ModerationFilter

May 23, 2005 9:51 PM

Let's say you have provided hosting facilities for a collaborative event-focused weblog. One of the contributors is violating the social norms for the site in ways that might well have negative real-world consequences for business relationships which are dependent on collegiality and the event. A sponsoring entity for the weblog has requested that this individual be bounced, and possibly requests that the posts by the individual be removed as well.

By usenet standards, the social norms being violated are mild indeed. But within the real-world culture the violations are aimed at, they are severe enough that the individual faces nearly assured professional ostracism.

To ban or not, that is the question.

posted by anonymous to human relations (7 comments total)

How about a compromise? Could you ban the member for a week and issue a stern warning? Are users posting under screennames or real names?
posted by michaelkuznet at 10:12 PM on May 23, 2005

What's the moral conundrum here? This guy is peeing in your sandbox; tell him to go home. Unless you think it wouldn't be effective, like he would try a DoS attack or something, you'd be entirely within your right to boot him. I know the Internet is supposed to be freewheeling and libertarian and the whatnot, and there's a certain wisdom to taking a deep breath before freaking about, e.g., a usenet troll, but it sounds like you're beyond that point if your professional standing (or whoever's) is being threatened.
posted by rkent at 10:26 PM on May 23, 2005

If he's ticking off the landlord, bounce him.
posted by mrbill at 10:29 PM on May 23, 2005

The fact that the site is collaborative would indicate to me that it should probably be more of a community-willed sort of thing... but I don't really have enough info. It may be that the sponsoring entity is unrealistic or naive in their expectations.
posted by taz at 12:23 AM on May 24, 2005

Honesty is the best policy. Tell him the truth and the options.
posted by wsg at 12:47 AM on May 24, 2005

If he has been given no warning, then unexpected banning is going to appear very unjust, and may infuriate him/her to malevolent response.

Is it possible to explain and put a buffer of a moderator checking his posts before they go public? (As a compromise to avoid/delay/prepare them for an outright ban)

In all likelyhood, you will have to ban the user in the end, but how you do it can make a big difference - clueing them in and giving them a chance to avoid it (even if they're not really capable of changing) may help diffuse the response to the ban when it comes.

Also, I've seen a community go sour when members saw another terminated by the host. Even though they disagreed with the member, they also disagreed with the action taken, and were no longer inclined to put their time and effort into something that could spurn them at a moment's notice. Ensuring that s/he has a chance gives other members reassurance that they don't have to watch what they say or watch their backs. That their time and effort will not be stripped from them with no recourse.

If s/he's told "my hand are tied", "I'm trying to help you here - the higher-ups are pushing for no compromise", "the ice you are on is so thin you're standing on air", etc, then even very stringent requirements may seem less of an attack. There are all sorts of options for compromise that might be explored - he accepts having his existing posts deleted in exchange for him retaining the ability to continue to post (though under scruteny/moderator censureship to ensure he doesn't unwittingly overstep and get himself banned), and further issues, even very very small ones, will absolutely be the final straw.

If you are going to clue them in before outright banning, you should consider having a moderator system already in place (or some other way to ensure they can't be malevolent while they still have user access), just in case they're the type to go ballistic at the mention that this stuff is even on the cards.

I think it's a bit like firing someone: Even if everyone thinks there is no way they can ship up, giving them a chance can make the pill go down easier when it's eventually taken, and it also gives them the option to call it quits themselves - to walk rather than be pushed. (Allthough, telling them they have a chance when you have no intention of allowing them to stay is a different matter.)
posted by -harlequin- at 1:19 AM on May 24, 2005

How about some examples, anonymous?
posted by mischief at 5:47 AM on May 24, 2005