Understanding Suspension Reasons

Question

A recent kerfuffle has made it clear that perhaps there is not enough clarity on why users are being boxed.

I know that the guideline is "Don't Be A Jerk" but that still doesn't help because there are so many different... jerk-thresholds.

Would it be possible for all the moderators, Jeff, and Joel to create a list of all the reasons that have caused users to be suspended so far?

It should be non-specific enough that it does not relate to specific incidents, and it can also serve as a rough guideline of possible actions which may also be disallowed.

Some things I believe have occurred in the past.

• Creating a spam user
• Sock-puppet user
• Repeated abusive/offensive comments
• Linking to hacking/warez/illegal websites
• Abusing editing privileges
• Conspicuous tag abuse

I have no certainty that any of these have actually occurred. But it seems to me that there should be a more official guideline somewhere on the site.

---

This would not be a full and complete ruleset. This is simply past reasons for suspension. The moderators would still have full discretion to suspend anyone for whatever reason. The only thing this would help is when a user does something which is already on the list. Then the moderator can point out the link to the FAQ that has the reason. I do think that there should be a final note.

Moderators are allowed to suspend any user for any of the aforementioned reasons as well as any new abusive behaviour which may come up

I'm not trying to take that away from them.

Answer 1

Last night Rich B/Geoffrey Chetwood got suspended for a whole year. Extreme, don't you think? While some will surely not miss him, due to his confrontational nature, I'm a bit puzzled, but mostly worried about what happened.

Looking over his recent activity, I see no reason for such a suspension. Sure, people probably flagged him for simply being Rich B and answering back, but most of his comments and answers were tamer, more civil than his usual self. So why was he suspended? Shouldn't moderators see that some of those flags are unwarranted? I believe the system failed by suspending him without any explanations. What if you or I are next? It could happen; I'm sometimes more caustic than usual in the comments, some people don't like me and it's not that hard to get comments flagged.

The current suspension system is a black box. Input goes in, suspensions come out. What happens in between is a total mystery. This is in stark contrast to what you read when you first join the community. Here's what the Stack Overflow FAQ states:

Remember, Stack Overflow is run by you!

And the Super User FAQ:

Remember, Super User is run by you!

And the Server Fault FAQ:

Remember, Server Fault is run by you!

And the Meta FAQ, which is probably the most telling one:

At the high end of this reputation spectrum there is little difference between users with high reputation and moderators. That is very much intentional. We don't run Meta Stack Overflow. The community does.

To me, these were not just empty words, I actually believed in them. Now I don't. This is sort of a final nail in the coffin; I know I'm powerless. If Jeff wants a user off the site, no one can do anything about it, no matter how much "power" the community has.

I have one request. Make this suspension system just a little bit more open. Allow moderators to join in, have a vote. Let no one have complete control over what is probably the greatest power in the community. This would ensure that such decisions are not perceived as spiteful/vengeful/rash. Also, give clear reasons as to why a person has been suspended. There's no need to go into all the gory details, but a short sentence can sometimes be enough. Needless speculation is not what we want, neither is finger-pointing.

Answer 2

I disagree with the idea of having a required posting of reasons for boxing.

I've managed a handful of reasonably sized online communities (nothing near the scale of SO of course), and in my experience, the more specific you try to get with the rule set the more the mods will have to:

• deal with people who like to get as close to the edge as possible
• deal with defining and interpreting the rule set
• deal with people claiming hypocrisy
• spend time explaining themselves
• allow malicious / disruptive users who are "technically" within the rules
• spend time on complaints of unfair treatment
• vindicate certain users who WANT the public attention of being banned/boxed
• think of new rules to address people who slip through the cracks
• deal with debates about why a certain rule is unfair in some scenario

Ultimately, no rule set is perfect, and it always comes down to judgement calls.

Be upfront about the fact that it's a judgement-based case-by-case decision.

Adding a list of reasons is just fuel for the disruptive fire of complaints and gives "jerks" a target that they can try to exploit/skirt.

Of course, the mods can choose to explain themselves as they please, and it's always good for the mods to be responsive to peoples questions/complaints.

However, I honestly think that creating a very formal rule set and process for boxing only increases the problems that surround it.

Answer 3

I don't like it. There are too many ways to abuse a system as complex as SO to list all of them.

The current approach to penalty-boxed users is subtle. I like that aspect. You don't get a "wall of shame" listing users in the penalty box, opening them up for mockery and abuse. Not that I haven't encountered instances where a past suspension is thrown out as an ad hominem attack in subsequent arguments, mind you... But you have to really dedicate yourself to holding a grudge for that - there's no visible black mark once the suspension is over.

Then you visit the profile of a suspended user, and things get creepy. You get a detailed history of questions and answers, a page listing recent activity including edits and comments, and likely as not nothing to connect the two.

Maybe you'll find a history of abusive comments, pointless edits, useless answers, and lazy questions... But chances are, whatever actually triggered the suspension has either been deleted or obscured. A suspended account filled with a history of good answers, helpful edits, and insightful comments sends a chill down my spine.

IMHO, moderators should attach a public comment to the account of anyone put in The Box. Doesn't need to be detailed; most of the suggested reasons posted here so far aren't detailed. Just let me know that there's some valid reason for what I'm observing.

Answer 4

Expanding this to a full answer from my comment.

The general agreement (at least as a moderator) on "being a jerk" is how many flags your content generates on a daily basis.

Everyone gets the occasional now and then flag, which is normal; people interpret things differently. No worries.

But if you're getting consistently flagged multiple times every day like clockwork -- the odds of you being a jerk, as judged and determined by the community, are high.

At this point you're causing discord in the community and occupying moderator time that could be used for more constructive tasks. This is when the cycle of email warnings, followed by possible suspensions, tends to kick in -- which is documented here.

Answer 5

Some people want hard examples...others point out that highly qualified rules will be abused. So why don't we get the best of both worlds? The rule being "Don't be a jerk...and here are some examples of things that would qualify as having excessive jerkitude."

Answer 6

I don't totally object to the idea of making a list of reasons people have been boxed in the past. After all, this could be useful as a list of things you definitely should not do. However, it should not be considered in any way a complete list of things you shouldn't do.

Some of you are very creative and I know that you will always come up with new ways of testing out how the system works. We're programmers, that's pretty much a job requirement. When that happens, the rules have to be able to bend and change too, so I don't think it's possible to ever have a complete list of all the rules you could break. I can say that most (unfortunately not all) of the time that someone has been boxed in the past, it was only after repeated warnings.

Answer 7

If they provide a list of behaviors that are considered "being a jerk", then people will just start looking for loopholes. Then once Jeff comes up and says "I've gotta box you cause you're being a jerk", they'll say "but it's not on the list of jerky behaviors!" (because that's the kind of thing a jerk would say).

I think "don't be a jerk" is intentionally vague to allow them to make judgement calls, and most reasonable people can generally tell when someone is being a jerk, and most people know when they are being a jerk.

Answer 8

• Use of profanity outside of the realm of S[O|F|U]
• Use of expletives in comments
• Harassing users who answer your questions
• Assuming a pro-waffle stance