Post Closed as "duplicate" by Cody Gray, Lucifer, hims056, Danubian Sailor, gnat of
2 took out mistaken info
source | link

It's striking to me that people can be banned from asking questions so seemingly trivially by an apparently dumb algorithm with no review, yet other, less important moderation functions need several actual humans to agree to the action. And when a user doesn't have enough reputation for other forms of participation, a question ban is a permanent, full ban.

I know that the Stack Exchanges are originally a programmers' site, and programmers think programming solutions are great, but I'd like to put forward that certain permanent moderation actions (such as banning users from participating) should be done by actual humans, especially since the post-ban algorithm is broken (as explained below).

A much more sensible solution is use some sort of pre-question ban queue.

  1. A user passes a threshold which bans them from posting for a week or what have you. They are put into a moderation queue.
  2. Other users have a week to vote / agree to make the ban permanent.
  3. After a week is past, the user is banned or not.

As for why I think the question ban algorithm sucks, it has blocked me from asking questions on SuperUser after only two questions--one with no votes, another question with a single downvote, and my answer to my own question with a single downvote on it (after noone answered it), and a deleted comment. Looking at other questions on post-bans, I have a hunch that the last is what put my question ban score critical, since it's weighted separately from reputation metrics. But by By any reasonable tally, I think that a user being banned after 43 posts with two single downvotes on them, and a deleted post, is outrageous.

It's striking to me that people can be banned from asking questions so seemingly trivially by an apparently dumb algorithm with no review, yet other, less important moderation functions need several actual humans to agree to the action. And when a user doesn't have enough reputation for other forms of participation, a question ban is a permanent, full ban.

I know that the Stack Exchanges are originally a programmers' site, and programmers think programming solutions are great, but I'd like to put forward that certain permanent moderation actions (such as banning users from participating) should be done by actual humans, especially since the post-ban algorithm is broken (as explained below).

A much more sensible solution is use some sort of pre-question ban queue.

  1. A user passes a threshold which bans them from posting for a week or what have you. They are put into a moderation queue.
  2. Other users have a week to vote / agree to make the ban permanent.
  3. After a week is past, the user is banned or not.

As for why I think the question ban algorithm sucks, it has blocked me from asking questions on SuperUser after only two questions--one with no votes, another question with a single downvote, my answer to my own question with a single downvote on it (after noone answered it), and a deleted comment. Looking at other questions on post-bans, I have a hunch that the last is what put my question ban score critical, since it's weighted separately from reputation metrics. But by any reasonable tally, I think that a user being banned after 4 posts with two downvotes on them, and a deleted post, is outrageous.

It's striking to me that people can be banned from asking questions so seemingly trivially by an apparently dumb algorithm with no review, yet other, less important moderation functions need several actual humans to agree to the action.

I know that the Stack Exchanges are originally a programmers' site, and programmers think programming solutions are great, but I'd like to put forward that certain permanent moderation actions (such as banning users from participating) should be done by actual humans, especially since the post-ban algorithm is broken (as explained below).

A much more sensible solution is use some sort of pre-question ban queue.

  1. A user passes a threshold which bans them from posting for a week or what have you. They are put into a moderation queue.
  2. Other users have a week to vote / agree to make the ban permanent.
  3. After a week is past, the user is banned or not.

As for why I think the question ban algorithm sucks, it has blocked me from asking questions on SuperUser after only two questions--one with no votes, another question with a single downvote, and my answer to my own question with a single downvote on it (after noone answered it). By any reasonable tally, I think that a user being banned after 3 posts with two single downvotes on them is outrageous.

1
source | link

Why is no moderation required before banning a user from asking questions? Poor question ban system

It's striking to me that people can be banned from asking questions so seemingly trivially by an apparently dumb algorithm with no review, yet other, less important moderation functions need several actual humans to agree to the action. And when a user doesn't have enough reputation for other forms of participation, a question ban is a permanent, full ban.

I know that the Stack Exchanges are originally a programmers' site, and programmers think programming solutions are great, but I'd like to put forward that certain permanent moderation actions (such as banning users from participating) should be done by actual humans, especially since the post-ban algorithm is broken (as explained below).

A much more sensible solution is use some sort of pre-question ban queue.

  1. A user passes a threshold which bans them from posting for a week or what have you. They are put into a moderation queue.
  2. Other users have a week to vote / agree to make the ban permanent.
  3. After a week is past, the user is banned or not.

As for why I think the question ban algorithm sucks, it has blocked me from asking questions on SuperUser after only two questions--one with no votes, another question with a single downvote, my answer to my own question with a single downvote on it (after noone answered it), and a deleted comment. Looking at other questions on post-bans, I have a hunch that the last is what put my question ban score critical, since it's weighted separately from reputation metrics. But by any reasonable tally, I think that a user being banned after 4 posts with two downvotes on them, and a deleted post, is outrageous.