# Wielding the banhammer



## Pielorinho (Jan 30, 2004)

Inspired by a recent discussion about some books that I dearly love, a discussion that was closed due to predictable and regrettable religion-bashing (and subsequent poster-bashing) that came into the thread, I want to ask the moderators:  have y'all considered wielding your banhammers a little more forcefully?

I only remember one person ever being banned from the boards, and that was several years ago.  Doubtless I've missed other bannings; still and all, I sometimes wonder whether the boards would benefit from kicking people off of them more often.  It might allow certain interesting discussions to occur if people knew that destroying the discussion would carry serious consequences for them.

Would y'all be willing to share your thoughts on this issue?  I'm sure you've thought about it; I was just curious why you've decided to ban people so rarely.

Daniel


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jan 30, 2004)

I've wondered about the ban, too.  Is it (and need it be) permanent?

Folks sometimes acquire some common sense with time.  I wonder if a six month ban might be a good enough.  If not, how about a year or two?

I guess I'm thinking of Dragoth the Destroyer.  He was a prolific contributor, and quite entertaining.  If he were to behave in a more sensitive manner he would be a valuable member of the community.

Let's see... Bugaboo, perhaps?  Has he been banned?


----------



## Darkness (Jan 30, 2004)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Is it (and need it be) permanent?



 It can be lifted. Come to think of it, we've had some temp bans, actually. (Generally a week or two, IIRC. A few perma-banned people also were pardoned in time.)







			
				Chei' said:
			
		

> Let's see... Bugaboo, perhaps? Has he been banned?



 Not to my knowledge. Maybe for a short time, once. Don't think so, though.


----------



## Darkness (Jan 30, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I want to ask the moderators: have y'all considered wielding your banhammers a little more forcefully?



 That's generally an admin-level decision.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 31, 2004)

I just like the word banhammer.  

The rest of this post is personal message board theory, and may be ignored, if desired.

I'm not sure how much banning is really an effective method of punishment, as compared to just deleting comments and threads.

The problem with a ban is that it can be circumvented relatively easily, so that if someone really wants to get back on the boards they can, fairly easily.  Sure, you can bind a ban to an IP address, but even that can be circumvented simply by using another computer or even with a dynamic IP addy, which is not uncommon.  If someone seriously wants to troll, they're going to be able to.

On the other hand, boards that are policed well (such as this one, and a few others come to mind) generally seem to have less trolls overall.  If someone is really getting out of line and spamming, perhaps then bans are called for.  Otherwise, I think warnings and deletions are sufficient enough to deal with most trolls.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 31, 2004)

It's funny - EN World has, in some places, a reputation for being ban-heavy.  And yet, we've banned fewer people than any messageboard I know!

Since I took over the boards, there have been two bans - and one was rescinded.  I believe Eric banned two or three people, total.  

So, yeah, we're *very* reluctant to ban.  Most of the time, a quiet word will sort out a problem, and that, I believe, is always the best solution.  Bans in the past have been for things that went so far over the line that people drew a collective breath in disbelief.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 31, 2004)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Most of the time, a quiet word will sort out a problem...




... or maybe _several_ quiet words 

-Hyp.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 31, 2004)

Actually, Morrus refers to "old time" users that were members for a while before they fell over the line. There are currently 23 people on the banned list, almost all of whom danced in, immediately posted rubbish, and then quickly got shut down while their posts were purged. I doubt that more than a handful of them would be back if we unbanned them.

As Morrus said, I'd much rather solve a problem than boot it, unless there's a real pattern of problems. I think it usually makes for a better community.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 31, 2004)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> boards that are policed well (such as this one, and a few others come to mind) generally seem to have less trolls overall.



There was a conversation about this at the last Boston ENWorld Game Day.  The concensus was that if somebody wants to be a jerk online there are much easier places to do that than ENWorld, so they will go there instead.   While the Mods were given much of the credit for keeping this place fun, it was also pointed out that the readership also does a good job of self-policing.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 31, 2004)

I'm a fan of random temporary bannings myself. If someone's being a jerk, ban them! If someone's the the victim of a troll, ban them! If someone is just minding their own business posting on topic stuff and behaving themselves - banhammer them for a week and then make them write a haikuu to get back in. I think the moderators would get more respect if they were constantly, and unpredictably, exercising their power.


----------



## ConnorSB (Jan 31, 2004)

respect- or fear?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 31, 2004)

ConnorSB said:
			
		

> respect- or fear?




You say that as though there's a difference...?

-Hyp.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 31, 2004)

ENWorld may have a reputation for lots of bannings because, obviously, there aren't many buttholes here, so we must have banned them.  There are mean posters everywhere else, so the only explanation for why they're not here is that we must have banned them all.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 31, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> ENWorld may have a reputation for lots of bannings because, obviously, there aren't many buttholes here, so we must have banned them.  There are mean posters everywhere else, so the only explanation for why they're not here is that we must have banned them all.




"''""''


----------



## Darkness (Jan 31, 2004)

ConnorSB said:
			
		

> respect- or fear?



Preferably both. But I'll be content with one of them if getting both is too tiresome.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 31, 2004)

Overall it's pretty nice around here, yea there is the occasional jerk but I guess you just got to take the good with the bad (makes me want to sing the theme song to Facts of Life). Besides if I ever get too frustrated here there is a place to go get it out of my system.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 31, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> (makes me want to sing the theme song to Fats of Life).




Man, that's harsh...

-Hyp.


----------



## Gez (Jan 31, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'm a fan of random temporary bannings myself. If someone's being a jerk, ban them! If someone's the the victim of a troll, ban them! If someone is just minding their own business posting on topic stuff and behaving themselves - banhammer them for a week and then make them write a haikuu to get back in. I think the moderators would get more respect if they were constantly, and unpredictably, exercising their power.




You want the moderators to behave like...

*rolls saving throw*

*natural 20*

*don't finish sentence*

Sorry, I can't say it there. Would have been kinda political. Not vulgar or inflammatory, though, I swear.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Jan 31, 2004)

I banned myself for a couple weeks one time.  Realized I wasn't capable of playing nice at that time, so I just read a book and went for some walks.  Then I was right as rain!



			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> ...obviously, there aren't many buttholes here...




I dunno about that.  _I've_ got one.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 31, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> I banned myself for a couple weeks one time.  Realized I wasn't capable of playing nice at that time, so I just read a book and went for some walks.  Then I was right as rain!




Ah yes, the classic "I will Chief Joseph no more forever" speech. I remember. And then you were back within 2 weeks. It must have been a good book.


----------



## Doc_Souark (Jan 31, 2004)

You bunch of young whippersnappers ! I remember back in the old days when Mashel Noah ran this place with a iron fist inside a silk glove ! Now that he's retired and left it to his replacement Marshel Morris and his deputy PirateCat(comic relief) to run the random bannings has slowed down. But I'm sure if it comes back to the nut cuttin' he'll be back swingin that ole Banhammer.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Jan 31, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the classic "I will Chief Joseph no more forever" speech. I remember. And then you were back within 2 weeks. It must have been a good book.




It wasn't one of yours.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jan 31, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> (makes me want to sing the theme song to Facts of Life).




Not to be confused with the theme song used in the first season:

You take the good, you take the bad,
you take them both and there you have
The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life.

There's a time you got to go and show
You're growin' now you know about
The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life.

When the world never seems
to be livin up to your dreams
And suddenly you're finding out
the Facts of Life are all about you, you.

It takes a lot to get 'em right
When you're learning the Facts of Life ... Learning the Facts of Life.
Learning the Facts of Life ... Learning the Facts of Life.
Learning the Facts of Life.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Jan 31, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> I dunno about that.  _I've_ got one.




I think I do too, but I'll have to check. What are the odds of meeting another person with one.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 31, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> It wasn't one of yours.




Ooh, ouch. Coming from anyone else, I might be offended.


----------



## Olive (Jan 31, 2004)

I like the level of banning. Everyone I've ever seen get banned deserved it fully, even if it was a shame that people couldn't keep a sense of perspective.

regardless, I think that at least one person has been banned twice, and is unlikely to ever get pardoned again. I think that temporary bannings might ever encourage people to get carried away more often, as if they know that they can carry on, and then get two weeks off it might not be such a threat? I don't really know if that's true, but I don't want to find out.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Jan 31, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Ooh, ouch. Coming from anyone else, I might be offended.




See?  You know me too well, Double D.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 31, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> See?  You know me too well, Double D.




Of course! (In the sense that you can really know anyone online - which is not at all).


----------



## jdavis (Feb 1, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Man, that's harsh...
> 
> -Hyp.



but true. Especially now, those girls blimped big time.


----------



## William Ronald (Feb 1, 2004)

I can only recall one person being banned at EN World, and I have been around since shortly after Eric posted his shingle.  I think that because the site is well moderated, it encourages people to police themselves.  This can be likened to people slowing down on an expressway when they see a police car.  If drivers know that the police are around, fewer people seek to actively break traffic laws.

Warnings seem to work fairly well here.  Sometimes, I have seen people apologize to another poster when things got a little out of hand. I think before we hit the post button, we have to remember that the people on the boards are just as human as the rest of us.  We are all different, in our views, playing styles, and interests, and I think our diversity is a strength.


----------



## Tallok (Feb 1, 2004)

I think we don't really have a problem with the use of the banhammer. we are, after all, one of the most well behaved forums I've seen on the net. But I do think that the banhammer is a good form of punishment if someone is well out of line.


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 2, 2004)

I don't think of banning as punishment -- punishment should, ideally, result in changing behavior.  I see banning as a last resort, to keep someone out who is so disruptive or against the very nature of this place that having them here would make a lot of people miserable.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 2, 2004)

Yeah. Since moderation is handled so 'adultly' here, getting a post deleted or even just having a message appear in my inbox from a mod telling me to shape up makes me feel bashfull enough that I behave much better for the next month or two.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 2, 2004)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Yeah. Since moderation is handled so 'adultly' here, getting a post deleted or even just having a message appear in my inbox from a mod telling me to shape up makes me feel bashfull enough that I behave much better for the next month or two.




If I didn't respect you, I would have been a jerk.


----------



## HellHound (Feb 2, 2004)

:bashfull:

Yeah... I've drawn four 'moderator intercessions' that I can remember over the past three years. Each one was VERY much deserved, and was handled in a very adult and mature fashion.

(And I only managed to get Piratecat breathing down my neck for two of those)

By not doing it in a publically visible fashion, and by handling it IMMEDIATELY in most situations, the situation is handled in a manner that doesn't shame the poster except privately, which is how it works best.

As they teach in all the classes... Praise in public, discipline or scold in private.

_Edit: And I *really* can't imagine PKitty being a 'jerk' as he says. Respect or not. But then again, he must respect me since he didn't scold me for taking his quote about my design skills and using it as a sneaky method to eat people's brains._


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Feb 2, 2004)

I think we should have random temporary bannings once a week, you know to keep the threat alive. That'll keep everyone in line.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 2, 2004)

Only if the mods could be in that Random list!!


----------



## Darkness (Feb 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Only if the mods could be in that Random list!!



Ban chances would be proportionate to post count, of course.


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Feb 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Only if the mods could be in that Random list!!





Now there's a recipe for chaos.


----------



## Darkness (Feb 2, 2004)

Sir Osis of Liver said:
			
		

> Now there's a recipe for chaos.



Eh, most of us can always use a couple days off.


----------



## Tallok (Feb 2, 2004)

Sir Osis of Liver said:
			
		

> I think we should have random temporary bannings once a week, you know to keep the threat alive. That'll keep everyone in line.



...and it'll keep the bored dependents crazy and homicidal


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Only if the mods could be in that Random list!!




You know random bannings are never completely random, right?

For instance, I can guarantee that the first name I'd pull out of the hat would be Whisperfoot, followed by Sir Osis.

The cry of many a player for decades - "Don't give the DM ideas!"

-Hyp.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 2, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You know random bannings are never completely random, right?
> 
> For instance, I can guarantee that the first name I'd pull out of the hat would be Whisperfoot, followed by Sir Osis.
> 
> ...




I think I heard the word _*dare*_ tossed around here somewhere. Maybe I'm mistaken. - Not to say, of course, that I *want* to be banned.


----------



## Mark (Feb 2, 2004)

HellHound said:
			
		

> I've drawn four 'moderator intercessions' that I can remember over the past three years. Each one was VERY much deserved, and was handled in a very adult and mature fashion.




Hmmm...  I've had just the opposite experience.  The few I've had, with the exception of one, were utterly persecutory, wholy undeserved, and without merit in the slightest... 



Spoiler



..according to me at the time...


...which leads me to believe that the Banhammer(tm) should be wielded randomly, but not with the name selection but rather BY WHO GETS TO WIELD IT! (Just to keep things chaotic...)


----------



## diaglo (Feb 2, 2004)

Mark said:
			
		

> Hmmm...  I've had just the opposite experience.  The few I've had...were utterly persecutory, wholy undeserved, and without merit in the slightest...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




i'll second Mark's experience.


----------



## Silver Moon (Feb 2, 2004)

HellHound said:
			
		

> I've drawn four 'moderator intercessions' that I can remember over the past three years. Each one was VERY much deserved, and was handled in a very adult and mature fashion.  (And I only managed to get Piratecat breathing down my neck for two of those)



Heck, that's even happened to me once!   PirateCat even sent me an email to apologize afterwards, although his original request for me to edit my post was 100% valid  (I had reacted emotionally to a sexist anti-female post).


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 2, 2004)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> (I had reacted emotionally to a sexist anti-female post).




Posting manporn is never a solution.


----------



## Henry (Feb 2, 2004)

Yeah, but even though I may get banned for it, I'll break the code of silence by saying that behind closed doors, when someone ticks us off, we play the Kids in the Hall "I'm squishing your head" game.


----------



## Pielorinho (Feb 2, 2004)

Fair enough, and thanks for the responses.  I participate in one other public MB besides this one; there, people are banned far more often (there's probably two bannings of prominent members every month), but threads are also closed far less often.  If someone acts up in a thread, rather than getting the thread closed, they're a lot likely to get their posting privileges revoked.

Personally I enjoy that setup more:  it seems to address the problem directly, rather than allowing misbehavers to torpedo an entire conversation.  But I do recognize why this board is set up the way it is, and FWIW, I think y'all are doing a great job.

Daniel


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Feb 2, 2004)

> For instance, I can guarantee that the first name I'd pull out of the hat would be Whisperfoot, followed by Sir Osis.




Awww, man! What'd i ever do to you?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 2, 2004)

Sir Osis of Liver said:
			
		

> Awww, man! What'd i ever do to you?




"Whose turn is it to cook, Ulath?"
"Yours."

What did you do?  You recommended capricious bannings, obviously 

-Hyp.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 2, 2004)

Ya, get Sir Osis!!!


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Feb 3, 2004)

Yeah, were are the torches and pitchforks? We're gonna get, Sir Osis!!!

Oh, wait. Crap, i am, Sir Osis! *_runs for the hills screaming!_*


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 4, 2004)

Sir Osis of Liver said:
			
		

> Yeah, were are the torches and pitchforks?




Right here. Buy your copy today.





http://www.greenronin.com/card_board/torches_pitchforks.php#

By the way, that "random banning" sure sucked. Two whole days.... ugh.... you moderators are ruthless.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 4, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> By the way, that "random banning" sure sucked. Two whole days.... ugh.... you moderators are ruthless.




Think twice before putting "dare" in a sentence again 

-Hyp.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 4, 2004)

I still think "Banhammer" is the name of a clan of technologist dwarves


----------



## Mark (Feb 4, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I still think "Banhammer" is the name of a clan of technologist dwarves




...and a punk band...


----------



## jdavis (Feb 4, 2004)

can we just go back to random scoldings? The bannings are pretty rough.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 4, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> can we just go back to random scoldings? The bannings are pretty rough.




Look, jdavis, you've been around long enough to know better than this.

If you have an issue with the way the boards are moderated, please discuss it privately with the moderator in question, rather than posting in a public forum.

I'd appreciate it if you could sort it out, hmm?  I'd prefer not to have to speak with you about this behaviour again.

If you have any problems with this, feel free to email me.

-Hyp.
(Randomly Moderating)


----------



## hong (Feb 4, 2004)

Sorry.


----------



## Robbert Raets (Feb 4, 2004)

_Dr. Strangleglove, or 'How I stopped worrying and learned to love the banhammer'_

 Keep up the good work, mein fjuuhrhers!!


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 4, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'd prefer not to have to speak with you about this behaviour again.
> -Hyp.
> (Randomly Moderating)




I'm afraid only the English I approve of is allowed. This will randomly fluctuate between American English and all the other ones which add random "u"s to the middle of words. Today is American English, and I'm going to have to ask you not to misspell "behavior" again in the future.

If you have a problem with this for some reason, feel free to get stuffed. And to email me.  That too.

- Piratecat
randomly administrating


----------



## Sir Osis of Liver (Feb 4, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by *Hypersmurf*
> > I'd prefer not to have to speak with you about this behaviour again.
> > -Hyp.
> > (Randomly Moderating)
> ...


----------



## jdavis (Feb 4, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Look, jdavis, you've been around long enough to know better than this.
> 
> If you have an issue with the way the boards are moderated, please discuss it privately with the moderator in question, rather than posting in a public forum.
> 
> ...



Home sweet home. Now all is well in the world. I'll never question the lack of random scoldings about the lack of random bannings again.


----------



## hong (Feb 5, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> J'm afrajd only the Engljsh J approve of js allowed. Thjs wjll randomly fluctuate between Amerjcan Engljsh and all the other ones whjch add random "j"s to the mjddle of words. Today js Amerjcan Engljsh, and J'm going to have to ask you not to mjsspell "behavjor" agajn jn the future.
> 
> Jf you have a problem with thjs for some reason, feel free to get stuffed. And to emajl me.  That too.
> 
> ...




Robbert Raets js takjng over my mjnd. Someone stop hjm!!1!


Hong "turning dutch" Ooj


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 5, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'm afraid only the English I approve of is allowed. This will randomly fluctuate between American English and all the other ones which add random "u"s to the middle of words. Today is American English, and I'm going to have to ask you not to misspell "behavior" again in the future.




But... er, that is, _bt_... Morrs said I cold!

-Hypersmrf.


----------



## Robbert Raets (Feb 5, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Robbert Raets js takjng over my mjnd. Someone stop hjm!!1!
> Hong "turning dutch" Ooj



 Stomme tegenvoeter.....


----------



## Gez (Feb 5, 2004)

But, Mourrus is Britishu! We should aull add u in the middul of wourds on ENWourld!

G "And it's plough, not plow" Z


----------



## LightPhoenix (Feb 6, 2004)

Sou thaut would mauke muy naume LiughtPhouenix?


----------



## the Jester (Feb 6, 2004)

Wow, I have no idea who's been banned, much less banned twice.

I guess I now know that Dragoth was banned- didn't know that before.

Is there a place one can see a ljst of the victiums of the banhamumer?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 6, 2004)

I doubt that would be a good idea.  I imagine we might be suprised to find people we thought disappeared were actually banned


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 6, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I doubt that would be a good idea.  I imagine we might be suprised to find people we thought disappeared were actually banned



 It would make you start to wonder, wouldn't it? I mean, where was Horacio all that time? Really?


----------



## Crothian (Feb 6, 2004)

Hmm...and Dragongirl still has never shown back up


----------



## Silver Moon (Feb 6, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> It would make you start to wonder, wouldn't it? I mean, where was Horacio all that time?



Hmmmm, let me think about that one.  He was busy doing something, and only shows up now after:

1.  The two Mars probes have finally arrived at their destination;
2.  [Political situation now allowed on ENWorld]; and
3.  WotC has nlw released all of the core books for Edition 3.5;

Since I don't believe in coincidences I would guess he must have been involved with at least one of those.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 6, 2004)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, let me think about that one.  He was busy doing something, and only shows up now after:
> 
> 1.  The two Mars probes have finally arrived at their destination;
> 2.  [Political situation now allowed on ENWorld]; and
> ...



 Or all seven of them!


----------



## ergeheilalt (Feb 6, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "Whose turn is it to cook, Ulath?"
> "Yours."




Although I've read these books many times, I can't help but think that that has got to be one of the more obscure book quotes I've heard in a while.

Erge


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 6, 2004)

ergeheilalt said:
			
		

> Although I've read these books many times, I can't help but think that that has got to be one of the more obscure book quotes I've heard in a while.




If it had been posted on a Football board, sure.

Somehow, posting it on a D&D board lessens its obscurity, I think.

-Hyp.


----------

