Banned Usergroup

[Clarkey]

I thought of an idea today around setting up of a Banned Usergroup to place people in when they reach 3rd, 6th, etc warnings.

We see quite often that when someone reaches a warning that results in a ban that they receive the warning and then usually get banned immediately. Now the issue we have seen with this many times before is that because the user has been banned they can't see the PM informing them of the reason for the warning. The fact that it will still be there when your ban is over is not really a good excuse.

Now I admit that when someone has reached a warning that results in a ban then there's a very good chance they know what they've been banned for anyway, but that would be speculation as they wouldn't be able to see the PM to confirm it.

They also can't contact the Ombudsman on forums about any issues or concerns without asking someone else to post on their behalf.

Now, i know Admins and Mods have claimed in the past that they have been on MSN when someone's complained about being banned but they didn't bother to contact a Mod on MSN. I don't agree that it should be expected, because MSN is not an official GW communication tool, whereas the forum is.

Also considering the fact that when you are banned you can't login so what you actually see on the forums is what non registered (or not logged in) users can see, and that's pretty much all the forum, but they just can't post. That seems to be what the punishment mainly is, the inability to post.

My suggestion is to set up a usergroup for banned users, set the permissions on this usergroup so that they cannot see any section of the forum besides the Ombudsman section. if they want to read other parts they just have to view it not logged in. This then gives the banned user the ability to view their PM that contained the warning that resulted in the ban, and also gives them the opportunity to raise any concerns with the Ombudsman.

The punishment of not being able to post on the forums (besides Ombudsman section) still stands.

Now there are a few draw-backs that I considered.

1) Keeping tabs on how long a user has been in the banned group, although i'm not sure if the bans currently lift automatically or not after 14 days?

2) The user would still have access to PMs.

I can't provide a solution to point 1 because i'd need to know more about current bans.

For number 2, a possible solution is to set up a small section on forums that is only viewable to Admins, possibly Mods, possibly Ombudsman and the banned usergroup. The banned usergroup permissions could be set to prevent use of PMs, but because they have access to this little section of the forums they could use that to ask the Admins or Mods the reason for the ban so atleast they can find out that way. If any issues then arise they can go to the Ombudsman section.

There may be other draw-backs to my ideas that I have not considered, which i'm happy to hear from other peoples thoughts.

But i thought mainly that having a banned usergroup preventing them from doing anything besides post in Ombudsman section and contact staff about their warnings/bans is pretty much the same as banning someone now in regards to not being able to post or use PMs, but gives them the opportunity to speak about their ban.

Any thoughts on this? Good idea? Bad idea? Have I overlooked anything?

And if it's not even going to be considered right from the start then it might as well be locked.

[KnowLedge]

agree, and lets implement this soon. My third ban is comming up!

but there is nothign wrong with giving users access to PM.. they were banned for what they did in front of ppl.. why even touch their pM access?
with the ability to pM, they can find out what they did wrong

[knight]

Got cliff notes? I'm not reading all that.

I got an idea

DO NOT BREAK THE RULES.

If you don't break the rules you will not be banned. There are numerous forums that perma-ban on the FIRST rule violation.

Maybe some need to be reminded that it is a privilege to post on this forum not a right. Abuse your privilege and you will have it taken away.

That is all...

[Clarkey]

Got cliff notes? I'm not reading all that.

I got an idea

DO NOT BREAK THE RULES.

If you don't break the rules you will not be banned. There are numerous forums that perma-ban on the FIRST rule violation.

Maybe some need to be reminded that it is a privilege to post on this forum not a right. Abuse your privilege and you will have it taken away.

That is all...

So you comment on something you didn't bother reading.

Any Mods have any constructive thoughts and comments on this?

[Juliette]

You two disagree on the basic principle that when you receive a warning you have already gone a step too far.

[Mikgamer]

As someone who has gotten multiple 3rd warnings you know darn well it is coming and what post caused your banning. A good majority would just cause headaches for any person he or she would be allowed to PM. A ban is a ban. This is not the topic about the duration of a ban, but that is the only thing I would bother arguing against.

[KnowLedge]

You two disagree on the basic principle that when you receive a warning you have already gone a step too far.

or the mod has made a mistake and it can be resolved with a quick conversation with the mod and the ombudsman..
certainly 2 weeks ban is not worth the mod's mistake..

there have been countless times where people came back after the 2 weeks and appealed..and they got the warning off from the record. this suggests that the mod made a mistake, and therefore 2 weeks ban is not the punishment a user should receive for a mods mistake.

[Juliette]

You two disagree on the basic principle that when you receive a warning you have already gone a step too far.

or the mod has made a mistake and it can be resolved with a quick conversation with the mod and the ombudsman..
certainly 2 weeks ban is not worth the mod's mistake..

there have been countless times where people came back after the 2 weeks and appealed..and they got the warning off from the record. this suggests that the mod made a mistake, and therefore 2 weeks ban is not the punishment a user should receive for a mods mistake.

See SS' post.

[KnowLedge]

You two disagree on the basic principle that when you receive a warning you have already gone a step too far.

or the mod has made a mistake and it can be resolved with a quick conversation with the mod and the ombudsman..
certainly 2 weeks ban is not worth the mod's mistake..

there have been countless times where people came back after the 2 weeks and appealed..and they got the warning off from the record. this suggests that the mod made a mistake, and therefore 2 weeks ban is not the punishment a user should receive for a mods mistake.

See SS' post.

are banned because of how many warnings you accumulate in a 6 month period, not because of what the last warning was for

understood, but if the last warning was a mistake, then the 2 week ban shouldnt have happened

[Mikgamer]

For someone to get more than one warning in the first place they know they are bending or breaking the rules plain and simple. None will admit it during the time but I myself will at least admit most of the warnings that I've gotten were just and well deserved.

There is a good chance also even if a warning point is lifted that person will still have a similar attitude and continue to make posts pushing the limits and eventually make another one that will end up as the 3rd warning. A stall for time and a more unnecessary and easily avoided head aces is all that could come out of that and this.

[Zeratul]

No, the usergroup would not work... Why, you will ask?

here is a quote from the permissions for unregistered users:

Code: Select all

Can view profiles, memberlist and online list      Never

Guests cant see group memberships... And that setting will not be altered. It is set that way for a reason...

Also, no, we will not replace the ban system. It works just fine the way it is...

99% of the cases where someone is banned, it is posted in the banned users thread, which can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=71&t=157763
It is meant to be 100%, but it is occasionally forgotten...

The idea of a banned usergroup is ok, but it just wont work...

[Clarkey]

No, the usergroup would not work... Why, you will ask?

here is a quote from the permissions for unregistered users:

Code: Select all

Can view profiles, memberlist and online list      Never

Guests cant see group memberships... And that setting will not be altered. It is set that way for a reason...

Also, no, we will not replace the ban system. It works just fine the way it is...

99% of the cases where someone is banned, it is posted in the banned users thread, which can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=71&t=157763
It is meant to be 100%, but it is occasionally forgotten...

The idea of a banned usergroup is ok, but it just wont work...

May i suggest then that the reason for ban (i.e. the contents of the warning) be posted in the banned thread? At least that way the person knows why and can't really use the excuse that he doesn't know?

As for your "group membership" reason... well the banned group could just have that setting to never as well, so I don't see your argument with that one?

[Zeratul]

1. banned users cant log in.
2. banned users are therefore guests.
3. guests cant see any list of any groups members.

[Clarkey]

1. banned users cant log in.
2. banned users are therefore guests.
3. guests cant see any list of any groups members.

What i mean is i don't understand that part of your argument against it considering i was suggesting a banned usergroup which you can place any restrictions/permissions on that you like.... i.e. you could restrict access to group members etc. That is what i don't understand.

[knight]

1. banned users cant log in.
2. banned users are therefore guests.
3. guests cant see any list of any groups members.

What i mean is i don't understand that part of your argument against it considering i was suggesting a banned usergroup which you can place any restrictions/permissions on that you like.... i.e. you could restrict access to group members etc. That is what i don't understand.

You should of stuck aground and done these things you are now suggesting instead of blowing your chance as admin.

But what I don't understand is why you want to make the job harder on our current admins.

Btw, this thread: viewtopic.php?f=71&t=157763 (which you should know as you started the thread) gives the reason for the banning.

All banned forum users will be posted here.

1. Username
2. Length of Ban
3. Reason for Ban

Try not to appear on this list.