Banned User Permissions in the Dispute Forum

I'm not entirely sure why we have it set so that unregistered users can post in the dispute forum while banned users cannot, but it seems that it would make more sense in reverse. That is,

Banned users get posting permissions in the "Dispute a Ban" and "High Pardon" sections. Unregistered users get permissions removed in the above, and may only post in "Account Recovery".

This would:

1. Enable staff to keep track of all past dispute attempts and responses more efficiently. (The search feature is useless on certain account names, and cannot be used to find threads where the poster does not explicitly say their Sythe Username.)

2. Ensure that the disputes are being posted by the actual owner of the account, and are not simply being wasted by someone else.

 

Solid, even though on point two we typically run the two IPs to confirm its the member, would definitely make things more efficient for both staff and the banned member. +1

 

Support. Would definitely speed up the process a bit, and make it more clear on who the banned user is.

 

Agreed. You have to evade to view it, meaning you break the rules. Anyone whose appeal is accepted should technically be banned for evasion.

 

Thats fine as long as we can forumban them if they are denied beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

They don't actually have to evade (users are currently supposed to post as unregistered guests) but many don't realize that, so they create new accounts anyway.

I hadn't thought of that, but it's something to consider. It does have certain advantages, but it would probably be best used sparingly - in part because I think mods are too lazy to forumban every user denied beyond a reasonable doubt, but also because time can offer perspective.

As I recall, Elivok was banned for "posting what Yakov said" (spamming threads with rather negative views about the site and how it's run), and although he got several firm, "no, never." replies on his first few disputes, he was eventually unbanned for it. He may not be the best example, since he's banned again, but the point is the same: opinions can change on issues, no matter how certain they seem at the time.

Still, for offenses like scamming it makes sense. You'd have to add a clause to the rules that disputes can only be considered when posted by the user to whom the ban pertains, otherwise users will simply register a new account to post with.

 

The only way to be banned is to break rules.
If you scam, you're given 24-48 hours to reply(I believe)
Im positive I will have posted the second I saw a scam report against me(none yet lol)
There is NO reason to have to appeal your ban. Unless you were hacked. Which just proves you/your system is not safe. Nor would your sythe account be.

Idk. I just don't like the idea of disputes. Unless it's for Infractions.

If you get banned, you have been given warnings(Hopefully)

IDK IDK IDK

 

You're suggesting the entire removal of the dispute forum, then.

I admit, it's not a horrible idea - such an insignificant fraction of members get unbanned anyway. But, mods can make mistakes, like anyone, and a dispute forum has advantages over the informal MSN dispute system we used to have. In particular, it's nice to allow some transparency of the ban system, and it makes it easier for admins to monitor moderators' decisions.

Anyway, that suggestion is a bit off-topic.

 

ah, never thought about it and generally it makes sense, considering there is no logout button if you are banned on the new theme.

Nice suggestion, would be great to see this implemented.

 

vBulletin treats banned usergroups differently than regular usergroups, as you may recall.

Editing their forum permissions is meaningless because they will still get the no permission screen whenever they try to do anything. I just tested this extensively; as much as this should be done, it can't be.

Also, suggesting a custom usergroup with no access to anything but the Dispute Forum is out of the question as well; it must be classified as a 'Banned' usergroup in order for it to show up on the User Banning page.

Sorry.