Display if a user is banned

[rudi]

Dear @Duome Team or @duome,

recently you announced the following:

As a precautionary to keep the forum's content from being compromised, we've initiated a one-week allowance for editing from the time of any initial submission. During this one-week window, members can make adjustments to their posts, but they will be locked from editing thereafter.
...
There are other forums and some social media platforms that also exercise this practice, some with a shorter time-frame to edit.

In other forums, there are also a lot of another options, like the following:

For instance, if a user is banned or kicked out, this information should be displayed under his avatar. That would be only fair! So one can know, why this user is not posting anymore. Otherwise it would look like a kind of extra punishment or something.

[PtolemysXX]

For instance, if a user is banned or kicked out, this information should be displayed under his avatar. That would be only fair! So one can know, why this user is not posting anymore. Otherwise it would look like a kind of extra punishment or something.

Having a "banned" label under one's avatar might be perceived as even more severe punishment.
You can view users' activity in their profile to assess whether they are likely to show up again.

[rudi]

Having a "banned" label under one's avantar might be perceived as even more severe punishment.
You can view users' activity in their profile to assess whether they are likely to show up again.

I get your idea, but in fact it would be just a neutral notification about the momentarily (or permanently) state. When the ban is over, it will be vanishing and so everything will be normal again.

I mean, there are reasons, why the vast majority of other forums does that. And I never saw anybody complain about that.

[Thomas.Heiss]

Well, you can also tag banned users.
Makes no sense.

There is ZERO information about this fact that some (at the moment I know of one person) are not around here anymore.

[HeyMarlana]

There is no extra punishment. If someone was banned, I'm sure anyone who had followed some of an individual's activity will come to their own conclusions why they're no longer around. I'm not personally in favour of exposing one's ban. Any ban here is always done with deliberation, and in a lot of cases, done after a period of warning (sometimes more than once, depending on the community guideline offense). Some platforms just pull an account after one mishap, and others will do it automatically if there is reporting abuse. Here, we're a community that can actually speak with the members to work on improvements being made, in hopes that we can move forward.

[antonmo]

Dear admins, you are missing the point. It does not even need to say banned. It makes sense to want to know if someone cannot be here as opposed to voluntarily not here. And you’d want to know if it is temporary or permanent. Just wait and guess is not a solution. You could just write, returns (date) on the profile.

[HeyMarlana]

I understand. I myself was in a situation where I lost contact with some people on the Duolingo forum when [they] were shadow-banned.

The problem with profiles publicly outing a user's absence such as a ban or deactivation is that there is the possibility of seeing the "Why was XXXXX banned?" type of posts. I recall creating one myself on Duolingo looking for someone and it was promptly removed by the mods. Discussion or any indication of why a user is no longer anywhere is a private matter between the user and the host. The [banned/deactivated] user may very well be eager to explain their side of the situation, but a public outing can just cause further upset.

[rudi]

And fortunately, the banned user has no more ability to explain the matter on his view...

Come on, every forum does display banned users. It's just for clarification.

[HeyMarlana]

Topic now moved from "Announcements by Duome" to "Requests new Duome features".

[John Little]

It is true that some *forums display the "banned" tag under user names. Years ago, A forum friend of mine was banned so often from the "lineone/tiscali/talktalk" forum that he made it part of his avatar!

But, as a retired trade union officer, I used to represent members in discipline cases and fully appreciate the concept of privacy in these matters.

However, I do understand how the sudden disappearance of a forum friend can be upsetting.

Edit: having said that (above) I'm not sure I've seen the "banned tag" in phpbb forums.

Another edit: as an experiment, I "banned" a test name on my phpbb forum and searched for the name in the members list and there was no indication that the user had been "banned"

[McGonnagle]

Hello @Duome Team or @duome,

I believe that the most basic way for a banned user to request the publication of the reason for their ban would be to directly send a request to the moderators or the administration team. However, I would like to know if there is a system in place within this community for requesting the disclosure of the reason behind a ban.

If such a request is possible, I would appreciate it if you could also provide information on the procedure for making this request.

Thank you for your time.

[duome]

memberlist.php?mode=contactadmin - it's a general feedback form, plain text, whatever fits into that text area.

[McGonnagle]

@duome I appreciate your reply.
I have two more questions:

1. If a person wishes to have the reason for their ban disclosed, should they understand that by submitting a request through this process, all reasons for the ban will be disclosed, with the premise of protecting the privacy of third parties (private individuals) who have not consented?

2. If there are any restrictions on the disclosure, could you please explain how Duome Team's discretion applies when making that decision, and what criteria are used in making such judgments?

Thanks in advance!

[duome]

The reason for a ban is specified when the ban is being issued - the recepient is the first to know the reasons as he gets a corresponding email with all the details; if any further clarification is needed the recepient can simply reply to the email message he received or use the feedback form specifying his name/username and email (provided that it matches the profile data). In both cases I would be the one to read those replies and give my own judgement to what happened.

We've had exactly 3 users banned in 3 years by the way, including one "24 hours cool down" ban.

[McGonnagle]

Dear @Duome Team or @duome,

Thank you for your response.

I understand that the banned user initially receives an email notifying them of the reason for the ban.

However, my question is not about that process. I would like to confirm the following two points if a user wishes to have the reason for their ban disclosed in the forums:

1. If a user requests to have the reason for their ban disclosed, should they understand that, through this process, all reasons for the ban will be disclosed, with the premise of protecting the personal information of third parties (private individuals) who have not given consent? Or will there be some form of restriction applied?

2. If there are restrictions on the disclosure, could you please explain how Duome Team's discretion is applied in making such decisions, and what criteria are used for those judgments?

Thank you in advance for your time and clarification!

[duome]

Two words: common sense.

We don't and we cannot have a policy for everything and personally I would actually bring it all down to one simple condition: please, try not to hurt each other (and don't make it a battleground for your personal war against someone).

Anyway, if we had a disclosure request, we would have discussed the possibilities, but if it came in a polite form and a person would be able and willing to continue to communicate in a calm and polite manner, a ban itself would no longer be necessary, in my understanding.

Worst case: I was trying to reach out to XeO3 more than once asking him to please calm down, explaining the reasons and telling him that if after all we could still move on, I'm fine with it - in response he wished that we die, followed by incomprehensible amount of all sorts of insults.

If such a person demanded anything, I would simply ignore it: premanently banned means permanently banned. Period.

[McGonnagle]

Dear @Duome

Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful response.

Your response, "We cannot have policies for everything," was roughly what I expected, and I can understand it. In particular, when it comes to the "reasons" for a ban, unless the entire sequence of events is carefully presented in chronological order, it cannot be considered a truly fair explanation. Moreover, this would require a significant amount of time, effort, and potentially even funding. Given that the current system is run by volunteers, I understand that this is not realistic. (Edit: Although we all have to think that Who and What action caused this problem.)　

With that in mind, I completely agree with your point that "the willingness and ability to maintain calm and polite communication" should be the fundamental condition expected of all participants. In fact, this is exactly the answer I was hoping to draw out from you.

Since I am not privy to the internal details (including the situation with XeO3), I want to avoid making hasty judgments. However, In the situations where I made my own posts or in the areas of posts I followed with interest, I do believe that you and some of the moderators genuinely possess the "willingness and ability to maintain calm and polite communication," and I am truly grateful for that.

On the other hand, there are moderators whose tone and behavior are often perceived as intimidating, and it sometimes makes me question whether they truly have the "willingness and ability to maintain calm and polite communication." (Of course, they may be under stress due to the demands of moderation, and I do empathize with that.) I am able to respond calmly to such remarks, but not everyone can do the same to authority.

Especially in situations where people in positions of authority within the community are perceived to constantly display an intimidating attitude, it is entirely possible that some participants will lose their composure. That is why I strongly believe that "the willingness and ability to maintain calm and polite communication" should not only be required of participants but also equally expected of the moderators themselves. If a consistently intimidating attitude is observed, it may stem from a lack of confidence in speaking rationally or from anxiety and stress arising from a strong sense of responsibility to protect the community. In either case, this is not a situation that is favorable for anyone.

Finally, I sincerely hope that this community continues to be a place where all participants can communicate comfortably, with respect and moderation, in a safe and positive environment.

[McGonnagle]

Dear admins, you are missing the point. It does not even need to say banned. It makes sense to want to know if someone cannot be here as opposed to voluntarily not here. And you’d want to know if it is temporary or permanent. Just wait and guess is not a solution. You could just write, returns (date) on the profile.

I think this is a great idea!!

[McGonnagle]

I understand. I myself was in a situation where I lost contact with some people on the Duolingo forum when [they] were shadow-banned.

The problem with profiles publicly outing a user's absence such as a ban or deactivation is that there is the possibility of seeing the "Why was XXXXX banned?" type of posts. I recall creating one myself on Duolingo looking for someone and it was promptly removed by the mods. Discussion or any indication of why a user is no longer anywhere is a private matter between the user and the host. The [banned/deactivated] user may very well be eager to explain their side of the situation, but a public outing can just cause further upset.

In general, privacy is not about information that should be hidden, but about information that the individual has control over.

If the person’s will is not respected, it is not privacy protection, but rather the imposition of silence.　　

Also, in general, under the laws of most countries, organizations do not have the right to "privacy." Privacy is typically recognized as a right granted to natural persons (individuals). Therefore, the phrase "a private matter between the user and the host" you mentioned is not entirely clear to me, in the case where the individual wants it to be disclosed.　

It seems that you are conscious of not causing anxiety or confusion among many people, but my concern is that by leaving things unspecified and unresolved, it could actually foster suspicion and conspiracy theories.　　

However, as I mentioned before, I understand that "posting the reason" is a difficult matter in practice. Therefore, I believe that @antonmo 's suggestion can be a good solution so far.

[HeyMarlana]

What I meant about privacy, was about ethics. I dislike having to be pushed to explain a ban.

For example, on a language club I operate, there have only been a few bans made in five years, and all were a shock to [most of] the members who noticed that someone was suddenly gone. What members didn't know was something happening behind-the-scenes like abuse of the PM system (screenshots provided), or offensive posts that were quickly removed, that the members likely didn't get a chance to witness, and a few other reasons. One bizarre situation was someone registering just to impersonate an existing member as their "second" account — which was found to be false. All these situations issued warnings, and all were defied, which were between the admin team and the member. These are things that weren't public and so to discuss it would only created gossip, assumptions (which are often incorrect), maybe even division, and would take focus away from the many good things the site offered.

My co-mod has such a optimistic and mature nature of "moving on" when these things happen. Her philosophy is not to dwell, and carry on and enjoy the other discussions. I also appreciate the words of @duome that bans are avoidable (especially when warnings are given), and so as not to be in a position to be missed, then members know not to do anything that would warrant a ban.

Anyway, banning aside, if members decide to just take a break, they can always just update their signatures. If on hiatus, only they know when they might return and can say so if they choose.

[duome]

But, as a retired trade union officer, I used to represent members in discipline cases and fully appreciate the concept of privacy in these matters.

Something along this line is one of the reasons why we decided to not disclose too much information.

If I came to a random forum not knowing anyone there and I saw some people being labeled as "banned", I would probably conclude that there must have been a valid reason for the ban and I would probably be cautious about these people. This is what we're trying to avoid: labeling someone with a tag that carries a negative connotation. We may be unhappy about someone but we don't need to and we don't aim to label them as "bad" people and let everyone know it (or worse - make sure that everyone knows).

Instead, if there's an issue, we would rather resolve it privately, communicating our concerns directly without third parties being involved (which would only heat things up even further instead of cooling it down). The ban would only follow if a person doesn't seem to be willing to communicate in a respectful manner, but it has only happened just a few times in three years, so I do hope that we don't really need all this -- the labels, the disclosure, etc.

[McGonnagle]

[menion]Duome[/mention],

I wonder if the person wishes to be labeled, would that be acceptable?
By the way, I have already mentioned that I understand that disclosing the full reasons is actually difficult. But if the person desires, would it be possible to add 'Returned on [date]' to their profile?

[McGonnagle]

But, as a retired trade union officer, I used to represent members in discipline cases and fully appreciate the concept of privacy in these matters.

Something along this line is one of the reasons why we decided to not disclose too much information.

@John Little
What you're suggesting is that this would only apply when a person (a natural person in the legal sense) on the trade union side involved in the issue does not want to make it public, and not on the employer side, correct?

[John Little]

@John Little
What you're suggesting is that this would only apply when a person (a natural person in the legal sense) on the trade union side involved in the issue does not want to make it public, and not on the employer side, correct?

People get "disciplined" for many reasons. Sometimes they are innocent but often it's a fair cop. In all my time defending them I never had anyone who wanted the details of their misdeed made public. And, if the manager had been unusually lenient, they wouldn't be keen on having their leniency flagged up to their boss.

But if the disciplined member wanted to let people know what they had been disciplined for, that was up to them. However, It was never up to the manager to broadcast the facts to other members of staff and they would have been disciplined in turn if they had

[McGonnagle]

But, as a retired trade union officer, I used to represent members in discipline cases and fully appreciate the concept of privacy in these matters.

Something along this line is one of the reasons why we decided to not disclose too much information.

@John Little
What you're suggesting is that this would only apply when a person (a natural person in the legal sense) on the trade union side involved in the issue does not want to make it public, and not on the employer side, correct?

People get "disciplined" for many reasons. Sometimes they are innocent but often it's a fair cop. In all my time defending them I never had anyone who wanted the details of their misdeed made public. And, if the manager had been unusually lenient, they wouldn't be keen on having their leniency flagged up to their boss.

But if the disciplined member wanted to let people know what they had been disciplined for, that was up to them. However, It was never up to the manager to broadcast the facts to other members of staff and they would have been disciplined in turn if they had

@Duome
Considering @John Little's perspective, it appears that this theory might only be applicable to the relationship between yourself and the moderators?

[duome]

I guess it's applicable a little bit here and there depeinding on each one's perspective.

In any case, we wouldn't like to label people with tags and, to reiterate, we've only had two long-term bans in our entire history, we do hope there won't be more, so we hope that we won't really need all this, even theoretically.

Frankly I cannot imagine why would anyone be willing to be labeled if not to promote a rebellion spirit and blow up a conflict or something like that (we do have forum members that continuosly and consciously misused their signatures with this particular intention).

Intentions aside - technically - it's not a default feature and we're not supposed to have it, but as a workaround it's possible to have a "banned" group to show the corresponding label, and it would be possible (although I don't find it really appropriate) to edit the banned user's signature to have something like "away until xxxx/xx/xx" written in there.

[rudi]

It is strange, that we even have to discuss this topic. I mean, every other forum does this (tag banned users) just without thinking about it.
Of course, at the first glance one would think "oh this is a user who did something wrong", but the more you read, you can form your own opinion about how this user really was.
But just leaving it as if nothing was happenen, is the worst choice of all. This is what I meant with "extra punishment". It is very similar to that shadow-banning in the old closed duolingo-forum, which was critiziced from everybody, and happened even to people which are now mods here. One should assume that they would know best about that AND try their best to avoid that exactly this happens to other people in this forum.

[duome]

It is strange, that we even have to discuss this topic. I mean, every other forum does this (tag banned users) just without thinking about it.

Not every other; it's not a default feature; we're not obliged to have it if others have it.

Regarding the rest - I do get your point.

It's not a big deal - we can set up a group and include two usernames there, but would it really change something and most importantly - would it finally make someone happy or would they pick yet another reason to stay unhappy about yet another something?

[rudi]

It is strange, that we even have to discuss this topic. I mean, every other forum does this (tag banned users) just without thinking about it.

we're not obliged to have it if others have it.

Of course not, but it illustrates the usual manner.

Regarding the rest - I do get your point.

Thanks!

It's not a big deal - we can set up a group and include two usernames there, but would it really change something and most importantly - would it finally make someone happy or would they pick yet another reason to stay unhappy about yet another something?

I don't think that would resolve the matter because it needs some careful clicks on the right points to see in which group a user is. But better than nothing.

It will surely make nobody happy or come back. It's only a thing about fairness. This is what I try to made clear since I started the thread.

Regarding XeO3 I will send you a pm. It's not everything as it seems at the first glance.

[antonmo]

I believe what is asked, is tranparency from the management.

I hope it’s not too off topic, but I’ve worked in several companies. One thing that has differed between them is how departures take place. Let me take two real world places where I’ve worked.

In one of my very early experiences, all entries and departures of our department were celebrated. You’d buy a cake, greet everyone at entry, and get to know them a little bit. and when you were about to leave, you’d do the same. You’d have adequate time to take farewell and everyone would accept the change of the person leaving.

The departure of an employee, is often a bit of a trauma for the co-workers.

Now, another way of doing it is one recent company:

It would announce new employees in a news letter, give them time to present themselves in the meetings and so on at entry. And at departure, say nothing. No information at all. One day he was there. Next day he wasn’t. And noone cares to tell you anything

Of course, then the co-workers start to look around. They start to cautiously talk to the people they know most and ask if they knew what has happened by any chance. Back in their mind, they are asking, could the same happen to me?

The result is, gossip, fear, unhappiness, uncertainty which then can have 2nd level effects.

If you think about it, all that because of one policy. Perhaps the management thought, talking about departures would stir the pot, create worry and dissent.

You might argue, it works for them, both companies continue on. But the interpersonal cultures of the two are completely different.

The question is, Which one would you want to work at?