Jakeomatic Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I run a small forum with IPB, and I do love it except for one thing, and that is moderating. It just seems so hard. Here are some things that I don't like about it off the top of my head: -Warnings do not decrease automatically over time (mods have to keep track of every warned member?) -Mods can "suspend indefinitely" (ban) via warn panel, but they can't change the member's usergroup (how are people supposed to know if other members are banned?) -Reasons for warn/suspension are required criteria, which doesn't seem very necessary. -Banned members can't view a reason or length (I think?) for banning. That's frustrating. I really do dread the day that my staff will actually have to moderate the forums heavily because I don't know how it can be handled. Anyway, all feedback about this is appreciated. Thanks.
sunrisecc Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 -Warnings do not decrease automatically over time (mods have to keep track of every warned member?) -Mods can "suspend indefinitely" (ban) via warn panel, but they can't change the member's usergroup (how are people supposed to know if other members are banned?) -Reasons for warn/suspension are required criteria, which doesn't seem very necessary. -Banned members can't view a reason or length (I think?) for banning. That's frustrating. #1 - There is a free hook to do this now and I have been using it successfully for quite some time. #2 - I am admin and can change the usergroup at the same time. #3 - I disagree. It is useful to look up the reason down the road. #4 - Suspended members are told that they cannot use the board unril a future date. At least they were when I last suspended someone some time ago.
Jakeomatic Posted February 12, 2011 Author Posted February 12, 2011 #1 - There is a free hook to do this now and I have been using it successfully for quite some time. #2 - I am admin and can change the usergroup at the same time. #4 - Suspended members are told that they cannot use the board unril a future date. At least they were when I last suspended someone some time ago. 1. Automatic decreasing should be included in the board imo, it's kind of like the bread and butter of a penalization system. They don't just throw you in jail and say "alright then, we'll let you out whenever..." 2. That's not exactly a good solution. Think about if you have a big forum with people on 24/7. You can't afford to have that many admins online, so naturally you're going to have moderators... the problem is that they can ban people left and right but no one will know it until an admin takes care of it. 4. I haven't checked if it says how long but still. People should be able to see why they have been banned. Seriously. I don't think this needs an explanation. Edit: Does it even say the date? Or just "future date"?
Michael Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 1. Automatic decreasing should be included in the board imo, it's kind of like the bread and butter of a penalization system. They don't just throw you in jail and say "alright then, we'll let you out whenever..." When they let you out of jail, those crimes you committed are still on your record, they don't expunge those. Just because you have a warning on your account doesn't mean you're "in jail", being suspended (which can have a set time it expires) is the equivalent of being in jail.
Anonymous IPB User Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Just to add to your suggestions, it would be nice if issued warnings went into the report center in order to keep all the mods/admins up to date with who has been warned. It would be even better if there were some type of "Moderator" actions center which allows all moderators/admins to be kept up to date with what all the other mods have been up to. This could even be put in the report center.
Jakeomatic Posted February 12, 2011 Author Posted February 12, 2011 When they let you out of jail, those crimes you committed are still on your record, they don't expunge those. Just because you have a warning on your account doesn't mean you're "in jail", being suspended (which can have a set time it expires) is the equivalent of being in jail. Sorry, I just used that example for the sake of simplicity. Point being, a warning shouldn't continually count against you. I guess a more appropriate example would be probation. If you get probation (a warning in IPB), you're not permanently on probation. People can change, they shouldn't have to suffer forever for a mistake they make. Just to add to your suggestions, it would be nice if issued warnings went into the report center in order to keep all the mods/admins up to date with who has been warned. It would be even better if there were some type of "Moderator" actions center which allows all moderators/admins to be kept up to date with what all the other mods have been up to. This could even be put in the report center. Not a bad idea. We do have moderator/admin/warn logs available for admins, but it could definitely be more improved upon to help coordination.
sunrisecc Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Just select Do Not Change Warning Level when issuing the warning or use the hook to which I referred above.
Jakeomatic Posted February 12, 2011 Author Posted February 12, 2011 Just select when issuing the warning or use the hook to which I referred above. What?
sunrisecc Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I showed you the option to NOT increase the warning level when issuing a warning. Your quote does not include my quote from my post. As a test, start to issue a warning to someone and you should see the option to not update the warning level etc.
Jakeomatic Posted February 12, 2011 Author Posted February 12, 2011 I showed you the option to NOT increase the warning level when issuing a warning. Your quote does not include my quote from my post. As a test, start to issue a warning to someone and you should see the option to not update the warning level etc. I realize that but I don't really see the relevance. What I'm trying to say is that warnings shouldn't last forever, they should be able to be put on a timer for removal.
sunrisecc Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 So make use of the hook I mentioned in my first reply in this topic. It is available now. http://community.invisionpower.com/files/file/2107-m31-auto-decrease-warning-100/
Jakeomatic Posted February 13, 2011 Author Posted February 13, 2011 So make use of the hook I mentioned in my first reply in this topic. It is available now. [url="http://community.invisionpower.com/files/file/2107-m31-auto-decrease-warning-100/"]http://community.invisionpower.com/files/file/2107-m31-auto-decrease-warning-100/[/url] It should be implemented into the board though. Imo something as important as thing shouldn't have to be modded in.
AlexWright Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 The reason its a hook and not actually in the board system is because many people won't find it a useful feature. Not being such, IPS won't automatically include it in the software. As a free download, and the easy installation, anyone who wants to modify their board to make it work that way is more than welcome to. I like the way this is done as well, it removes things that aren't necessities, and allows a user to customize their board any way they like.
Taylor J Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 I agree with the op, you should not have to remember all of the members you have warned or install a hook to make it decrease the warning over time, it should be in the system's core by default.
Michael Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 I agree with the op, you should not have to remember all of the members you have warned or install a hook to make it decrease the warning over time, it should be in the system's core by default. As an option, maybe, I think it's silly to remove warnings just because some time has passed. They still did the thing that caused them to get warned. If you want a temporary punishment for them, suspend their account/posting rights for a set amount of time. I don't see how the current system is not just like the justice system we have in real life. Bad guy commits a crime, bad guy gets that crime on his permanent record and spends some time in jail. Bad guy gets released from jail and can become a member of society again, but bad guy still has a record of his past deeds. Bad guy's deeds can become expunged completely by special act of the powers that be (ie., an administrator actively going and clearing the warnings), but most bad guys still have to deal with the results of their past actions when dealing with 'the man', however, most everyday folks don't know that bad guy has a record. Having warnings on your account, but not having any suspension on it, is not the end of the world. There's no need for people in that situation to panic that they have to get those warnings reduced.
Jakeomatic Posted February 18, 2011 Author Posted February 18, 2011 As an option, maybe, I think it's silly to remove warnings just because some time has passed. They still did the thing that caused them to get warned. If you want a temporary punishment for them, suspend their account/posting rights for a set amount of time. I don't see how the current system is not just like the justice system we have in real life. Bad guy commits a crime, bad guy gets that crime on his permanent record and spends some time in jail. Bad guy gets released from jail and can become a member of society again, but bad guy still has a record of his past deeds. Bad guy's deeds can become expunged completely by special act of the powers that be (ie., an administrator actively going and clearing the warnings), but most bad guys still have to deal with the results of their past actions when dealing with 'the man', however, most everyday folks don't know that bad guy has a record. Having warnings on your account, but not having any suspension on it, is not the end of the world. There's no need for people in that situation to panic that they have to get those warnings reduced. Yeah, but that's like having 10 parking tickets over a period of 60 years and going to jail for it. I'd also like to note that vBulletin and MyBB already have this system that works well. But really, these arguments are a bit pointless because forums don't correlate to real life penal systems. What I really care about though is the lack of moderator banning ability and no reason display for bans. I'd like to see an IPB developer address this.
bfarber Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 What I really care about though is the lack of moderator banning ability and no reason display for bans. I'd like to see an IPB developer address this. Moderators are able to ban from the warning system, where they are required to enter a reason for the warning. :blink: This is already in the current release.
Michael Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I'd also like to note that vBulletin and MyBB already have this system that works well. I would argue that the IP.Board system works well too. Just because it's different from other forum software doesn't mean they are right and IP.Board is wrong, it just means you might be used to something else. If we're just going to implement the same system others have, then what's to differentiate any of the brands? I've been using IP.Board for many years, and have had to deal with warning people frequently. I've simply never had any issues that made me think the warning system needed any major overhaul. People do bad things and I warn them. People do really bad things, or keep doing the same crap over and over, and I ban them. I've had maybe 2 people over the years ask me to remove warnings from their account and I've not been able to get a good reason why they want that done; no one else but the staff can see they were warned, and it wasn't affected their access to the site. Don't worry, though, since this is something I don't feel needs any changes, and I've been vocal about it, the odds are pretty good it will get changed. :ph34r:
Francismori7_2 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Warnings, if they get decreased, are not warnings anymore. A person stays warned forever. Would you say something like "You're warned for the next 2 weeks, 1 hour and 3 minutes, 50 seconds" to somebody? Then they can restart without you remembering they already did something. Warnings are not a way to have them scared, well yes but the main point of warnings is for you and your staff to EASILY keep track of EVERYTHING that a member did. I NEVER erase warnings. They did it, they did it. Period.
Jakeomatic Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 Moderators are able to ban from the warning system, where they are required to enter a reason for the warning. :blink: This is already in the current release. By ability I mean they aren't even moved to the correct usergroup. Yeah, you can deny them access to the forum but no one but staff will know they're banned. And by no reason display I mean when banned members login they can't view their reason for banning.
Jakeomatic Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 I would argue that the IP.Board system works well too. Just because it's different from other forum software doesn't mean they are right and IP.Board is wrong, it just means you might be used to something else. If we're just going to implement the same system others have, then what's to differentiate any of the brands? Differentiate? They're all forum software for starters. Some things cannot and/or shouldn't be left out. I've been using IP.Board for many years, and have had to deal with warning people frequently. I've simply never had any issues that made me think the warning system needed any major overhaul. People do bad things and I warn them. People do really bad things, or keep doing the same crap over and over, and I ban them. Yeah, but what about if moderators have to ban someone? Then they give them restricted access, then have to wait until an admin gets online to lug themselves over to the ACP and change their usergroup. And then the banned person returns to the forum with a very welcoming "[#1000B] You are not allowed to visit this forum" message, which gives them no knowledge of why they can't access the forum OR even how long they can't access the forum (if they're permed). Another thing I just noticed. While they're banned, they're presented with some "useful links" (which can't be accessed), or even be redirected by anything on that page for that matter, including logout. Don't worry, though, since this is something I don't feel needs any changes, and I've been vocal about it, the odds are pretty good it will get changed. :ph34r: How awfully mature of you. It is quite unfortunate that I'm trying to improve the software, isn't it.
sunrisecc Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 By ability I mean they aren't even moved to the correct usergroup. Yeah, you can deny them access to the forum but no one but staff will know they're banned. . There are two forms on banning. The new one is to marked them as banned but leave them in the same usergroup so that no other member knws that a banning took place. The other method is to make use of the banned group which may or may not be visisble (admin's choice). To do the legacy way, one only has to select the banned group during the process of warning (one of the options). I have been making use of both methods for quite some time.
Jakeomatic Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 There are two forms on banning. The new one is to marked them as banned but leave them in the same usergroup so that no other member knws that a banning took place. The other method is to make use of the banned group which may or may not be visisble (admin's choice). To do the legacy way, one only has to select the banned group during the process of warning (one of the options). I have been making use of both methods for quite some time. Why would people want to hide the fact that someone is banned? Wouldn't that just cause more miscommunication? E.g. "Where'd X go, I was talking to him", or "Where has X been, I was making a transaction with him but he disappeared!" Moderators should at least have the option to display people as banned instead of being forced to wait for someone with ACP access to come online.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.