Is it really beneficial to make bans/punishments public?

[TheFriskyIan]

I'm talking about the Ban Notices thread. I understand you guys made it in an effort to be more transparent, but I don't see any other benefits towards making another user's ban noticeable for others. If I ever broke a rule on here that was ban worthy, I'd be pretty embarrassed and would rather have the matter dealt discretely and privately with the person who is banning me. I'd feel even worse if others knew right away if I was banned and are able to see why I was banned. I don't know, I was just wondering about this for a while but never really decided to ask until now.

[Gorbatschow]

I'd feel even worse if others knew right away if I was banned.

And then you're even less likely to do it again. It's a double punishment.

[Melchior]

I think the idea is to dissaude people from doing anything ban-worthy to begin with.
Ideally, rules will be recognized and followed, and the necessity of the public ban notices would be entirely moot.

[Monk Ed]

One reason it was brought about was in response to distaste with the lack of notification that someone had gotten banned. Some people take the lack of notice that their friend was banned as an affront of sorts. I don't remember the particular cases off the top of my head that I saw of that. And I believe the idea that ban notices might seem too much like public shaming was indeed brought up during the discussion of whether or not to implement it, but at the time the hotter issue was transparency.

[UrsusArctos]

Y'know, we tried to keep things discreet and private and we in fact did that if a member apologized and requested that their misbehavior be kept private. But then we landed up being asked "why was X banned?" followed by allegations that we weren't transparent enough, that we were abusing our powers, and so on.

Like Monk said, we did discuss this, and we decided that transparency really did matter given the prevailing atmosphere in the forum a few months ago. To change things back just for the sake of giving a misbehaving user a little privacy poses a lot of problems to users who want to know what is bannable and what is not, where we draw the line and where we let things go. I think that matters.

Being banned is not a mark of shame at all. It means "shape up or ship out". If Aenimal or any returning banned user learns to behave better and doesn't repeat the offense that got them banned in the first place, they need not be ashamed at all.

[pwhodges]

My experience on another forum favours transparency as well (though we don't have a specific thread for it - I've been considering adding one, in fact). For temporary bans, the forum software we use provides a flag alongside the user's posts (and a lesser "warned" flag before that point is reached) - this means that people can see that the mods are in touch without having extra OT posts littering up the place.

[TheFriskyIan]

Y'know, we tried to keep things discreet and private and we in fact did that if a member apologized and requested that their misbehavior be kept private. But then we landed up being asked "why was X banned?" followed by allegations that we weren't transparent enough, that we were abusing our powers, and so on.

Why is one user getting banned the concern of others? That would be between X and the moderator who banned X. Asking why X was banned is snooping into business that doesn't involve the individual who is asking.

Like Monk said, we did discuss this, and we decided that transparency really did matter given the prevailing atmosphere in the forum a few months ago. To change things back just for the sake of giving a misbehaving user a little privacy poses a lot of problems to users who want to know what is bannable and what is not, where we draw the line and where we let things go. I think that matters.

If they wanted to know what is bannable and what isn't couldn't they just read the rules? If they're wondering about what posts are allowed to skirt the line between fine and rule breaking they should just be under the impression that whatever they don't see isn't allowed.

Being banned is not a mark of shame at all. It means "shape up or ship out". If Aenimal or any returning banned user learns to behave better and doesn't repeat the offense that got them banned in the first place, they need not be ashamed at all.

If an individual was banned for being a jerk and all they did was insult other users, post rants, and just overall was a bad person, that could shape how others view that individual even after their ban has been expired.

[Fazmotron]

Why is one user getting banned the concern of others? That would be between X and the moderator who banned X. Asking why X was banned is snooping into business that doesn't involve the individual who is asking.

If an individual was banned for being a jerk and all they did was insult other users, post rants, and just overall was a bad person, that could shape how others view that individual even after their ban has been expired.

This is a forum, a community, what you post and how you behave on here is viewable by everybody, and it is those public things that you will most often times be banned for.
Also, it is more likely that the attitude or behaviour of the individual shapes people's perception of them, not whether or not they have been banned. There have been a number of members that have been banned only to return as very productive and respected members of the forum.

[pwhodges]

Why is one user getting banned the concern of others?

Because people can have a kind of relationship through the forum, and if one disappears without explanation others can become concerned.

[NemZ]

I understand where you're coming from TFI, but keeping it public still seems like it's worth that potential hassle. Like it or not people do get a bit nosy when others get banned and sometimes that can escalate into all kinds of drama and misunderstandings. This way everyone knows who is gone, why, and when they can be expected back.

It also has a secondary feature of keeping track of disciplinary rulings all in one place to assist the staff in making equitable decisions regarding repeat offenders without having to rely on memory or comb through old threads.

There have been a number of members that have been banned only to return as very productive and respected members of the forum.

...including several members of the current staff.

[UrsusArctos]

@pwhodges - That's actually a pretty good system!

@TheFrisky - Your last point makes no sense. Try applying that to real life and ask whether it's good for the public not to know from TV if the guy walking down the street is a convicted criminal (convicted of what? Arson? Murder? Or just jaywalking?) because it'll "shape their judgment". Same logic here.

As for your first point - ask the forum members here who wanted greater transparency and argue this out with them. While I can see where you're coming from here, I think we do need transparency over privacy as far as naughty deeds are concerned.

Your second point, however...

If they wanted to know what is bannable and what isn't couldn't they just read the rules?

Unfortunately, people don't.

EDIT: My much-delated posting caused three X-posts inbetween. Quoting Faz here -

Also, it is more likely that the attitude or behaviour of the individual shapes people's perception of them, not whether or not they have been banned. There have been a number of members that have been banned only to return as very productive and respected members of the forum.

This, absolutely this.

[riffraff11235]

Could I make a suggestion in the interest of some more transparency? When I see someone's post replaced by red text I often wonder what exactly they said to get that treatment. Would it be reasonable to include the original post in spoiler tags along with the red text?

[UrsusArctos]

(Edited for a little clarity on the spoiler tags). That's a good suggestion, but it applies only if the material is actually not worth deleting in the first place. If it was something so low we wouldn't want it even in spoilers (which don't prevent google from indexing it) - a post containing obscene/NSFW material, discriminatory slurs, bigotry, and the like it would have to go. Those things just don't belong here, and neither do people who post them.

[pwhodges]

Would it be reasonable to include the original post in spoiler tags along with the red text?

That's a tricky one; I do both ways on my forum, delete or spoiler depending on what it is; but if deleting I always keep a copy of the original in our trashbin (which is a hidden, mods-only folder in our case), in case of arguments or even reconsideration (it has happened).

[Ornette]

Could I make a suggestion in the interest of some more transparency? When I see someone's post replaced by red text I often wonder what exactly they said to get that treatment. Would it be reasonable to include the original post in spoiler tags along with the red text?

Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of removing it in the first place?

And we already edit people's posts sometimes and put stuff in spoilers.

[Doublegee]

The problem with this approach is that you only get one side of the story, and admins are as human as the rest of us.

[Xard]

The problem with this approach is that you only get one side of the story, and admins are as human as the rest of us.

That doesn't sound like a problem but admission about constraints of situation altogether. That wouldn't change one bit with making bans non-public.

[Shinoyami65]

I still think it's better to make bans public. That way we don't have to start speculating wildly when someone disappears unexpectedly. I have yet to see any cases where the 'reason for ban' description has appeared biased or in contradiction to the reason for ban.

[Dream]

Yeah as bad as the whole "making the bans public" thing might be, keeping it (and the forum) in the dark is much worse.

[nervshatter]

I'm so proud of myself for making the first page of that thread .