-18

First, a little background:

There's been an issue with a specific chat user, recently. This user was unbanned from a ~3,200 year chat ban in a "final chance" scenario.

The conditions?

I am willing to give you a millionth-or-so chance. For the last time.
(source, emphasis mine)

It was made abundantly clear that that user was no longer welcome in the JavaScript chatroom.

Naturally, the user made a big mess of it, and managed to get kicked ~8 times after being unsuspended.


Now, this is where my question starts.

Yvette, banned the user for 417 days, instead of re-instating the previous basically permanent ban, with this message:

I re-banned you for 417 days (it was the max that particular box would allow me to ban using hours '99999' and I didn't want to waste my time). It' really disappointing that you kept going into the same room when you were repeatedly asked not to.
Let's see how you behave when you're another year older and can understand and respect when people do not want you in their chat room and with good reason. They were upset and needed more time, a lot more time to recover than you were willing to provide.
(source)

This wasn't the ban that was suggested. I'm also not a fan of the second paragraph suggesting that the user can get yet another chance.


What should've happened?

  • The user should just have had their previous ban re-instated. No more chances. No more temporary bans.

What do I expect out of this question?

  • A permanent chat ban for Tobiq. He's had his chances.

closed as off-topic by Cerbrus, Robert Longson, Benjamin Gruenbaum, HaveNoDisplayName, ivarni Aug 27 '18 at 8:26

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The problem described here can no longer be reproduced. Changes to the system or to the circumstances affecting the asker have rendered it obsolete. If you encounter a similar problem, please post a new question." – Cerbrus, Robert Longson, HaveNoDisplayName, ivarni
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 5
    To be honest, this feels like a waste of our time. It's been done. We're all better off keeping that user away from chat during these 99999 hours and only apply a second ban afterwards, if deemed necessary. This also sounds like an inflexible interpretation of "last chance", which could have been made as a warning rather than ground truth. – E_net4 Aug 27 '18 at 7:23
  • 3
    @E_net4: This used has had somewhere between 10-20 bans already. This time was his final final chance, that was made abundantly clear. I can promise you this user will mess up again, when their ban expires. He promised to have changed, this time, but ha hasn't changed even a little. It was exactly the same as the previous time. – Cerbrus Aug 27 '18 at 7:27
  • 1
    Basically, long term, a permanent ban now will save us all a lot of time / energy in the future. – Cerbrus Aug 27 '18 at 7:38
  • 14
    Cerbrus, I respect you and usually appreciate your contributions; and it happened more than once or twice that I wasn't in the same page as Yvette. Yet I can't help but feel that this is getting altogether too personal and unhealthy. – yivi Aug 27 '18 at 7:40
  • 1
    Since the user is now "perm"-banned again, I'm voting to close this as "can no longer be reproduced" – Cerbrus Aug 27 '18 at 7:52
  • 11
    I've removed the sections about Yvette. I see that I've been overzealous. I should get my breakfast before getting on SO chat / meta, in the future. – Cerbrus Aug 27 '18 at 8:16
  • 9
    For the record, Cerbrus and I have a history of "brawling on the site", however it should be noted we have also been online friends off the site and basically I respect and like Cerbrus. I think Cerbrus and I have needed to take this out of the public arena to resolve perceived conflicts and we are doing that in a private chat room. This will be less disruptive for the community and foster better community adhesion. There's no hard feelings from my perspective. We need to take care of our core users. – Yvette Colomb Aug 27 '18 at 10:18
29

I completely disagree with you on multiple fronts.

  1. This isn't a JS room issue. The user has been suspended from chat as a whole, not just from the JS room.
  2. Kicks generate flags, flags get moderator attention, that's what they're there for.
  3. The 3000 year suspension takes extra effort to produce (i.e. removing the DOM maxlength limitation on the input, and knowing the number of 9s it takes)
  4. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a moderator stepping in, suspending for a short (short being relative) time until another moderator with more context can properly assess the situation, which is exactly what happens here.

There was nothing unprofessional or unbecoming of Yvette's behavior. She did exactly as expected of her, suspended the user immediately to get him out of everyone's hair, and pinged another moderator (me) who had more context.

Also, honestly, you're a positive and constructive member of this community, but your particular personal vendetta against Yvette needs to stop.

  • 2
    The misconduct is in how she communicates with me. She can't stay professional around me. I can understand that I push her buttons at times, but how she responds to that is unprofessional. – Cerbrus Aug 27 '18 at 7:41
  • 2
    Furthermore, if only she mentioned somewhere that she pinged a moderator with more context... If only she waited to update her meta answer with the "see you in 417 days" message, until said moderator responded... – Cerbrus Aug 27 '18 at 7:44
  • 26
    1. She doesn't owe you explanations, this is a moderation issue involving the suspension of another user who is not you. 2. Assume we talk behind you mortals' backs all the time (we do). 3. Again, there's nothing I see that's unprofessional or unbecoming with her behavior towards you. – Madara Uchiha Aug 27 '18 at 7:45
  • No, mods don't "owe" anybody explanations or details. But transparency is a feature, not a bug of this system. People who don't have access to the TL or mod messages appreciate knowing what's going on. If there's an opportunity to give more context, it should be taken. Monkey with a gun in there hand. – Will Aug 27 '18 at 17:04
  • 6
    @Will While that is definitely true, it's fairly normal for moderators to not discuss details of users' suspensions with other users. It's even in the mod agreement. I don't agree that giving out more context in this particular case would have helped, it's not a matter of transparency as it as a matter of Cerbrus jumping to conclusions (and later admitting to do so and apologizing). – Madara Uchiha Aug 27 '18 at 18:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/373196/chat-user-getting-yet-another-chance-after-final-chance?noredirect=1
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-30
117194
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2X66OB6C6KTHUH472RG5ZSJNHZHACWIE
<urn:uuid:5dff6d6c-5b09-4c89-914b-92ba8ed68718>
2019-07-19T14:15:52Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:ZFTBDK6AYWVBRWNHUXH7DKVJ2SSV35GK
<urn:uuid:0e37156a-56e5-475d-b9e6-351692ffd76b>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/373196/chat-user-getting-yet-another-chance-after-final-chance?noredirect=1
response
<urn:uuid:904fb1a7-6609-4ec2-b60d-1a2ed0a1c642>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-30
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-95-236-185.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/