Should bans be permament?

[Rich Edmonds]

Should they be banned indefinitely? What sways your decision in banning someone for a certain amount of time? Having set guidelines for moderators (and yourself) to follow can seem like a wise thing to implement, but how to do you stress what level a member must reach for the 'perma' ban? If allowing someone to be permanently banned at all?

 

[Ascent]

It depends on what they did.

 

[Violetstar]

It does depend on what they've done but if you've repeatedly warned them about their behaviour and have tried a temporary ban and they return after that and still cause trouble a permanent ban is then in order imo, there is only so much your members, as well as yourself could and should put up with

 

[Pixel Pirate]

Depends on what they did and the extent of what they did.

 

[stargirl8605]

I go by my warning system when I give out bans.

Your warning bar starts at green, you break a rule, it goes to yellow, break another, it goes to orange, break another it goes to red, break another rule, you get a 1 day ban.

After your one day ban, your warning bar gets set back to yellow. You break a rule, it goes to orange, you break another rule it goes to red, you break another rule, you get a 1 week ban.

After your one week ban, your warning bar gets set back to orange. You break a rule, it goes to red, you break another rule you get a 1 month ban.

After your one month ban, your warning bar gets set back to red. You break even one rule, you get banned forever.

I got a feeling this will be very effective and I'm keeping track of where my members are in terms of banishmennt.

 

[katy perry is hot]

It depends on what they did.

This.

 

[Antarctic]

It depends really, if it's something not so bad i normally do a week ban, but very very very bad it's normally a perm. I personally don't like banning people, that's why i hardly do it.

 

[Jaosals]

Removed.

 

[HomerSPC]

We refer to the two tables above. Although the ban shown on the table isn't a permanent ban, after 3 bans he is permanently banned.

 

[Midnight]

i agree. it depends!

If its an insult one week.

if its serious, no warnings a permanent ban

 

[hcfwesker]

The permament ban only comes into play, when there's absolutely no hope for that member. ( some of you may have seen the video i posted that a member made about getting banned from my forum 🙂 )

Or, if someone joined, with no intention of joining for the forum or it's community (spammer, spambot, PM advertiser)

I don't even hardly ban ... it's always a last resort, cause i want to make sure to give that member a chance to get their say-so ... if you ban, and cut them off, will only add fuel to the fire,. and they'll keep making multiple accounts, by-passing the ban , and make it a much more mess than already is.

 

[P®od]

In my forum i have clearly stated a Ban policy. Racism and online abuse generally get people banned. Repeated offences also cannot go unpunished. If a Mod or Admin must be stretched to that limit then its dissapointing to lose a member that if they so wished could have contributed well. I have to say it is offcourse a lot different from deleting a member completely.
I also agree with hcfwesker that a ban must be a last resort. If PMing the member is just not helping then they are just wasting their chances at being part of a community.
Spammers and alike are different and i think come uder a completely different catergorie to the average user. They are just their to get their product out and don't care how many forums they are banned from visiting.
Also i advise hcfwesker that if you ever have that problem of a multiple account maker arise i suggest getting an IP banner. -😉-

 

[Nuke]

I recently had a former admin curse that the forum was *cencored words.* He was permabanned and deleted.

I've had people run on my forum, change IP, make fake emails, and spam insults to me. THIS stuff is permaban.

Other stuff is my dicision based on what it was and how much I hate them, aswell as the repeat offenders.

If spam isn't to hurt the board or purpose as an attack, it isn't punished. IPs will be permabanned, aswell as their fake emails (They change their IPs), then admin approval is turned on, in case of an attack.

 

[karateninja]

depends what they did

 

[Raiser]

Depends on what they did and the extent of what they did.

What he said.

 

[RidersDX]

Like every has been saying, it all depends. If this member has caused nothing but a huge amount of trouble, permanent. But if you think the member can be good, you could un-ban him/her.

 

[Callum93]

It depends on what they did.

This is the brief version of the answer to the question.

For example, if someone posted a couple of stupid spam topics, I don't think that is worthy of a permanent ban, maybe a ban for a day and a warning.

However if someone sent abusive PM's to all the staff with death threats (as an example) I would definitely ban them permanently.

 

[Tecca]

Yup, it really depends on what they did.

Otherwise, I don't ban people. The most I'll do is give a warning, then a suspension, depending on the severity of the action. All in all though, it's rarely a problem when deciding whether or not to ban or suspend a certain user. All about your first instinct.

 

[Ascent]

It depends on what they did.

This is the brief version of the answer to the question.

For example, if someone posted a couple of stupid spam topics, I don't think that is worthy of a permanent ban, maybe a ban for a day and a warning.

However if someone sent abusive PM's to all the staff with death threats (as an example) I would definitely ban them permanently.

No, it really does depend on what they did. Your examples even make my point more valid.

 

[golfbunny]

Depends whether it's a COB (chill out ban) or a BOS (ban on sight) situation. That's like asking schools to exclusively expel or suspend. There are situations that call for temporary bans and there are situations that call for termination of memberships, just as there are situations that call for suspensions and situations that call for expulsions.