An Official Banning Policy?

Some people and myself are a little confused on how bad your behavior must be to get your IP address banned. Is it, "We find you offensive and you aggravate/annoy us" as the guideline?

You're looking for this person.

Arbitrary bans are a bit worrying for us normal tropers.

(BLAM beat me to the thread. >_>)

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Thanks BLAM. I really would like to know if we have one.

So yeah...

What is the banning policy? Do we have an exact one? If not can we set one up? What exact forms of behavior can one get banned for? What exactly can one do to get unbanned? Is there a time period on bans? Do lighter offenses get a timed banned and others a permenent sentence?

edited 15th Nov '09 1:41:19 PM by Aeondug

Look, Aon here was able to orgasm by meditating. That should be proof, you know. - Onee-sama

Tzetze worded it better than I did. But, as Aeondeug asks, how heavy is your sentence for banning? Does it depend on how bad your offenses were? What exactly is considered enough of an offense to get banned?

edited 15th Nov '09 1:43:47 PM by OuttaTheBLAM

You're looking for this person.

If i may, Sir and Ma'm.

It's just that the tropers would be more at ease with some kind of set rules, lack of set rules causes worry, worry causes paranoia, and so on.

Mostly i personally would simply like one so that this topic can stop coming up in Troper Updates, as i don't like to talk about such things there.

If you could, it would be greatly appreciated.

If you want me, i am still here. ElTheDaze@yahoo.com

first the obvious, no? vandalizing and trolling are some of the greater offenses against the site, and its members...some rule or guideline for knowing how much time something can get you banned...how the severity should be estimated?

edited 15th Nov '09 1:46:46 PM by vandro

Ah, that's right, page blanking has usually been treated as a "bye now" offense in the past.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Is persistently disagreeing with a site owner (or the community/regulars) a bannable offence? I'd like to be clear on that, because that's something that's been bugging me a lot of late.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

If your concern is regarding Janitor's post. Conisedering the site's hers and Eddie's, not liking them or feeling like it is a perfectly valid reason for banning people.

However, a policy would be nice for less exceptional cases. The thing is that the site has been always running in a consensus/common sense, quoting Fast Eddie:

edited 15th Nov '09 1:57:22 PM by Noimporta

I see it as "Don't mess with people's work/fun". If you've blanked a page, you've messed with someone's work. If you keep unediting things when others have taken it to discussion, you're messing with their work. You should always have respect for other people's contributions.

I'll be frank: on at least one occasion, I have strongly disagreed with a statement which Janitor considered to be common sense. It disturbs me to think that I might get myself banned completely by accident, just by making an edit that is deemed a violation of common sense.

edited 15th Nov '09 2:03:38 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Yeah, thats the internet, alright. The first thing I do when I get somewhere new is to write the names of all the people with ban-powers on a post-it and stick it next to the monitor...

edited 15th Nov '09 2:07:30 PM by DasAuto

Now if you excuse me, Starfleet is about to award the Christopher Pike Medal to my dick. — SF Debris

Bobby, that idea bothers me though it doesn't bother me very often. To be honest I don't think about myself being banned very often. I do feel we need a policy.

If I ever were to get banned I would want to know exactly why I was banned, how long the ban will last, and what could be done to argue for the lifting of said ban.

Look, Aon here was able to orgasm by meditating. That should be proof, you know. - Onee-sama

It's a judgment call in every case. The primary philosophy: Establish, maintain, and protect an atmosphere of mutual respect.

The clearest indicator of a person not doing that is vandalism. The next, page blanking. Not much to decide, in those cases.

Grayer cases: Refusal to discuss an edit. Honestly discuss, that is. Stonewalling, abusive and rude rejoinders, constantly picking fights, racial slurs ... all the usual trolling techniques ... simplify the decision. These can be summarized as deciding "Is the person a pain in the ass to be around, and is it worth the hassle?"

Sometimes it is. Solid contributors sometimes can have Single-Issue Wonk or Hot Button issues we can work around because of those other, more solid contributions. Regrettably, sometimes the answer is "No, not worth it."

Being hostile to new people is a pain in the ass. Talking to a newby and trying to orient them toward having a friendly discussion is not a pain in the ass. Being a newby who won't or can't get it: ass-pain.

That's the outline.

Edited to add: On durations: A ban usually doesn't happen unless it pretty plain the person is intransigent. We have lifted one or two, to see what happens, and been bitten. Still, it's a judgment call. Depends on the situation.

edited 15th Nov '09 2:12:55 PM by Janitor

Dump the networks!

Thank you for posting that Janitor. I have to leave for a bit...I may post more about this later on today.

Look, Aon here was able to orgasm by meditating. That should be proof, you know. - Onee-sama

Thank you for that, Janitor.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Thank you, Ma'm,

see? Now we can all stop worrying.

If you want me, i am still here. ElTheDaze@yahoo.com

Ehm, it doesn't work that way, users are given warnings for things much more serious than a "misguided edit", hyperbole is not nice, and the only case where a user was banned for their views (Sloth Bait, whose ban I disagreed with) it was not because of disagreeing with everyone plenty of times (which he did) but because of reiterated trolling in a thread even after several warnings.

Ninja'd for not checking

edited 15th Nov '09 2:18:16 PM by Noimporta

Thank you very much, Janitor.

You're looking for this person.

Left out something related.

We recently built the tech to edit-ban by handle and/or IP address and started using that in most cases. That tech allows a person to post in the forum and plead their case, if they want to. That sort of ban can and is lifted fairly easily, and has had some success, in terms of the ban-ee coming back as a cool troper to hang with.

We still have, of course, the capability to completely block people from even reading the wiki. If we shoot that gun, there is very little chance the ban will be lifted.

edited 15th Nov '09 2:25:30 PM by Janitor

Dump the networks!

Thank you for clarifying, Janitor.

These informations are good to have the knowing of.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1hn18w5jwms6jotnhd0xsvza&page=1#5

edited 20th Nov '09 8:27:40 PM by melloncollie

As I've expressed in the past, don't use this  ^*

^{except in cases where they're performing attacks on the server, such as a Do S – which I still think would be best used short-term until the attack abates}

and I'm pretty much happy. I find these sort of reading bans to be far, far overreaching and such an... Irrevocable thing, particularly if the IP address is a shared or dynamic one (irrevocable in the sense that they can't contact anyone about it if they can't even load a page).

I'm definitely happy that the edit bans have become the common ones, though. Every time someone got full-on 403 banned, I died a little inside.

Don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't blink. Good luck.