Global ignore facility

[BankFodder]

Is there any way that the site team can place a troublesome member – it keeps on coming back under new registrations if they are banned – on a global ignore list.

Although it seems rather cruel, with our vBulletin site we found that sometimes it was the only way to deal with these people because they might go for months trying to make trouble but not realising that nobody could see their messages.

Thanks

[opentype]

There are better ways. Just set just the member’s account to require approval and/or have that for all first posts of newly registered members. That way the troll just cannot get through if they try to cause trouble. 

[BankFodder]

Thanks, but if they require approval – aren't they informed of this?

The beauty about a global ignore is that the troublemaker keeps on visiting the forum, posts, never gets any responses but never realises why. As I said earlier it's rather cruel that in the past we have found it hugely useful.

If they realise that they are on moderation or something then they simply start going and coming back under a different ID.

[opentype]

12 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

Thanks, but if they require approval – aren't they informed of this?

Yes. The point is to make them realize that their attempts to cause trouble are not working so they will give up eventually. That’s an honest way to deal with the situation and quite frankly the job of moderators. 

Full shadow banning is just repulsive. There is no “beauty” about that. It’s just inacceptable to deal with people like that. 

[BankFodder]

I don't all find it repulsive. I think that it's capable of being cruel and I use it very rarely but there are some times when we have absolutely no option at all. Unfortunately we sometimes have to deal with people who are simply out to hurt us and also to hurt the site team. My first priority will always be the site team and all the decent people who come to our forum for help and not the people who come onto the forum to abuse them or to stir up trouble.



I think it's a great facility and if it is not available now then I shall get a plug-in made.

Edited April 9, 2019 by BankFodder

[AtariAge]

2 hours ago, BankFodder said:

I think it's a great facility and if it is not available now then I shall get a plug-in made.

I'd also find this a useful tool to help combat those who cannot conduct themselves in a civilized manner on my forum.  Yes, you can ban people outright, but oftentimes they will create more accounts to try and bypass the ban.  While some people will realize they are shadow banned, not all would, and if a troll feels they are ignored, they may move onto greener pastures. 

If you have such a plug-in made, I'd be glad to help contribute to the cost.  Otherwise I'll probably write this myself once I get familiar with developing for 4.x.  

 ..Al

[Joel R]

I'm going to side with @opentype on this.  From a community management perspective, you're ignoring the root of the issue.  You're allowing the member to continue to make bad posts (which honestly anyone can read in an open forum), you're just literally sweeping the issue under the rug by not letting anyone be notified of the issue.  But anyone can still read the posts if they want.  

With that said, I'm not opposed to letting you choose how you want to moderate.  More power to you in your community.  That's why we all run our own communities, right? 

I think, in general though, a lot of admins try to let technology replace the human elements of moderation.  You know, talking to the member, understanding his concerns, and being brave enough to tell him to stop being a dick.  Technology has allowed us to sidestep these human confrontations when they probably should be addressed human to human (keyboard to keyboard?).  In an office, you can't just put someone on mute.  You would pull him aside and address his behavioral concerns.  

Edited April 9, 2019 by Joel R

[BankFodder]

Hello Joel, thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
You say that you're going to side with Opentype, but I don't think you have done that. Opentype has taken a position based on a valid moral judgement – whether or not we agree with that moral judgement is neither here nor there. Opentype's moral position is based upon his view of the world – as is my own moral position.
However, your position which possibly arrives at the same conclusion as that of Opentype seems to be based on pragmatic considerations – and I have no problem with that either. However, I was rather puzzled by what you have said until I eventually concluded that you probably don't understand how a global ignore facility works.

A global ignore facility works by making a user completely invisible – including all of his/her posts so that although the ignored user can see everything on the forum, everyone else is totally unaware of his presence or of the things he writes.  In this way, an ignored user can continue to make personal and abusive attacks on ordinary and often vulnerable people without causing any hurt because the target of his attacks is oblivious to them – as is everyone else in the community. My experience is that so long as the abuser remains unaware that nobody else can see his input, he eventually gets tired at the lack of reaction and simply goes away.
I consider it to be a rather nice non-conflictual solution which I've been obliged to apply from time to time after the usual discussions, warnings, bannings et cetera have failed.

Maybe you could confirm that you didn't realise that this is how "global ignore" works.

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by BankFodder

[BankFodder]

On 4/9/2019 at 7:41 PM, opentype said:

Yes. The point is to make them realize that their attempts to cause trouble are not working so they will give up eventually. That’s an honest way to deal with the situation and quite frankly the job of moderators. 

Full shadow banning is just repulsive. There is no “beauty” about that. It’s just inacceptable to deal with people like that. 

 

On 4/9/2019 at 11:06 PM, Joel R said:

I'm going to side with @opentype on this.  From a community management perspective, you're ignoring the root of the issue.  You're allowing the member to continue to make bad posts (which honestly anyone can read in an open forum), you're just literally sweeping the issue under the rug by not letting anyone be notified of the issue.  But anyone can still read the posts if they want.  

With that said, I'm not opposed to letting you choose how you want to moderate.  More power to you in your community.  That's why we all run our own communities, right? 

I think, in general though, a lot of admins try to let technology replace the human elements of moderation.  You know, talking to the member, understanding his concerns, and being brave enough to tell him to stop being a dick.  Technology has allowed us to sidestep these human confrontations when they probably should be addressed human to human (keyboard to keyboard?).  In an office, you can't just put someone on mute.  You would pull him aside and address his behavioral concerns.  

oh dear.

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by BankFodder

[BankFodder]

Oh dear oh dear.

Edited October 4, 2020 by BankFodder