OK, let's try and put together the suggestions here and create some sort of consensus.
I also would like to add that we not punish someone for making an account so they can despute their ban. I always thought the whole "you're banned for circumventing your ban in an attempt to appeal your ban" was silly. So long as they don't post outside of S&C or PMs.
Agreed.
But now that I think about it, my mind drifts to EJ. Banning him doesn't help yet he spent a lot of time venting in AR. I wonder if banning is actually worth it. Why not simply restrict them to AR as a first offense? They can vent and get whatever issues they have out of their system while having the community there for reflection rather than being totally shunned.
Kind of like purgatory on the old site, really. I don't mind this idea, but EJ has calmed down recently, so let's save it until we have a guinea pig to use it on.
How about allowing a user to still be able to read the boards while banned, even though they can't post? At the very least they should be able to keep up with conversations so they're caught up when they come back. It's better than them coming back with the last memorable conversation in their mind being the one they got banned in.
I agree with this, certainly. Giving them a chance to see how threads progress without the disruptive behaviour they were banned for is a good idea.
Name ban + enforcing a more strict alt policy on banned users seems like a good combination to me.
I think that, within reason, alts should be treated separately. I mean, if they're operating under the radar and not breaking the rules we've won. That said, I wouldn't mind a clause about the rules being broader for users identified as alts. Basically so that users can't try to taunt us by skimming the rules and just generally being New Earth or TKwith their alts. Once you've been banned once it should be easier to get banned a second time.
Agreed on both counts.
If the alts are behaving themselves, I see no reason to ban them just because their main was disruptive; in fact, not banning them sends the message that they are welcome here provided they are constructive. However, if an alt is engaging in the same behaviour that the main was banned for, there should be an immediate ban rather than a warning, as the main would already have been warned.
Speaking of New Earth, I should point out here that during my short, abortive time as a mod my one real success was in calming him down and I did so by being afraid to wield my bamhammer. Mediation is frequently a better tool than bamming and our official policy should reflect that.
I completely agree; banning should only be a last resort when all other attempts at correcting errant behaviour have failed.
I had no idea about of any of the issues you mentioned in this thread. In light of this information, why would an IP ban even be on the table?
It seems like it's not anymore.
To summarise:
- Alts created for the purpose of disputing bans are acceptable, provided they are not used for general posting.
- Purgatory (restricting users to the spam forums) may be preferable to outright bans for repeat offenders.
- Bans should only restrict posting, not viewing.
- Alts should not be banned at the same time as their main, if they are not engaging in the same troublesome behaviour.
- Alts may be banned immediately following their main, if they are engaging in the same troublesome behaviour.
- Bans should generally be avoided in favour of other corrective measures.
- IP address bans should almost never be used; only in cases where a particular IP address is causing trouble using multiple accounts.
Does anyone disagree with those points, or have anything else to add?