Moderation talk:Policy Discussion/Vandal Banning

Whats the difference? The Devil 12:14, 28 November 2006 (PST)
 * I believe the only change is that the moderator can select the time of the ban as opposed to it being set in stone. I'm not a fan of that as it could be open to abuse if a moderator is personally affected by a vandal, I know it is unlikely but with a policy you need to look at all the possible consequences of that policy passing. I'd prefer to see lengths set in stone. 05:42, 29 November 2006 (PST)
 * Oh ok, now I get it. Truly though I don't see much point in modifing the banning system.  This site really isn't big enough to attract alot of vandals, I could count on 1 hand the amount of people who have been banned here (discluding adbots).  The Devil 11:34, 29 November 2006 (PST)
 * Thats true. In response to Pillsy, would it be more acceptable if there was a clause in there saying that a moderator which is personaly affected cannot rule on the case. The only reason that I don't want the lengths set in stone personaly (or at least to have some leeway) is because blanking pages shouldn't have the same punishment as altering some text. What about if we have it so that the moderator (after the two warnings) can then choose to either ban the user one above, one below, or the at the current banning level? I really think that this should have some serious thought to it. -  16:48, 1 December 2006 (PST)
 * There isnt much difference between this and the one I posted up a while ago. Everyone is asked to decide what specific stuff goes where. -- 09:13, 3 December 2006 (PST)
 * True, however the difference is that yours sets in stone that if someone page blanks they get a day ban ect, and if I read it correctly (which I may not have) they will always get a day ban. This still allows the user to get all the way to a perma-ban. - 14:53, 3 December 2006 (PST)
 * I still need to finish it, but that one also allows escalation. What do you think of my other policy? -- 13:57, 4 December 2006 (PST)
 * Well if a moderator affected by the vandalism is not allowed to rule on the case then I don't really see it being a problem. 05:20, 13 December 2006 (PST)

I have another problem with the current one and this one. At the end, it says Due to the time-sensitive nature of Vandalism, it is not expected that the Moderator gain community approval before banning vandals. It is, however, expected that a Moderator ban those who clearly act against the community's wishes, and be prepared to reverse a ban should the community desire it. However, some people may consider something vandalism and ban the 'offender', but they need an explanation. I say that the user should get a half hour ban, then they are allowed to explain themselves. During that time, their edits are saved unless it is something that is against anothers wishes personally (Like a user page). Then another moderator decides what to do after hearing their explanation. Of course, if it is something red-iculous, like multi-page blanking, then they just get the first ban and live with it. This makes it more of a court system than a cop-n-villian system. -- 13:25, 31 December 2006 (PST)