Display if a user is banned

[rudi]

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

Don't you forget this one?

Maybe she was kicked out of the forum. I was banned for a few months and my status appeared as deleted.

[duome]

If it's a quote from 2024, I was away from here for the most part of it and I cannot tell anything about nudelfressa's matter. Myself I can only remember 3 occasions when someone got banned, make it four with nudelfressa (make it five with Basler Biker being banned by daKanga at some point).

It doesn't change the big picture though. It's only so many in more than 3 years - this was the key point.

[McGonnagle]

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.

　　
　　

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).

I’m glad to hear your honest opinion. To be honest, I was taken aback by how simple it was. Please don’t worry, I’ve never once considered causing the issues you are concerned about. Furthermore, I have never reached out to anyone regarding this matter, nor have I been influenced by anyone. I also swear that I have never dug through old threads or browsed them in any way.

At present, here is how I think. I understand that there is a balance between [the position of prioritizing fairness and transparency] and [the position of avoiding the risks caused by excessive disclosure (you)]. Although the two perspectives are different, I’m confident that both come from a genuine love for this community. I can personally understand both stances.

However, imagine this situation: There is a moderator frequently adopts a coercive attitude, twists issues, speaks convincingly about contradictory things, and shows the same dominant attitude toward other moderators. I’ve witnessed such situations multiple times (for now, I’ll refrain from naming this person, but if in case of I’m called a liar, things will be different). When a user witnesses this and begins to fear that this person may influence the decisions of the entire moderation team, can you imagine which stance that user might support?

[The stance of avoiding the risks of excessive disclosure] can only be supported when users trust the moderators. In a community where not all things can be regulated by rules, the assumption that members fully trust the moderators is essential for this to work. And, of course, the complete trust in moderators cannot be imposed on the community members simply by the words, 'We are handling things fairly, so don’t worry.' That point should not be forgotten.

[John Little]

I do not understand the issues here. Or rather, I do, but don't understand why these issues arise on a forum, put together at great pains, with nothing but positive intentions. How could something so positive, give rise to such controversy?

[McGonnagle]

I do not understand the issues here. Or rather, I do, but don't understand why these issues arise on a forum, put together at great pains, with nothing but positive intentions. How could something so positive, give rise to such controversy?

Could you go a bit deeper and share your feelings?

[McGonnagle]

I do not understand the issues here. Or rather, I do, but don't understand why these issues arise on a forum, put together at great pains, with nothing but positive intentions. How could something so positive, give rise to such controversy?

I understand your perspective, but in fact, those who support [the position of prioritizing fairness and transparency] also take a positive stance, though in a different sense. They believe that proactive information disclosure does not harm the community, but instead creates an environment where users can engage with confidence.

[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.

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.

I sincerely apologize to everyone for continuing the discussion without remembering the opinions of these two individuals. However, do you all agree with this idea? Based on the individual's wishes, I personally think this idea is fair.
　　
If the individual's wishes are the premise, then those who do not wish to have anything displayed will have no indication. When there is no display, regardless of the reason, it serves as an indication that the person does not want the community to have any expectations about their return. If there is a display, it will allow the person to communicate to the community when they will return, according to their own wishes, and those who are expecting their return will be reassured. What do you think of this idea?　

My point might be off, so if anyone has doubts about this idea, please share your thoughts.

[McGonnagle]

@Duome, @Moderators,

I want to make it clear that I say this with no intention of being disrespectful. Although I know little to nothing about the backstory behind someone’s banning that @nudelfress is talking about, I generally agree with his/ her opinion as general idea.

Additionally, I have no knowledge of the past event(s) that may be related to this issue. The fact that someone like me—who knows nothing about those incident(s)—is still feeling similar concerns suggests that this problem may be far more serious than it appears on the surface.

It is easy to imagine how a community could begin to collapse due to the arbitrary—or what appears to be arbitrary and coercive—actions of a single moderator. Furthermore, in attempting to prevent such collapse, even more arbitrary or heavy-handed responses could be taken, worsening the situation. I believe many people can easily envision this happening.

However, it's difficult to judge whether the administration's continued silence is due to indifference, leaving the issue unresolved with a "Let's move on!" attitude, or if the individual involved is already reflecting on their actions and carefully considering how to handle the situation moving forward.

If the individual is truly reflecting on their actions, then they may need to show that through concrete actions and communicate directly with those who were made uncomfortable. To repeat, I am not directly involved in the events that have taken place.

If such action or communication is not forthcoming, then at the very least, I believe the following measures should be put in place:

　1. Clear and publicly available guidelines for moderator behavior
　2. A system of checks and balances involving mutual oversight among multiple moderators

Without these measures, I believe it would be extremely difficult to restore trust.

That said, ideally, before relying on such systems, the moderator in question should take it upon themselves to regain the community's trust and resolve the issue amicably. That would be the simplest and smoothest path forward.

In a community like this, the accumulated contributions of individual users are what create true and irreplaceable value. What brings the community to life is not just physical infrastructure or resources, but the knowledge, experience, and mutual support shared among its members.

Since users are investing their time, knowledge, and efforts into this community, it is essential that the administration and moderators provide an environment where such "assets" can be entrusted with confidence.

To achieve this, it is critical to eliminate coercive or arbitrary actions by the administration or moderators, and to maintain consistency and fairness in their attitudes and behavior. This is the key to building trust.

Such a mindset is indispensable for fostering the healthy growth of the community as a whole.

It is truly unfortunate that I have to say these things.
However, I say them because this community is important for me, and I sincerely respect and trust the majority of the moderators.

[duome]

I will have to wait till the weekend to give a proper response, yet it would only be my own opinion and my own doubts. I keep getting interrupted halfway through writing what I'm trying to say, then I start it all over again, then again, so I'd better do it on a weekend (real life kicks in when you least expect it).

[rudi]

If the individual's wishes are the premise, then those who do not wish to have anything displayed will have no indication.

That's a very reasonable and fair idea.

When there is no display, regardless of the reason, it serves as an indication that the person does not want the community to have any expectations about their return.

But the problem at the moment is the word "want" in your sentence. At the moment, it seems, as if users have decided by their own will to leave the forum and leave everything here behind themselves, and that is simply not the case. Instead they got banned, some even without every warning before.

So to leave the other members in doubt, whether the user made the decision for not being here anymore by his own will, or got been banned, is unfair. And maybe result even in kind of eternal waiting for users coming back. I mean, this is exactly what happend to @antonmo – and I think, he is not the only one.

@Duome, @Moderators,

I want to make it clear that I say this with no intention of being disrespectful. Although I know little to nothing about the backstory behind someone’s banning that @nudelfress is talking about, I generally agree with his/ her opinion as general idea.

Additionally, I have no knowledge of the past event(s) that may be related to this issue. The fact that someone like me—who knows nothing about those incident(s)—is still feeling similar concerns suggests that this problem may be far more serious than it appears on the surface.

It is easy to imagine how a community could begin to collapse due to the arbitrary—or what appears to be arbitrary and coercive—actions of a single moderator. Furthermore, in attempting to prevent such collapse, even more arbitrary or heavy-handed responses could be taken, worsening the situation. I believe many people can easily envision this happening.

However, it's difficult to judge whether the administration's continued silence is due to indifference, leaving the issue unresolved with a "Let's move on!" attitude, or if the individual involved is already reflecting on their actions and carefully considering how to handle the situation moving forward.

If the individual is truly reflecting on their actions, then they may need to show that through concrete actions and communicate directly with those who were made uncomfortable. To repeat, I am not directly involved in the events that have taken place.

If such action or communication is not forthcoming, then at the very least, I believe the following measures should be put in place:

　1. Clear and publicly available guidelines for moderator behavior
　2. A system of checks and balances involving mutual oversight among multiple moderators

Without these measures, I believe it would be extremely difficult to restore trust.

That said, ideally, before relying on such systems, the moderator in question should take it upon themselves to regain the community's trust and resolve the issue amicably. That would be the simplest and smoothest path forward.

In a community like this, the accumulated contributions of individual users are what create true and irreplaceable value. What brings the community to life is not just physical infrastructure or resources, but the knowledge, experience, and mutual support shared among its members.

Since users are investing their time, knowledge, and efforts into this community, it is essential that the administration and moderators provide an environment where such "assets" can be entrusted with confidence.

To achieve this, it is critical to eliminate coercive or arbitrary actions by the administration or moderators, and to maintain consistency and fairness in their attitudes and behavior. This is the key to building trust.

Such a mindset is indispensable for fostering the healthy growth of the community as a whole.

It is truly unfortunate that I have to say these things.
However, I say them because this community is important for me, and I sincerely respect and trust the majority of the moderators.

I am replying to this with a full-quote, because what you say is very important.

Under every single paragraph of this post I could write my absolute approval. Thank you very much for this well-thought and carefully written post.

[McGonnagle]

When there is no display, regardless of the reason, it serves as an indication that the person does not want the community to have any expectations about their return.

But the problem at the moment is the word "want" in your sentence. At the moment, it seems, as if users have decided by their own will to leave the forum and leave everything here behind themselves, and that is simply not the case. Instead they got banned, some even without every warning before.

So to leave the other members in doubt, whether the user made the decision for not being here anymore by his own will, or got been banned, is unfair. And maybe result even in kind of eternal waiting for users coming back.

@rudi , I'm very grateful that you took an interest in my comment.

It might have been my lack of explanation, so I'd like to clarify the part of my comment that you quoted, by explaining what follows it. If anything is unclear, please feel free to ask me as many times as needed.

What I meant was that, even for users who have been banned, if some kind of display option were available—such as “Taking a break”, “Planning to return in [month]” or "away until xxxx/xx/xx" —it would allow them to communicate their intended return to the community. In fact,　

Duome also said this:

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.

This way, members who are waiting for that person's return wouldn't be left feeling uncertain or confused, and I believe it could provide them with a sense of reassurance.
Also, by not having to explicitly show that someone was “banned,” it could also address the kind of concerns that Duome mentioned in his comment:

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).

@rudi, again, if I'm missing the point, please feel free to let me know. Thanks!

[rudi]

@McGonnagle, please do not strike-through your well-thought paragraphs! They are very interesting and very good ideas, which I can only support. I would like to have such features, too. This would be a more fair place here, then. So I will cite the extract of your ideas, without lines!

If the individual's wishes are the premise, then those who do not wish to have anything displayed will have no indication. ... If there is a display, it will allow the person to communicate to the community when they will return, according to their own wishes, and those who are expecting their return will be reassured.
...
What I meant was that, even for users who have been banned, if some kind of display option were available—such as “Taking a break”, “Planning to return in [month]” or "away until xxxx/xx/xx" —it would allow them to communicate their intended return to the community.

Again, this are very good features, which I'd wished for, too.

[McGonnagle]

@McGonnagle, please do not strike-through your well-thought paragraphs! They are very interesting and very good ideas, which I can only support.

Thanks!! I remove the strike-through.

[HeyMarlana]

This topic is temporarily locked, until there is some consensus about how a banned user will be displayed — and that's only if @duome decides to format any profiles or creates any list to indicate as such.

This thread's original topic was a general question about whether or not @duome could incorporate a banned tag on a banned user's profile. We are not using this topic nor any other to explain a specific person's absence, or reveal any private dealings between any member and the staff if said-member is/has been absent, or if they have been banned. This is simply not up for public discussion. We do this for two reasons: 1) The absent/banned user is protected from being the subject of public gossip, and 2) the forum as a whole is protected from any unrest that such discussion tends to create.

Please do not steer any other public topics into questions asking if, and/or why someone in particular is absent/banned. If any discussion targets a singular member, meant to lead into a discussion about the member which may compromise the member's privacy or dignity, the comment will be removed, and if necessary, the topic may be subject to locking. Missing old friends is natural, and saying so is not a problem. Asking the administration to provide details is not for the public forum.

Thank you all for your understanding.

[duome]

I will have to wait till the weekend to give a proper response, yet it would only be my own opinion and my own doubts. I keep getting interrupted halfway through writing what I'm trying to say, then I start it all over again, then again, so I'd better do it on a weekend (real life kicks in when you least expect it).

It's taking way longer than I expected so I'll say two simple things for now:

1) the answer to all your questions is yes, we can have anything as long as it doesn't bring any more drama and even more reasons to confront each other (do we really need it?)

2) moderators are real people, like anyone else, they feel stressed, they get hurt, just like any person would, yet moderators are being attacked a lot more than anyone and speaking of fairness, I don't really find it fair

I'm keeping the topic locked until I can address all the remarks, probably one by one, so that it wouldn't take forever.