A grace period before sigban takes effect

[alegotardo]

I do not know if anyone has already said about this.
But... what do you think about there being a grace period between the decision to restrict a signature and the date when that sigban  is actually applied?

Why? Well... just to give the accused enough time to try to defend themselves and so that you, @nutildah, are not seen as a "executioner" who eventually made a wrong decision that resulted in problems for the person, such as the loss of an income that was very important to them.

Honestly, I do not know how many times a sigban  has already been reversed by you.
Likewise, I am not trying say that a ban needs to remain suspended indefinitely until the community decides about them... I am just proposing a "grace period" of 7 days (perhaps) so that there is time to reverse something, if necessary, without there being consequences.

Obviously, this will require changes, such as a notification to the user and also a very noticeable "warning" displayed along the space reserved for the signature space during this period.

[Chibit01]

I do not know if anyone has already said about this.

That's a similar recommendation I don't know if you are aware of it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5591376.0

[_act_]

It is better you should not waste your time suggesting what will not be accepted by the admin. Theymos is slow to do things because he thinks about something very well before making any actions. Just know that what you are suggesting would have been thought about before the begining of Nutildah's sigban power. People should post in a good way and they will not be affected.

[alegotardo]

That's a similar recommendation I don't know if you are aware of it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5591376.0

I had closed the thread, but I requested a moderator to reopen it after realizing that subjects are actually different.

It is better you should not waste your time suggesting what will not be accepted by the admin. Theymos is slow to do things because he thinks about something very well before making any actions. Just know that what you are suggesting would have been thought about before the begining of Nutildah's sigban power. People should post in a good way and they will not be affected.

I disagree!
I know it is difficult to implement new things, but if its necessary to create a fairer environment, it needs to be reviewed.
Recently I saw a sigban removed from my colleague, who did not deserve the sigban. At the time, he was without a campaign, but this decision could have had more serious consequences.

I am not questioning the @nutildah’s job, but in a forum where we value fairness and decisions made by the community, do not you think it would be fair to give the person an opportunity to defend themselves before a punishment that is applied by a single person, who can make mistakes even without intending to?

[Rikafip]

Honestly, I do not know how many times a sigban  has already been reversed by you.

The signature ban has been reversed only twice so far, out of 200 members who have been signature banned, so it's not like this is a common thing that happens on a daily basis.

Since those two cases were resolved within a couple of days (2nd case in a matter of hours) rather than weeks, I don't think a grace period is really necessary.

[hd49728]

The signature ban has been reversed only twice so far, out of 200 members who have been signature banned, so it's not like this is a common thing that happens on a daily basis.

Actually there are at least three sig ban removed cases, two latest cases are

Sigban removed: N/A in topic #0 by member #983960
Sigban removed: N/A in topic #0 by member #842046

Pumared
aioc

The first case is arallmuus

[SuperBitMan]

A lot of suggestions have been given about this signature ban and its procedures, if you have been following all the threads opened about this signature ban and its procedures, you would have actually seen no point opening this thread, the reason why I’m saying so is because since this signature ban started till date no suggestion that was given by people has actually been implemented.

I think the reason why no suggestion has actually been implemented is because the management of the forum really want to give the new development of signature ban and the procedure they are following some time to see if it’s actually worth doing continuously.

As time goes on if it’s not worth continuing the process will be stopped, I trust the Admin on that.
Let’s give the whole process some time.

However I love your suggestion if it’s implemented it will actually help to make the whole signature ban process better and reliable.

[Rikafip]

Actually there are at least three sig ban removed cases, two latest cases are
aioc

Ah, I didn't know about that case, thnx.

I see that his ban has been removed yesterday while he was sig banned quite some time ago, on July 28th, so maybe he is one of those cases that nutildah talked about, where some might get their sig ban reduced if they show improvement.

[hd49728]

Ah, I didn't know about that case, thnx.

I see that his ban has been removed yesterday while he was sig banned quite some time ago, on July 28th, so maybe he is one of those cases that nutildah talked about, where some might get their sig ban reduced if they show improvement.

Missed more, and me did too.

There are 4 unbanned cases.
https://bitlist.co/analytics/sigbanned

The filter does not have Unbanned for now, and TryNinja will need to consider to add Unbanned to a filter.
I remember that Abiky was banned but yesterday saw his signature, need to find information with bitlist.co to confirm he was banned and unbanned recently.
Abiky

Abiky userid is not in the mod log page.

[Donneski]

Op is literally been considerable to affected persons. He's obviously trying to point us towards the direction of giving effected users a fair hearing opportunity and I think it's something that worths looking into.
However, when you look at the number of accounts that's been banned before now, you can see that over 90% couldn't get a reversal even after trying to defend themselves with the evidence they could provide, so it'll be unlikely for theymos to consider your suggestion.
Giving banned accounts a grace period that offers the opportunity to be heard before the final decision is made won't be a bad principle if you ask me but considering how rare we see banned accounts getting reversals, I'm not convinced that such process will achieve much of the primary reason you made this suggestion.

[arallmuus]

The filter does not have Unbanned for now, and TryNinja will need to consider to add Unbanned to a filter.

There is another way to get around it on bitlist from the modlog then select sig ban removed on 'type'

https://bitlist.co/modlog?type=sig_ban_removed

I remember that Abiky was banned but yesterday saw his signature, need to find information with bitlist.co to confirm he was banned and unbanned recently.

If you search his nickname on https://bitlist.co/analytics/sigbanned, it will also show that he was sigbanned then unbanned after roughly 1 month

[hd49728]

There is another way to get around it on bitlist from the modlog then select sig ban removed on 'type'

https://bitlist.co/modlog?type=sig_ban_removed

I remember that Abiky was banned but yesterday saw his signature, need to find information with bitlist.co to confirm he was banned and unbanned recently.

If you search his nickname on https://bitlist.co/analytics/sigbanned, it will also show that he was sigbanned then unbanned after roughly 1 month

I knew that but I saw there are given choices in the Filter and Unbanned is not one of choices. That's my suggestion to add "Unbanned" to the Filter, so it will be more convenient, and save more time without searching with a keyword.

When I search with a keyword "Unbanned", I got 8 results and it shocked me but checking more there are only 4 unbanned users. Results show 8 because each user has two Unbanned texts, one with a username, and another one with a chart at the right side.

[LTU_btc]

Not going to say something new, but IMO, such grace period isn't needed at all, it just wouldn't change anything. It's enough to see that from all these hundreds of users who got their sig banned, only several got ban reversed. So, is it really worth to implement such thing just for several cases?
Idea itself isn't bad, but maybe it would be worth to consider if % of revoked bans would be higher.

[joker_josue]

I would say that the idea of having a period for the user to defend himself, before the ban, made sense if the error rate was higher.

In 200 bans, we had 3 or 4 cases reversed. Calls for bans maybe double that.
We are talking about less than 5% of the bans were wrong.

So, as the reanalysis procedures are short, you may not need this extra time

[MarryWithBTC]

I would say that the idea of having a period for the user to defend himself, before the ban, made sense if the error rate was higher.

How about displaying post quality bar on profiles, accessible with third party tools. The bar progress will be configured with the nutildah's quality post checker. If the bar progress is green, the poster is very much safe. But if the bar start moving towards red, there's a problem. By this, every user can just check their status and know how to readjust.

[The Cryptovator]

I do not know if anyone has already said about this.
But... what do you think about there being a grace period between the decision to restrict a signature and the date when that sigban  is actually applied?

Doesn’t make sense. I know they are well aware of whom he has been giving signature ban power to. I believe too they will take the right decision. It doesn’t make sense to give them a grace period. During the ban by the forum administration, they don’t ask users or don’t give the grace period.

But users could appeal their ban on the meta. If they could prove themselves that they aren’t spammers, they could raise concern or write directly to the person who applied for the signature ban.

[Welsh]

I think if a user is right on the borderline of acceptable posts / sig ban worthy and they're otherwise a good quality user. I personal message could potentially be sent to give them a heads up that their posts are under review which if they don't improve it would result in a sig ban. But, I don't think this should be done for everyone, this should be for the very borderline cases.

I sometimes do this for those that are breaking the rules, but usually less severe rules and not frequently. If we can 'nip it in the bud' it might be an even better overall outcome to the forum in the long run. However, for clear rule breakers of more severe rules I've definitely taken the step towards handing out more significant punishments.

Anyway, back on topic to the grace period. I don't think an official one be handed out, and if we did do this to every user then every single one would post better for a while but would likely slip back to their old ways sooner rather than later. However, giving some users the heads up if they've contributed significantly in the past, I think could be beneficial, because those types of users are more likely to correct their posts permanently.

However, for 95-98% of cases, I think a short term sig ban is the perfect 'warning'.

[dkbit98]

OP did you really had to create new account, and create another topic about sigbans?  
I do agree that some modifications and improvements can be made to current sigban system, but I don't think giving grace period would be a good idea.
Fact is that members need to improve if they want to be a part of any signature campaigns, or write any way they want but without signature.

However, for 95-98% of cases, I think a short term sig ban is the perfect 'warning'.

I agree with this.
Question is how long actually should be this short term ban?

[alegotardo]

Okay, I read the all comments and opinion, so I will leave my response to everyone who took the time to share their opinion so far here....

First, although a sigban does not prevent the user from posting on the forum, it can cause not only financial loss, but also to loss your reputation, so a subjective decision made by a single person (again, I do not want to judge her work) should allow for a quick review BEFORE producing consequences that are difficult to revert.

In the other hand, I recognize that reversals is rare... but as I said before, I do not had idea how often this happened. The fact that the user could appeal within a mandatory timeframe would increase the workload of reanalysis within that same timeframe and allow the offender to temporarily improve their behavior improperly just to avoid the punishment.... I considered this argument to be quite strong.

I think it would then be possible to implement a middle ground: a sigban immediate to obvious cases of serious spam... use of AI, plagiarism and repeat offenses... its ok!!!
And maybe a private warning by PM for borderline cases and perhaps an additional review for long bans of users with a relevant history of good posts over a long period of time!?

I think really made a mistake by proposing a "universal" seven-day grace period, but I really ask you to see my motivation behind it: Even if it is only 2% or 5%, we are talking about a decision that can not only cause the loss of participation in a campaign, but sometimes the loss of the only income the person may have, with the impossibility of recovering the spot later, not to mention the reputation that is damaged.

Anyway... I know there is no defined regulation or procedure for how to act, but perhaps this would be a case for creating a possibility of prior defense for certain cases, we c anot always "hit first and then ask if he is guilty".

OP did you really had to create new account, and create another topic about sigbans?  

Even if your provocation is a joke, but I will answer you objectively:
This is my only account, I no have reason to hide anything or ask anything in secret, I have not even made another post about this subject.

[nutildah]

just to give the accused enough time to try to defend themselves and so that you, @nutildah, are not seen as a "executioner"

If you want to equate a temporary signature ban on an internet forum to execution, well I disagree, as they're not remotely related. My metaphor would be I'm a referee giving a "penalty timeout" where the sigbanned is forced to sit on the sideline of a game/match for a certain duration. Hardly the same as being ejected from the game altogether, much less "executed." I mean you can even still post while sidelined, so I'll have to come up with a more accurate metaphor.

such as the loss of an income that was very important to them.

For 95%+ of sigbans issued so far, the accounts were not treating their campaign position like the income was very important to them. They were writing largely unsubstantial blather that very few people (if anybody) was actually reading in the first place. This should not be a job.

And I do understand that still about half the forum thinks that it is... you don't have to look very far to see examples of this.

I'm telling you guys now: shitposting should no longer be considered a viable job here. Write posts that you're proud to look back at and re-read. Aspire to contribute positively to the forum rather than focusing on how much you can extract from it.

I think if a user is right on the borderline of acceptable posts / sig ban worthy and they're otherwise a good quality user. I personal message could potentially be sent to give them a heads up that their posts are under review which if they don't improve it would result in a sig ban. But, I don't think this should be done for everyone, this should be for the very borderline cases.

You'll be pleased to know I've already been doing this. I just don't think its a good thing to mention publicly; same thing with making a big deal about the ban reversals. I know this is all public information, but it would risk making some users unnecessarily uncomfortable to put an extra spotlight on it. At least that's how I see it. I'm sure the community would like to reserve the right to discuss misfires in the future, and that's understandable -- I'm just explaining the reasoning behind my process thus far.