Should a ban be permanent ? (This obviously excludes the 7 days ban)

[Head1]

At the moment, we have two banning options. For less serious rule breaches, seven days and the total ban for more severe cases.
There is no real comeback from a total ban, but should we bring one in?
After all, people change, and we could be losing good contributors who when realising the error of their ways, become a valuable contributing member again
Thoughts?

[versace]

Permanent ban = forever
Temporary ban = anywhere between 1 week to 52 weeks(1 year), depending of the severity, decided by a mod.

[popmopcop]

In my personal life experiences I found giving people a second chance a double edge sword. People simply change their tactics to satisfy their needs.

How many "perfect" gentlemen have turned out to be predators.

[FiveKnuckles]

Should be at the discretion of the mods/owners after considering the severity of what the person did.

If it's known there's a 6 month ban hammer, there'll be some manipulation.  Zebra can't change their stripes as they say.  Also should be constant 'probation' thereafter so any further infringement means permanent.

[hendrix]

It's tricky, in that fantasists for example, deserve banning but are essentially harmless apart from the useless info they may provide, but there have been some proper scum whose behaviour has affected people's real lives outside the forum (punters and WG's) .. I don't think they should ever be allowed back.

[alabama1]

Permanent ban : Fantasists who write fake reviews. Anyone who brags about hurting or bullying WG's. Also anyone posting rape type reviews, (a good example of this is currently being discussed in the W. Mids section). Basically, anyone who comes across as a 'wrong un'

Temp ban : Someone who temporarily loses his/her temper, has a meltdown, abuses mods/members in the heat of the moment, but is otherwise, generally a good person/contributor, and shows remorse.

Oh, and as regards WG's. Permanent ban for outing punters, disrespecting mods/this site. Temp ban for temporary loss of control, (being wound up by a member for example).

[alabama1]

Permanent ban = forever
Temporary ban = anywhere between 1 week to 52 weeks(1 year), depending of the severity, decided by a mod.

Why have you just repeated Head1,s options. 

[versace]

Why have you just repeated Head1,s options. 

I haven’t. Read my post again. Temporary ban should vary between 1 week and 52 weeks, depending of the severity! At the moment temporary ban is only 7 days. Permanent ban should remain permanent. I hope things are more clear to you now 

[alabama1]

I haven’t. Read my post again. Temporary ban should vary between 1 week and 52 weeks, depending of the severity! At the moment temporary ban is only 7 days. Permanent ban should remain permanent. I hope things are more clear to you now 

There are only 3 options to vote on, and that isn't one of them. 

[jamiekinkxxx]

wow this is a hard one.

I imagine there needs to be criteria first. Some things subject at a possibility of an appeal (as with Pratpatel regaining his membership after new evidence (PS good on you and mods for listening to this)) should be banned for life.

I think then you may have a banning period subject to the ‘crime’ that could be ‘x’ ‘y’ or ‘z’ in length subject to the ‘crime’ which I guess is the current 7 day ban extended for more ‘serious crimes’  BUT having a no more than ‘x’ bans before it becomes a permanent one? Hope that makes sense?

The difficulty is what are those criteria’s and how long are they for?

Sorry not really helped but I guess I’m saying benefit of the doubt?

[versace]

There are only 3 options to vote on, and that isn't one of them. 

Try thinking outside of the box mate. 

[Dogfather]

I've not met anyone who has ever "changed".
In my experience they'll temporarily hide their real selves to try and get back what they lost but they revert back to real character fairly soon.

Once a w*nker always a w*nker.

Permanent for serious breach.

[Spunky34]

Personally I think it’s fine as it is.  The chances of a leopard changing his spots as a result of a 6 month or 12 month ban seems small to me. It’s the act of being banned (even for 7 days as is the case now), not the length of the ban, which should cause that person to reflect on their behaviour.

I’d also say that it must make things easier for everyone to understand if the rule is “no second chances”.  That in itself might deter some questionable behaviour compared with knowing that a second chance is possible. 

[alabama1]

At the moment, we have two banning options. For less serious rule breaches, seven days and the total ban for more severe cases.
There is no real comeback from a total ban, but should we bring one in?
After all, people change, and we could be losing good contributors who when realising the error of their ways, become a valuable contributing member again
Thoughts?

I think the vote should be two options , not three. Either Permanent or Temp, as the temp. 6 and temp 12 month options is diluting the temp vote. After this has been decided, then we could vote on either 6 or 12 months ban, (if the temp. ban wins that is).

[alabama1]

Try thinking outside of the box mate. 

I would if there was an option out there. 

[kuck]

I think permabans should be reserved for

• harmful and/or dangerous members
• touts
• members that do not change their ways after a temp ban

[bigden40]

FWIW I would suggest that a full ban is forever but maybe having additional flexibility on the length of a temp ban would give mods room for discretion where behaviour is more than a week bad but a permaban would be harsh.

[JontyR]

Permanent ban : Fantasists who write fake reviews. Anyone who brags about hurting or bullying WG's. Also anyone posting rape type reviews, (a good example of this is currently being discussed in the W. Mids section). Basically, anyone who comes across as a 'wrong un'

Temp ban : Someone who temporarily loses his/her temper, has a meltdown, abuses mods/members in the heat of the moment, but is otherwise, generally a good person/contributor, and shows remorse.

Oh, and as regards WG's. Permanent ban for outing punters, disrespecting mods/this site. Temp ban for temporary loss of control, (being wound up by a member for example).

This.

Unless of course there is a further reason as to why this question is being asked. Strikes me that the ownership / mod team do a decent job at the moment of judging what's necessary

[s0whatsnew?]

I've sometimes been surprised at reading that member xyz has been banned, whether temp or perm.   The reasons for temp sometimes do seem a bit trivial IMO ;  more like annoying a mod than anything objectively real.    Of course I might not know whats gone on outside my reading but thats how i see it.

Serious stuff;  a member's  possible remorse has to be shown to be real.  Just  'saying'  sorry is like a criminal in the dock saying sorry.  Of course he's sorry...at being caught.  Probation by  ongoing   'citizen jury'  judgement feels like a possibility.

[Billy no mates]

I am a firm believer in giving people a second chance, but not a third, forth, fifth etc.

However some attitudes, and practices not only are hurtful and harmful to the victims, these are also making genuine punters life difficult as we all become mistrusted. The management team here do a fantastic job of weeding out the dickheads and the c*nts, as there is usually a difference, I hate giving them more work to do but trust their judgment in making good decisions.

[Colston36]

At the moment, we have two banning options. For less serious rule breaches, seven days and the total ban for more severe cases.
There is no real comeback from a total ban, but should we bring one in?
After all, people change, and we could be losing good contributors who when realising the error of their ways, become a valuable contributing member again
Thoughts?

Being senile I have never understood what the word "ban" means here. Everywhere else it means people cannot participate -"to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict". Here it seems to mean you can join in, but with restrictions, though what they are I don't know. I think people who seriously misbehave should indeed be barred, but I am not the management.

[Steve2]

If it isn't broke, there is no need to fix it. Seems to work very well at the moment 

[Foxtail17]

If it isn't broke, there is no need to fix it. Seems to work very well at the moment 

Just my thoughts too.

[limarasa9]

My two pence worth based on a couple of recent events:

1. A member in his review claims he has done physical harm to the SP - This should be a permanent ban in its truest sense with no recourse of coming back. No way this member should be allowed in after 6 or 12 months

2. An allegation is made against a member on another forum - This should be a temp ban but still allowing the member to present their side of the story / evidence etc.. to the mods and the owner.

So I think ultimately the length of the ban should correlate to the reason why they have been banned and I guess it should be up to the mods and owners to decide if someone deserves a second chance based on the reason they have been banned.

[Al R]

Permanent ban : Fantasists who write fake reviews. Anyone who brags about hurting or bullying WG's. Also anyone posting rape type reviews, (a good example of this is currently being discussed in the W. Mids section). Basically, anyone who comes across as a 'wrong un'

Temp ban : Someone who temporarily loses his/her temper, has a meltdown, abuses mods/members in the heat of the moment, but is otherwise, generally a good person/contributor, and shows remorse.

Oh, and as regards WG's. Permanent ban for outing punters, disrespecting mods/this site. Temp ban for temporary loss of control, (being wound up by a member for example).

I was edging towards one of the second chance options until I read this post - and then found the review.

No second chances for people like that IMO so went with permanent = forever

[Andywb]

Permanent ban : Fantasists who write fake reviews. Anyone who brags about hurting or bullying WG's. Also anyone posting rape type reviews, (a good example of this is currently being discussed in the W. Mids section). Basically, anyone who comes across as a 'wrong un'

Temp ban : Someone who temporarily loses his/her temper, has a meltdown, abuses mods/members in the heat of the moment, but is otherwise, generally a good person/contributor, and shows remorse.

Oh, and as regards WG's. Permanent ban for outing punters, disrespecting mods/this site. Temp ban for temporary loss of control, (being wound up by a member for example).

These criteria are logical, although the unanswered question is the length of the Temp ban. Head1 excludes the existing 7 day ban from the debate in the title to this thread. For the 'temp'  offences outlined by Alabama1 here, but warranting more than the existing 7 days, I vote for 6 months and reprieve. The Permanent ban for offences outlined by Alabama1 should be forever.

[signy]

I will vote for the second option for most cases. However, I think the ability to impose an immendiate permanent ban for the most severe cases should remain in the Mods' toolbox. For the site's own protection, there are subjects on which it should be seen to be clamping down as strongly as possible.

[scouting]

During my period of membership there have been several members given bans which I have been sad about because I enjoyed their contributions. Of course often I don't know all the detail which led to the ban so that might change my mind. Many guys who have received bans do I think deserve them, eg obvious fake stories, outing, threats of violence etc.
FWIW I would be happy that the Mods have an option to give a second chance. Ie not an automatic 2nd chance but a thought-out option. The perpetrators would be low in number so could be on a probationary period.

[Dipper]

At the moment, we have two banning options. For less serious rule breaches, seven days and the total ban for more severe cases.
There is no real comeback from a total ban, but should we bring one in?
After all, people change, and we could be losing good contributors who when realising the error of their ways, become a valuable contributing member again
Thoughts?

I think the current set up is fair. As long as clear warnings are given when problems arise.

For example: ‘poster X’ makes the initial offending post or posts… is warned. If that continues then maybe one more warning or straight to a seven day ban, depending on severity.

Let’s say ‘poster X’ then returns after seven days the same applies then it’d be one warning again from that point to total ban for any more rule breaking or other nonesense.

Would an official ‘yellow card’ system of some kind work for warnings?

[ulstersubbie]

However some attitudes, and practices not only are hurtful and harmful to the victims, these are also making genuine punters life difficult as we all become mistrusted. The management team here do a fantastic job of weeding out the dickheads and the c*nts, as there is usually a difference, I hate giving them more work to do but trust their judgment in making good decisions.

+1

[Doc Holliday]

If it isn't broke, there is no need to fix it. Seems to work very well at the moment 

Clearly Head1 thinks otherwise or he wouldn't be asking? 

There is no real comeback from a total ban

I'm surprised at that? I was always under the impression anyone who was banned could  appeal their case? If that isn't the situation now, then I believe it should be. It is with most forums and has been with this one in the past I believe? Of course there is a large spectrum of reasons for banning and in most instances an appeal is unlikely to be valid or succeed. As others have said people rarely change their spots.

I think putting time scales on bans is over complicating it (other than the 7 day) A full ban simply remains in place until, as forum owner, you decide to give that person another chance and remove the ban from their account settings.

Whilst the final decision is yours, obviously you would need to discuss it with Admin/Mods in particular the person who imposed the ban as allowing banned members back, does have the potential to undermine them. I speak from experience both ways on that one.

[myothernameis]

I would say, if the mods/head1 are going to ban someone, then think that person should be given a chance to reply and explain there actions, in a pm

[Punterperson1971]

Permanent ban : Fantasists who write fake reviews. Anyone who brags about hurting or bullying WG's. Also anyone posting rape type reviews, (a good example of this is currently being discussed in the W. Mids section). Basically, anyone who comes across as a 'wrong un'

Temp ban : Someone who temporarily loses his/her temper, has a meltdown, abuses mods/members in the heat of the moment, but is otherwise, generally a good person/contributor, and shows remorse.

Oh, and as regards WG's. Permanent ban for outing punters, disrespecting mods/this site. Temp ban for temporary loss of control, (being wound up by a member for example).

This is ideal plus non contribution on here but would depend how often the person is logging in from the time they joined to the last time they log in

[Atrueyorkie]

My pets opinion is the current ban options are fine.

A week ban for something minor is enough to screw their head on and a full time is needed for those that should never come back. King Tarzan, jerk chicken and that one punter in West Midlands who I read about the other day.

I would be horrified if they came back to the scene

[90125]

If it isn't broke, there is no need to fix it. Seems to work very well at the moment 

Yep, I agree with that but would make it a condition of anyone receiving a temporary ban that they pay the joining fee before getting back in.

[SideFun81]

If it isn't broke, there is no need to fix it. Seems to work very well at the moment 

Totally agree! 

Having seen a ban happen to someone who white knighted my review of Layla De Luxxx to the SP in question, the system appears to work well as is. Certainly, the quick reactions of the moderators in my case, gave me the confidence to continue sharing reviews which I hope are helpful to other members.

[versace]

Yep, I agree with that but would make it a condition of anyone receiving a temporary ban that they pay the joining fee before getting back in.

That would be very controversial as there would be a financial gain for the site owners to hand out temp bans right left and centre.
 

[90125]

That would be very controversial as there would be a financial gain for the site owners to hand out temp bans right left and centre.

Not sure I like that accusation 

[Doc Holliday]

Not sure I like that accusation 

It would be a false and unfounded accusation, but it wouldn't stop some thinking that way.

I think it would be harsh with 7 day bans to then become subject to an annual charge.

[versace]

Not sure I like that accusation 

It’s not an accusation, it’s an observation, that’s why I said it would be controversial as there is a financial gain to be had by handing out temporary bans. Temporary ban should be enough as a punishment on its own.

[datwabbit]

Clearly Head1 thinks otherwise or he wouldn't be asking? 

I'm surprised at that? I was always under the impression anyone who was banned could  appeal their case? If that isn't the situation now, then I believe it should be. It is with most forums and has been with this one in the past I believe? Of course there is a large spectrum of reasons for banning and in most instances an appeal is unlikely to be valid or succeed. As others have said people rarely change their spots.

I think putting time scales on bans is over complicating it (other than the 7 day) A full ban simply remains in place until, as forum owner, you decide to give that person another chance and remove the ban from their account settings.

Whilst the final decision is yours, obviously you would need to discuss it with Admin/Mods in particular the person who imposed the ban as allowing banned members back, does have the potential to undermine them. I speak from experience both ways on that one.

I think people do get a chance to explain. Usually a mod points something out and in a lot of cases they don't reply or just insult the mod. Perhaps the mod should explain it's a chance for them to explain more. It might come across as a mod just making a comment.

[Lecoamraam]

At the moment, we have two banning options. For less serious rule breaches, seven days and the total ban for more severe cases.
There is no real comeback from a total ban, but should we bring one in?
After all, people change, and we could be losing good contributors who when realising the error of their ways, become a valuable contributing member again
Thoughts?

In my opinion the “slap on the wrist” seven day ban is an excellent tool. It serves as a warning. No need to expand this any further.

I think there should be an option to reverse the perma ban. As you say, people can change and better their ways and the transgressions leading to the ban sit on a broad scale. At this moment the “rude shit stirrer”, “the EAS-suffering white knight” and the “potentially violently abusive rapist” sit in the same perma ban prison cell. Although all are unacceptable behaviour, they are different and have varying consequences. That should be a reason to re-evaluate a perma ban in my option. But I do not think the worst of transgressions should have an automatic lift of the ban after 6 or 12 months. It should be a possibility to appeal for a lift of the ban, not a guarantee.

Although extremely unlikely, it is also possible that a perma ban sentence, given in the past, might have been not right. Head1 and the Mods are human after all (I believe)

[Doc Holliday]

I think people do get a chance to explain. Usually a mod points something out and in a lot of cases they don't reply or just insult the mod. Perhaps the mod should explain it's a chance for them to explain more. It might come across as a mod just making a comment.

That happens frequently before the banning but neither of us knows what communication currently happens after, which is what is under discussion? 

[Doc Holliday]

In my opinion the “slap on the wrist” seven day ban is an excellent tool. It serves as a warning. No need to expand this any further.

I think there should be an option to reverse the perma ban. As you say, people can change and better their ways and the transgressions leading to the ban sit on a broad scale. At this moment the “rude shit stirrer”, “the EAS-suffering white knight” and the “potentially violently abusive rapist” sit in the same perma ban prison cell. Although all are unacceptable behaviour, they are different and have varying consequences. That should be a reason to re-evaluate a perma ban in my option. But I do not think the worst of transgressions should have an automatic lift of the ban after 6 or 12 months. It should be a possibility to appeal for a lift of the ban, not a guarantee.

Although extremely unlikely, it is also possible that a perma ban sentence, given in the past, might have been not right. Head1 and the Mods are human after all (I believe)

This ^

[FiveKnuckles]

Yep, I agree with that but would make it a condition of anyone receiving a temporary ban that they pay the joining fee before getting back in.

That would be very controversial as there would be a financial gain for the site owners to hand out temp bans right left and centre.

would be harsh to pay a 'temp ban unlock fee'.     


I do however think members that are riding on Free accounts (no annual subs) should return as paying members if they're temporary banned.  I get that some guys have contributed a lot over the years, but they do 'give it plenty' to push minor disputes into full fledge arguements.

Whilst the final decision is yours, obviously you would need to discuss it with Admin/Mods in particular the person who imposed the ban as allowing banned members back, does have the potential to undermine them. I speak from experience both ways on that one.

+1. The mod that did the banning should have the final say, or it'll undermine their authority.

... and just as we're asked to leave with no announcements, guys returning shouldn't be throwing announcement parties.

[datwabbit]

If anyone read my previous version of this post, well I've done a complete 180.

I believe that a rejoining fee is valid because rejoining is essentially letting someone keep their old username and profile and that's it. They could join (and pay) with a new account. So in that sense, it is the same.

[Southernbloke]

Not been a member that long but generally speaking it seems that “it ain’t broke so don’t fix it “
However if someone who has been banned sends an apologetic email after a year and wishes to pay a bigger membership fee on the provision that one step out of line and they are banned permanently and lose their membership fee.
I think the Mods do an excellent job and although all of us make the odd mistake they seem to be doing very well and a damn sight better than I could do

[Jonestown]

Is there not a legal position to consider when it comes to banning members who have paid a subscription fee ?

[bops909]

A couple of thoughts :

The commentary that appears in contributions from banned members is valuable so we know what you can get a ban for, so I'd say carry on with that aspect of it.

If you make changes, monitor the impact it's having on activity, in particular how many people given reprieves then keep their noses clean. Then you can  introduce changes on a trial basis and reverse them if they prove not to work, or have unintended consequences.

[datwabbit]

Is there not a legal position to consider when it comes to banning members who have paid a subscription fee ?

Seeking do it all the time. You're breaking the t&c so can be banned.