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The user can be informed that their access to the rest of the forums has been revoked because of issue XYZ...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

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

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...&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!