Proactive vs. Reactive

[Nebulous]

Should forum staff be proactive or reactive when they're alerted of a potentially troublesome members?

In this context, "proactive" means they received a tip from a reputable member (or maybe an admin from another forum) and banned that potentially troublesome member immediately, before they could have the chance to wreak havoc on the forum.

"Reactive" means the staff team will handle issues if and when they happen. Things that happen on other outside forums are out of their jurisdiction & they only take action based on what happens "in house."

 

[Teg]

Honestly, unless you know for sure that a member is joining your forum to damage your reputation, or cause havoc, you shouldn't auto ban them based on what other people say. I'm more of a reactive administrator. Typically, I like to give people a chance. Now, if I'm aware they've had issues on other forums, and those issues arise on my sites, they'll definitely be banned.

 

[Mikaya]

Reactive sounds more ideal. You should only take action when it's seen first hand and not judge so easily before members have made any damage. Just work as you go along, and make sure you have enough staff to cover just in case issues should arise. Myself and others I work with take the reactive approach for the most part. 😀

 

[Cierra]

Reactive. Until someone has personally done something on my forum they'll be free to stay. I've gotten "tips" like that before and while I thank them for letting me know I don't do anything about it or really keep it in mind when dealing with the member. I like to give everyone a fair and equal chance; especially as sometimes people change, it could of been a one time mistake, reputable member is making it a bigger problem than it is, etc etc.

 

[Thomasss]

I have always been a reactive kind of staff member. It bugs me when people are banned on other forums because they messed up on others. Honestly, unless it happens on the forum my staff have jurisdiction over, they don't need to take any kind of action. Of course they should watch them a little more than other members, but it doesn't mean they should be banned for something they did on another forum. What happens on another forum should not be anyone's business unless it directly threatens your forum in a way you have no choice but to deal with it before it happens. If a member was banned for sexually harassing someone on another forum, and both parties were on my forum, I might deal with that differently but that's about it. Honestly, I think it kills a member base if their reputation on other sites is the reason why they got banned from your site, even if they didn't break any of the rules. I don't support being proactive at all, I'll move along with it if everyone else is proactive but I just don't see how it's fair.

 

[Nebulous]

At my forum we have a "wait & see" approach when we're alerted of a potentially troublesome member. We allow them to be there and we wait to see if they start messing up. If they decide to be a good member there and not cause problems, then all is well.

Not sure if the "proactive approach" is exactly fair or the best way to do things.

Sometimes attempting to be proactive results in more problems (such as staff having to deal with a disgruntled person who feels slighted and may want to seek revenge).

 

[Kino]

Should forum staff be proactive or reactive when they're alerted of a potentially troublesome members?

In this context, "proactive" means they received a tip from a reputable member (or maybe an admin from another forum) and banned that potentially troublesome member immediately, before they could have the chance to wreak havoc on the forum.

"Reactive" means the staff team will handle issues if and when they happen. Things that happen on other outside forums are out of their jurisdiction & they only take action based on what happens "in house."

Most of the time I think good management combines both of the above and uses proactive means when necessary. Obviously, the goal is to keep most of the people we can on the forum, even if troublemakers. It always seems the troublemakers are the most active members. So it makes sense to try and negotiate with them to get them to behave in a more orderly manner.

However, I think when provided with extremely credible evidence of accusations, there is always room for a straight ban so then you don't have to deal with the issue later on down the road.

 

[Cosmic]

It really depends on the type of threat. When dealing with trolling and spamming, reactive is sufficient because little damage can be done. When it comes to things that can have a real world impact, such as sexual harassment or scamming, it's best to deal with any problems before they occur, though.