Why not ban users from a thread?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tulak

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
3,034
I'm not sure if this would help or not, but for popular threads that we'd prefer to stay open, why not ban individual users from posting to the thread if they are not following forum guidelines?
 
I'm pretty sure the forum software doesn't have the capability of banning a member from posting to a thread, and can only ban the user from the forum itself.
 
I'm not sure if this would help or not, but for popular threads that we'd prefer to stay open, why not ban individual users from posting to the thread if they are not following forum guidelines?
I'm not aware of any function that limits forum members to select threads. AFAIK it's "all or nothing".
 
We have a very large team of mods/admins who decide on moderation issues by consensus. The team has numerous means to choose from for dealing with members who do not follow our Community Rules, as well as for dealing with spammers, trolls, and so on.
 
I'm not sure if this would help or not, but for popular threads that we'd prefer to stay open, why not ban individual users from posting to the thread if they are not following forum guidelines?
Not the same but you can ignore posters who you'd rather not hear from. Took four years before I used it. But there's some folks who earn it.
 
Reminds me of the old John Hausman commercial for Smith Barney -- "they make the most ignored list the old fashioned way, they earn it."
 
Not the same but you can ignore posters who you'd rather not hear from. Took four years before I used it. But there's some folks who earn it.
Can the moderators set ignore for two people that are bickering? I guess that would be kind of extreme, but so is closing a thread because really there's just one pair of people not being reasonably nice to each other.

Y could be notified "We took the liberty of setting person X to be ignored", and vica verca. If you can be nice, feel free to change it back.
 
Can the moderators set ignore for two people that are bickering? I guess that would be kind of extreme, but so is closing a thread because really there's just one pair of people not being reasonably nice to each other.

Y could be notified "We took the liberty of setting person X to be ignored", and vica verca. If you can be nice, feel free to change it back.
I suppose anything could be done, but I'm not a mod or understand how the application is designed.

You actually get a message when someone one your ignore lists posts so I'm not sure if it would handle two people intent on proving they're right.

I find it useful to serve as a warning. The people on mine are troll-ish(IMO) and I use it as a reminder they're not worth having a discussion or replying to.
 
I'm pretty sure the forum software doesn't have the capability of banning a member from posting to a thread, and can only ban the user from the forum itself.

I'm not aware of any function that limits forum members to select threads. AFAIK it's "all or nothing".

It looks like you are right. I did a search earlier and found this thread:

Summary:

Allows Administrators to ban a user from a particular thread.
Most useful if you have a "flame started" and you don't want to lock the entire thread or ban the user entirely - just keep them out of the thread!

https://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=259017

Which made me think this was supported in vBulletin. Reading the thread further, it looks like this is an add-on to vBulletin.

I'm not that familiar with vBulletin and how easy/hard it is to add this type of mod, but maybe this is something that the forum admins/moderators can consider adding?

We have a very large team of mods/admins who decide on moderation issues by consensus. The team has numerous means to choose from for dealing with members who do not follow our Community Rules, as well as for dealing with spammers, trolls, and so on.

The moderators here do a great job, especially considering how much they are paid. :)

I wouldn't want to create extra work for the moderators, but there are some threads that are informative and it's a shame when they are locked because some users can't follow the community rules.

Not the same but you can ignore posters who you'd rather not hear from. Took four years before I used it. But there's some folks who earn it.

Ignoring doesn't solve this problem. That only filters out specific users. What I'm asking is if there's a way to prevent specific users from posting to a useful thread to prevent the thread from being locked.

If we're talking about something informative that we can all benefit from and 80% of the posts are good and 20% are against the community rules, it's a shame to let the 20% cause the thread to be locked. I'd rather see the 20% locked out of the thread and let the other 80% keep contributing.
 
Can the moderators set ignore for two people that are bickering?

To my knowledge, no. And I think that would be overstepping anyway, since ALL mod actions are done by consensus with the exception of blatant spamming. Those are simply deleted and banned.

It has been known to happen that a mod will point out how to turn on the ignore function in a PM but that's as far as it goes.

See, we're really not jackbooted Nazis.:D
 
We have a very large team of mods/admins who decide on moderation issues by consensus. The team has numerous means to choose from for dealing with members who do not follow our Community Rules,

Wonderful!

I think what is being asked for, is for less heavy-handed moderation. It is a shame that important, useful threads are being shut down (or not even being started in the first place) because of individuals who can't discuss politely. Could the mods use some of their 'numerous means' to curtail individuals who cross a line, as opposed to killing/preventing entire threads?
 
I don't have an answer, but I would surmise that if a particular thread is pulling a lot of discord, that tells us something about that particular topic. Maybe the better course is to shut it down, rather than try to pick and choose who gets to comment. Although not everyone has the same "hot buttons," some topics are just ripe for hate and discontent, it seems.

I say this, even though I sometimes feel that the party gets shut down just when it's getting interesting :(

Wonderful!

I think what is being asked for, is for less heavy-handed moderation. It is a shame that important, useful threads are being shut down (or not even being started in the first place) because of individuals who can't discuss politely. Could the mods use some of their 'numerous means' to curtail individuals who cross a line, as opposed to killing/preventing entire threads?
 
I don't have an answer, but I would surmise that if a particular thread is pulling a lot of discord, that tells us something about that particular topic. Maybe the better course is to shut it down, rather than try to pick and choose who gets to comment. Although not everyone has the same "hot buttons," some topics are just ripe for hate and discontent, it seems.

I say this, even though I sometimes feel that the party gets shut down just when it's getting interesting :(
I just wonder whether it's the often the same folks.

I even sometimes wonder whether some folks like to get a thread shut down.

I don't like just having a thread shut down if posts can be removed. I realize it's a lot of work for the moderators. But it seems unfair to those who are keeping things informational and answering questions to shut a thread down early because one or two other folks waltz in and start causing trouble.
 
I realize it's a lot of work for the moderators. But it seems unfair to those who are keeping things informational and answering questions to shut a thread down early because one or two other folks waltz in and start causing trouble.

[ex-moderator hat on]

Yes, it is a LOT of work - and it never stops.

What typically happens is the first problematic posts will be removed from a thread and the offending posters warned to cease and desist. Meanwhile, other posters will chime in with more problematic posts. Rinse and repeat. After a round or two the mods will tire of playing whack-a-post and agree to shut the thread down.

Unfair? Perhaps. I happen to think it is more unfair to ask unpaid volunteers to repeatedly clean up after adults who cannot behave themselves.

The forum is always looking for volunteers. If any of you would like to be considered send JanetH a PM.

[/ex-moderator hat off]
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if this would help or not, but for popular threads that we'd prefer to stay open, why not ban individual users from posting to the thread if they are not following forum guidelines?
Although I'm a relative newbie to the ER forum, my experience in other forums is that if someone is causing problems, it's not limited to one thread.
 
I happen to think it is more unfair to ask unpaid volunteers to repeatedly clean up after adults who cannot behave themselves.
^^^ This.

I try to think of myself as a guest in someone's home. I may disagree with my host or another of his guests, but try to mind my manners online just as I would in person. If I was at an event and found things intolerable, I would find an excuse to leave. That's even easier to do online.
 
I've seen a forum where this was possible, but it may have used totally different software.

It would be appropriate where a specific topic is very useful and informative, but where some people may get triggered by that particular topic.
 
I've often wished there was an option to ignore a poster in a particular thread. I have experienced situations where a poster who has given good information on some subjects gets into a pissing match with someone in a particular thread. I'd love to be able to ignore them both, but only in that thread. And I'm sure there are a few that feel that way about me sometimes too.
 
There is! It is called the scroll function :LOL::cool: I use it a lot.

I've often wished there was an option to ignore a poster in a particular thread. .
 
^^^ This.

I try to think of myself as a guest in someone's home. I may disagree with my host or another of his guests, but try to mind my manners online just as I would in person. If I was at an event and found things intolerable, I would find an excuse to leave. That's even easier to do online.

+1

I back off threads when people get nasty. Someone in another thread mis-informed the board about something I consider important but..... People can read and make up their own minds.

When people get nasty I turn them off and hang other places.

However I believe the mods do a great job of letting the conversation run with the proper amount of moderating.
 
I say this, even though I sometimes feel that the party gets shut down just when it's getting interesting :(

Same here!

What typically happens is the first problematic posts will be removed from a thread and the offending posters warned to cease and desist. Meanwhile, other posters will chime in with more problematic posts. Rinse and repeat. After a round or two the mods will tire of playing whack-a-post and agree to shut the thread down.

Thank you for explaining that. I appreciate that there is at least some discussion of the option of removing just the offending post. And I recognize that this might not be effective in all cases.

Just thinking out loud, if there were a placeholder in the thread showing that a post had been removed, it might cause other posters to think twice about re-igniting the flame. But maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
 
... I even sometimes wonder whether some folks like to get a thread shut down. ...

I do think this is true in some cases. I think there are certain posters who just do not want to have a light shone on certain topics. So they start acting up to get the thread shut down. They don't behave that way in other threads.

-ERD50
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom