Okay, I got my first temp ban last night for trolling a non-RP forum. My fault for not paying attention to which thread I was posting in, the mod was right, good call on that.

My problem? I got banned on Wednesday for something I did on Sunday.

Now, if it had been something big, I’d understand. CP, personal info, etc. should get the ban as soon as mods see it. For something like this, though, I think there should be a limit on how long it can be between the original violation and the ban. In my mind, it’s the equivalent of getting pulled over and getting a ticket for that illegal U-turn you made last week.

Thoughts? (I’d especially like mod/ET input on this. I respect your work and your experience, and I’d like to see the other side to this, if there is one.)

MC Banhammer Posted:

We can’t always get to things as soon as they happen; we have lives, you know, and this isn’t exactly a paid gig. So sometimes there’s a delay.

Understood. With that in mind, IS there any sort of limit? Could someone, say, get temp-banned for a post from a month ago?

I agree with the OP, If it didn’t cause any major uproar or was a big deal I don’t see the point in temp banning someone days later for something no one cares about based on a technicality. But I know the modadmins won’t agree there.

elenaratelimit Posted:

I don’t see the point in temp banning someone days later for something no one cares about

Someone cared about it, or it wouldn’t have been reported.

OrsonScottCard Posted:

My fault for not paying attention to which thread I was posting in, the mod was right, good call on that.

Let’s not make this a thread about what deserves a temp ban. I’ll concede I deserved one, even though it was an accidental violation.

MC Banhammer Posted:

No real hard and fast rules. My policy has been to look at their history as best I can, and try to figure it out.

But we usually don’t leave open reports stay out there that long. A week, maybe, at the most, give or take.

That seems perfectly reasonable, and thank you for clarifying.

MC Banhammer Posted:

Note that’s on temp bans. If we find an old post which deserves a permaban, we’re likely issue it.

Completely agreed.

Thanks to MC Banhammer and Tubsweetie for helping to clarify this. You both get gold stars for the day.

Doctor Whom Posted:

And every report you receive carries a legitimate complaint?

I don’t see the logic here.

If it’s more than 72 hours, and not a major offense, then anything more than a warning is pointless. Minor disciplinary actions, to be effective, have to be time-contextual. Otherwise, it’s simply Banning for the sake of Banning.

Combine the lack of any ‘hard & fast’ guidelines for how long is too long after a minor offense with the ‘rules not really set in stone’, and it’s a wonder that more people don’t get tempbanned.

But that’s just my $0.02.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Banhammer was saying they LOOKED at it because there was a complaint, saw the complaint WAS legit (which I’ve already said twice now), and then took action.

was Posted:

Yeah, but I saw them ban someone nearly a month after the offending post was made.

Link please? That sounds dumb and i hope i wasn’t me D:

Doctor Whom Posted:

I meant that, in general, just because someone reports something doesn’t mean it’s actually banworthy. McBan seemed to be suggesting that ‘someone caring enough to report it’ was significant validation of it as a complaint.

In no way is everything reported actionable. Some people report anything they personally think is inappropriate, when it’s not against board rules.