts, then I wouldn't mind if an admin simply ban the troll then and there. Of course, in that situation, a discretionary temp ban until the end of the poll followed by a perma-ban would have the same effect for the troll, though it requires slightly more work for the staff.

There's no difference, from the board software's point of view, between a temp ban and a permanent ban. Changing a temp ban to a permaban merely requires not unbanning the user, so not even a tiny amount of extra work is involved.

Even if someone starts trolling all over the place once the poll is underway, I'd prefer to say "you're temp banned" until the Senate vote is official. The reason being that imposing a permaban immediately give trolls power over their own destiny, and I don't want to do that. Nobody gets to ban himself by acting like a dickweed. I also don't want to take the decision out of the Senate's hands.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-09-17 11:58pm

certainly, though the pathetic whining and pleading kinda does have a sadistic entertainment value. Migraine plus not getting a CHANCE to get involved in the freakin psyburn mess though does burn me a bit...

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2006-09-18 02:39am

Agreed; along with the proposed amendment to the first section of the amendment to the rules.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-09-18 02:45am

The amendment sounds good to me. I'd spring more readily for the second option of the first section, though; similarly to Mad, I don't think consideration for a permanent ban ought to be grounds alone for a temporary ban. Besides the fact a troll might concede, apologize, and work to start anew, if there's an active chew-thread going on, a temporary ban might deprive us of the pleasure of insulting and tearing into the troll.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-09-18 06:22am

however since you have a higher chance of mercy from a texas govenor or the queen of hearts it's also quite redundant.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-09-18 09:49am

RedImperator wrote:There's no difference, from the board software's point of view, between a temp ban and a permanent ban. Changing a temp ban to a permaban merely requires not unbanning the user, so not even a tiny amount of extra work is involved.

Ah, yeah, I had completely forgotten about that. I'm all for the second version of this amendment.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-09-18 02:45pm

I concur with Red. This legislation will help lessen any impact of a banning with someone intent on malfeasance and help rid the board of any trace elements of their previous, banal existence.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-09-20 07:01pm

Ok, there seems to be a consensus forming around this version:

Section 1: When a user, for violation of the Board Rules, is the subject of a permanent ban poll in the Senate, that user may be temporarily banned for five days or the duration of the poll, whichever is shortest, at the discretion of any administrator, or upon request by any two Senators other than the Senator who initiated the ban poll.

Section 2. Should the Senate elect to impose a temporary ban as punishment for violation of the Board Rules after considering a permanent ban, the Senate may elect to count the time spent banned during the poll towards the user's sentence.

I added CmdrWilkens' addition, because it makes sense, as usual. I also deleted Section Three and added a five day time limit to the temp ban. This prevents the possibility of the temp ban amendment being abused to punish users without a full Senate vote, without restricting the length of all ban polls. If there isn't any further discussion, I'll put this up to a vote in a few days.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2006-09-22 04:26am

Looks good to me.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-09-23 02:18am

I certainly second taking this to a vote.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-09-23 06:24am

aye (or yaaaarrrrr!! in honor of the holiday Tuesday)

Post by **Zaia** » 2006-09-23 08:01am

I would support this. In some cases, it would not really be a punishment since it would help the poster avoid being permanently banned. We have a prime example now of how posters sometimes give up once the poll is started, get worse with their trolling and spam merrily all over the place because they figure it's probably the end for them. That in turn makes an impression upon those who have not yet voted in that poster's ban poll, and since the troll has gotten worse, it becomes and open-and-shut case of a permaban.

So, not only would it cut down on obnoxious spam, but it also would keep the poster from shooting himself in the foot. I think it's a good idea.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-09-23 08:39am

Zaia wrote:So, not only would it cut down on obnoxious spam, but it also would keep the poster from shooting himself in the foot. I think it's a good idea.

It keeps him from shooting himself in the foot, but it also keeps him from cleaning his act up: a user who's been banned is effectively in stasis, and so, while he can't dig his hole any deeper, he also can't begin to mitigate his trolling/dishonesty with concessions and apologies (should he be so inclined). This is why I support the revised provision: a user may be temp-banned upon request or discretion (should his behavior deteriorate further).

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-09-23 11:07am

OK, the motion has been seconded and there doesn't seem to be any objections. I'm putting this up for a vote.