h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Regarding things like three strikes rules and zero tolerance policies, I must recommend against them. While everyone appreciates clearly stated rules, often well meaning polices end up tying the hands of those who administer the policies and they have unintended consequences. For example, here in the States many schools have zero tolerance polices for violence, drugs and weapons. Everyone seemed to agree on this. But now we read reports of children put into the criminal justice system because of an errant menstrual pain pill, or simply pointing a finger like a gun. Schoolyard scuffles are now jail-able offenses.

Say that we instituted a three strikes rule. Say a newbie earns two strikes rather quickly, then adjusts to fit in with the culture here. Then, months later, rubs someone the wrong way and that person baits the other into a provocative post and they hit that third strike. If the rules are too rigidly applied, context won't matter.

Permanent bans need to be well measured.

Oh, and to just argue against myself just a bit...

If a new researcher pops up and within minutes posts hundreds of links to their new fat burning product, well, go ahead... insta-perma-isp ban them.

Not every banning needs to be that measured.

We've identified several reasons for instant banning here and more reasons that do not invite an instant ban but temporary measures.
I'd argue that the not so clear cut cases need several arguments or several points of view to instantiate a permanent ban.
For example: a certain person has shown particulary obnoxious behaviour but not enough to have a ban slapped on him/her/it. In this case I'd like to hear from the CE's and/or ACE's as well as from the Researchers arguments why that particular person should be banned. Mind you, this would be at the end of an unfavourable track record in the broadest sense.
A newbie being baited into a 'third strike' after a while of good behaviour would benefit from the precess where the case would be looked at in a broad view and the 'verdict' would not be based solely on that single (isolated) incident.

One more point: Suppose someone posts a link to "Look at this cute puppy" and uses a tinyurl link. Unfortunately the link gets mangled in the cut-and-pasta and now points to a page with objectionable/illegal content. With the rules in place as discussed earlier that Researcher is immediately banned for life. Do we want to allow for honest mistakes and re-instate said Researcher ?

Yes, clear intent has to be present in the situations where you'd ban someone.

What about a route for appeal? Do the BBC offer this in outright ban situations?

Banning 'appeals' prove to be one-to-one e-mails with the staff of the day. And so far, I imagine the responses have not be immediate. Very limited staff having been a problem for quite some time now.

If we retain the appeal route, then can we be a bit more sanguine over permanent bans?

Has anyone made a clear distinction between 'bans' and extended 'suspensions'? Most people that I have seen around here that needed punishing (self included), measured suspensions are perhaps the better idea. Time to cool off, rethink their ways and attitudes.

Of course, out-right illegal, immoral or highly unethical folks should not be allowed any return. Again, my opinions

I wanted to isolate the outright ban stuff before we tackle the other stuff. (Maybe we can start that thread tomorrow?)

About the decision to permanently ban a Researcher; Who gets to hold the hammer and says "It is so." ?

2legs.

( refuses to suggest N**ht**over )

Hold that process question, Haragai. We may need it later.

Any more on outright-bannable behaviour?

...and what should tomorrow's question be? (I'm trying to keep the scope narrow, if you hadn't noticed)

>> and what should tomorrow's question be?

Either : Pre-Mod, how and when ? (to continue down to lenient from Banning)

Or : What levels of correctional measures do we have and what do we want them to be? (things brought up in the Banning thread and more)

From what people have said earlier, I don't think it's possible to be proscriptive about which non-banning transgression measure is appropriate for which rule. Context is everything. Having said that, we should possibly get them into some sort of perspective.

I'll ask a more open question on those lines, I think, and see if we can collect some community wisdom and form them into looser guidelines.