Permaban offences [Archive]

Robert the List

11-02-24, 02:07 PM

Without naming names* what have ex-posters done to get permabanned?

*a caveat which I'm hoping will get this thread past our respected and honourable censors, but what will be will be.

Citizen Rules

11-02-24, 02:10 PM

Without naming names* what have ex-posters done to get permabanned?

*a caveat which I'm hoping will get this thread past our respected and honourable censors, but what will be will be.
I can read your mind:cool: A spammer this morning already was banned for spamming, probably a bot and not a human at all. But if that wasn't what you were thinking about, I'd say in general being permaban comes from not listening to the many chances Yoda would give someone in PM. If something is taboo and one has been reportedly warned not to do it, don't do it!

Corax

11-02-24, 02:35 PM

Yoda

11-02-24, 02:40 PM

Yeah, for new users/obvious spammers/people who start trouble immediately, the ban hammer comes down pretty quickly. For people who've been around a bit, the threshold is significantly higher.

As CR indicated, overwhelmingly any regular who's been banned has been warned many times first. I virtually always contact them privately at least once. I do this specifically to avoid calling people out in public, which tends to raise hackles, get egos involved, et cetera. But interestingly some people are more upset by the private communication; they find it scoldier, I guess, even though to me the exact opposite is true. But whatareyougonnado?

As for the why, it varies, but it's usually just picking fights over and over, particularly the same kinds of fights. Needless confrontation, escalating things unnecessarily over and over, or just skirting the rules. History and intent matter, in that it's possible to get banned for something which wouldn't be a huge deal if it happened once, but when it keeps happening over and over, pretty clearly suggests the person is trying to see what they can get away with. That kinda thing. Mostly these days that means political stuff, trying to pull discussions back into contentious topics over and over.

I try to lay out clear rules when possible, but it's not always possible, and I know from experience that if the rules are too define, too literal, people always find loopholes even though any common sense observation makes it obvious that they're trying to cause trouble. I leave myself and any mods enough wiggle room to make those judgment calls.

To try to compensate for any ambiguity, I invite questions exactly like this one and appreciate it when people ask me to clarify any edge case stuff. Always happy to do it! :)

Yoda

11-02-24, 02:41 PM

This is a private bar. Piss off the bartender and you get tossed. The rest is PR.
This makes it sound a lot more mercurial than it actually is in practice, but sure, true in a very technical sense. The important missing context being that what pisses off the bartender is fairly well-established, routinely divorced from the substance of his own beliefs, and pretty (in my opinion) consistent.

Some will certainly disagree with that last bit. They are all, of course, people who have consistently run afoul of the rules, so you can judge for yourself whether that influences the criticism or not.

Yoda

11-02-24, 02:43 PM

Oh, one last thing: the "perma" part complicates the answer because a pretty high number of banned users have been given second chances (on top of the second-and-third-and-fourth chances implied by any warnings). Occasionally it even works out the next time. :) But not always. Sometimes it's just a way to remove any shadow of a doubt that it was the right decision the first time.

John McClane

11-02-24, 04:59 PM

So basically doing bad things badly?

This is why you gotta get creative with high brow, veiled insults. Ya can’t just go around calling everyone a poopy head.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=EEuFbmmuqK4

StuSmallz

11-03-24, 03:37 AM

Without naming names* what have ex-posters done to get permabanned?

*a caveat which I'm hoping will get this thread past our respected and honourable censors, but what will be will be.Well, the one that sticks out the most to me was Jinnistan, who I think was temp-banned for causing a bigger stink than was neccessary about a stupid thread someone else made here (the thread he made in response to the other guy got deleted before I was able to log on unfortunately though, so I didn't see it for myself), and then I believe he was permabanned after he copped an attitude towards Yoda about something else, after having been warned to back off, which I wasn't surprised to see from him. I mean, he was a very intelligent poster otherwise, but he kept having a bad attitude, dating back his days on the Corrie when he essentially trolled me for moderating that forum in a way he disagreed, which I would've at least warned him about if he had said it to someone else, but I refrained from since I was trying to avoid the appearance of abusing my power there, even though that wouldn't have been the case there in that circumstance. Whatever; it's done now, I guess.

Robert the List

11-03-24, 04:11 AM

Robert the List

11-03-24, 09:34 AM

lol :heart:

John W Constantine

11-03-24, 09:37 AM

-Being a normie
Completely unforgivable.

FilmBuff

11-03-24, 10:55 AM

Here's a list of suggested offences:

-Trolling
-Spamming
-Bullying
-Racism
-Having a Uwe Boll movie as one of your favorites
-Being indifferent to Whitney Houston
-Being a normie

You left out:
-- liking colorized versions of B&W movies.

TONGO

11-03-24, 11:48 AM

Citizen Rules

11-03-24, 01:05 PM

LAMb EELYAK

11-03-24, 01:19 PM

Corax

11-03-24, 02:07 PM

I think theres an erie magic about this place, Ive seen people want to be permabanned because they couldnt or wouldnt leave on their own willpower. So it becomes more of a social media euthanizing. Go figure.

Yodas extremely patient in most areas, but is human like the rest of us. I couldnt do what he or the mods do, simply lack the tempermant. I would have banned myself years ago in his shoes, deservedly....but then what do you get? By banning all that you feel is out of place you get some hemoginized inorganic construct of a site with no true soul, community, or life. That is the easier softer way, and the reason forums have fallen to the wayside except this one.

Having said all that Im looking forward to the book Chris/Yoda writes of his experiences running this place :D
There's an erie magic to a thread like this. The existence of such a thread is a bit of a dare. It is an implicit criticism which demands a reply (i.e., if the question is being asked, then the answer is presumably uncertain and that's an insult).

We've even had our bartender show up to assure us that all his pours are level, that he doesn't water down the whiskey, and he never turns anyone out in the street who didn't deserve it. I suppose that settles the matter.

Optically, however, the immune response to the challenge is more persuasive if we have testimonials from satisfied customers. I, myself, have offered such testimonials in praise of a bartender on several occasions. You don't want to piss off the bartender, but some bartenders are more forgiving than others. All hail our local Moe, more patient than most, best well-drinks in town, purveyor of finest Falernian wine.

That stated, there is a survivor bias here. Those patrons eighty-sixed from our fine establishment (and there are a lot of them, just look at how many times you see the word "BANNED" next to names of posters in old threads) are not here to offer their testimony. Thus our sample is that of satisfied customers in the surviving clique (and there are like what, twenty, thirty people left here?), and only the occasional grumble from a malcontent who mutters over his mug.

Don't be a nuisance. Don't complain. Pay your tab. Decline any invitation fisticuffs over your list of "Bestest Films Ever." And don't make threads like this.

Citizen Rules

11-03-24, 02:20 PM

Nah, it's not about pissing off the bartender...it's about not pissing all over the patrons and the bar!

Wyldesyde19

11-03-24, 02:31 PM

Nah, it's not about pissing off the bartender...it's about not pissing all over the patrons and the bar!
This.
It usually isn’t any transgression against Yoda himself, but rather multiple transgressions against the users here.

And he lets a lot of transgressions against him go when it would have been easier to just ban someone who has openly attacked him. I’ve seen it.
The ban always comes after multiple warnings.

hownos

11-03-24, 02:35 PM

Question: was political discussion ever allowed on here?

Miss Vicky

11-03-24, 02:51 PM

Question: was political discussion ever allowed on here?

Yes. It was banned because it caused too many problems.

TONGO

11-03-24, 02:53 PM

Question: was political discussion ever allowed on here?
LOL! God yes, and it almost ruined the forum completely. Its a shame we had to do away with it as one of the candidates is the rosetta stone for any young budding comedian.

Citizen Rules

11-03-24, 02:58 PM

Question: was political discussion ever allowed on here?Like Miss Vicky and Tongo said, yes it was allowed and did cause numerous problems.

The thing is, you can take 10 people discussing politics on a board and half can do it peacefully...but there's always a few who have to be belligerent, obstinate and always have to be right! And that's what caused problems.

I've seen too many friends falling out over political discussions on other boards and people becoming enemies. Thank goodness we don't talk politics/religion/social hot topics here anymore.

FilmBuff

11-03-24, 03:01 PM

I've seen too many friends falling out over political discussions on other boards and people becoming enemies. Thank goodness we don't talk politics/religion/social hot topics here anymore.

I didn't realise about religion being included also (or didn't remember)

So, I take it is OK to say such-and-such film is a "faith movie" but nothing more than that?

Citizen Rules

11-03-24, 03:08 PM

I didn't realise about religion being included also (or didn't remember)

So, I take it is OK to say such-and-such film is a "faith movie" but nothing more than that?Debating pros/cons of religion is out. But saying, I enjoy Christian movies, or movies of faith, etc is fine. (as far as I remember that is, I don't want to speak directly for Yoda I'm just going off his post about rule changes)

EDIT: It's best to read Yoda's own post here, and probably read the entire thread.
https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=63073&highlight=rules

Yoda

11-03-24, 03:35 PM

Question: was political discussion ever allowed on here?
Not only was it allowed, it was kind of encouraged. The ethos in the early days was "just roll with the punches." It was about having lots of arguments but then being able to move on from them, rather than become obsessed or bitter or whatever. And for a long time it (mostly) worked. But the world's different now, and I also have less time to devote to such things (and, with more experience, perhaps less patience and more confidence that when I think I see X, it probably is X and I don't need to obsess over the < 1% chance I'm jumping to conclusions), so the rules had to change, too.

Yoda

11-03-24, 03:59 PM

There's an erie magic to a thread like this. The existence of such a thread is a bit of a dare. It is an implicit criticism which demands a reply (i.e., if the question is being asked, then the answer is presumably uncertain and that's an insult).
Yep. As much as I'd like to just let people say whatever, the question itself is something I need to answer, in great detail and with ample explanation, basically any time it's asked. Failure to do so would be conspicuous.

We've even had our bartender show up to assure us that all his pours are level, that he doesn't water down the whiskey, and he never turns anyone out in the street who didn't deserve it. I suppose that settles the matter.
I won't pretend it's definitive, or that I can be objective. But I will say that I have a lot of receipts. I don't like divulging the ugly details (it leads to gossip, among other things), but when I have shared specifics with people, they've almost always expressed surprise at how bad things actually were, and usually end up being shocked I didn't take action earlier.

That stated, there is a survivor bias here. Those patrons eighty-sixed from our fine establishment (and there are a lot of them, just look at how many times you see the word "BANNED" next to names of posters in old threads) are not here to offer their testimony.
Yep, completely true. But it's not clear that this is a bug, rather than a feature. In a sense that's the point of moderation, to create a survivorship bias. To strain out anyone who finds the ruleset intolerable. Forum rules are specifically there to attract and keep a certain type of user, conducive to a certain atmosphere, and by implication, that means weeding out anyone incompatible with that. This leaves the question of when/whether people are banned who didn't need to be, but between unbanning people who've literally threatened my life and providing supporting evidence basically any time I'm asked, I think I've setup the best guard rails I can, within reason.

--

One thing I will say about the frequency of "BANNED" in old threads is that it's frequency is not really a product of an unreasonable (or even unusual) number of bannings, but is down to three things:

First, because we've been open for over 24 years. This isn't unprecedented, but it's 99.9th percentile stuff.

Second, because we've had several extremely prolific posters banned (some, as indicated earlier, by their own request).

Third, because we're pretty diligent about closing duplicate threads and linking to old ones, whereas most forums do the exact opposite: lock old threads and/or warn people not to bump them.

So I'm skeptical that we ban more members than any well-moderated forum. But unlike most of them we don't churn through threads and members the same way, effectively burying anything that didn't happen recently, more chat room than forum. Our whole history is on display. And that transparency paradoxically breeds more trust and more distrust, depending on how observant or charitable the person making the judgment is. It provides plenty of ammunition to someone with an axe to grind (to mix weapon metaphors), but it should also provide a lot of reassurance to anyone with an open mind.

Yoda

11-03-24, 04:03 PM

I didn't realise about religion being included also (or didn't remember)
"No Politics" is shorthand for any highly contentious issue outside of film. There's something similar to this written on the Rules page.

So, I take it is OK to say such-and-such film is a "faith movie" but nothing more than that?
It's necessarily case-by-case. Referencing contentious issues is sometimes unavoidable when films pertain to them, but in my experience they almost never devolve into bitter flame wars if the people discussing them stick to the actual film, rather than just using the film as a jumping off point to discuss the issue separate from its depiction.

hownos

11-03-24, 05:40 PM

Not only was it allowed, it was kind of encouraged. The ethos in the early days was "just roll with the punches." It was about having lots of arguments but then being able to move on from them, rather than become obsessed or bitter or whatever. And for a long time it (mostly) worked. But the world's different now, and I also have less time to devote to such things (and, with more experience, perhaps less patience and more confidence that when I think I see X, it probably is X and I don't need to obsess over the < 1% chance I'm jumping to conclusions), so the rules had to change, too.

i think i know who to blame:)

FilmBuff

11-03-24, 05:42 PM

i think i know who to blame:)

Noooooo we can't "blame Canada" for this one! :p

hownos

11-03-24, 05:49 PM

Noooooo we can't "blame Canada" for this one! :p

definitely not

Corax

11-03-24, 06:45 PM

Yep. As much as I'd like to just let people say whatever, the question itself is something I need to answer, in great detail and with ample explanation, basically any time it's asked. Failure to do so would be conspicuous.
It would be well to offer forum rules, post links to useful resources, and, at most, disclose what you're trying to do in moderating. At the point, however, that you feel compelled to weigh in and say words to the effect, "Actually, I'm quite good..." you're making an unforced error. If you have to insist you "are," this only raises suspicion that you "aren't." You don't get to give yourself your own nickname. You don't get to write your own eulogy. It's sus to write your own Yelp reviews. Leave the reviews to your officially satisfied customers. Citizen and Co. are good enforcers in this regard. Let them sing your praises as you thrice refuse a crown on the Lupercal. We're both agreed that survivor bias only helps you in this regard. Your best bet is to remain mostly at the perimeter. If you enter the pen and wrestle the pig, you'll only get muddy.

Wyldesyde19

11-03-24, 06:55 PM

Um, no Corax. It isn’t anything like that.
And this discussion is strangely starting to sound a bit of an indictment, or a rebuke, against Yoda and his moderation.

Yoda

11-04-24, 10:32 AM

It would be well to offer forum rules, post links to useful resources, and, at most, disclose what you're trying to do in moderating.
There's a Rules page, linked from the footer of every single page on this site, that lists the basic rules, giving special elaboration for (and top billing to) the least intuitive one ("No Politics"). But it's my experience that people don't even read things that I (literally) put in big red text at the top of pages, so I've resigned myself to just explaining it a lot.

At the point, however, that you feel compelled to weigh in and say words to the effect, "Actually, I'm quite good..." you're making an unforced error. If you have to insist you "are," this only raises suspicion that you "aren't."
I don't consider this an error. If someone's thinking is so simplistic that they see me arguing for a thing as evidence that the thing is not so, I'm not sure I care much about their opinion. Because while arguing firmly and consistently is certainly something people do when they're trying to deceive you, it's also something people do when they're telling the truth about something important.

You don't get to give yourself your own nickname. You don't get to write your own eulogy. It's sus to write your own Yelp reviews.
But it's not sus to respond to a negative Yelp review with "actually, you didn't tell us to cook your steak that way, here's video of what you actually said."

Leave the reviews to your officially satisfied customers. Citizen and Co. are good enforcers in this regard. Let them sing your praises as you thrice refuse a crown on the Lupercal.
They're good for basic testimonials, but not for specifics. You yourself said earlier that the existence of this thread was "an implicit criticism which demands a reply." Parts of what's being discussed, only I have direct knowledge of. When things like impartiality are directly challenged (or even just respectfully questioned), I have to be available and verbose.

We're both agreed that survivor bias only helps you in this regard. Your best bet is to remain mostly at the perimeter. If you enter the pen and wrestle the pig, you'll only get muddy.
Oink oink. I think it's a fantasy to believe you can do hands-on moderation for any period of time without getting "muddy."

And best bet for what purpose? Maybe the "PR" you alluded to earlier, but I don't particularly care if I look cool, or seem desperate to people who view the world through the lens of a high schooler, or whatever. I'm not running for Class President. I'm the Principal.

Robert the List

11-15-24, 10:01 AM

I'm right in thinking that Yoda is the only mod/admin on here currently, right?

Are any other current users former mod/admins? Just out of curiosity really.

MovieGal

11-15-24, 10:03 AM

I'm right in thinking that Yoda is the only mod/admin on here currently, right?

Are any other current users former mod/admins? Just out of curiosity really.

Sedai is one.

TONGO

11-15-24, 12:22 PM

I think Sedai and Yoda are the only ones now. I remember when there were many.

Im truth though, and this is a very "big brother" idea (no not the tv show), but should a mod be a mod openly? Why not an Undercover Mod. That way people dont know when theyre trolling with fire.
You like that one? I just made that up :cool: ;)

seanc

11-15-24, 12:25 PM

Yoda

11-15-24, 12:26 PM

How do you know Yoda hasn’t already had and implemented that idea?
Way to give yourself away dude.

Citizen Rules

11-15-24, 12:36 PM

Captain Steel

11-15-24, 03:19 PM

There's an erie magic to a thread like this. The existence of such a thread is a bit of a dare. It is an implicit criticism which demands a reply (i.e., if the question is being asked, then the answer is presumably uncertain and that's an insult).

We've even had our bartender show up to assure us that all his pours are level, that he doesn't water down the whiskey, and he never turns anyone out in the street who didn't deserve it. I suppose that settles the matter.

Optically, however, the immune response to the challenge is more persuasive if we have testimonials from satisfied customers. I, myself, have offered such testimonials in praise of a bartender on several occasions. You don't want to piss off the bartender, but some bartenders are more forgiving than others. All hail our local Moe, more patient than most, best well-drinks in town, purveyor of finest Falernian wine.

That stated, there is a survivor bias here. Those patrons eighty-sixed from our fine establishment (and there are a lot of them, just look at how many times you see the word "BANNED" next to names of posters in old threads) are not here to offer their testimony. Thus our sample is that of satisfied customers in the surviving clique (and there are like what, twenty, thirty people left here?), and only the occasional grumble from a malcontent who mutters over his mug.

Don't be a nuisance. Don't complain. Pay your tab. Decline any invitation fisticuffs over your list of "Bestest Films Ever." And don't make threads like this.

Now that I read this, I'm staying off this thread (and maybe giving up drinking).

MovieGal

11-15-24, 03:23 PM

Yoda should make me one.

Stirchley

11-15-24, 03:33 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh-jr9dy0IE

Great show.

FilmBuff

11-15-24, 03:33 PM

Just wait until they implement AI mods... :eek:

Yoda

11-15-24, 03:37 PM

Yoda should make me one.
First order of business: ban all Bills fans (sorry seanc)

seanc

11-15-24, 03:39 PM

First order of business: ban all Bills fans (sorry seanc)

After Sunday evening you may have to if MG gets too crazy with those gifs

MovieGal

11-15-24, 03:42 PM

After Sunday evening you may have to if MG gets too crazy with those gifs

Hey now, just because I'm proud of my hometown. And you know Mahomes is a GOAT.

MovieGal

11-15-24, 03:44 PM

Actually, I get along with seanc. He has no worries of me banning him.

seanc

11-15-24, 03:46 PM

Actually, I get along with seanc. He has no worries of me banning him.

And I have no worries that we will beat KC

MovieGal

11-15-24, 03:51 PM

And I have no worries that we will beat KC

You continue the dream seanc.

seanc

11-15-24, 03:58 PM

You continue the dream seanc.

Ha, that was worded wrong. I mean we won’t beat them. Never do when it counts.

MovieGal

11-15-24, 04:00 PM

Ha, that was worded wrong. I mean we won’t beat them. Never do when it counts.

Win or lose, it will be one hellva game. Juju, Hopkins and Hunt, good luck.

seanc

11-15-24, 04:08 PM

Win or lose, it will be one hellva game. Juju, Hopkins and Hunt, good luck.

You skipped the names that scare me, but good luck to you too.

Robert the List

11-15-24, 05:15 PM

Sedai is one.
Would never have guessed that.

He plays it very humble. :up:

MovieGal

11-15-24, 05:21 PM

Would never have guessed that.

He plays it very humble. :up:

He's a great guy.

Captain Steel

11-15-24, 05:24 PM

How would one get "Permabonded" to the site?

Robert the List

11-15-24, 05:26 PM

He's a great guy.
for a MoFo.

MovieGal

11-15-24, 05:33 PM

for a MoFo.

You can't have two better guys than Yoda and Sedai.

Robert the List

11-15-24, 05:34 PM

You can't have two better guys than Yoda and Sedai.
I don't want two better guys.

AgrippinaX

11-15-24, 06:02 PM

How would one get "Permabonded" to the site?

Just sort of happened to me. :)

Yoda

11-15-24, 06:23 PM

Would never have guessed that.

He plays it very humble. :up:
That's a big part of the reason he's a mod.