Why we don't keep public records of suspensions

Question

Whenever the topic of a suspended user crops up, there's often confusion about what information moderators ought to share and what they should keep private. Sometimes moderators are just as unsure as other users. This can cause all sorts of unnecessary problems.

The immediate effect of a suspension is removal. If a user has been rude or destructive, the community needs that behavior to stop and removing the instigator suffices. However, the long term goal is rehabilitation:

At the end of this timed suspension period, your reputation will be recalculated, and your account will resume as normal. We don't hold grudges. The point of all this is to address the behavior. If the behavior improves, you are welcome back.

I volunteer at the county jail on Saturday mornings. In the jurisdiction I live in, trials are generally open to the public, there are detailed records of the proceedings and, critically, it's easy to find out if a prospective employee has a criminal past. When I talk to inmates, they worry about their family on the outside and whether they will find a way to support them upon release. Although it is illegal to discriminate against people with criminal convictions, getting a job after serving time isn't easy. Some employers, particularly requiring licenses, are prohibited from hiring ex-felons.

In California, ~65% of former prisoners return to prison. That's pretty appalling but not surprising since rehabilitation is not a politically safe goal. On Stack Overflow, ~10% of previously suspended users have received a second suspension. Other sites have similarly low recidivism rates. Some of those users have, perhaps, moved on to other parts of the internet, but many have gone on to be productive members of the network. The evidence suggests we are doing something right when it comes to rehabilitation. I think one factor is that we don't have public listings of previous suspensions.

What can moderators share publicly?

During a suspension, anyone can see that a user has been suspended and broadly why. There's not a lot of benefit for a moderator to do more than point inquisitive users to that part of a suspended user's profile. Since suspended users are unable to tell their side of the story on meta or chat, the less said the better. Hard to think of a better way to turn a user bitter than to humiliate them when they are helpless.

Sometimes, however, the questions about a suspension are . . . pointed. Secretive systems of justice don't tend to be very fair. Since users on the site clean up after bad behavior, it's not very easy for people to even see what the suspended user was doing. It comes down to trusting either the word of a moderator (with inscrutable power) or a fellow user. In these cases, my guiding principles for moderators and CMs are:

• Be honest. That might mean telling truths that aren't very flattering of yourself or other people. It might mean highlighting the mistakes of a moderator or community manager. It might mean summarizing information that's not publicly available. It might mean publishing moderator messages and responses. It does not mean publishing potentially personally-identifying information, which is never allowed under the moderator agreement. But honesty must always be balanced with:

• Be respectful. I'd say be nice, but that might be misunderstood. Correct misinformation, but don't go out of your way to make people look bad. Focus on the evidence of what happened and avoid assigning motives. Assume good faith and take the time needed to remain civil. Believe it or not, people sometimes respond positively (and rarely negatively) to this sort of generosity of spirit.

In other words, the purpose of secrecy isn't to hide from public scrutiny, but to protect users and the site from needless gossip and drama. If you already have that (and especially if the suspended user instigated it) there's no real reason to keep mum. Better to have informed turmoil than misinformed. Meanwhile, don't stoke the fire by bringing out salacious details that could be left quiet. Nobody said the job of a moderator is easy.

Checks and balances

Of course, we don't always do the best job of letting users know what goes into a suspension. If you've been a model citizen, it might look like a moderator is acting out of spite when they suspend a user you respect. From the outside, it can seem sudden and capricious. And with 610 (and counting) moderators, it's likely some of them are unaware of parts of the process:

1. The system encourages moderators to warn users before suspending them. Warnings carry no penalties and there is no public record of them. Users have the opportunity to respond to the warning with an explanation of their side of the story. Many users who get warnings are never suspended (87% on Stack Overflow), so this step goes a long way toward preventing suspensions in the first place.

2. Every message and every suspension is sent to other site moderators and the community team for review. On occasion, we've stepped in to reverse suspensions. Usually the problem is a simple misunderstanding or poor guidance from the system. The community team also has the power to remove a moderator in cases of abuse of power. (This action, thankfully, is very rare.)

3. The system encourages moderators to follow an escalating scale of suspensions: 7 days, 30 days and a year. Volunteer moderators are not able to suspend longer than a year. Again, the goal is rehabilitation. Believe it or not, many people have come back from a year-long-suspension to resume their productive participation on the site.

I've investigated many, many complaints about moderator abuse, including complaints of unfair suspensions. Overwhelmingly, it's clear our moderators are very careful about suspending users. Obviously, you'll need to take my word for that. But you can see the results of wise moderation when using Stack Exchange sites. The network tends to be free of rudeness and chaos as compared to other, similar networks. A good deal of the credit belongs to the cadre of volunteer moderators who have the power to suspend users.

_{Parts of this post were copied from my answer on Meta Physics.}

Answer 1

Your paragraph on "be honest" represents quite a departure from the way this was handled in the past by moderators. In most cases, the answer to suspensions has always been "no comment", regardless of the amount of drama a suspension caused.

My impression was that most moderators interpreted something into the guidelines from SE on this subject. Making suspensions low-profile and avoiding shaming users in public is a good idea, but this got turned into an almost absolute ban on any comments about the details of a suspension at some point.

But there is a part in your post I consider rather problematic, at least if I'm interpreting this right. There were two cases where I previously would have considered it acceptable to post the full details of a suspension:

• the suspended user explicitly gives permission, e.g. to let the community challenge the suspension publicly
• the user lies about the facts of the suspension

In both these cases the suspended user is initiating the situation. But there are also cases where the community is complaining about a suspension, but the suspended user isn't participating in this at all. I wouldn't feel comfortable releasing any more details about the suspension in this case, but the way I read your post I would be justified in doing so.

Am I understanding this right, that we could release the full details of a suspension simply because the community (but not the suspended user) is creating a huge amount of drama over the suspension? If yes, is that really a good idea, or should we require either consent of the suspended user or at least some involvement in the public complaints about the suspension?

Answer 2

Dukeling raises an interesting question:

So is that 10% of suspensions in general or 10% of users who actively continued using their accounts post-suspension?

It's approximately 10% of users whose suspensions ended who were later suspended. Defining "actively continued using their accounts" is a bit fuzzy, so I'll present some additional numbers...

Of the 9444 suspensions that have ended on Stack Overflow throughout its history, 80% saw the suspended user return to the site afterwards and 67% saw the suspended user go on to make at least one post.

Out of the users who continued visiting the site, 14% were re-suspended at some point.

Out of the users who continued to post, 16% were re-suspended at some point.

This excludes users whose accounts were deleted, users were suspended once and whose suspension has not yet ended, and of course users who stopped using their initial account and went on to participate using an alternate account (which is ok, if they did so after their suspension ended). There are a few other odd behaviors that can skew these numbers too, which is where it helps to focus on Stack Overflow as the overall number of normal suspensions is high enough to minimize the effects.

Answer 3

To address a few of the concerns from comments and other answers in no particular order:

It's inappropriate to compare the penalty box with criminal justice.

Well, yes. I agree. Thankfully the stakes are a lot lower on a internet site that's supposed to be enjoyable. I probably could have used Jeff's original sports-related analogy or a theater asking a disorderly patron to leave the premises. These would have worked better in some respects and worse in others. What might not be clear is that I chose the analogy because, like Victor Hugo, I have a "deep identification" with inmates. I count a former resident of the LA County jail system as a friend and it pains me to imagine what would have happened if the system had eaten him up like it does so many others. I'm proud that this network has a better track record when it comes to rehabilitation and the point of the post is to encourage that trend.

The statistics don't account for people who leave the site altogether.

When I say we do a good job of encouraging suspended users to return as productive contributors to the community, I used the rate people were resuspended. There are all sorts of problems with that as it's easy to imagine user either come back with a newly created account or just leave the site. Neither of these behaviors demonstrate our suspension system works the way I say it does. So to get at the heart of the issue, I'm going to define productive contributions as posting at least one question or answer that gets a score of 1 or better. Using that definition and continuing to report Stack Overflow (because of the number of data points), a little over half of suspended users go on to be productive.

users	pre-warned	%	posted after last	%	posts
8390	1630	19.4	4346	51.8	222630

This data excludes people currently serving a suspension. The number of upvoted posts posted after a suspension is another encouraging sign. 4,346 users went on to contribute 222,630 positively-scored questions and answers after their suspensions. I spent a good deal of time checking my numbers because they do not seem possible. But then again, suspensions are almost always reserved for highly active users who (perhaps out of momentary frustration) engage in disruptive behavior.

I also show that less than 20% of first suspensions are preceded by a warning. Again that data surprises me. There are a few moderator message templates (vandalism and sock puppets come to mind) that come with a short suspension by default. Also, as Mad Scientist pointed out we can't track warnings that were transmitted via a comment or chat. To get an idea of how important formal warnings are, I've split users into pre-warned and not:

users	warned	posted after last	%	posts
6760	nope	3227	47.7	124349
1630	yep	1119	68.7	98280

So users are more likely to return from a suspension if they were first warned. But it's hard to discern causation since being suspended for running a sock puppet ring or deleting your own posts are good signs you might not be coming back in any case. [Note to self: maybe dig into this a bit more when you have time.]

Another way to look into this is to divide the population by whether they were suspended once or multiple times:

users	suspended	pre-warned	%	posted after last	%	posts
7638	once	1377	18.0	3849	50.4	196600
752	multiple	253	33.6	498	66.2	26033

How do I escalate my individual suspension/conflict with a moderator?

There are, I think, three options:

• Reply to the moderator message directly. This both preserves privacy and notifies other moderators and a community manager. It's also the best way to show you are a reasonable/misunderstood/repentant user. Note you can only reply once, so make it count.

• Use the "contact us" link. If you used up your reply or feel the need to elevate your concern, the contact form is a direct line to a community manager. We take complaints against moderators seriously. See also, the advice in the previous item.

• Post a question on meta. (Not recommended.) Obviously, you can't do this during your suspension. (Though some folks come here to Meta Stack Exchange instead.) This is a master-level move that requires discipline. Be aware that most communities appreciate the hard work of their volunteer moderators so they tend to get the benefit of the doubt. You really need to go the extra mile to show yourself reasonable.

Answer 4

feature-request Reconcile with /help/mod-messaging guidance

Currently the guidance for moderators at each site's /help/mod-messaging page says strongly that the content of moderator messages are never to be shared by moderators, even if the user opts to share some or all of the message. I'm referring to the paragraph beginning:

The contents of a moderator message is to be considered private affairs with the user in question. […]

The guidance currently provided in the help centre doesn't accord with the guidance provided in this meta question, and it would be beneficial to have them agree somehow, either by amending the Help or by amending this meta Q. Consistent guidance for moderators will avoid confusion and decision errors. Thanks!

Answer 5

I've actually had situations where I've wondered about this, users asked, and the advice I last saw was this one.

It's also worth remembering there's no benefit for any one outside a moderator knowing someone was suspended before.

Even for a moderator, that does not come in again unless we need to suspend them - and it's a second or third offence. If a user comes back from a suspension and the behaviour is better the suspension has done its job, and bringing it up is counter-productive. To borrow from the time this happened

Suspensions aren't meant to be a long term black mark. Ideally people learn from their suspensions, and we'd never have to review their past records. That's why suspensions are always paired with mod messages.

In general, for me the only time I would discuss anything more than publicly available information is on the request of the user. If people have general questions, it's cool.

Answer 6

This question could be rephrased "Why don't we give out permanent achievement badges for suspensions"?

We have seen this again and again whenever this type of thing has been attempted in any online forum or game:

• For malcontents who plan to reoffend, suspending someone with a public record becomes a badge of honor to be striven for.
• For users who merely screwed up, it becomes an indelible mark of shame making rehabilitation harder.

"Don't discuss disciplinary actions in public" is the industry gold-standard approach, the result of several decades of experience moderating online boards, and centuries of more general HR and PR experience.

It causes:

• least drama;
• best rehabilitation;
• no targeting of the disciplined people by others;
• no incitement to offend and to reoffend;
• no accusations of publicly picking on people;
• lowest chance of legal issues.

Is there a pressing need to deviate from this standard to one which publicly rewards/shames suspended users? I couldn't see one explicitly outlined in the OP, beyond "[if there is drama] there's no real reason to keep mum".

If there is drama, I'd argue that's the worst possible time to "go public". It's never worth trying to pour the cool waters of reason on a drama-fire. Like a deep-frier fire, you will merely feed it. Anything you post will have every possible bad slant picked up on and elaborated on by far more people than you could ever respond to. So rather than airing the drama, it is always better to permit it to die out through suffocation.

Answer 7

In California, ~65% of former prisoners return to prison. That's pretty appalling but not surprising since rehabilitation is not a politically safe goal. On Stack Overflow, ~10% of previously suspended users have received a second suspension.

So is that 10% of suspensions in general or 10% of users who actively continued using their accounts post-suspension? The latter makes a whole lot more sense, at least in terms of presenting honest statistics.

Moving on to a different SO account or a different site is slightly easier than moving on to another life or find another world to live in.

I hope you don't consider reversed suspensions here.

What are the statistics on "new" versus established users (going by reputation, I guess)? I imagine new users would be a whole lot more likely to just move on to another account or site.

---

Do you ever suspend users just until they cool off? One can make a good argument for separately looking at those versus users suspended due to continuous repeated intentional violation of the rules despite clear warnings as to where this behaviour will lead.

---

You say the system "encourages" moderators to warn users. How many people were suspended with versus without warning?

What does a warning entail? A big-ass banner saying something along the lines of "WARNING: SUSPENSION IMMINENT!". No? Why not?

Making sure users firstly see and secondly understand that their behaviour will result in suspension and how to correct it seems vital for punishment to be considered just and unavoidable.

---

So I don't mean that we should explicitly threaten users with suspension, but rather (as politely as possible) make it unambiguously clear that their behaviour is unacceptable and we're past the point of just making a polite request. Starting with asking them to stop is good, but that needs to escalate to making it clear that they need to stop.

In some cases it may also not be clear that (1) the moderator is speaking on behalf of SO and they are able to issue suspensions and (2) a suspension would be the result of someone doing the things they're doing. The latter may come into play for more SO-specific rule-breaking. Most sites reserve suspensions for users posting offensive content and things like not putting in enough effort doesn't typically fall under that. If someone, for example, posts a bunch of low-effort questions, then this may not obviously justify a suspension for someone coming from other sites. Of course there's a different banning mechanism for that, but I think it makes my point. The goal should be to make these points clear where necessary, but also not come across as making a threat, which may not be that easy, if it's even possible.

Answer 8

<absolutely unverified speculation>

I think first we have to understand, what motivates the SE. What is important for the SE?

I think, its alexa rating may be very important. The SO is around the 60th in this rating, the SE network is around the 140th. They have a lot of invested capital, they need to produce as good financial results as it is possible, for them it is not a fun as for us, it is very hard job.

Their deeds shows also very clearly, they want to make the site so useful for us, as possible. Without scandals. If the suspensions wouldn't be hidden from the public, they would cause more scandal, whining, flamewars. The SE doesn't want this. They want from you to produce many good posts to attract new visitors. Also this is the reason, why the SE is far better in power misuse problems, as the competitors. A single op on an irc channel has absolutely no problem to ban anybody, for anything, he is not interested financially in his visit stats.

Also we have to understand, how will such a system deal with "troublemakers". You, if you are threatened by suspensions, are of course a trouble source for it - but a mod, expelling useful users, is also a trouble for it.

Consider, for example, a mod giving long suspension for unfair reasons (for example, for the reaction to an obvious political provocation on a technological site, while the provocateur didn't get anything - recent events in the U.S. domestic politics caused a significant shift on the whole Internet into this bad direction).

What will the system do? The flame was obviously a trouble, just as its bad handling. What matters in this case, 1) the site stats, they measure the worth of the mod 2) the stats of the suspended users, they measure their worth (which is surely not only their reputation). If the site grows, its mods have more free hand, if you produce many good posts, you can make more troubles - but everything will happen behind the walls.

If you give many good posts, the system allows more "troubles" from you. The ultimate crime is in its eyes if you seem to endanger its growth, and flamewars endanger it. Thus, the rational behavior from its side if they allow more for the mods of the sites with growing stats, until they do little misuse and they do this in silence. Furthermore, also they try to make infighting and flamewars so small, invisible, as they can.

The results:

• you can commit far more on the SE before you get a suspension, as for example, on a facebook page.
• if they suspend, they do this silently.

This is why the suspensions are hidden, why you can't see your own deleted posts/comments. If there is a misuse, on a site that is very open anyway, somehow you have to contact them on a nonpublic channels. And you probably won't reach anything, but if yes, also this will happen behind the walls. This is why the posts about recent bans on the meta sites are often quickly anonymized, closed and deleted.

They try to provide an environment for you, where you produce many useful content, and with few troubles.

If you want the system to be lenient with you, try to produce many good posts (=have a strongly positive combined reputation time derivate), and they will be more lenient. Until a point, of course. You have to feel, intuitively, where is this point, and never cross it. Unfortunately, by the fact that you dance on this border, sometimes you will cross, it is unavoidable, because it is not a very well defined border. The system can't be fixed, because you can't ask from the SE leaders to do anything against their own company. But you can reach a tolerable compromise with it, until you pay for the troubles with good content.

Thus, I think cases of suspension will be handled always in silence, but with smart politics, you can shift the system into a more lenient direction.

I think, a completely open discussion about recent suspensions is probably an unreachable goal. But, having a non-public discussion about the suspension of high-rep users, could even help the system to solve problems in silence. Thus, I suggest to motivate the SE into this direction, and not into unreachable ones.

</absolutely unverified speculation>