Answer-banned users aren't informed they can't post an answer before they try to post an answer (which typically happens after they write an answer). They're only notified when they've finished their answer and try to submit it.

Can users who can't post answers please be notified of their ban beforehand?

  • 4
    It's calc'd OTF each time there's a need to know; the status isn't stored in a variable on the Profile. Sources: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/309220/… meta.stackexchange.com/questions/309220/… meta.stackexchange.com/questions/309220/… - Can chng b4 posting
    – Rob
    Commented May 2, 2021 at 1:01
  • 10
    To expand off Rob's comment: because they are calculated on the fly, it is also an expensive thing to check. Running that check every single time a user loads a question page is not viable at all. Only running it when someone attempts to post an answer reduces resource load.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented May 2, 2021 at 1:17
  • 1
    Wow, this discussion on whether or not this is a duplicate and for what reason... was getting long. If people still wonder whether they should or shouldn't close vote, the discussion is moved to chat, and you can continue discussing it there.
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Commented May 3, 2021 at 20:20
  • @animuson how come you can do this with question bans? Commented May 22, 2023 at 8:55
  • @PlaceReporter99 in his comment animuson states "running that check every single time a user loads a question page" is expensive, and the check would ideally happen at that point because questions have an answer box so people could start typing an answer. In contrast, the question ban should be checked only when somebody actually clicks the Ask Question button, which happens much less often than visiting a question page.
    – Marijn
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 12:54
  • 1
    However @animuson it may be possible to do this more cheaply and still warn users earlier, for example check for an answer ban the first time a draft is saved (after 45 seconds)? Then banned users don't risk to lose a large amount of work. A separate issue of course is whether SE wants to accomodate banned users at all, I have also read the argument somewhere (in the context of question bans) that banned users are a lost cause and it's fine if they stay banned forever.
    – Marijn
    Commented May 22, 2023 at 12:59

1 Answer 1


Rob and animuson mention that the reason not to state before they start writing the answer that the user is not authorized to post an answer is technical: the authorization is calculated on the fly and is expensive to check, consequently it doesn't make sense to check it all the time since most users are authorized to post answers.

Details from the comment section:

  • 1
    That's true for IP bans, especially since one can be imposed while one's on a question page, or un-imposed during that time as well. However, answer bans can be known in advance, just like question bans, and question bans have the warning in both places (before writing and on submission), so there's no reason why not to have the warning in advance. Commented May 3, 2021 at 2:17
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog thx good point! Commented May 3, 2021 at 2:18
  • How come they can do it on question bans? Commented May 22, 2023 at 8:54
  • @PlaceReporter99 it's not accurate, the message says you're close to being banned. Commented May 22, 2023 at 9:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .