Banning planning.

[az]

EDITED for clarity...


Here is a suggestion regarding the current construction of the resolution section framework. As I understand it, the technicalities of how the resolution center is supposed to be run is still to be worked out.

I have noticed that the procedure for banning people is flawed. First off, when a user "runs away screaming" and requests that all their posts be deleted as well as ther user identity, I think this is a failure. I think there is always hope for resolution. At the very least, the parties can agree to dissagree and part ways non-violently.

With this in mind I suggest that banning a user takes on a different format.

I seems reasonable to implement a restricted profile of sections for a "banned" member to use. I am suggesting that a "banned-ng" user only have permissions to use the resolution center as well as have access to their mailbox and send and receive PMs. This can have the benefit of reducing fraud since anyone can pretend to be user X who has just been banned and is posting under an alias.

The user can be informed that their access to the rest of the forums has been revoked because of issue XYZ... Their access will be reinstated upon resolution of the problem (one way or another - the outcome must not be predetermined. This is important for both parties to come to the table).

I am not suggesting this is going to solve every problem, but at least this gesture is not as inflammatory and destructive to future resolution as an all-out ban including blocking their IP. This achieves ridiculus heights when a user creates a new account only to be informed that evading a ban is against the rules (Duh!)

This suggestion is contingent on the resolution center being up and running, fully staffed.

I have a suggestion about that too.

The forum userbase as well as the problems they face are volatile. A very active user this months will be long gone in two months. I think it can be problematic to only elect a handful of forum members to be official forum mediators.

I suggest that for every issue that is brought to the resolution center, the parties try to work it out by themselves ( in the resolution center). If that fails or if one or both parties are not willing to try without mediation, a call for mediators is put out. Since the resolution center is part of the "new post" searches, other active users will be aware of this call to serve.

Willing (third-party - uninvolved, but willing to help) members of the forums can volunteer to help work this issue out. I think there is no shortage of people who want to volunteer and make a difference. This is as good a way as any.

Since everything happens in public (and not through personal messages which is not really a good medium for dispute handling when the "playingfield" is not level) there would not be any need for the mediators to have any real power to do anything other than to ask questions and get proper answers. They would not be judge and jury, just mediators. Their role is to facilitate the conversation, nothing more. They guide the discussion toward a useful solution. Perhaps identifying misunderstandings, getting clarifications and *apologies*.

The mediators would not ever pick sides or argue for or against a user, only comment on areas that need discussion. I don't think many users would volunteer for the role if they felt they would be making enemies by doing that.

All parties in the dispute will have to be in agreement as to whom they feel is appropriate for mediation. For example, if four people volunteer to mediate the quarrel between Mary and Frank, Both Mary and Frank have to agree on the person or people who will become the mediator(s).

The discussion can follow in the same thread that was originally started in the resolution center until a solution can be found. If the situation is not solveable, then perhaps it can become a matter for the CC or whatever.

There probably will be a delay betwen the time the call goes out and the time that the mediators are found. This is not a flaw, but a feature. Often, slow progress is better than a harsh ending or a quick-fix.

Also, I think that some of the moderation staff prefer to settle issues in private, rather than in public. I think that many users are uncomfortable with this. I think it is fine if both the staff and the user are in a greement, but the resolution center is here to settle issues like this in the open. I think a user should always feel like they have the choice of bringing the probelm to the resolution center if they do not want it settled in private. What I am getting at is that the onus is on the forum staff to inform the user that they have the option.

I am striving to seperate myself from the political and administrative tension that has surrounded me for the past few months. I was made aware of recent problems via personal messages and email. I do not want to get involved - it is none of my business.

However, I noticed this flaw in the system and I wanted to comment on it. Ignore as required. It is just a suggestion. I don't want to start anything.

[xequence]

I am striving to seperate myself from the political and administrative tension that has surrounded me for the past few months.

Good job, now youve made me even more curious to what happened :P

But about your post, I aggree.

I seems reasonable to implement a restricted profile of sections for a "banned" member to use. I am suggesting that a "banned-ng" user only have permissions to use the resolution center as well as have access to their mailbox and send and receive PMs. This can have the benefit of reducing fraud since anyone can pretend to be user X who has just been banned and is posting under an alias.


Thats the main point of the post, while the rest of it goes in great detail about how to do it, so ill only comment on this part. Its a wonderful idea about the resolution center, from the resolution center king himself =P

But yea, obviously a banned user needs to have a say in something, so allowing PM and res center access is the best idea. If they dont want to work it out nicely they can be banned fully though.

[az]

Good job, now youve made me even more curious to what happened :P

But about your post, I aggree.


Actually, that is another detail I forgot to mention. The resolution center section only displays threads from the last week. You need to show all threads in the resolution center for the past few months (or more, in the future...)

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&f=123&page=1&pp=20&sort=lastpost&order=desc&daysprune=365

All of my issues were solved using the resolution center. Open discussion in a productive frame of mind works.




But yea, obviously a banned user needs to have a say in something, so allowing PM and res center access is the best idea. If they dont want to work it out nicely they can be banned fully though.

There is a book by Desmond Tutu about resolution. It has the word "Ubuntu" in the title.

Both parties in the dispute need to feel respected for proper discussion to happen. What I suggest widens the possibility of both parties coming to the table with respect. That's my point.

[KiwiNZ]

There is some interesting things here Azz.

Too much for me to take in on one read I have printed it and will give it a few reads.

[majikstreet]

I agree. great idea!

[az]

I wanted to edit it for clarity but I ended up adding fifteen sentences or so.

[earobinson]

good read.

[KingBahamut]

I guess the only draw back to this , is what of the numerous users that abuse the areas , or will abuse the areas you leave for them to have access to?

Much like we saw with the user Poptones and his enumerated attempts....

There are users that abuse the areas your talking about leaving them access too, and if the user is so brazen as such (once finding out just how far theyve been restricted) , we then will see how faro they will go to prove they truely are a troll or whatever you want to call it.

Though one would assume for the Resolution Center to work, ALL users would have to follow the rules that apply to its function. Weve seen in the past that this doesnt nessecarily work, users break those rules as well.

[mstlyevil]

I guess the only draw back to this , is what of the numerous users that abuse the areas , or will abuse the areas you leave for them to have access to?

Much like we saw with the user Poptones and his enumerated attempts....

There are users that abuse the areas your talking about leaving them access too, and if the user is so brazen as such (once finding out just how far theyve been restricted) , we then will see how faro they will go to prove they truely are a troll or whatever you want to call it.

Though one would assume for the Resolution Center to work, ALL users would have to follow the rules that apply to its function. Weve seen in the past that this doesnt nessecarily work, users break those rules as well.

It could be looked at as a test to see if the user will straighten up or continue to troll. If they continue to abuse the resolution center then have a nuclear option of locking them out of there as a last resort. It is not a perfect system but letting the user have access to the resolution center might help rehabilitate posters that could go on to be very valuable to these forums.

[az]

You miss the point.

I guess the only draw back to this , is what of the numerous users that abuse the areas , or will abuse the areas you leave for them to have access to?

Much like we saw with the user Poptones and his enumerated attempts....

There are users that abuse the areas your talking about leaving them access too, and if the user is so brazen as such (once finding out just how far theyve been restricted) , we then will see how faro they will go to prove they truely are a troll or whatever you want to call it.

If the user wants to squander their chance at reconciliation, that it their choice. The caveat is that the forum has to give them an honest chance.

Some people react poorly when backed into a corner and probably would prove they are not a troll if given the opportunity. But if you **** someone off (like by deleting their posts, then banning them when you refuse to accept their complaint - In private!) of course that will make the situation worse.

Though one would assume for the Resolution Center to work, ALL users would have to follow the rules that apply to its function. Weve seen in the past that this doesnt nessecarily work, users break those rules as well.

I think the rules get changed dynamically, so you can't really say that. If you are referring to the "one-issue, one-complainer only" rule, that is always subjective, isn't it? The plaintiff will always see the problem as being something different than what the forum staff sees, no?

The forum staff needs to be credible and accountable - that sometimes means accepting criticism. You can't keep adding rules to the resolution center just so that people will not be able to criticise you.

It's just the opposite - you need to be able to address as many concerns as possible. You make them go away by addressing them.

People in the forum look after each other. You can't expect to foster a feeling of openness if you have a rule that says you will be banned if you post to the resolution forum and you are judged to not be close enough to the original issue!

[KingBahamut]

Some people react poorly when backed into a corner and probably would prove they are not a troll if given the opportunity. But if you **** someone off (like by deleting their posts, then banning them when you refuse to accept their complaint - In private!) of course that will make the situation worse

No, azz, people react poorly period. Personal Attacks , use of excessive language, improper references to illegal behavior. That outright isnt someone trying to do or say good. That outright is someone taking advantage of the situation. And that happens. But limiting behavior of an already uncontrollable user, is only going to make that user even more uncontrollable. And likely the situation even worse.

I think the rules get changed dynamically, so you can't really say that. If you are referring to the "one-issue, one-complainer only" rule, that is always subjective, isn't it? The plaintiff will always see the problem as being something different than what the forum staff sees, no?

Subjective, perhaps. That has been there since the resolution center was started. I too , made a mistake posting in a persons resolution thread, only I didnt do it 4 times in a row or repeatedly.

[KiwiNZ]

Azz the rules for the Resolution Centre are not covert. They are there for all to see.

If someone refuses to comply with rules then the sanctions (stated in the rules) are then applied. As in any part of the community we live in.

[az]

No, azz, people react poorly period. Personal Attacks , use of excessive language, improper references to illegal behavior. That outright isnt someone trying to do or say good. That outright is someone taking advantage of the situation. And that happens. But limiting behavior of an already uncontrollable user, is only going to make that user even more uncontrollable. And likely the situation even worse.

I'll let someone else answer that. I've made my point - That's exactly the closed-minded outrageous attitude that has no place in a "resolution center".



Subjective, perhaps. That has been there since the resolution center was started. I too , made a mistake posting in a persons resolution thread, only I didnt do it 4 times in a row or repeatedly.

I posted the same post *six* times in row, the other day. The forums were wonky (I knew things were not as usual since the resolution center rules were not being displayed as usual, at the time). Since my post kept vanishing, I assumed it was another forum bug. I assumed that if someone was deleting the post, they would post a message to the thread to explain, or make some other courtesy.

I felt I was involved in the situation enough to post to the topic. I was certain there were other threads where others had less of a presence in the situation and had joined it.

When I was (rudely) informed of the situation, I noticed the resolution center rules had changed. I still reported the bugs I noticed to ubuntu-geek via the private message thread.

Any issue I have with the resolution center rules will be addressed in a thread there. I have not done so yet because I think that will just stir up **** instead of being productive. The resolution center is an important part of the forums. A lot of issues got settled because of it.

My aim was for this thread to be a productive one. It stemmed from the unproductive events that happened when poptones got banned.


Rules Before:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:GYqVeAAsejsJ:ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php%3Ff%3D123+resolution+center+ubunt uforums+rules&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox

Rules After:
http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=123

diff -b 1 2
18d17
< 6. Repeated offenders of #3 will receive a PM from a forum administrator warning them if they are in violation. If repeated attempts are made to distrupt progress being made the offender in question will receive a 2 day temporary ban. If still an issue the forum account maybe be revoked at anytime.
21,22d19
<

[ardchoille]

I must say that an all-out ban does nothing to facilitate resolving a problem. If I were banned, I would at least want to be able to access a resolution center and PM's so that I have the chance to resolve the problem and return as a member of these awesome forums :) When a member is banned, do they still have access to the resolution center and their PM's?

[KiwiNZ]

We do not take the decision to ban someone lightly. Generally we have been through many attempts to resolve and discuss with the user. The staff also consult and discuss often at length before implementing a ban.
In the majority of cases the banned member has refused to follow our rules etc and has advised that they do not intend to.

There is the few occassion when an urgent ban is applied due to extreme circumstances.

Perm bans are rare we prefer to temp ban first,but alas that is not always successful.

[KingBahamut]

Any issue I have with the resolution center rules will be addressed in a thread there. I have not done so yet because I think that will just stir up **** instead of being productive. The resolution center is an important part of the forums. A lot of issues got settled because of it.

And raising these issues here is Productive? How? and why? And if not productive, then.......

you should address them there, rather than here. Ive yet to see any issue that you addressed there that has not be resovled cleanly and coherently. It seems premature to try to address problems that require a resolution in a discussion area. Rather than an actual Resolution area where you are trying to get a problem fixed. You do see this as a problem, Azz? yes?

If you do see it as a problem, something that requires resolution, then your posting in the wrong forum, mon ami.

[aysiu]

We do not take the decision to ban someone lightly. Generally we have been through many attempts to resolve and discuss with the user. The staff also consult and discuss often at length before implementing a ban. Having been a former moderator myself (wasn't Azz, too, at one point?), I can attest to this. In fact, I was a little more insistent on banning than most of the rest of the staff. If someone gets banned, there's something clearly wrong (and repeated offenses) the user has done. It's not the staff being trigger-happy with banning.

[earobinson]

As I understand the resoultion center is for when you think that you have been wronged in some way correct?

Ubuntuforums Site Discussion is the correct place to talk abour forum rules as long as it is done in a constructive way?

[rcarring]

When I was a board administrator elsewhere some years back, to bann someone required a quorum of at least three people two of who had to be moderators and one of whom had to be an administrator.

Case in point: we had a user persistently posting threads on how to best achieve suicide, somewhat more serious than name calling or suggesting that <name of operating system> is <insert derogatory remark>, they got banned the same night.

IMO the forums move so fast that a rude post on page one made at 9am will be on page 5 by 5pm.

I guess this isn't that moot to the Resolution Center, but I thought I would chuck in my two cents anyway.

[KiwiNZ]

I dont think we need to go over this again