A 'time out' suspension is already a mod option, as far as I know.

I think you are right. Even if it doesn't come up as 'status' in the profile.
Used for less serious 'crimes' or wrong behaviour.

It is a questionable area and it probably depends on the basis for bans. I do use another philosophy site on which there don't seem to be bans. The moderators don't see the purpose and see it as a form of censorship. In some ways I agree with that but on the whole the quality is better here because on the other one, which I won't name, people write pages and pages of insults to others and often it means that there is little in the way of genuine depth discussion.

I know that you wrote this thread because you were upset about the banning of a recent member. As it happens I don't think that I had interacted with him, and it can be a shock when someone you know gets banned. The ban which did affect me was 3017Amen because he was someone who I used to communicate with a lot.

Another thing which I wonder a lot about is how would I feel is if I got banned. Some people may see it as a moment of fame or notoriety. I think that I would be extremely devastated and see it as a form of rejection and even 'failure'.

As far as time out goes, I believe that there are suspensions here as well and far less extreme. If they became common they may have little meaning. If anything I wonder more about bans being permanent and wonder if there could be something like a 1 or 2 year allowance for reconsideration. That is because as it is, a definite one seems like a form of eternal damnation to the TFP hell of burning flames, as a lost soul beyond redemption.

In TPF, is banning always permanent?!

Confiteor, I've been suspended thrice. I feel like Puss in Boots against :death: in the new animation The Last Wish (released 2023). This is me last life mateys! :grin: Set sail ya ugly bunch of landlubbers! We have an appointment to keep with Thanatos!!

I wouldn't mind reinstatement after a banning, except of course for Bartricks whom I hated from the bottom of my heart.

Then again, why would we want to bring back old trouble with anyone else as well, when we know banning is not a correctional service, only a cutting out of rotting catalysts.

What I mean is that for what someone was banned will always come back, people don't change that much. So if it has been demonstrated that the person is incompatible with TPF why try it once again if he or she REALLY is? A wise man said, a sign of stupidity is to do the same process over and over to the same thing, and expect a result different from what we already got.

This is the reason I think it's futile to bring back banned members.

However, I think it is quite unjust to permanently ban a long-term poster who has contributed well and evenly for most of their TPF travels. — Amity

These members don't get banned.

The futility of bringing back banned members has been demonstrated. A NUMBER of banned members come back with a different identity (all they need is a different email address) and then later they get banned again for the SAME MISDEMEANORS as before.

So... what would be the real benefit to bring back banned members, Amity?

Time out for a re-think and for calm to prevail. — Amity

Sounds more suitable for kindergarten than a grown up discussion.

If you are thinking about justice, I would suggest you are misconstruing the situation. Think of tpf as a magazine or philosophical daily paper, staffed by volunteer contributors and volunteer editors. Because of the volume of work, editors do not edit before publication but afterwards.

Nobody thinks it a great injustice if the Times does not publish an article they send in, or indeed if they decide having published some, to stop publishing any more. Folks get banned because they make too much work for the mods; they get warned and have the opportunity to adjust. Those that do not heed the warnings are unlikely to heed them next week, or next month. Those that get angry about the house style, or the quality of the editing need to find a publication more to their taste, not keep coming back to one they do not respect.

The bar is low. You don't have to be especially literate, especially polite, especially learned or clever. A child of eleven could survive, as can many non native English speakers and uneducated in philosophy. As someone who has banned many on the predecessor site to this, I can say that one gets a deal of abuse from folks, up to and including attempts to hack the site and destroy it, and personal threats. It's not much fun moderating, and bans are no fun at all. Mods agonise over decent posters gone rogue, and even listen to criticism in threads like this. And they actually try to be fair, even to the extent that mods get fired and ex mods get banned. Temporary bans have been tried, and found to be troublesome, possibly because they foster the idea that bans are a punishment that might be just or more likely unjust, rather than the site protecting its reputation and integrity.

There has to be a fairer method before any permanent staining of a character. — Amity

It would be the staining of the character of a made up name that a person has on a philosophy forum whose members can be from anywhere in the world. I don't think this is a real concern. There is the practical issue of this person never getting to be here again, but he or she is not going to get funny looks while walking down the street or more rigorous grilling at job interviews. We don't know who they are and the rest to of the world doesn't even know what this forum is.

And there are other forums to go to.

Time out for a re-think and for calm to prevail.
— Amity

Sounds more suitable for kindergarten than a grown up discussion. — unenlightened

It would seem like it. But is it ageism to think that way?
You don't think adults need time out from an escalation of conflict?
It's about prevention of a downward spiral in relationships where arguing is destructive.
You would think that would be possible or even desirable in a philosophy forum.
To reflect and be more constructive.

If you are thinking about justice, I would suggest you are misconstruing the situation. — unenlightened

No, I am not.

It's not much fun moderating, and bans are no fun at all. Mods agonise over decent posters gone rogue, and even listen to criticism in threads like this. — unenlightened

Yes. Nobody is saying otherwise. However, I think that some judgements are questionable due to some bias creeping in. Even mods can have rogue moments in the heat of a to and fro.

Temporary bans have been tried, and found to be troublesome, possibly because they foster the idea that bans are a punishment that might be just or more likely unjust, rather than the site protecting its reputation and integrity. — unenlightened

When were they tried? What consituted 'temporary'?
Bans are indeed a punishment with varying degrees of 'crime' and individual levels of commitment and participation. One label to fit all. Unfair. In my opinion.
Why would this make temporary bans or a suspension 'troublesome'?

I appreciate the opportunity to talk things through.
However, I am under no illusion that it will make one iota of difference.
Will limit my replies accordingly.

You make good points.
As I've said before, out of 3 philo forums I've frequented, TPF is the best.
There is always room for change and improvement.
Admin and team do an exceptional job. Listening and responding with care to any feedback/suggestions.
:clap: :sparkle:

In TPF, is banning always permanent?! — neomac

There have been a few exceptions in the past. But mostly yes.

This is me last life mateys! — Agent Smith

Hopefully not. Take care :pray:

This is the reason I think it's futile to bring back banned members. — god must be atheist

It's not about bringing back banned members but re-imagining a better justice system.
Perhaps that's too difficult...

However, I think it is quite unjust to permanently ban a long-term poster who has contributed well and evenly for most of their TPF travels.
— Amity

These members don't get banned. — god must be atheist

Yes they do.

A NUMBER of banned members come back with a different identity (all they need is a different email address) and then later they get banned again for the SAME MISDEMEANORS as before. — god must be atheist

Yes. Some do that. Others who are not of that ilk do not.

And there are other forums to go to. — Bylaw

Yes there are. But long-term posters have built up a body of discussions/comments and have been part of a community. TPF is the best of the bunch in my opinion.

It would be the staining of the character of a made up name that a person has on a philosophy forum whose members can be from anywhere in the world. I don't think this is a real concern. — Bylaw

It is only a concern when it is related to the 'status' of a forum member.
If you see the label 'Banned' on someone's profile, what is your first impression?
Unworthy of being read or thoughts considered?

Bans are indeed a punishment — Amity

People often see them that way, but I prefer to see them more as self-defence on behalf of the community, the way I ban goats from my garden. They may see it as punishment, but I like the goats elsewhere, just not amongst my vegetables.

When were they tried? What consituted 'temporary'? — Amity

A long time ago in a site far far away. I think a week and then a month, but they failed to make any friends, but rather increased the conflict. This site being still smaller, is a little more easy-going, but I imagine there are still bans for low quality, and lack of language skills, which of course are not punishments at all, but simple disqualifications. The principle of moderation back then was to act for the benefit of a theoretical non-posting reader - whose opinions are never heard by definition, but might be measured by site traffic and rate of increase of membership.

It is only a concern when it is related to the 'status' of a forum member.
If you see the label 'Banned' on someone's profile, what is your first impression? — Amity

That is a valid point, I think. It would be better to find a neutral term - "account closed" or some such. Not sure if the software can be tweaked?

Thanks to you and others for your considered thoughts and responses.
Later... :flower:

Edit:

It would be better to find a neutral term - "account closed" — unenlightened

Yes. But I think that could also apply to those accounts closed voluntarily by members.
I think that term much better than e.g. 'deletedmemberbcc'. Apparently @busycuttingcrap's decision to cut his time short as member/moderator?
'Deletedmember' - sounds painful :scream:

If you see the label 'Banned' on someone's profile, what is your first impression? — Amity

Interesting question, Amity. To be honest, I don't have negative thoughts on some users who have the label Banned. I personally had that experience in other forum and I remember that the mods didn't even warned me...

In the other hand: The mods explain the facts of why they ban someone in the thread "Bannings", and such thread is opened for discussion few hours if you want to complain. I complained on the banning of @Bartricks but I understand that this site has rules and it is healthy for the forum to not treat with privilige "long-term users" because that would be unfair.
If they warn an user and he/she maintains the same behaviour, it is understandable the consequential banning.

I am aware of your situation and I would be extremely sorry to see you go, even though I am sure you would resurrect in glory on some site, as a great loss for this one.

My own reflection on your situation and your creation of many threads, because I am inclined to create many too, is that it is best to slow down sometimes, to think before speaking. In some posts I wrote over a year ago, I just wrote my raw thoughts, unprocessed. It is difficult because thoughts whirl through the mind. Now, I try to slow down and think more carefully what I write, especially as these thoughts remain onsite unless they stand out as so questionable that moderators intervene.

Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts.
I think the label 'Banned' has negative connotations and effects.

...it is healthy for the forum to not treat with privilige "long-term users" because that would be unfair. — javi2541997

It is not about giving privilege to long-term members but weighing up years of steady commitment against a particular episode of escalation that might have been handled better on both sides.
After a period of calm reflection in 'suspension'.

But I've said enough already.
Time up :sparkle:

I don't see the reason for a permanent banning for long-term positive contributors that violated the netiquette on occasions (compare Bartricks vs Olivier5). One could introduce a temporary banning or a progressive banning.

Not sure what a 'progressive banning' would look like :chin:

I try to be a forgiving person because you never know when your situation can change and someone else will be at your former helm to dispense mercy or justice unto you.

That said, TPF is famous for it's "everlasting bans". I suspect the silence from moderation is just them giving us a place to complain.

What needs to be remembered is I don't believe any recent bans were not the result of the poster flat out saying "I don't care if you ban me" or to "go ahead", etc. Granted one would hope moderation are not looking for challenges like this from posters but that seems to be the facts in most all (recent) cases.

Also it's just a website. One I vastly enjoy and at least visit nearly every day. There's some interesting people with interesting things to say. I'd feel a bit lost without it, to be quite honest. But that's my fault. If getting banned from an online forum has such dire consequences, well... it is an investment, can become a very large, intimate and personal part of one's life and routine. It'd probably get me upset if another user somehow got me banned or it was the result of literally just arguing in the same manner another user does all the time. Hard to say.

There's one exception I would probably be vocal in advocating for...

Heat of battle passion, when there is an active and ongoing global military conflict and the person is a relevant stakeholder in one or more sides and is thus no longer operating (arguing) from a reasonable and logical mindset as is intended for this forum, but is instead operating from fight or flight adrenaline and emotion as their life and everything and everyone in it could be severely impacted or killed as a result of said conflict being discussed.

That's what this last one was about, wasn't it?

It's not about bringing back banned members but re-imagining a better justice system.
Perhaps that's too difficult... — Amity

To better understand the system, what happens, particularly so with long time posters, is that a complaint is made, or a mod notices a problem, and we then read through the poster's comments and try to contextualize it.

We also go back and see if this is an isolated instance in a particular transaction, whether there's been a sudden change in the poster's behavior that might point to some other issues we might consider, and whether there have been prior warnings.

We discuss all this among ourselves, and we don't always agree, but if we think it's an issue, we PM the offender and that discussion may be just to express concern, ask them to stop, or even issue a warning.

The person's response matters. We're not looking for groveling or even an apology, but really just an assurance the problem is taken care of.

As you might imagine, defiance is the worst response, not because it might be insulting, but because it's a refusal to play by the rules.

You guys don't see that, but only the final result, with complaints even arising when too many facts are revealed because it appears to be piling on after the person is gone and can't defend himself.

So, the best we can do is to be fair when modding, listening to the other mods, and being as transparent as we can, which is what hopefully threads like this do.

There's one exception I would probably be vocal in advocating for...

Heat of battle passion, when there is an active and ongoing global military conflict and the person is a relevant stakeholder in one or more sides and is thus no longer operating (arguing) from a reasonable and logical mindset as is intended for this forum, but is instead operating from fight or flight adrenaline and emotion as their life and everything and everyone in it could be severely impacted or killed as a result of said conflict being discussed.

That's what this last one was about, wasn't it? — Outlander

No. The last banning concerned another thread.

However, I believe the 'Ukraine Crisis' discussion was the start of the personal escalation between members who invested a lot of their time and energy there. I'll say no more on the subject.

Thank you, Hanover, for taking the time to clarify the process.

So, the best we can do is to be fair when modding, listening to the other mods, and being as transparent as we can, which is what hopefully threads like this do. — Hanover

Indeed. That's all anyone can do. Their best :100:

Good advice! Muchas gracias.