Post Limits for Bad Members

[BobTheLawyer]

As we have and have had bad members in this forums who we have had to/will need to ban, it got me thinking.
I saw a certain member on this forum, who according to his dad has autism and a hard time expressing himself.
I have a heart for people like him
I feel that banning them is kind of insensitive, but on these forums, it seems to be the only way, when they seem to spam post.
I reported a member today. I felt bad about it, but I did it. I've asked him to stop. I've given him advice on how to make better post, but he didn't.

I've came up with a new idea that is like a half-way ban.

Instead of stopping members from posting altogether, why not limit them?
This would allow members to still contribute things, plus, it would force them to think out their post more. If you only get 3 posts and you spam all at once, you just wasted your daily chances. They will learn to make good posts, as you don't get many second chances with a small number of posts. This will help make them better posters, unlike bans, which have been primarily ineffective (they have helped in some cases, like Villager).

Many members who have had pass bans have had things to contribute that I found interesting. Turtley had a huge minecraft tileset and wary had an Al Capone game.
While turtley isn't banned any longer, my point remains.

I feel that to avoid being insensitive to people and to allow them chances, we should try post limiting.

I'd recommend starting with 3, and then we limit based on whether they abuse that, and if one post is too much for them, then we ban.


I have seen Saso give second chances on several occasions, so I've seen he has a heart to the people who have banned, so I hope he will consider this.
I understand that this would take a considerable work to code into the website, but it could help us deal with bad members and help them learn through moderation, until they are ready for full rights.

If you need help creating this, I may be able to get my friend Jordan, who knows a good amount of website design, to help. He's not huge on phpBB, but I'm sure I could convince him.


Let me know your opinions on this.

[TheJonyMyster]

cool

[Bonko]

I think this is a good idea. The past 6 months have been FULL of spam posters, and this would limit it quite well.

[Camewel]

cool

I vote we trial it on jony

[Bonko]

Seconded.

[TheJonyMyster]

sure why not

[TripleXero]

I like the idea in the case of people who are being idiots, but if the case is autism, it might make the person feel singled out because of their mental condition. And

my friend Jordan, who knows a good amount of website design

I thought this was a kinda funny coincidence because that's my name and I'm pretty decent at web design, too

[renhoek]

Can you people stop making one to three word posts, this is why this thread exists in the first place, to stop posts comprised of "k". I get really pissed when I see an interesting thread get bumped and it turns out it was just someone saying "nice".

Anyway I don't think giving them the option to create 3 posts is a good idea, the whole point of banning is to prevent people from posting and you can do alot with just three posts (case in point Jony) besides most people would just create a duplicate thread just so the could continue talking about a topic or they could pm spam someone.
(don't take this as me saying this is a shit idea I just don't think replacing certain bans with this is a good idea)
also shouldn't suggestions like these go here?
viewforum.php?f=2

p.s. fun fact I'm autistic and that should not be used as an excuse for being irresponsible.

[BobTheLawyer]

I've been labeled as autistic. Autism is more of a spectrum. Some people are more severe than others. I've seen people with Autism that literally can't function on their own, and some who are amazingly smart and can do anything 10 times better than me.
And by 3 post, I meant in the whole forum. Not this thread.

TripleXero, I feel banning will single them out more than a limited post count. Plus, you won't see the word LIMIT under their name, like you see ban. They will just look less active.

[renhoek]

And by 3 post, I meant in the whole forum. Not this thread.

ah I see, sorry I misunderstood what you meant.
But I still stand by my point.

[TripleXero]

I think what could also be useful related to this is somehow disabling double posts from new users

[Polybius]

I think this idea is decent, but needs to be re-evaluated and re-designed if you will. Think about it, Three posts a day on these forums. What IF everyone was limited to this. Think about being affected by it first. Activity would plummet narrowing down only the most active threads. People will only read recent posts and not respond to save their posts for something better. Posts will be more valued by people though. This is a community where we have many personalities and intellects, If we limit one person we might end up over-looking that person. This might be close to censorship IN some way (one could say [ Kindof like twitter with character count, but with posts.]).

“If our voices were limited, why waste our breath with casual conversation? Speak to be understood, not to be heard.”
～Anon.

What would make this system better would be to have a custom post limit.

just get the person`s daily post count, and calculate atleast how many of them are useless and reduce the posts per day.

Example:
Jimmy posts 6.80(round up to 7.0) times a day. 3 of those are usually spam. so reduce to 4 posts a day for 5 or so days.

if the result equals/is less than 3 posts per day allowed, might as well temp ban him for a few days.

@Rehoek: What type of autism do you suffer?, if I may ask? This intrigued me, sorry. I`d say you express yourself very eloquently in the english language, unless you suffer from autism in another form. If so, I apologise for my ignorance and my lack of understanding of autism. I haven`t been labeled autistic by an educational system, but I have by slanderous rude people on the internet.(who hasn`t).

tl;dr summary: 3 post limit might as well = ban, else raise limit. I was surprised about renhoek`s “autism”?. wise saying somewhere in main post. end.

[Automatik]

That sound like a cool idea, as long as really bad members still get permabanned.

I think this idea is decent, but needs to be re-evaluated and re-designed if you will. Think about it, Three posts a day on these forums. What IF everyone was limited to this. Think about being affected by it first. Activity would plummet narrowing down only the most active threads. People will only read recent posts and not respond to save their posts for something better. Posts will be more valued by people though. This is a community where we have many personalities and intellects, If we limit one person we might end up over-looking that person. This might be close to censorship IN some way (one could say [ Kindof like twitter with character count, but with posts.]).

It's not the ENTIRE forum who will suffer this. And yes, the goal is that the semi-banned guy think more their posts. And yes it's censorship. But so is banning.

What would make this system better would be to have a custom post limit.
just get the person`s daily post count, and calculate atleast how many of them are useless and reduce the posts per day.
Example:
Jimmy posts 6.80(round up to 7.0) times a day. 3 of those are usually spam. so reduce to 4 posts a day for 5 or so days.
if the result equals/is less than 3 posts per day allowed, might as well temp ban him for a few days.

So changing the nb of posts/day based on how bad is the member? That's what Bob proposed.
And I don't want that system to be applied to everyone. Jorichi for example is a good member, and don't need daily limits. And the problem isn't really about useless posts, but more about bad ones, that don't contribute to the topic in any way. (Who cares if someone posted in a forum game.)

I think what could also be useful related to this is somehow disabling double posts from new users

What if, when the forum detect a double post, it merge the two post into one?

[Assasin-Kiashi]

p.s. fun fact I'm autistic and that should not be used as an excuse for being irresponsible.

ditto + ADHD. Unless the mental condition is severe, It is no excuse.

[Gramanaitor]

I think this is a good idea. But would there be way for us to see if they were on a limit?

[BobTheLawyer]

Graminator, I'd say only moderators can see it.

ditto + ADHD. Unless the mental condition is severe, It is no excuse.

I've been given the label Autism by the school system, and my mom's said I have ADD (Though I might argue ADHD).

Maybe my use of autism was bad. I've seen more severe cases. I'm not trying to say people with autism are worse. Half my friends have autism.

But, whether there disease is not an excuse is beyond the point. I was wrong to bring attention to it.


What this method is supposed to do is create rehabilitation.
As in the old days, jail was a dark place where you got your meals and slept. There was no learning being done there. When people were released, they'd commit crimes to go back to jail because it was all they knew. Jail didn't help create them a better person for society.
While this analogy may be a stretch, regardless of what they have, we need to make them a better forum members. Banning doesn't normally do that. I feel this will.

[renhoek]

What this method is supposed to do is create rehabilitation.
As in the old days, jail was a dark place where you got your meals and slept. There was no learning being done there. When people were released, they'd commit crimes to go back to jail because it was all they knew. Jail didn't help create them a better person for society.
While this analogy may be a stretch, regardless of what they have, we need to make them a better forum members. Banning doesn't normally do that. I feel this will.

That argument doesn't really work, the person being banned isn't blocked from going anywhere else they just can't post on the forum for a few hours/days and they can still view the threads regardless. Not to mention gaol affects people physically.

[BobTheLawyer]

Ok, so it was a bad analogy, but nonetheless, this aims for rehabilitation more than banning does.

[renhoek]

Ok, so it was a bad analogy, but nonetheless, this aims for rehabilitation more than banning does.

I don't think they're going to learn anything until after they run out of posts, they're just going to make 3 more of the posts they were probably banned for and then give up.

[BobTheLawyer]

Then they'll get banned. If they do have something to say, and they want to say it, it will encourage them to not only spam post, but think out their posts.

[Sašo]

Overly complicated system that would require massive amounts of testing and development just to make it work for the 1-2 members once a month at best.


I have a better idea. You report, I sweep. I can handle corner cases. Namely SMP and Wary. SMP improved, and is now far from a troublemaker. Wary didn't so now he's permabanned and he can start thinking about asking for a reduction in 6 months.


Besides, the system is actually worse than just banning. If someone uses it to make 3 shit posts and then he thinks of one good one that he can't post until the next day, that's hardly an improvement. Might as well just give out 1 day bans as warnings (like bigger forums do).


tl;dr: no