I don't believe in this... It doesn't work, when you perma ban a users because of something like rule breaking or pissing everyone off, yea sure everyone is mad then, but if you perma ban that user, and they really want to come back, they could, but if it's been weeks since that user got ban, and no one cares anymore or isn't as mad, the staff decides not to ban that user again... So what's was the point of perma banning in the first place? If you really want to discipline a user for constantly breaking rules, ban them for a couple of days, believe me, it will work. Instead of making a new account, they actually wait, instead of going threw that hassle...
So this is why, I tell my staff, NO BANS UNLESS WE ALL Discuss it, and ultimately I decide if whoever ban should go through...
Cause let's be real... Some staff members let there emotions get in the way, and figure ways to get rid of users who get on there nerves, that's why I'm still looking for that right staff...
Business forums attract a huge amount of spam, a lot more than other types of forums, in my experience. We sometimes get spammers who will join and post a huge number of spam links in less than 30 minutes and I ban those permanently, because I don't believe that they will ever contribute anything to the forum.
It would not be normal for us to permanently ban a member who has actually participated actively on the forum. But it has happened, e.g. to a member who made serious threats to hack the forum, there really isn't much comeback after something like that and I would find it very difficult to trust them on the forum again.
I would definitely permanently ban somebody who are nothing but a nuisance.
However, I would only go that far if they truly deserved it - at that point there should be no reason why they would want to be part of my community if it got to that stage.
Who here seriously would only ban a spam bot for less than an indefinite period?
I had to permaban an active member with nearly 3K posts at Nukia because he felt that I was a bad admin and tried to get the US Government (Who didn't care. At all.) to shut us down. Or at least told me that. Either way he was messing with the wrong guy.
I agree. Sometimes a person acts up so much to the breaking point where you have no choice but to permanently ban them. So I actually believe in permanent bans for this reason.
Perma banning people at the time because of like you guys say being annoying, sure at the time it seems like the right thing to do, but then a month later... Passes by and that same user is back again, but This time not doing anything...
Would you ban him again after that long month? And now he isn't anything? No..
So what was the point of the perma ban?
If you wanted to send a message to ANY user, just ban for about 2 weeks, they'll get it
I believe in permanent bans only in extreme cases. For example, if someone's very first post blatantly flames other members or something of that nature, then a permanent ban right away is probably the best option since most people who come to a forum just to insult people are usually just trolls. In just about any other case, though, I would probably use warnings or temporary bans.
It's all well and good saying that they could just come back and everyone forgets about it but then they come back and cause more trouble. If they continue to try visit the forum/website etc then take higher measures but never not permanent banning someone is basically letting them get away with it.
Banning someone over and over can be more effective than perma ban, because they actual wait the wait times, perma ban them, and they just come back later
Although I have perma ban someone who I kept warning (never enough to technically ban them, but they would always repeat again, and again, and again..ect...ect...)
We permaban in the case of something severe, or when a few temp bans haven't corrected their behaviour. Temp bans are a teaching tool for us. Perm bans are not. They remove people from your community who are harming it and who will not improve.
Only permaban a user if you're going to stand by it. Don't do it in a state of high emotion - analyse the situation dispassionately. If you're going to wake up the next day and think twice about the decision you made the night before, when you were really frustrated, then it's no good. Because the minute you unban a user, the permaban loses credibility as a means of punishment.
You also have to stand by it if users evade the ban by using a proxy, or by registering from a different location. I've seen a lot of people who've re-registered, made a couple of hundred good posts, and then we find out that they're Mr Troller who got banned six months ago. The admin will go "since you've been a good contributor, we'll let you stay."
That's no good, because it shows everyone that if you make half-arsed attempt at contributing, your previous offences will be overlooked. It's also hypocritical because the staff aren't standing by their own rules.
Bans are fine for really serious offences, or when users have refused to correct their behaviour after numerous attempts. I'm the owner of my own community, and I reserve the right to disallow anyone I don't like to take part in it. If I feel someone is going to be a trouble maker, intentionally or unintentionally, or if I don't like their behaviour, then I will ban/block them. At the same time, I have to steel myself against people who reregister to protest that "they didn't know that porn wasn't a form of art" (happened ONCE on another forum that I coadminned) and that they thought that repeatedly ignoring a mod if they "thought the rule was stupid, was perfectly fine".
Basically, ban all you like, but nut up and stand by your decision when you've made it.
