Let me tell you a story.

 

Imagine a forum. A decently sized forum, mostly ticking along reasonably happily. There's a few malcontents but nothing too serious. They also have a healthy collection of active participants who will be fairly shouty against the malcontents for daring not to be faithful. In other words, a typical fairly large forum.

 

Now imagine that you have a member that is mostly dormant, but occasionally pokes their head over the parapet, throws out the odd observation. They don't say much but what they do say is generally positively received.

 

Now imagine that person is having a bad day or two. They end up making a series of posts that are increasingly negative in tone, and that tone becomes more negative precisely because of the reaction they're getting to the earlier posts - specifically from the management, rather than the regulars. Comments about poor choices of communication, comments about not doing obvious things for the good of the forum. You've seen these a million times before, no doubt.

 

And you delete some of the posts. You might even bother to tell the person that you've deleted posts as off-topic.

 

The first question: do you issue that person a warning? Do you reach out to them and go 'are you OK' because clearly they're not. Now, you know as well as I do that you as staff on a forum aren't someone's therapist, and they're acting out and giving you work to do.

 

The second question: if you do decide to issue a warning, do you actually tell them you've issued them a warning?

 

The third question: if the person is upset, and clearly part of their problem is the lack of communication from staff, do you think it's appropriate to double down on that?

 

(Obvious disclaimer is obvious: this is a true story and I will fully accept that I as the truculent forumite am at least partially to blame for letting my temper get the better of me. But I'd like to understand if my reaction to this is normal. Names have been otherwise censored to protect the possibly-innocent.)

I have many times in the past temp banned a person for 24 hours. I send them an email, can't use PM since I banned them, telling them I banned them for 24 hours and the reason why. I tell them they are more than welcome when the ban is over.

 

I will either get a reply with a whole bunch of expletives and some such other rant. Or the person won't reply at all. Will let the ban expire and come back and apologize for their actions and will explain what sent them over the edge.

 

I have never lost a member after a temp ban. Some stamp their feet and throw a fit. Most take it and come back better citizens.

 

As far as deleting the posts that lead to the ban I don't delete them. A thread with deleted posts reads like nonsense because integral parts of the thread were removed. I also like to let them be so the offender can see what they did. They could have been impaired.

I have many times in the past temp banned a person for 24 hours. I send them an email, can't use PM since I banned them, telling them I banned them for 24 hours and the reason why. I tell them they are more than welcome when the ban is over.

 

I will either get a reply with a whole bunch of expletives and some such other rant. Or the person won't reply at all. Will let the ban expire and come back and apologize for their actions and will explain what sent them over the edge.

 

I have never lost a member after a temp ban. Some stamp their feet and throw a fit. Most take it and come back better citizens.

 

As far as deleting the posts that lead to the ban I don't delete them. A thread with deleted posts reads like nonsense because integral parts of the thread were removed. I also like to let them be so the offender can see what they did. They could have been impaired.

This to me sounds like a very healthy way to deal with it because people have bad days and once they cool off, they deal with it.

 

But I think the most important key here is that your first step is that you tell them what you've done.

 

For context, after I got some posts deleted, I got partially banned - all posts were moderated, no access to post at all in the off-topic areas, and no new PMs. (Though I could participate if someone PM'd me). But no communication from the staff that they were doing this, nor communication after the fact. I only even discovered the restrictions were lifted by explicitly checking a couple of days later.

This to me sounds like a very healthy way to deal with it because people have bad days and once they cool off, they deal with it.

 

But I think the most important key here is that your first step is that you tell them what you've done.

 

For context, after I got some posts deleted, I got partially banned - all posts were moderated, no access to post at all in the off-topic areas, and no new PMs. (Though I could participate if someone PM'd me). But no communication from the staff that they were doing this, nor communication after the fact. I only even discovered the restrictions were lifted by explicitly checking a couple of days later.

You have to communicate to the person and let them know what you did. Not doing that puts a bad light on staff. Of course, I'm guessing here, that the staff of the site go on defensive right away when someone posts something that doesn't go with the way they think it's ban or stifle. I bet they go on the attack too if you post contrary to what they think.

You have to communicate to the person and let them know what you did. Not doing that puts a bad light on staff. Of course, I'm guessing here, that the staff of the site go on defensive right away when someone posts something that doesn't go with the way they think it's ban or stifle. I bet they go on the attack too if you post contrary to what they think.

You'd honestly think so, right? But this week I witnessed this play out.

 

I found it darkly amusing on multiple levels but I don't want to say why because the site in question deserves more than naming and shaming. But only just.

You'd honestly think so, right? But this week I witnessed this play out.

 

I found it darkly amusing on multiple levels but I don't want to say why because the site in question deserves more than naming and shaming. But only just.

I'm pretty sure I know the site in question. In all honesty the site deserves it. The staff. No way. That's if the site and the staff are who I think they are.

This is one of those 'if you know you know' moments. I'm sure you know exactly who I'm talking about. But I'd rather not get into the specifics; it doesn't and shouldn't matter.

 

The general thesis is whether you engage with troublemakers on some or any level and what's appropriate (and, tacitly, whether some moderation behaviour without communication is acceptable and/or appropriate)

Whenever I fail to receive feedback on an online space, I become disappointed.

Online administrators who do not respond to the comments/queries/requests of users indicate lack of appreciation for the users.

Whenever I fail to receive feedback on an online space, I become disappointed.

Online administrators who do not respond to the comments/queries/requests of users indicate lack of appreciation for the users.

Now imagine you'd done something wrong and received an infraction with almost-zero feedback (certainly no feedback on the infraction itself)... good stuff.

I love feedback of any flavor and I abhor banning members.

 

I feel communication is key, and if you have enough time to notice him/her, then you have enough time to drop a PM and just say hey and hows it been going. Sometimes communication is all thats needed.

 

But then there are those others that dont want that,...

I have many times in the past temp banned a person for 24 hours. I send them an email, can't use PM since I banned them, telling them I banned them for 24 hours and the reason why. I tell them they are more than welcome when the ban is over.

 

I will either get a reply with a whole bunch of expletives and some such other rant. Or the person won't reply at all. Will let the ban expire and come back and apologize for their actions and will explain what sent them over the edge.

 

I have never lost a member after a temp ban. Some stamp their feet and throw a fit. Most take it and come back better citizens.

 

As far as deleting the posts that lead to the ban I don't delete them. A thread with deleted posts reads like nonsense because integral parts of the thread were removed. I also like to let them be so the offender can see what they did. They could have been impaired.

 

This is a great take and almost exactly what I have myself done in the past too. I always used to instruct my moderators to issue very short (sometimes as short as 1-2 hours) bans if they felt a situation was escalating (this sometimes happened during football matches when our forum was most active) and this generally worked well and allowed people to cool down before doing/saying something that could've potentially needed a much more serious punishment.

 

Usually in these situations a simple 1 hour ban with the reason "Cool down" would be sufficient for the person to chill out and come back an hour or two later with a clear head. Sometimes they'd apologise, sometimes they wouldn't, and that was OK by me. It was quite rare for somebody to come back ranting or continuing their previous course of conduct however, and in those cases further action would be taken sometimes needing a slightly longer ban of a few days. But those were rare times for a forum of thousands of members. :)

I do find it interesting that in all of these cases there is a dialogue, as in messages that flow both ways. Almost like explaining moderation actions is beneficial. Who’d’ve thought!