Hellbanning.

[blunthead]

...you walked right into your own butt?????...wowser!.....

Wow. Just too many possibilities here.

 

[Jordan]

If we were to use hellbanning/global ignore/Tachy Goes to Coventry, we couldn't very well tell you .

 

[skimom2]

I must insert a voice of conscience here.

It's so tempting to do that, and it just seems so just, to give the $h!t-stirrer, the annoying haranguer, his comeuppance.

But it's cruel. And if you want to take the high road, if you want to be better than the people you're resenting, it doesn't really call for cruelty. Just ban them outright. Make it clean, make it straightforward.

You don't go wrong by taking the high road. If someone is bannable, then just ban them.

I've never heard of hellbanning (but I don't go on many chat boards). In this case, I agree with you, Grandpa--better to be straightforward and ban them outright and upfront. Hellbanning sounds cowardly, and not much different from one who hides behind a screen name to say inflammatory or asinine things. If one can't ignore the troll, it's better to be honest than to hide behind a blanket ban to avoid confrontation, IMHO.

 

[Sundrop]

If you can read this.......

Spoiler

I've not been hellbanned.......yet

 

[Lily Sawyer]

I've never heard of hellbanning (but I don't go on many chat boards). In this case, I agree with you, Grandpa--better to be straightforward and ban them outright and upfront. Hellbanning sounds cowardly, and not much different from one who hides behind a screen name to say inflammatory or asinine things. If one can't ignore the troll, it's better to be honest than to hide behind a blanket ban to avoid confrontation, IMHO.

Most folks don't remember that moderators usually operate with a Three Strikes policy. When an abusive member harangues, harasses, or posts inflammatory messages, is warned three times about it, and continues the offensive behavior, then hellbanning is a very viable option, in my opinion. It's for community health reasons that I'm for hellbanning.

 

[skimom2]

Most folks don't remember that moderators usually operate with a Three Strikes policy. When an abusive member harangues, harasses, or posts inflammatory messages, is warned three times about it, and continues the offensive behavior, then hellbanning is a very viable option, in my opinion. It's for community health reasons that I'm for hellbanning.

Difference of opinion If the member is aware of the ban (they are notified 3 times that they've been abusive), isn't that a straight ban?

Eh. You crazy kids and your internut--I can't keep up (lol). I just ignore a$$holes and move on. Time's too precious to fight with people online--this is where I come to relax, for the pete of sakes

 

[Autumn Gust]

This is the only message board that I've been involved in and I think it has spoiled me. I'm sure I would be in for a rude awakening if I joined some others. Sounds like other sites don't display the same degree of courteous behavior and intelligent conversation.

 

[Ebdim9th]

.......

 

[Ebdim9th]

I just dot-banned myself....


lets try this again: oops didnt work...

 

[Lily Sawyer]

I just dot-banned myself....

Phil, you're a doll. You never have to dot-ban yourself, not ever.

 

[Ebdim9th]

oops, maybe now though, this 'hell' came out too big...

 

[Dana Jean]

I must insert a voice of conscience here.

It's so tempting to do that, and it just seems so just, to give the $h!t-stirrer, the annoying haranguer, his comeuppance.

But it's cruel. And if you want to take the high road, if you want to be better than the people you're resenting, it doesn't really call for cruelty. Just ban them outright. Make it clean, make it straightforward.

I did participate on a board that did hellbanning. And there was one guy there who, while the mods apparently considered him a troll, considered himself simply fiercely independent. He argued a lot, and yeah, he was annoying. He got the hellban. Apparently he posted and posted until he figured out what was wrong, then came back in another persona, said, "Well, I hope you've had your fun. I spent a lot of time and energy sending my thoughts to nowhere. That was meaner than I'd ever be. I thought I was with accepting people, but now I know better," and if it was simply manipulation, it worked on me, because I felt bad for him.

You don't go wrong by taking the high road. If someone is bannable, then just ban them.

I'm in this camp. It just seems mean. I say ban them if they need it.

I would save hellbanning for someone truly vile, not just irritating.

It is a horrible feeling to realize a board thinks you are a troll.

 

[VultureLvr45]

I must insert a voice of conscience here.

It's so tempting to do that, and it just seems so just, to give the $h!t-stirrer, the annoying haranguer, his comeuppance.

But it's cruel. And if you want to take the high road, if you want to be better than the people you're resenting, it doesn't really call for cruelty. Just ban them outright. Make it clean, make it straightforward.

I did participate on a board that did hellbanning. And there was one guy there who, while the mods apparently considered him a troll, considered himself simply fiercely independent. He argued a lot, and yeah, he was annoying. He got the hellban. Apparently he posted and posted until he figured out what was wrong, then came back in another persona, said, "Well, I hope you've had your fun. I spent a lot of time and energy sending my thoughts to nowhere. That was meaner than I'd ever be. I thought I was with accepting people, but now I know better," and if it was simply manipulation, it worked on me, because I felt bad for him.

You don't go wrong by taking the high road. If someone is bannable, then just ban them.

I agree with Pops. If someone puts a lot of time and effort into formulating passionate discussions then it isn't right to hellban them. However, if they are picking fights and are not rationally discussing the subject, the person should recieve a message requesting civil interaction and a week cool off period (read suspend account for) if they don't 'play nice'. If a person repeats a couple more times, he or she should receive a 30 day cool down. If after a several trials the 'troll' behavior continues, inform them up front they will be banned.

Hellbanning seems mean. Banning someone should only be based upon their behavior. If I harass others, I should expect to be banned.

 

[blunthead]

If you can read this.......

Spoiler

I've not been hellbanned.......yet

I haven't seen Sunny around here lately. Hmm.

I think hellbanning is too severe. A heckban would suffice.

 

[Lily Sawyer]

I'm in this camp. It just seems mean. I say ban them if they need it.

I would save hellbanning for someone truly vile, not just irritating.

It is a horrible feeling to realize a board thinks you are a troll.

I'm not backpeddling here: I'm for hellbanning ONLY if the person is truly vile. Maybe I didn't make that clear in my original post.

The thing is, the most effective way to stop an unwanted behavior in a child is to ignore it when they display that behavior. When the child learns that they won't get attention with their acting out, they'll cease it. Is it cruel to ignore them when they throw a temper tantrum? Most parents would probably say "no". It's the same thing with hellbanning, in that you're attempting to get certain behavior to stop. Yes, it sucks when you connect the dots and realize others think you're a troll, so maybe you'll think twice about being one if you're ever hellbanned.

 

[Kurben]

I'm not backpeddling here: I'm for hellbanning ONLY if the person is truly vile. Maybe I didn't make that clear in my original post.

The thing is, the most effective way to stop an unwanted behavior in a child is to ignore it when they display that behavior. When the child learns that they won't get attention with their acting out, they'll cease it. Is it cruel to ignore them when they throw a temper tantrum? Most parents would probably say "no". It's the same thing with hellbanning, in that you're attempting to get certain behavior to stop. Yes, it sucks when you connect the dots and realize others think you're a troll, so maybe you'll think twice about being one if you're ever hellbanned.

Only if someone is really vile? But what is that? What does you count as vile? is that the same as some other person would count as vile. I'm not saying i disagree with you but such an action must be based on something at least tentatively defined. Vile is such a loose word and can mean a lot of things. And isn't part of the goals with this site to discuss subjects that some people might consider vile? While others might consider them interesting. But, i say instantly, i don't know much about trolls except the thingies that pop up in fairytales watching goldtreasure or trying to cook nine dwarfs and a hobbit but im more of a bookworm than a computerworm.

 

[Ebdim9th]

Trolls find the thing (or things) to say that they know will offend the most people on a board across the board, so to speak, and they say it, often and in as many variations as they can come up with....

 

[Kurben]

Trolls find the thing (or things) to say that they know will offend the most people on a board across the board, so to speak, and they say it, often and in as many variations as they can come up with....

Why? Just to piss off people? Do the people who make the trolls get off on that?

 

[Sigmund]

If we were to use hellbanning/global ignore/Tachy Goes to Coventry, we couldn't very well tell you .

Thank you.

Can we just shut down this thread, please.

Peace.