the future of banning

[Sydney]

It's been several days now since the first experiment in banning took place, and at least several of us have been discussing it from several angles.

I'm gonna pitch out a few random thoughts in no particular order and see if a little open dialogue may be of some use.

I think it's a good idea for the ability to temporarily or permanently restrict access to site functionality to be in place for proper site management.

A week is an eternity in internet time, and far too long a ban for most realistic situations. To quote myself from the IM shortly ago, a week is "well, I guess I'll find something else to do" in internet time.

If someone has a history of meaningful contribution to the forum but gets wild enough on a given occasion to cause a disruption, maybe a "time out" ban of a few hours can help the IM settle back down to normal. Any mod should be able to dole out an hour-long time out based on personal discretion, which would allow a mod to be just plain wrong w/o causing too much damage.

Any ban longer than a "time out" might be best doled out by a majority vote of site mods/administrators who agree that someone's behavior is a meaningful threat to the well-being of the site and/or community.

I'm sure I could go on, but the idea here isn't to pimp my own agenda, but to help facilitate a little healthy discussion.

[Space Samurai]

While I agree with Padre, I got the impression that the ban was issued by Ilya (or another Adagio rep.), which would mean the situation is probably out of our hands.

[scruffmcgruff]

I do think a week was on the long side for a pretty innocuous (though opinions may differ here) dirty joke. I don't really mind being banned for a few days, but it's strange that I should still be banned for another ~68 more hours. IMO, a week-long ban ("to start with," as I recall Ilya saying) should probably be reserved for the really nasty stuff, like what uniformsquare sometimes links to in IRC, as opposed to euphemistic references to phalli.

TBH, a warning would have been quite enough to temper my foul mouth, but I should mention again that I do appreciate the value of making an example.

[scruffmcgruff]

As to Space's comment, I kind of doubt that banning would be very effective if only one person (who can't be on the IM all the time) is able to implement it; I would guess that mods or other Adagio peeps would have to get involved at some point.

[Space Samurai]

I only meant that till now the forum has largely been moderated by the mods chosen and voted on from our numbers. A ban from Ilya means they're doing their own thing now, and may not be interested in what we have to say about it. Of course this is their forum and they have that right.

I was surprised by the whole thing and the lack of warning. I would have expected to see a sticky or a post saying the chat is back to normal and violators will be temporarily banned sort of thing. Some kind of structure. Still, this kind of behavior is covered in the rules.

And yes, they've made a great example out of Scruff. I know it has curbed my desire to let out the occasional '*freak*' when I think I can get away with it.

[scruffmcgruff]

Good points. I thought the same thing with regard to the surprise; it is in the rules, so I guess I shouldn't have been.

[Salsero]

I was also surprised partly because Ilya has always been the largely absent presence in the forum. Certainly it is his forum and he can do whatever he wants, but I suspect this was an experimental move on his part, picking Scruff thinking that it was a gesture between friends and not thinking it through ahead of time. He was probably thinking more about trying out his new code than about what Scruff said.

Since Scruff's ban, I have seen several instances of language which I would judge dramatically more likely to give offence than Scuff's off-color comments, but with nothing said or done about it. It is my impression that 90% of the time no one monitors the IM nor does anyone want to monitor a 24/7 live feed. I personally am -- as you no doubt know -- unoffended by much of any language, but I respect others' concerns on the issue.

A little more formal progression of consequences would be helpful maybe, and certainly an initial action would always be most appropriately a warning.

[Wesli]

I'd like to hear what Ilya has to say.


My personal opinion is that if anyone needs to be banned, it will be obvious to our community of regulars. Also, if someone has obviously broken the rules placed by Adagio, then they are also worthy of the ban.

[ilya]

Didn't realize this would cause stir, but I'll be happy to explain my thinking and give a little back-story. A few months ago, while everyone from Adagio (including the mods) were in Vegas for a tea show, a few people figured out a way to insert false names/icons into the IM. Hilarity ensued. The incident caused a few people within Adagio to push to fully remove the feature from the site. I spent a bit of time reworking the code as well as convincing everyone that the IM is a valuable addition.

It was fairly frustrating that within hours of relaunching the feature, that I find it being used in that way. Now given that 90% of IMs are not seen, we need to make sure the penalty is a little firmed that a slap on the wrist. I have no problems with the IM thread getting a bit mature from time to time, but felt I needed to set an example and demonstrate my personal level of "come-on-people" (registered trademark)

Hope that helps explain it.

[Sydney]

But there just has to be a stir.

What we discuss in here may or may not really have any influence on TeaChat policy & procedure, but since we devote so much energy to using the site, at least some of us are going to become opinionated and/or territorial.

I think there's an old Japanese riddle: "If you just *BOO* in IRC and nobody's there to see it, did you even make a sound?" Something like that.

[Space Samurai]

lol...fair enough, padre.

[joelbct]

A few months ago, while everyone from Adagio (including the mods) were in Vegas for a tea show, a few people figured out a way to insert false names/icons into the IM. Hilarity ensued. The incident caused a few people within Adagio to push to fully remove the feature from the site. I spent a bit of time reworking the code as well as convincing everyone that the IM is a valuable addition.

Ah, I thought we had all blocked that night out of our collective memory! What started out as 'so-and-so drinks lipton' gradually drifted into bedlam... I myself am not religious, but blatantly mocking things that people hold sacred is just very bad taste.

Teachat is better than that! And I suspect that the 14-year-olds/ alcoholics/ 14-year-old-alcoholics who were likely behind the worst of it are probably gone by now, on to greener obscene/IM Chat pastures. C'est la vie...

And that's my self-righteous-indignation-rant for the evening, tgif everyone!