Threadbanning

[Cletus]

I think it is a terrible feature. The forum has rules of conduct posted. The same rules should apply in every thread.

The idea that a thread starter can ban someone from participating in a discussion at will is counterproductive. I would like to see it done away with.

[Chris]

I think it is a terrible feature. The forum has rules of conduct posted. The same rules should apply in every thread.

The idea that a thread starter can ban someone from participating in a discussion at will is counterproductive. I would like to see it done away with.

The forum has rules of conduct posted. The same rules should apply in every thread.

That was the original meaning.

The idea that a thread starter can ban someone from participating in a discussion at will is counterproductive.

That's what it's become.

It can be abused and the tPF designation removed. Criteria unknown.

I would like to see it done away with.

Same here. So I stopped using it.


At least rewrite the rule and do away with "violations of any of the above listed forum rules, and only for those reasons." But without reference to rules, as originally written, there's no point.

[Standing Wolf]

For an OP author to threadban another member, they should have to prove that a forum rule was violated. We have all seen recent instances of members being threadbanned for simply disagreeing with the OP author, and we have seen members threadbanned, ostensibly for "off topic posting", for simply mentioning a related but technically off-topic matter in passing. As it stands right now, if you start a tPF thread and you want someone shut out of it, you can do that pretty much at your pleasure. It shouldn't be that way.

[Chris]

Let me add that another reason for adding the tPF rule was for quick mod action.

Mods work as a team. Enough mods need to agree to take action before it happens. That can take time. Enough time for someone to wreck a thread.

With the tPF rule, the OP decides a rule was violated (as originally written), notifies the mods, and the first mod to see it TBs the offender. Problem solved.

These days the mods act a lot quicker, often on their own, with team review later. You don't see, like you used to, a warning/TB come in a day or so after the offense.

I think if we see more of that, then a main reason for creating the tPF rule goes away.

[FindersKeepers]

I understand the concept of trying to implement a rule that allows the OP of a thread to keep posts on topic. So many good threads go south when a handful of predictable posters start whining and trolling.

The problem is that the current rule leaves a lot of room for abuse by the OP, and we're seeing a number of tPf threads started as bait to draw certain posters in -- and then have them banned.

[Chris]

For an OP author to threadban another member, they should have to prove that a forum rule was violated. We have all seen recent instances of members being threadbanned for simply disagreeing with the OP author, and we have seen members threadbanned, ostensibly for "off topic posting", for simply mentioning a related but technically off-topic matter in passing. As it stands right now, if you start a tPF thread and you want someone shut out of it, you can do that pretty much at your pleasure. It shouldn't be that way.

Agree. Well, not with "prove" but at least cite the rule violated, maybe argue it if it's not obvious.


As for going off-topic, well, that's mentioned in 4 or 5 rules as a rule violation, even mentioned in the tPF-rule. So not a good example. "for simply disagreeing with the OP" would be a good example of abuse of the rule--as originally written but no longer applied.

[Perianne]

If someone thread banned me from their thread, I would never visit anything that person started again. It doesn't seem like a good way to make friends or promote activity.

Thanks to everyone. Again, I am not complaining against the rules; they are what they are and I accept them.

The reason I said I would not visit anyone's thread who banned me is that I don't troll or harass anyone. Perhaps I get off-subject sometimes, but not to derail a thread. A slight nudge back into line would be all I would need.

[Standing Wolf]

Thanks to everyone. Again, I am not complaining against the rules; they are what they are and I accept them.

The reason I said I would not visit anyone's thread who banned me is that I don't troll or harass anyone. Perhaps I get off-subject sometimes, but not to derail a thread. A slight nudge back into line would be all I would need.

In most of the instances that I've noted where someone was threadbanned - or possibly Warned by a Mod in a non-tPF thread - for "off topic posting", the OP author (or the Mod) was being unreasonably picayune in their application of the rule. Example: the author starts a thread called, say, "Obama Threatened Americans' Liberties" and then goes on to describe some action or policy that allegedly did that. Another member responds at some point in the thread by citing a similar or equivalent act by Trump, and is promptly threadbanned. Some members appear to only want posters in their thread who agree with their premise and who do not question or contradict it.

[Chris]

Thanks to everyone. Again, I am not complaining against the rules; they are what they are and I accept them.

The reason I said I would not visit anyone's thread who banned me is that I don't troll or harass anyone. Perhaps I get off-subject sometimes, but not to derail a thread. A slight nudge back into line would be all I would need.

It's good for the forum to talk about the rules. Hopefully, the mod team will pay heed.

[jet57]

The case on point