Warning/banning procedure

[KWo]

Don't You , guys, think we need some more clear rules for warning/banning members? I mean about something like I can see at other boards - 3 (or 5) warnings then the member is banned, some info with clear description what EXACTLY is forbidden. I'll give You some example - in our rules there is :

" 9. Postings which involve the use or distribution of software that has been aquired through illicit means are strictly prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, providing help and support in the use of materials that were illegally aquired, such as executables, source code, and documentation. Bots United is not a place where illegal activities of any kind are to be discussed or encouraged, thus assistance, distribution or support for illegally acquired software is not an acceptable behaviour."

I got this as - posting about how to use (some support given to other) or where is possible (link) to download some illegal software - THIS is prohibited. But last time I saw also if somebody was ASKING only about illegal software (but he doesn't need to know yet if it was really illegal) he might be warned. But where is another point, which saying:

" 3. At all times members must display respect towards each other - respect is due, it is not earned. Each member is expected to be polite, tolerant and patient, especially towards new members who may have little experience. In order for our community to thrive, we should welcome our newest members warmly and provide as much assistance as possible."

I'm asking now moderators and (especially) Councils about this "patient" to the people having "little experience". Why nobody asked THE_STORM (I'm talking about him now) - "Do You really want to ask here about illegall software? Be sure You want to do this and look at point 9 of our rules before." or "You are asking about any cracked - illegal version (because for the full one You need to pay)?"

Instead this he got a warning. OK - it's canceled now, but he was just ASKING only, he didn't gave any support for any illegal software (even if he didn't ask about beta , but if he thought about normal - full version - where to download it) and he didn't give any link to it. Maybe need more "patience" then - to make sure someone really deserves for a warning or ban? ???

OK. Maybe at other boards (nuclearbox for example) the people are aslo too much nervous in this warn/ban stuff, but I don't think we need to follow exactly them.

Another thing :

" 7. Explicit political discussions are strongly discouraged, and should be moved to private messaging or off the board entirely. There are many public forums available where politics is considered on-topic and encouraged - Bots United is not one of these forums."

Well - I remember at Offtopic forum there were some politic discussions , even accepted by Mr. President of BU and then nobody said:

"rules are rules, and there are a few good reasons why we have them."

OK - there was no offence and the discussions were tollerable, so nothing wrong happened, but it could happen (like for THE_STORM question somebody could post a link to illegal software - and it was a sufficient reason to warn THE_STORM for bad question).
Why some of rules are more respective (for me sometimes even too much) and some of them are almost ignored?
These situations could go in both cases to wrong ways with wrong effect (post a link to illegal software and start some hating discussion). One of them deserves a warning - the other one - no. Really I don't understand why?

Please - don't get this as some my offence or arogance - I need only clarify something. 9_9

[Cpl. Shrike]

Well i don't think its that bad.
I haven't seen bad behaviour by mods or counsil members.

It's true the political discusion took place but the rules leave room for that.

As for cracks and or wares. Also there mods and or counsile members have acted politely enuf. When the rules speak of patiens and kindness to new members it does not imply new member have to be treated with "silk gloves" on.
PPL in general should also read the rules they are there quite clear enuf.
If one chooses no to read the rules then I don't think mods and or councils members have to act overly friendly or put on the silk gloves.

Up to now i haven't seen overly reacted warnings and or bans.

My 2 cents.

[Exilibur]

well I don't usually read the rules before i post at a new messageboard... Because I'm pretty confident that my tone of voice and question should provoke or break any rules...

I later found out that I actually had broken a rule after the chechnya thread... but, when you look at the discussion that thread started, I'm wondering why there even is a rule against such things...

When I'm thinking about laws, I believe that if all people could behave nice, then no law was needed. And so, If you behave yourself nice, you shouldn't break no law either. Now if somebody by mistake broke a law while acting nice, then it would be appropriate to explain to the person why it isn't a good idea to do so and so (like wrecks did with the bala spamming thing), instead of just pointing to a rule that says so and so...

I can't generally relate to rules, because they state a consequnce and not a reason. Like in the chechnya thread, where I was explained that political discussions was a problem, since people couldn't handle it. (Btw, I don't think a ban on political discussions is the right way to solve that problem).

So what i like is when moderators go in and nicely asks persons to stop bad behaviour and explains why the behaviour is bad. If that person is an ongoing problem, then it might be neccesary to act, and warn or ban the person. But instead of saying you're banned because you broke rule 23, then say youre banned because you have done so and so, causing so and so, several times, and disregarded my messages.

The problem here, and which is btw the same problem that [I thought] you made this topic about KWO, is that different moderaters act differently on bad behaviour. An easy way to solve this problem, is to set up some rules. Then the moderators can quote the rules, and argue that the person broke this rule in that way, and therefore deserves this action.
I don't like that idea. Because I think there are better solutions to the problem, which requires a bit more from the moderators, but make the board a much nicer place to be.

A solution would be if all moderators agreed how to act, instead what to act on. Then they could agree that if a person should get a warning, then a discussion should be opened about it first in the mods forum or something similar. Of course some mods might be faster to hit down on people than others, but instead of having clear rules that says so and so, then talk about if a person is breaking the rules or not.

And one more thing: Don't treat people equally.

This sounds fucked, but a forum is not a society like the real one, and there are some major differences. Firstly newcomers might not know the internet etiquette, and might break rules without even knowing it... we don't have parents on the internet, so in their case it's not the moderators task to act like the police. Help them instead.

Then there's persons who are always walking on the edge off whats accepted and whats not. Give advice to the newcomers, and be a bit more firm if they repeat it.

An old member could just as well take one step over the egde, and they ought to know the rules after all, so in their case it's probably because they don't think it would annoy anybody. Then send them a pm, or write a reply and explain to them why you are offended. and then solve the problem not as the authorities against an citizen, but more like a normal dissagreement between to people.

All this is actually pretty close to how BU is working now, as far as i can tell, and I really think it's making this a nice place to visit on the net.

So I'm just writing this to make sure that you don't overregulate yourself.

[KWo]

I was talking about this topic. Start to read it since this post - the cause of THE_STORM's problem.

http://forums.bots-united.com/showpo...2&postcount=14

And read after Council's reactions. I don't think in this way we will create a nice place.

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

Yeah, this was a totally superfluous warning. Instead of warning directly and then taking back the warning, a simple question "How do you mean this?" would have been sufficient. If he had answered "Where can I download a cracked version" - remind him of the rules, and, since he hasn't been around for a long time, tell him that things like this will earn him a warning. And if he had answered "I wanna know more about it, maybe d/l a beta", just give him the link and that's it.

Just as a side note: I consider this thread to be a better example of what Aspirin called "spamming" (wild crossposts, jokes, coder holy wars, trolls, offtopic remarks, thread 'hijacking') than many a thread in the offtopic section, especially since someone was asking for help and his problems hadn't been totally resolved before the 'spamming' started. The premature warning is just another link in that chain.

With regard to the most fundamental guidelines of forum moderation, I absolutely agree with Exilibur. And I think that in the same way as a society must adhere to certain rules, the rules can be adapted to a particular society. The "no politics" rule is a good example: A community capable of discussing about controversial political topics so peacefully doesn't need a prohibition of political discussions. A reminder or warning to treat political affairs with utmost care would be sufficient here IMHO.

But I also agree with what KWo said about moderators / Council members: Maybe it would be better if we could agree on certain moderation guidelines, and one reasonable guideline IMO would be to alert other moddies and never warn before consulting others unless the case is 100% clear, of course.

Back to the example KWo mentioned: If he had asked: "Where can I find a crack?" -> Warning (unless he's newbie). But when in doubt, it would be better to PM other moddies (or thread in the moddies' hideout) and ask the member in question for clarification.

It's not that important to execute our rules as quickly as possible, it's important to use them as wisely and as appropriately as possible - if it's at the expense of some hours or two lines of text to sort things out, fine.

[Exilibur]

sry KWo, i didn't read this topic as being a complaint about the handling of a single thread, but as more of a open discussion about the handling of warnings and such.

warez is a difficult field to regulate... because almost everybody are downloading illegal things, I think, and it becomes almost fake when nobody talks about it...

I mean, what if I made a topic about a new bittorrent client, that was awesome... would i get a warning?

what if I only insinuated that a person could download something illegally? like writing "well you can download the song at itunes, or other places there are a lot cheaper, if you catch my drift" or something like that?

What i didn't write 'if you catch my drift' in that last sentence?

but the point is... its difficult to stop the talking, cause talking is many things... there will always be a greyzone like so many other things...

but I'm happy to see that the thread you wrote about KWo, had a happy ending

(oh btw, next time plz write a link to the thread or something. That would make it a lot easier for people not knowing what exactly you were talking about)

[stefanhendriks]

My impression on this topic is also the discussion about the rules for banning/warnings (as the title says). And the link posted to, of THE_STORM, more as an example.

I see the forum thread of THE_STORM's case is taking over this somehow, which i find bloated. I read the situation yesterday only. I also read that there was a mistake made, and since council members/mods are also humans and can make mistakes, i am not suprised.

I DO however find it odd that THE_STORM is still in the warned members thread, because that thread is for WARNED members, and NOT for "WARNED but NOT WARNED" members.

About the rules, they are 'vague' or 'open' on purpose. As if we tighten them, this will look like a place to watch out what to say before get banned without warning.

I read the suggestion "set up rules for mods etc", meaning you want to set up rules, to follow rules. I mean, this is getting out of hand. What if a mod does not comply to those rules? Do you want to make a seperated group to warn/ban mod's or whatever?

I think this thread alone can make moderators / council members notified about any dissatisfaction about treating some members in some situations.

As a final note, i want to stress out not to bloat things up to unnescesary proportions.

[KWo]

OK. Another example.
http://forums.bots-united.com/showthread.php?t=1243

I even didn't know ZBOT is illegal. But this guy got warned, too.
Need more examples?

[EDIT]
OK one more:

http://forums.bots-united.com/showthread.php?t=3160

Seems also Councils need a guide (or more clarify of rules) when and for what to warn/ban members (and how to interprate the rules). That's why I've started this thread.
[/EDIT]

[stefanhendriks]

actually i got the feeling KWo you do not read my post entirely. I reacted on several cases, and all i get is examples where you find the rules are vague, or where the mods/council members do not do their job properly.

Let me react to your examples:
1st example; read below
2nd example; legit

1st example is this fine line where you can argue till death wether the reaction was appropiate or not. Actually the last post was a nice 'explanation'

In addition to that, this is NOT disputable. The rules are in place for a very good reason. And because there is always mistakes, it has only been a warning.

This topic is hereby closed.

Especially the 2nd sentence... its 'only' a warning.


The first example was perfectly legit, though asp doubts, this forum is not for illegal activities as starting DOS attacks, so a warning is justified.

My question to you is KWo, why do you need to nitpick on every case while i do not hear a single member about it? There have been several cases with (3)Colors, you're not gonna reinvestigate them as well?

Still awaiting response from my other post.

[@$3.1415rin]

maybe we just should see all this as a reminder that we should take those warnings a little bit more carefully, like stefan said.

THE_STORM is removed ( not delete, but a comment is added, therefore no warning until now. we don't delete posts, so I think it's only appropriate not to completely remove him from there. ) from that thread.

warnings might sound to some ppl like really severe, to others it's 'only' a warning. we don't even have an upper limit of warnings