Limiting moderators banning rights

[djbaxter]

Why not? If a problem arises, I'm sure they'll tell you about it.

By the way, I also don't allow moderators to permanently delete anything. They can only soft delete. You can set this in Moderator permissions.

 

[Jon12345]

I've actually blocked anyone from sending me a PM. I'm pissed at several of them, and there is one who is always trying to bend my ear. e.g. he said this in a PM (amongst other things):

Clearly you don't want to impose a permanent ban but as I think you can see from the large number of responses in various threads, you are in a tiny minority, possibly alone in that opinion. That doesn't make you wrong and those with the opposite opinion right. However, there is a danger of losing support from other members if matters continue as they were.

I was not alone. Someone earlier in the thread agreed entirely with the guidelines I laid out. And no one actually laid out their own guidelines. They just criticised mine.

This particular mod, I feel, likes to think he has more power than he actually has. He is the one who got banned from the competing site by arguing with the site owner. It reminds me of what often happens in some soccer clubs. There are players who feel they are bigger than the club. They get above their station, and it invariably doesn't end well.

 

[Kirby]

By the way, I also don't allow moderators to permanently delete anything. They can only soft delete.

Ack. We almost never delete any content permanently.

 

[Jon12345]

About 10 years ago, I had our most prolific poster (and mod) get into an argument with a troll. He deleted 12,000 of his posts, without agreement from anybody.

 

[Harpers Tate]

You want Moderators to be able to stop people posting as a priority. Banning may be temporary or permanent or inappropriate depending on the nature of the "offence".

Suggest:

• create a secondary UserGroup (let's call it "Suspended" but pick your own name). Use it to withdraw permissions from members to whatever extent you think fit. I'd suggest you might leave them permission to do Conversations, so they have a vehicle to contest the decision if they want to.
• create a Warnings point scheme such that members with points in excess of a threshold value are added to this secondary UserGroup. Allow Moderators to issue Warnings. Do not allow them to Ban. Limit the duration of the Warning points.
• either do this yourself or have (a) trustee(s) do it: review all members added to Suspended and decide whether the suspension was appropriate. Ban those who warrant it.

 

[leebo]

Perhaps I should just see what happens. Silently remove all the ban privileges from the mods.

They will find out and they will be upset, and I wouldn’t blame them. Help them understand why you wish for things to run and why you feel it’s best for the long term goals.

To answer your question of limiting bans. First I would personally remove the option for any user to utalize hard deletes. This simply makes it too easy to delete things by mistake. Second, use the warning system as mentioned. While it may feel a bit childish sending people notes and such for issues, it actually works well. Sure people may get upset receiving these warnings but they likely did something that justified it. Be clear with what each warning means and when You wish for it to be used. Lastly, take a hard look at your rules. Make 100% sure they’re clear and cover what you want.