Top causes for banning

So the staff has been discussing this issue and we've decided it makes sense to have some discussion about it, in the hopes of helping people to understand our rules and a little of what's behind them.

First, we will not be discussing any individual action, or the status of any individual that has been banned in the past. We don't discuss, nor permit discussion of, specific staff actions.

That said, I'll do my best to answer some of the questions posed, and if people have more questions, the staff team will do its best to respond in this thread.

We don't track percentages, but I would hazard a guess that of the bans we issue at EC, about 95% to 98% fit into category 2. People very rarely request bans. I won't say never, as it has happened, but it's rare.

Bans for posting objectionable content
So first off, we've never made any secret of the fact that EC is a very heavily moderated community. One of the main values reflected in the Code of Conduct is that this is intended to be a community where people feel safe and respected. And the staff, admins and board take that very seriously.

As a result, we edit and remove posts pretty frequently. This includes posts that are rude, offensive, unhelpful, argumentative, and especially ones that are attacking, particularly around topics of religion and politics (the bane of existence of every message board moderator throughout the internet.)

Generally speaking, when we remove a post, we PM the poster to let him or her know that the post has been removed, and why we felt it inappropriate. In most cases, that PM is also a chance to educate the member on appropriate posting and encourage improved behavior. This happens every day.

If a member doesn't get the message after such warnings, then eventually, the member receives a ban, usually a temporary one, to give him or her a chance to cool off and think about the actions that led to the ban. These bans happen occasionally.

If this happens more than a couple of times, and there's no sign of improvement, or if the member simply isn't interested in following the community rules, then the staff may, eventually, permanently, or for an extended period (6 months or more), ban the member. This is (fortunately) pretty rare.

Bans for off-site contact
This is by far the most common reason for bans. We are extremely strict on this policy, as it is a big part of what keeps the community safe, and what makes the community what it is.

Off-site contact can happen in many different ways, from the intentional (posting one's email address, Skype name, Facebook name, full name, etc on someone's wall) to the unintentional (posting to a Youtube video you've made, a blog entry you've written, a picture you've posted on Flickr, Instagram and the like). Here, we try to look at intent. Someone who intentionally posts contact info, or who intentionally tries to hide or otherwise obfuscate the fact they're sharing contact information (you wouldn't believe some of the clever ways people have tried) get banned for longer periods of time, lose their full-member privileges if they have them, and usually have restrictions when they return.

It's also worth noting that failing to report someone's attempt to share off-site contact information with you is, in our eyes, as serious an infraction as sharing it yourself. So if someone posts, or offers or otherwise attempts to post contact info, or ask for yours, that should be immediately reported to the staff, otherwise, in some cases both the person providing the contact info and the person receiving it, but not reporting, will be temporarily banned.

Security-related bans
As might be expected in a community of vulnerable teens, people occasionally join EC for the wrong reason: looking for hookups, older guys seeking to take advantage of teens, that sort of thing. We have zero tolerance for this sort of behavior, and these people are pretty much immediately and permanently banned. Additionally, if there's any indication of attempted illegal behavior (trying to hook up with an underaged teen, for example) we can and do report to law enforcement in the local city where the poster lives, and cooperate with investigations. Fortunately, this is rare, but there have been, in the past 10 years, a handful of individuals that have been prosecuted as a result of inappropriate behavior with underage teens.

Likewise, when we detect someone impersonating someone else, or misrepresenting age, that is usually justification for a ban. Whether temporary or permanent depends on the nature of the deception.

We have in some cases banned individuals who were found to be making up stories. In some cases, these are permanent, and in other cases, where the member "comes clean" to the community, the bans can be temporary.

Duplicate accounts will usually result in a ban. Duplicate accounts made in an attempt to evade a ban will get both accounts banned, and will automatically extend the ban period by up to several months.

Bans for other reasons
There are other, less common reasons why someone will get banned. Our Code of Conduct is pretty clear, and we look at intent as well as the letter of the behavior. The most common reason for these is someone who isn't really here for support, is repeatedly or continually disruptive to the community, and/or who doesn't respond to repeated warnings, but there are occasionally other reasons, such as the occasional religious zealot here to tell us we're all going to Hell.


What generally will NOT get you banned
So if we're telling you what will get you banned, it might be nice to also share some
things that (except when combined with other behaviors) generally will not get you banned:

-- Disagreeing with a staff member in the forums
-- Having a spirited discussion or voicing an unpopular opinion, *if* done respectfully
-- A single offensive, disrespectful, or inappropriate post (not including offsite contact)
-- Respectfully debating a topic

And finally, there are misconceptions about how we make these decisions, and people sometimes assume that we operate in the same way as most other online communities. We don't.

In most other online communities any given moderator can, alone, make the decision to ban a member or remove a post or thread. Here, that isn't the case. In particular, except for off-site contact, which is an automatic ban, all adverse actions against a member are first brought to the staff and discussed before action is taken. In some cases, if a member is being particularly disruptive, we may preemptively ban or restrict privileges while the issue is being discussed.

And the same goes for posts and threads. Sometimes, a thread (such as this one) will be removed while the staff discusses the issue, and later restored if the team as a whole decides that's what's best.

And finally, everything is subject to interpretation, and some decisions are judgment calls. On the whole, our staff actions are done for one of two reasons: to maintain our security policy, or to keep community members feeling safe and respected.

We try to be pretty clear about the reasons we make the decisions we do. Except in rare cases, we don't discuss individual actions out of respect for privacy, but we are pretty open about the general guiding policy.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional clarification, feel free to post and we'll do our best to answer.

 

Why do posts discussing staff sanctions against other members get removed?

I thought I'd just quickly follow up on Chip's post to address the OP's question about why the staff remove posts discussing another member's ban. They're correct to point out that the staff will remove posts like "What? Why did [Such and Such] get banned?!".

This is actually in accordance with the Code of Conduct, which says:

Why do we have this rule? Well, it boils down to the fact that Empty Closets takes it's members privacy extremely seriously. Having an open discussion and debate about another member's sanction on the public forum simply wouldn't be fair on the member who is sanctioned.

We respect the right to privacy for all of our community members. It would be inappropriate for a staff member to reveal and have everyone discuss another member's mistakes, or decide whether they deserve a more severe or lenient 'punishment'. As Chip pointed out - we have clear guidelines when it comes to banning, as well as the length of each ban. This is so that no-one receives different treatment based on their popularity, for example.

We understand it can be frustrating, and sometimes upsetting, to see a friend disappear from the forum. However, these policies are in place in order to make sure that all our members are treated with respect.

 

The Code of Conduct is pretty clear. We could sum it up in a single golden rule: Use the community for the purpose it was created, and be friendly (or at least cordial) to other people.

If you are rude/aggressive, then i think it is pretty clear that you are going to get banned if you don't stop that behavior.

If you post your Facebook/other outside link, then you aren't using the community for the purpose it was created for (we are a support community, that values privacy). That could also be easily avoided by reading the Code of Conduct.

Even if someone didn't read the entire Code (they should read), reading the parts in bold and using common sense is enough to avoid a ban. If you aren't sure if something can be posted, then we have a special forum for questions: Ask The Staff. If you have doubts about the CoC, just ask!

I understand that, nowadays, reading isn't a common thing. But i don't think the Code could be clearer than it is. And most of the things there are just common sense.

Of course, mistakes happen occasionaly, and that's why we aren't hunting everyone down like: "That member just said that someone is stupid! That's offensive, BAN HIM!". In most cases, we send a warning, and normally that's enough.

But, if, even after reading the Code, even after being warned, the behavior continues, then a ban is, unfortunatelly, necessary. Instantaneous bans aren't that common (within reason of course. There are some cases that are severe enough to justify a ban without a warning).

In resume: bans are not the most common reaction to infractions, they're just the most visible. PMs are private by nature. If someone breaks a rule and we send them a message about it, no one else can see that. If someone breaks a rule and gets banned, it's noticeable to the forum at large. That's why there may be a false impression that most infractions are met with a ban, but that's not true.

We will notice that the member hasn't logged in some time, don't worry about it.

There is no need to fear the rules if you have read them.

 

Remember that very rarely does someone get banned for objectionable posts unless it's really heinous or it I s a repeat offender. So yes, people make mistakes, but when they do, we explain the rules and the majority of people 'get it'.

Additionally, if people actually read the CoC, which they have represented they have done in order to join, the expectations are pretty clear.

Keep in mind that we get some 50 new members a day,(around 250-300/wk) and yet we see maybe a maximum of 1 or 2 bans in a week's time. Even if all the bans were new members (not even close), that would be somewhere around 1 in 150 who get banned. Less than 1%, hardly a 'huge gap of misunderstanding'.

The ugly yellow banner at the top of the of the forum also makes it really, really clear that offsite contact isn't ok. So again, if people read... There are few misunderstandings about offsite contact, the biggest reason for bans.

Well, it's pretty simple to ask if you are unsure. The Ask the Staff forum is pretty active with questions people ask to clarify, as is the Help and Feedback forum. Lack of understanding, when answers are readily available, is a pretty crappy excuse.

That simply isn't true. The staff looks at length of membership, intent, severity of infraction, and other favors in making decisions about bans. We don't give much leeway on offsite contact because it is really, really clear that it isn't OK (ugly yellow banner, and repeated mentions all over the site, in the registration process, and other places.) But even there, we do look at each situation individually.

There's no secrecy about the reasons we issue bans. We talk about it in detail in this thread and elsewhere. The only thing we don't do, for member privacy as well as to avoid protracted discussions and arguments about policy, is discuss specific actions against individual members.

 

Unfortunately, it wouldn't work that way, primarily for two reasons.

Firstly, when you have a duty of care to a vulnerable sub-populace, there are legal standards that you are required to meet in order to operate within the remit of effective safeguarding practice. As a result, it would not be adequate to have a procedure that relies on age to determine access permissions, without having a rigorous and verifiable system to determine the validity of their stated age. To put into a real-world sense: it would be the equivalent of going into a store to purchase alcohol or cigarettes, and the ID verification process being nothing more than the shop assistant asking how old you are. If I was 16 but told them I was 18 (or 21 for USA purposes) then we know it wouldn't meet the required standard of scrutiny just to take my word for it. ID would be needed. A similar principle works here, as anybody can lie about their age, therefore a policy which uses age as a variable for access wouldn't solve the issue, without having some form of tangible verification to support a user's identity. It's made more tricky to do due to being online, but it wouldn't be an acceptable liability defence to say we took the easy option due to the more secure way being harder and more time-consuming to do in a virtual setting. They'd wipe the floor with us.

Secondly, and this is where it gets more complicated, the age of 18+ isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all of risk management. As a non-profit dealing with potentially vulnerable users, this could easily overlap into adult safeguarding, thus further rendering age-specific criterion as inefficient for managing EC's overall security. There are adult users of EC who would fall into a vulnerable group due to varying reasons, most commonly due to learning disabilities or mental health concerns. In those instances, our duty of care to them is as rigorous as our duty of care to those below 18, hence why our safeguarding procedures (e.g. mandatory reporting) rely on an all-encompassing approach to protecting users. Controversially, previous incidences on EC have shown that some vulnerable adults come with horrendous communication boundaries, and have thus interacted and behaved inappropriately in the presence of minors. These are people who don't fit the 'mould' of the stereotypical groomer, but who have still engaged in illegal activities of that nature whilst dealing with their own isolation and loneliness. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that comes close to excusing their behaviour, but it was a factor. Due to this, we can't really just have an auto-promotion for anybody aged 18+, as it doesn't take into account the duty of care we potentially have for them. Admittedly there is a bit more leeway when over the age of 18, but it's still a bit of a minefield to navigate because we just don't know who is coming to us with what issues and circumstances.

 

Perhaps I should have said this at the beginning o the thread, but I'll add it now to what Martin has said above:

The policies we have in place have been part of EC's policy since 2008. They were very, very carefully thought out at that point, and were part of our risk management strategy, developed by an attorney retained to consult on that issue.

It is highly unlikely there will be any change in our security policy within the foreseeable future.

Is it an inconvenience? Yes, but unfortunately, given the prevalence of online predators and various other people whose intentions are less than honorable, it is the only way we've found (of many we've looked at) to keep the community safe, and we really see no need to consider changing it. That's one thing that both the board and the admin team are really solid on.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that EC's board and staff are concerned not just with what covers our ass from a liability perspective, but what we can do to make the community the best and safest it can be. If we operated from a perspective of "This is enough to cover our ass", it would be a very, very different community.