3 ms·

The problem with mass banning on a large scale driven by whoever is loudest is that it very, very quickly devolves into witch hunts. Nobody wins. I used to ru

The problem with mass banning on a large scale driven by whoever is loudest is that it very, very quickly devolves into witch hunts. Nobody wins. I used to run my own BBS back in the dialup days. Even then, the problems would be recognisable to a modern forum mod. The only workable solutions I've found are that the more focused a board on a select number of topics, the easier it is to effectively moderate in a humane manner, and that it is impossible to rules-lawyer your way to success. In the end, you have to spend significant brain-time evaluating behavior on a case-by-base basis, and be willing to ban, listen, and revise in equal measures. It's hard work, and generally unappreciated.

bhaak 6y ago
> The only workable solutions I've found are that the more focused a board on a select number of topics, the easier it is to effectively moderate in a humane manner, In my special case, we have a very heterogeneous audience because we are not mono thematical. It is quite problematic if you have people coming together who have widely different expectations. > and that it is impossible to rules-lawyer your way to success. I agree. Never do this. The rules will always be used against you, regardless of how detailed they are. And discussions about rules take up so much time. Keep them short and concise but also make clear that they are not set in stone. You will need leeway anyway. > In the end, you have to spend significant brain-time evaluating behavior on a case-by-base basis, and be willing to ban, listen, and revise in equal measures. It's hard work, and generally unappreciated. The "significant brain-time" is a problem. You are outnumbered and then fighthing and debunking bullshit takes much more time than producing it (the Trump tactic). For my case, I came to the conclusion that being nice 80% of the time is good enough. Save the 20% evilness for the notorious cases and you can cut down a lot of mod time. Educating newbies is a different matter but for regulars, I started to warn them one time and afterwards I start temporarily banning in a fibonacci like manner for every subsequent temporary bann. Most get it then or even leave before I have to perma-bann them.

bhaak 6y ago

> The only workable solutions I've found are that the more focused a board on a select number of topics, the easier it is to effectively moderate in a humane manner, In my special case, we have a very heterogeneous audience because we are not mono thematical. It is quite problematic if you have people coming together who have widely different expectations. > and that it is impossible to rules-lawyer your way to success. I agree. Never do this. The rules will always be used against you, regardless of how detailed they are. And discussions about rules take up so much time. Keep them short and concise but also make clear that they are not set in stone. You will need leeway anyway. > In the end, you have to spend significant brain-time evaluating behavior on a case-by-base basis, and be willing to ban, listen, and revise in equal measures. It's hard work, and generally unappreciated. The "significant brain-time" is a problem. You are outnumbered and then fighthing and debunking bullshit takes much more time than producing it (the Trump tactic). For my case, I came to the conclusion that being nice 80% of the time is good enough. Save the 20% evilness for the notorious cases and you can cut down a lot of mod time. Educating newbies is a different matter but for regulars, I started to warn them one time and afterwards I start temporarily banning in a fibonacci like manner for every subsequent temporary bann. Most get it then or even leave before I have to perma-bann them.