Ban users from threads

[Lights]

I just thought it might be worthwhile suggesting a vBulletin mod (click here) (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=260080) I know of which allows moderators and higher to ban users from individual threads.

I thought I should suggest this because I occasionally see posts like the following which threaten to punish everyone because one or two people are ruining or derailing the thread:

If you can't stay on topic then this thread will be closed. It's unfortunate that one or two people can ruin the thread for everybody; but offensive, off-topic remarks will not be tolerated. If there is one more instance of this the thread will be closed and infractions will be given out.

I am not criticising ImCoolBeans for saying that in any way, I'm just suggesting a way around having to punish everyone.

A tool like this means decent threads, like Why are you atheist? (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=145513), don't have to be locked and closed because of individuals who are causing problems which might currently mean resulting in the thread being locked. I think that when there are issues on a perfectly acceptable thread such as the aforementioned, individuals should have their rights to post in that thread revoked, not everyone just because of these people who are causing problems.

In the mod description it says 'tested on vBulletin 3.8.7' and that's the version of vBulletin this forum uses, so if you guys think this sounds like a reasonable idea, this mod is probably the ideal one to use.

[Apollo.]

I think this is a great idea! It would save a lot of arguments , save the mods time and hopefully save me getting told I'm going to hell every 5 minutes on the religion threads.

[TigerBoy]

Excellent suggestion OP, thanks for that. It does seem like a great way of keeping debates on topic and civil.

[ackmedsgirl666]

i definately would vote for this
it would make the threads alot cleaner and then other members dont lose out on helpful advice when asking questions in threads.
good job :)

[Jess]

Yes this is definitely needed.

[Rayquaza]

I wouldn't say it's a necessity, but it is something that does a good job, so I'm for it.

[StoppingTime]

I'm really not fond of this idea. If you're going to be a member here, you're going to have to be mature. We're not just going to "excuse" those who won't follow those rules, and in essence, that is what would be done here.
Also, it would cause a lot of controversy between the member "banned" and staff most likely, which isn't needed either.

[Wonder.]

I'm really not fond of this idea. If you're going to be a member here, you're going to have to be mature. We're not just going to "excuse" those who won't follow those rules, and in essence, that is what would be done here.
Also, it would cause a lot of controversy between the member "banned" and staff most likely, which isn't needed either.

I don't think it would be "excusing" them, just pointing out to them that they are behaving too inappropriately and have lost the privilege of posting in that thread. If they're banned from enough, they would get infracted. It's the same as it is now, just this way nobody else is punished.

[DerBear]

I am not a fan of this idea for the same reason as Steven. It would just cause a lot of hassle.

[TigerBoy]

I am not a fan of this idea for the same reason as Steven. It would just cause a lot of hassle.

I'm not clear how it could cause more hassle than you guys have to deal with already (which we do appreciate by the way). Currently if someone ignores mods warnings they cause stress for members and mods alike and have to be warned again. Typically what happens next is the thread gets locked altogether. Rather than that happening, this would seem to give you another option so the majority of well behaved posters can continue posting. This doesn't stop you also infracting the problem user(s) if needed.

[Cognizant]

I'm really not fond of this idea. If you're going to be a member here, you're going to have to be mature.

Do we? I mean... you can still be "immature" and you wouldn't break any of the listed rules.

Then again, I'm just very against unwritten rules. I like this idea, but it needs some planning around it. Some determination of to ban them from posting in a thread.
Controversy might appear if it's not within reason (such as something like their opinion is wrong [not saying that's likely]), but if it's logically monitored and a reason is given to said member or staff member (such as being off-topic too long and/or derailing the thread), then they might be more understanding.

[Skyline]

I think it's a wonderful idea.

[Lights]

I'm really not fond of this idea. If you're going to be a member here, you're going to have to be mature. We're not just going to "excuse" those who won't follow those rules, and in essence, that is what would be done here.
Also, it would cause a lot of controversy between the member "banned" and staff most likely, which isn't needed either.

I don't understand how it is 'excusing' a member. This approach makes it sound as if we're letting people get away with their wrongdoings, which we're not. Revoking rights is far from 'excusing' a member.
TickTockClock has summed things up pretty well. Why should everyone else have to suffer at the hands of those who are causing trouble?

Even if any members did give any attitude, the staff are staff for a reason and they should be able to handle disruptive members. They are in a position of power for a good reason after all.

Why should a decent thread get locked which has the potential for so much interesting discussion just because there are a couple of people, sometimes even just two people, going off topic and derailing the thread?

I am not a fan of this idea for the same reason as Steven. It would just cause a lot of hassle.

As Olly said, I can't really see how it would cause any more hassle than any of the staff already have; in fact, it would likely be very beneficial to the community as a whole who don't have to be concerned about their threads getting locked because one or two people are trashing and/or derailing it. It's not a fair system to ban everyone universally because of a minority's wrongdoings. I think this tool actually makes things easier on the staff because they don't have to continually repeat about staying on topic or not insulting others etc. The tool only gives you as much hassle as you want it to.

[DerBear]

Okay I read this wrong. I thought this was something members could use. I.E to stop members of their choosing from viewing the thread. My bad.

I still don't like the idea of banning a user from a thread even if they are causing hassle. Usually when a thread goes bad in (for example) ROTW, it usually has lead to arguing and the thread is ruined beyond repair and two members have argued then other members have joined in. It becomes a case of (sometimes, not always) its easier to lock the thread and halt the arguing and stop the bad blood from spreading so to speak than leaving it open for other members to dig at users. Plus with this installed, say a user did end up getting banned from a thread, people in the thread would surely notice and this could cause a ton of arguments.

I don't know. I just don't have a good feeling about this. I see the usefulness of it. I just don't like the idea.

[Mirage]

We're not just going to "excuse" those who won't follow those rules, and in essence, that is what would be done here.

I respectfully disagree, Steven. Punishments would still be issued as normal, however the user would just be banned from posting in that thread in addition to the other punishments.

I think this would be beneficial, actually.

[ImCoolBeans]

I think it's a pretty good idea to be honest. If it can be used correctly and appropriately then it would be pretty helpful in a section like Ramblings Of The Wise where people can ruin an entire thread by going waaaaay off topic or by being extremely rude/insulting. I don't think it's very fair to have to lock a whole thread because a few people turned it bad; but that is currently what we have to do in order to handle the situation. While this can be very beneficial, I also see downsides to it. This will without a doubt lead to a lot of members requesting people they may not like to be banned from their threads. A lot of members will also disagree with being banned from a thread and will cause a stink because of it. You guys are saying that it would be much less of a burden for the staff; but when you really think about it, it's just as much of a burden either way and possibly even more of a burden now because instead of locking a thread and ending the issue, you're creating a new issue on top of that. It's our job as staff members to handle that -- and we without a doubt will responsibly handle whatever we have to -- but I wanted to make it clear that this will not be any less of a burden for the staff, since you mentioned that it would be. By saying that I'm not saying that I'm definitely opposed to the suggestion; but it's something to think about.

Another thing to mention is that not all of the threads that get an in thread warning about being off topic or out of control actually get locked...

[Irishperson15]

sounds good, i dont see how it would cause any hassle if it was just one individual thread the user was banned from . . .

[TigerBoy]

sounds good, i dont see how it would cause any hassle if it was just one individual thread the user was banned from . . .

I think the concern is that people would bitch about getting banned, potentially increasing the crap the mods get to deal with.

I'd argue that those people were heading for a confrontation with mods anyway if they are ignoring in-thread warnings. This may also give mods a way to save users from their own tempers and passions before things get too out of hand.

Having supported this idea, I should make it clear that I would not be in favour of anything that was going to cause mods more - rather than less - hassle. Given some of the personalities who get into trouble, I can only imagine that is already less than pleasant for the volunteers who run VT.

[Irishperson15]

I think the concern is that people would bitch about getting banned, potentially increasing the crap the mods get to deal with.

I'd argue that those people were heading for a confrontation with mods anyway if they are ignoring in-thread warnings. This may also give mods a way to save users from their own tempers and passions before things get too out of hand.

Having supported this idea, I should make it clear that I would not be in favour of anything that was going to cause mods more - rather than less - hassle. Given some of the personalities who get into trouble, I can only imagine that is already less than pleasant for the volunteers who run VT.

Good point, and it would probably lead to more threads about people being treated wrong or to stop it, never thought of that

[Coolboi]

this is not a good idea if you ban a member from a thread he or she can contact the members other ways pms an so on an start more problems then so if you ban them from a thread why you want the user back on vt for then to start more trouble somewhere else an as before when a thread is locked a new one starts with similar topic happenes all the time warnings, infractions , frozen or baned has been working fine so keep on useing it on the bad members if you need to ban a member drone a thread we don't need them here on vt then

[Lights]

this is not a good idea if you ban a member from a thread he or she can contact the members other ways pms an so on an start more problems then so if you ban them from a thread why you want the user back on vt for then to start more trouble somewhere else an as before when a thread is locked a new one starts with similar topic happenes all the time warnings, infractions , frozen or baned has been working fine so keep on useing it on the bad members if you need to ban a member drone a thread we don't need them here on vt then

Please try to use full stops in your posts. I'm not trying to grammar police you, but it's difficult to make out everything you're saying otherwise.

Surely by your logic you're saying 'let's give into people who are happy to break rules at the detriment of others because we don't want them to cause a fuss.' I think you think that adding this feature would mean removing all the other forms of punishment, but it wouldn't. If a member made a scene over being removed from a thread, they could be warned/infracted/frozen.

I think you're oversimplifying. If you look at the thread I used as my example in the first post, you would see that sometimes you get conflicts between certain groups such as theists and atheists. The thread I used was for atheists, but theists had been coming in and debates were starting to flare. A user might not be appropriate for one thread (for instance on an atheism one, or even in a boys/girls specific puberty question thread) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the forums altogether just because they're being problematic in one place.

Lastly, I just waned to say that I think rules would be established if this was to be implemented. There would be written guidelines for the staff to go by, I assume. I think you can find down sides in pretty much any idea - perhaps that should be considered.

[Coolboi]

i have re:read it an no I do like the idea .but as one gets banned from a thread they may got after the person they were arguing with like they did me through my email an yahoo messenger that used to be on my page I removed them now . But with banning a member from a thread it still should have a warning ,infraction or more still. then I agree 100% an hope it gets approved . the mode an here are very good I'm sure they'll make a great decision an I will obey what they say also .

[Erasmus]

I think that this would be a very good addition, and while it might not give the staff less hassle, it would stop threads from being locked because of only one or two members.

[Lyra Heartstrings]

I don't see the need for it, to be perfectly honest. Once a thread has gotten to the point where it's just a couple members mindlessly bashing and flaming, it's really not..a good thread anymore. Unless you can think of another example in which this might be useful, I don't like the idea.

[Maverick]

It's poor moderation to let one or two people ruin an entire thread. In the event a thread is getting disrupted the thread should be cleaned and the users derailing it should be infracted and have their posts moderated for a period of time or even frozen.

If a debate thread completely lost its focus or there's too many fights by multiple parties then I'd support just locking it.