Question Should we create an area where all bans are publicly announced?

[Credit Wizard]

I have to agree with Isla Draellix-Kobitana in this regard.

As a relatively new person on this website in my opinion. I would be hesitant to roleplay on this website if my name was listed simply for a minor infraction of the rules and possibly just leave and never come back. New people aren't that well versed in the rules because they only recently joined and don't understand the system of which the website operates. While it is logical for them to look at the rules list before they begin to roleplay on the site, most people honestly don't read the rules much like they don't read the wording in a contract.

We are potentially turning off new members that could add amazing stories to the website because we are name shaming them. If the community wants a ban list, then make one only for major bans for people that purposely violate the rules and know the consequences of doing such. Minor bans shouldn't be listed because they have a chance to improve their behavior and if they don't know a rule because they are a new member, we can tell them so that they know to not repeat it.

 

[Quartz_Soldier]

Not a good idea.

I have been on a receiving end of a site-wide vendetta over a (SMALL INSIGNIFICANT) mistake I made on a now-defunct site, it made me unsure and unsteady about my character as a person and writing competency, but the harassment and vile mistreatment got to the point that I ghosted, refused contact with everyone, and walked away.

Naming and shaming people will turn new writers away and may even cause long term writers to just wash their hands of it and leave.

 

[Spasa]

Spasa

Got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to worry about. Myself, I want this forum to remain PG-13, healthy and non-perverse, lest it fall like so many, many others have in the past. No sexuality beyond kisses, and even that should be rare. Emotional bonds and good vs. evil are all that matters in this universe.

All good, Riskyr. I wasn't posting in reply to you, but the original question.

 

[Samnai Rouber]

I think a compromise can be reached as some users have said above : Don't post bans for minor things (like mistakes in character rules, name mistakes, etc.) but major bans (like saying slurs, harassment of users, etc.) can be posted. It depends on the culture of the forum, honestly : Are the people willing to bully someone over the slightest, not even morally wrong thing, or are they willing to be calm and forgive to a certain extent? That should be taken into consideration the most.

Also, perhaps don't post the list on the very front page if you decide to post all minor and major bans. (In my opinion)

 

[Darth Carnifex]

Go for it.

 

[Isla Draellix-Kobitana]

There's your answer, anything Darth Carnifex approves can only have his own darkside schemes in mind!

For Ashla!

 

[Tefka]

I think permanent bans should be the focus, if any. Not temporary bans.

I like the idea about the ban appeal announcements as well.

This isn’t so much a PR move, a narrative control move, a whatever propaganda insertion move. I think it’s very weird to paint it like that, even though I can see how that description fits.

It was proposed to me during discussion as a means to open a honest dialogue with one’s community, and further cements what the Administrators of that community determine to be okay behavior and not okay behavior.

I’ve always been fine with just simply discussing it openly, but I can see how actions speak louder than words. This method also holds us Admins accountable to explain ourselves, which I find reasonable.

 

[Tefka]

This isn't really an issue. Moderators (Role-Play Judges) cannot ban other members, only admins can, and even so a ban is in general a last resort after several warnings have been provided. If anything, the site has been almost too lenient with its bans at times because there is a heavy emphasis on the community self-regulating.

While mostly true, not only do RPJs not have the ability to permaban, every permaban goes directly to me and only me. In my absence, the other Head Admin Valiens also has this authority, but in all cases him and I are both consulted and one of our permission is required to execute - usually me.

They’re not very common thankfully so it’s very manageable to just have the Head Admins in control of the permabans.

 

[Har Har D'Saylyr]

I'd be for it. State the name, the infraction, provide a few details so no one is reading between the lines, and the duration of the ban. If I get oopsed upside the head by the temporary ban hammer, and it's clearly stated what I'd done, then it's on me to roll with it or pack up my panties and scoot. You could even set up individual threads to house specific ban lengths and types, which I've seen on other sites.

 

[Tefka]

I came here from a community where there was zero transparency towards members about disciplinary actions. Staff had a list of bans with a few sentences to explain why, but only a few upper admins typically knew all the details of a case. Only on rare occasions, an announcement was posted to give a brief explanation to the community, but it never explained much at all. Absolutely never contained screenshots or any form of evidence for people to make up their own minds.

I've seen this lead to countless cases where large groups of members defended complete whacko's who were banned for incredibly yikes things. While there will always be people defending even the worst types, I felt a complete lack of transparency often sparked a lot of unnecessary drama.

So I'm in favor of a public list of sorts, and a simple format like Jend-Ro Quill suggested could be a good option.

An idea to maybe lessen the feeling of shaming folks could be to distinguish between the severity of cases somewhat as well. I'm not quite sure if Chaos does temporary suspensions with the idea beforehand that it's temporary, but if members are banned/suspended for X amount of time just to cool off or get their shit back together, perhaps they could be kept off the list. Although I do see Amea Virou's point as well, and there's a chance the grey area between a suspension and a list-worthy ban could be annoying to figure out.

The last point I wanted to make is something I don't feel would have become an issue — just figured I'd add it — but in cases where a member is a victim of someone's behavior, their name should not come up in the context of why the other member was banned. Examples are situations involving blackmailing or sexual harassment. To keep the victim there anonymous, I feel is important. But again, I don't feel that's something that would have been overlooked. It's just one of those things to keep in mind when it comes to transparency.

Anonymity and privacy are important. Chaos has always been reliant on anonymous reporting and I’ve attempted to be careful with this over the years. There are situations in which I have pushed for people to step forward, because if they didn’t then it would be impossible to use their testimony. Luckily, those are few and far between, because once we have enough facts that’s usually enough for me - rumor mills and propaganda be damned.

But it’s important we don’t ban people who did nothing wrong, because I came from a site that did that, too.

 

[Sunfrog]

I'd be hesitant to agree to this because while I can see the benefit to the community in terms of repeat problem individuals who have been permanently banned and show a lack of either want for change or remorse, I can think of a couple of instances when I was MFO where there was a permabanning of quite a young person who broke a rule and a second person who almost broke that same rule but swiftly made amends and apologised. I'm in no way saying that what these people did was acceptable (and one agreed upon reflection of their actions) but I don't believe the person who was permabanned should be publicly shamed and I believe they should be allowed to come back at a later date and accept their mistake and express that they have learned from it, should they wish to.

In my opinion, there is a difference between repeat offenders and someone who maybe made a mistake, did something stupid or was just downright ignorant on an occasion. Really, it all just comes down to the attitude of the person being banned. If they are genuinely apologetic and have learned from their mistake then they don't deserve to be publicly shamed but if someone is continually causing issues within the community with no sign of remorse or any desire to change then the community should have transparency because it affects all of us too.

Long story short: I just think it should be a case-by-case basis if we decide to go ahead with something like this.

 

[Har Har D'Saylyr]

I I just think it should be a case-by-case basis if we decide to go ahead with something like this.

It can't be case by case; if one person is written up publicly and another isn't, then the favoritism flag will be waved, and nobody wants that.

If there's an overwhelming fear that people will take these things so personally that they leave, details could always be included, such as "Pope Jabba owned up to their mistake and will be welcomed back in a week with no hard feelings," or "Krushgroove le Cheezit III repeatedly replied with nasty, escalating, swear-filled jabs at people's mothers, and generally acted like a butt munch. They're permabanned, and we're better for their absence."

 

[Sunfrog]

It can't be case by case; if one person is written up publicly and another isn't, then the favoritism flag will be waved, and nobody wants that.

I understand but then it should be treated on the basis of breaking the rules once vs continual breaking of the rules or continuous harassment with no sign of remorse or desire to change.

We are a roleplay community, not law enforcement. I don't believe we should be able to name and shame people unless they are a continual threat or concern to the community so then other people can be made aware of these people.

 

[Arlo Renard]

I'm on the fence, as usual.

1. I like the idea of transparency for the majority of reasons already listed. It would cut down on rumors, deter saltiness about the "ban hammer" being used as an alleged tool of tyranny, warn members about repeat offenders, etc.

2. However, I share the same concerns about people being publicly shamed, especially if their infraction was a mistake/misunderstanding, or they did something stupid, or it was just plain ignorance. I don't think the Chaos community is likely to doxx or bully people over stuff like this, but because it is always possible, I hesitate. On the less extreme end, yeah, having your business aired out for everyone to see is also likely to deter people from coming back. Whether this is a good thing or not will depend on the circumstances of the case.

3. As Sunfrog mentioned, at least one member who was permabanned was (I believe) underage. If there's any type of person who definitely shouldn't be included on a list like this, it would be a minor. Not due to favoritism, but for the person's safety. However, since there is no definitive way to determine a person's true age, I don't know how this would be implemented.

So having said all that, I recommend the List be reserved only for permabans - people who can't come back anyway, and therefore would not be at risk of ostracization or harassment. If someone who received a temp ban lies about it or tries to stir up trouble, well, they're probably already on their way to a permaban doing that.

 

[Tefka]

Bans involving minors would be excluded, I agree. We are not law enforcement nor should we tread in that direction, I agree.

I’m glad at least some of you are thinking outside the box and appreciating how difficult and contextual these situations can be.

 

[Tefka]

It can't be case by case; if one person is written up publicly and another isn't, then the favoritism flag will be waved, and nobody wants that.

If there's an overwhelming fear that people will take these things so personally that they leave, details could always be included, such as "Pope Jabba owned up to their mistake and will be welcomed back in a week with no hard feelings," or "Krushgroove le Cheezit III repeatedly replied with nasty, escalating, swear-filled jabs at people's mothers, and generally acted like a butt munch. They're permabanned, and we're better for their absence."

Here comes reality - one’s person “case by case” is another man’s “I have to protect their identity even if they fucked up.” The members are correct, likely due to the rumor mill. In the last year, we had a minor attempt to engage in some ERP. It happens, on occasion. One of Chaos’s first permabans was a mother DMing me her underage daughter was sexting on our website. After telling her we don’t go through peoples DMs, I had no choice but to ban the daughter and the person sexting with her.

I have no choice but to just full swing ban without explanation in these cases, but try explaining that to the meme crowd. They intentionally do not understand. Those situations must be handled swiftly and privately, without any care for rumor mills or memes. And I won’t stop to explain myself every time we have to.

Favoritism plays no part in it. I understand that’s “the narrative”, the rumor mill, the shit people twist to validate their opinions. But really it’s just the consequence of being a big website, and the internet being a crazy place.

 

[Hilal Vizsla]

I would say just keep a list of folks who were banned but keep the reasoning vague if it was just little things like the user blowing up at the admins or not listening to RPJs. If it was major things like sexual harassment or doxxing, then yeah you need to explain what happened and what actions you took towards that user. The shaming thing is a concern because I imagine some people already feeling guilty for what they've done, and a banning is enough to make them contemplate on their actions. However, major transgressions the offender in question should be outed that way other RP sites can watch out for them.

 

[Isla Draellix-Kobitana]

I certainly agree of the person poses a danger to other members then there should be a public announcement, but then there are other legal issues. For example if you publicly ban someone for underage sexting, if they were to argue that they did due diligence and were duped by the minor, then they could have a case for libel.

 

[Tefka]

I certainly agree of the person poses a danger to other members then there should be a public announcement, but then there are other legal issues. For example if you publicly ban someone for underage sexting, if they were to argue that they did due diligence and were duped by the minor, then they could have a case for libel.

Given that I can terminate anyone’s account per our TOS for no reason other than falling out of my chair and faceplanting on my keyboard in a weird manner, I have no fear of any lawsuits much less a libel case. But bring it on, I’ve never been to civil court before, could be fun.

Plus you know I’m posting that verdict at the the top of the forum for like a month.

 

[Nerd Wizard]

All good, Riskyr. I wasn't posting in reply to you, but the original question.

No worries, Spasa - I was merely offering you some opposing lines of thought for you to contemplate and hopefully gain more insight - merely seeking to spread scholastic methodology to another upon seeing the opportunity.