Deleting offending material is a pretty simple process. But evaluating whether someone should be sanctioned? That takes a bit of time and consideration. I'd imagine it involves looking through the thread, evaluating context, discussing intent, taking prior offences into consideration (and researching those offences) and possibly escalating the issue to a more senior mod. Then having a cooling off period before a decision is made.

The fact that it does take 2-3 days is a good thing. It shows it wasn't done as a knee-jerk reaction. Also, the mods have already stated this occured at the worst possible time for them, and you can't expect a volunteer force to instantly drop their real life commitments. There isn't (and shouldn't) be a statute of limitations of 48 hours on carrying out punishments.

Apparently everyone could find it in the forum there looking at the size of that thread, and since there is a nice link to here in the last post in that topic, everyone that actually wants to do some constructive discussing knows exactly where to go.

Which is why Im saying a dialogue should be opened. Which is in fact exactly what I said. Should punishment take time, and be thought over? Definitely. Should the user be at least informed that the issue is not closed, and further consequences will be decided within the coming days? Also definitely. Punishment separated from the offense instigates rash knee jerk actions like what we saw unfold here. Someone using the site days after they thought a situation had been resolved, being shunted out, escalates.

There is no perfect system. Of course there are going to be some issues, but that's also exactly why this board exists.
And I have to agree Elijin, the point made makes sense to me.
I like how you seem to be one of the few that actually tries to propose changes for the better instead of just complaining
If I am correct, the *without warning* in your prior post means the warning that something would be investigated and concluded later, correct?

Now, in here I don't have to do much in terms of warning/banning people. PbP-guys are pretty cool in general. But I've moderated similar forums that had the same system as we currently use here.
But looking at the way it seems to have come in, a ban in the middle of creating a post, that's where the irritation comes from.

Note that I do not have the information if he actually got that notice that something was being investigated and I do not have the authority to check that (I'm just here as a pretty neutral mod), but if it is not done, it is a small gesture that could potentially clear a lot of things up. I would not be against that.

Whether the system can be improved is another thing entirely. And I'll admit, I'm biased in this instance, so probably unable to give a balanced answer, as if someone has done something worth banning them for a week, then their specific user experience isn't high on my list of priorities as by definition, they weren't really considering someone else's user experience at the time.

That doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be improved. Just that I'll call my own weakness out in this area in advance, and state my belief that this specific case isn't respresentative of some great injustice in the current system.

What I have proposed so far is a more open, communicated moderation process between moderators and violating users, and an adjustment to the system so that a user doesnt feel expelled from the community, until they actually are. We use the word suspension, but we implement it in such a way, that it feels like expulsion.

And Steve, I know we dont get along, but I propose this - At this stage, no one left is arguing against his ban reason, simply its execution, and what can be done to improve on this in the future. If you feel that you cannot reasonably bring much to that discussion due to your bias towards the instigating factor, I would ask you bow out knowing that this is a 'How can the system be improved' discussion. Is that fair?

Genuine curiosity, would it have been better if he was suddenly locked out immediately, instead of days later?

Gobo, thanks for the full disclosure. You have one item wrong, Hakeem didn't try to provoke Steve in that thread.

Secondly, and less important, you say that Hakeem breached the code by attacking another user. The problem is that shadowcran is not a user. He was banned from here forever and is intended longer a user. Hakeem probably assumed, as did I, that you can go after him without fear of reprisal Since he's not a user.

Those are the only parts that stuck out from your deposition.

I'd really like the first part addressed and corrected. He's not here to defend himself and you're not bad people.

Thanks again

Im not him, so I cant say. But I can definitely say if I had violated the CoC, and was punished for it within the moment, it would certainly make infinitely more sense than several days later while I not doing anything wrong. And when things dont make sense, people react poorly.

I'm having a different discussion directly with the mod. I don't think correct information has been posted.

I answered this in part earlier, but the other thing I thought to say is the second change I proposed would also help the situation. Not being booted out of the site, but being restricted from posting, but continuing to be able to use the site.

This is an email from Hakeem for NGA.

Honestly just pick a damn side and ban everyone not on that side.

That sounds like a pretty terrible way to handle a conflict.

I have removed several posts from this thread and edited several more. As I said, sniping (which includes questioning the good faith and motives of others) will not be tolerated.

I'm currently in the process of writing up a more detailed response post; that one will replace this one once it's finished.

Is it okay to question the good faith and motives behind enacting a policy that bans questioning the good faith and motives of others?

In relatively small, closed communities where most people are familiar with each other, that can indeed be the case, especially when the people involved know each other outside of the internet. Sadly, it tends to turn disastrous once the community grows large and anonymous enough.


While it's true that being outside the Duels forum is likely to lead to lower participation by Duels-focused users, being inside the Duels forum would lead to zero participation from anyone else, because nobody else would be aware that it existed. A discussion of how to improve moderation policy and practice, which is what I hope to see happen here, affects much more than just one forum, and everyone deserves the ability to participate.


I definitely agree that such a situation is...let's say less than perfect. It's a side effect of our moderation staff being volunteers with limited time; things like (for example) flame wars are urgent and must be stopped before they spiral out of control, and the publicly-visible response is often easy and quick to perform, so it happens relatively quickly--the moderator has ten minutes free? Done. But the private response--looking at each involved user's history for past warnings, sorting out appropriate penalties, writing up individual PMs, applying suspensions--all of that takes much, much more time, especially when discussion needs to occur between moderators before a decision is reached. Therefore, it will often not conclude for several days after the initial cleanup is performed.

This is definitely something that can be improved. While the inherent problems of limited moderator availability and time aren't going to change any time soon, we should be able to improve communication to make it clear that the public action is not the end of the matter, whether that involves saying so in the public response or some other method--I'm very open to suggestions on what people think would be best.

To the best of my knowledge, suspensions work like this because that's the way phpBB normally handles them; if you've used forums that do it differently, that's most likely either because options were changed or a mod was installed.

Looking through the options on the back end, there doesn't appear to be an easy way to change how suspensions and bans work at this time. I can get Welder to look into what can be done, but I can't currently make any promises beyond that.


Perhaps that was not his intent. But regardless of intent, it was an easily foreseeable consequence, one Hakeem has specifically been warned about in the past. In cases such as that, exactly who struck first makes very little difference.

That would be an incorrect assumption; anyone who currently has or has ever had an account is a user, regardless of whether they are currently present or not.

They call it the "Metaboard" for a reason.

Somedays I wish I was a mod. It's threads like this that remind me that it's a bad job to have.

I would like to chime in and say I have also been unhappy with the response time in some of my past warnings (although this was well over a year and a half ago now). I know other people who have been as well. Something as simple as a pm "Heads up this thread made us look at your post history. Stay tuned for any impending consequences" would be a heck of a lot better, and it's not like you can't do that in 5-10 minutes while cleaning up some posts by those users anyways.