Implemented Allow Moderators to Ban Users

[Mr_Bob]

Outside of the spam cleaner, it would be great to give moderators the ability to ban users, if they are given permission of course. As it stands, the only way to have a user banned by a moderator is using the spam cleaner, or make them a "administrator" in addition to being a moderator, with only the ban ability (but this still lets them run counters and view the error log).

 

[Paul B]

Outside of the spam cleaner, it would be great to give moderators the ability to ban users

The warning system now allows moderators to ban users, by way of a warning action which is triggered above a certain points threshold, or by adding to a "banned" user group which has all permissions removed.

Does that fulfil the requirements of this suggestion?

 

[Rigel Kentaurus]

The warning system now allows moderators to ban users, by way of a warning action which is triggered above a certain points threshold, or by adding to a "banned" user group which has all permissions removed.

Does that fulfil the requirements of this suggestion?

At least for me, not really. Not trying to be picky but moderators can "add warnings to users", that has the side-effect sometimes of banning a user, but they cannot outright go and ban a user ...

Then, I have to start messing with my workarounds for this.

For example, I could tell the user "just give several warnings to the user until he's banned". Ugly.
Or, I would create a "Ban user" warning with a points value of 50, configuring that anything over, say, 10 will get the user banned. Less ugly.

The thing is that, there is not a straightforward way to ban the users. Warnings are associated with content (I see even the "give direct warning to user" kind of related to the user info). It feel like, we have a workaround, but we do not have a Ban User option for moderators.

 

[Mike]

To me, the warning system seems like a better approach to banning - you get a better indication of why they were banned and more history (IMO), though the reason isn't as configurable.

Out of curiosity, do you have an example of where you would ban someone that wouldn't come from a warning/bad behavior sort of thing?

 

[Mr_Bob]

Does for me. The Warning System is diverse and customizable enough that it takes away the need, at least for me, to have a direct "ban" link for moderators.

 

[Rahfal]

Well, I have worked as an Administrator of over 70,000 registered users for the past few years and have been a moderator on numerous sites. I know from experience that I do not always use the "infraction system" (vB) and would prefer to manually ban users. On some sites, some people do not use the warning/infraction system and instead just warn via Private Messages (Conversations) and then usernote it, so they manually ban users via Moderator Panel/Admin Panel.

Alternatively, if the user or parents of the user request their account deleted (but you don't allow accounts to be deleted, so they want it banned), it's much more convenient (in my opinion and from personal experience) to just have the ban feature for Moderators.

I'm personally in favor of allowing Moderators to ban as on all of the sites I've worked for, and the one I'm still am as an Administrator, moderators have always been able to ban as default. Just like others have said, what if the admins are not on, and somebody is attacking your site with many accounts (I've had this happen many times). The moderator should, in my opinion, be allowed to ban the accounts to put an end to the attackers, at least temporarily until an admin can get on to do IP banning. Using the warning system, you have to worry about how many points equals the ban you want and in an emergency, it's sometimes just as quick to have the Mod Panel open and ban them. I've always kept the Admin/Mod panel open in another tab for quick access.

For those site owners that do not wish for Moderators to be able to ban, it could be a simple permission in the Moderators group to allow/not allow them to ban users. If they can, it appears in the Mod Panel.

 

[CTXMedia]

Simply create a Warning Action that adds, say, 1000 points - call it Ban user - and have it move users to the banned usergroup.

Mods can then use this "warning" to ban.

Would that work?

 

[Rahfal]

Not if you don't want to use the warning system. I've seen and been on many of sites that don't use this system or use it in many ways. I've seen people rename it so that they can use it for rewarding people instead of warning them.

It would just seem logical to allow a permission of yes/no for every usergroup to allow to ban users. Therefore, if you don't want moderators to be able to ban, you set the permission to no and vise versa. This is just catering to people's needs that a wide variety of people use as people may use or not use this feature differently.

 

[Rigel Kentaurus]

To me, the warning system seems like a better approach to banning - you get a better indication of why they were banned and more history (IMO), though the reason isn't as configurable.

Out of curiosity, do you have an example of where you would ban someone that wouldn't come from a warning/bad behavior sort of thing?

Since banning also has a reason field, that works as the indication on why the user was banned. If someone wants to outright ban a user, it feels more natural to "ban the user" than to "warn the user so he gets banned".

Aside from the flexibility reasons that were mentioned (I am miself thinking about using warnings as positive reinforcement, too).. sometimes ..
- Moderator realizes the user is a clone, and we outright ban it
- User is harrasing someone through Personal conversations, we ban him
- The user repeatedly uses an obscene avatar, we end up banning him

All of this is bad behavior, of course, but it is not particularly tied to content. We could say it is tied to the "user" and that "user data" is content, but that is for me stretching things a little.

 

[Paul B]

I don't really understand your last point.

Warnings can be issued directly to users; having a duplicate account or obscene avatar would seem to be an ideal fit for that.

You're taking action on the user/account, not their post content.

 

[MGSteve]

Not if you don't want to use the warning system.

The point is that you don't need to use the warning system as a warning system if you don't want to, you can setup one warning of 'Ban User' and simply issue the 'warning' that results in them getting banned.

Yes its perhaps not as clean as a dedicated ban option for a mod, but its as close as damn it for now.

 

[Rahfal]

The point is that you don't need to use the warning system as a warning system if you don't want to, you can setup one warning of 'Ban User' and simply issue the 'warning' that results in them getting banned.

Yes its perhaps not as clean as a dedicated ban option for a mod, but its as close as damn it for now.

What if you instead change it to be a reward system?

Yeah, it can work for now, but in the future, a Moderator having a Mod Panel to ban users (amongst other things) would be extremely helpful.

 

[MGSteve]

What if you instead change it to be a reward system?

Yeah, it can work for now, but in the future, a Moderator having a Mod Panel to ban users (amongst other things) would be extremely helpful.

Well, hence my question in the other thread about using the warning system as a reward system - if you can -ve points as well as +ve points, you can still use it to ban people.

But I totally agree with you, being able to give moderators powers to ban members is definitely a good thing.

 

[Alpha1]

On my site we frequently get requests for voluntary temp bans, because people get too absorbed by the site, leaving no place for RL activities. Even though the ban function is far from the optimal solution, its currently the only solution to accommodate such members. it would be much nicer to have a function to ban users without showing their account as banned.

 

[Paul B]

Accounts don't show as banned in XenForo.

 

[CTXMedia]

On my site we frequently get requests for voluntary temp bans, because people get too absorbed by the site, leaving no place for RL activities. Even though the ban function is far from the optimal solution, its currently the only solution to accommodate such members. it would be much nicer to have a function to ban users without showing their account as banned.

On my sites I create a usergroup called "Not logged in" which has no privs, and when people want to take a break I simply make that their primary usergroup. They get moved back to Registered when they're ready to return.

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[Alpha1]

On my sites I create a usergroup called "Not logged in" which has no privs, and when people want to take a break I simply make that their primary usergroup. They get moved back to Registered when they're ready to return.

Cheers,
Shaun

I have a large number of usergroups, and prefer to have an automatic function that expires. Moving users manually between user groups makes sense if you have a small user base or multiple administrators. I am the only administrator on my big board and try to reduce workload as much as possible. I would be much better if moderators would be able to give users a voluntary ban.

 

[Dean]

My take:

A simple 'Ban' Warning with no points and it lasts forever which gives an additional user group which revokes whatever you want.
If more control than that was needed make the moderators administrators with the ability to manage user groups (only).

 

[Mr_Bob]

My take:

A simple 'Ban' Warning with no points and it lasts forever which gives an additional user group which revokes whatever you want.
If more control than that was needed make the moderators administrators with the ability to manage user groups (only).

Just so I'm clear, because I'm curious, would creating a warning with 0 points, then setting the warning to expire after x amount of time lift the entire warning and, hence, the usergroup move (ban)? If that's the case, that's pretty sweet .

Edit: Maybe a good compromise, can "Ban user" be added to the list of options for individual warnings? That way, the user will also end up in the ban manager, and they will be presented with information on their ban as opposed to simply being told they don't have permission to do something.

 

[Dean]

Just so I'm clear, because I'm curious, would creating a warning with 0 points, then setting the warning to expire after x amount of time lift the entire warning and, hence, the usergroup move (ban)? If that's the case, that's pretty sweet .

I am still testing.. but it is possible that

• user gets a 'Ban Warning' which puts them in another additional user group (points don't matter)
• that warning may, or may not expire in the future - admin/moderator choice

 

[AlexT]

Apologies for bumping up this topic. It has been mentioned for moderators to use the warning/infraction system to move users to a "banned" group to achieve the equivalent of an administrator banning a user.

It should be noted, however, that technically that user is still not banned within xF (they don't show up as "banned users" in the admin cp). In other words, you will need to make sure that the banned group has zero privileges, and yet, it's not the same. For example, a banned user sees that he is banned "You have been banned for the following reason: {reason}". A user who is in the banned usergroup with zero privileges only sees that he has no permission to do this or that, and he doesn't see why either.