Members Banned Statistics

mscriv · Aug 29, 2013

I've noticed a lot of folks banned recently or maybe they've been banned a while and I'm just now seeing it. Now, of course, per forum rules we do not discuss the specific nature of any member's moderation or banning. And, I'm not asking about any information regarding any specific member or the details surrounding any specific incident.

Simply out of curiosity, and seeing the other stats thread in this section, I wonder about the statistics of membership banning here at MR. I would love to see some general information broken down across the "bannable offenses" categories. For example, what offense is most often the reason that a member is banned? How many peopler per year are banned for X offense? It would just be interesting to see what negative behaviors seem to be the most troublesome in our community. As a social sciences kind of person I would think this information could prove helpful in seeking out ways to educate and shape our community members for the better. Maybe it could be added to the appropriate section of the FAQ and Forum Rules.

Scepticalscribe · Aug 29, 2013

Interesting idea. Actually, I'll go further: Some sad, atavistic impulse would prompt me to peruse such statistics, should they ever be posted here......

0007776 · Aug 29, 2013

It would be interesting to see, my guess is that the vast majority of bannings are accounts with only a couple posts that were created for spam purposes. As for long term members getting banned it seems like most of them are ones that are fairly active in the PRSI so it's probably them crossing a line in there one too many times.

Blue Velvet · Aug 29, 2013

Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

█ = Breaking the Forum Rules

GGJstudios · Aug 29, 2013

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

Breaking the Forum Rules

Too hysterical!

And true!

GermanyChris · Aug 29, 2013

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

Image

█ = Breaking the Forum Rules

But I think he means immediate ban, not ban after many times in the corner..

Some of us are on our last straw so it's no surprise.

ejb190 · Aug 29, 2013

Awsome! I needed that laugh!

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

[snip]

GGJstudios · Aug 29, 2013

GermanyChris said:
But I think he means immediate ban, not ban after many times in the corner...

It wouldn't make any difference. All bans are the result of breaking forum rules, whether they're broken one time or many times.

GermanyChris · Aug 29, 2013

GGJstudios said:
It wouldn't make any difference. All bans are the result of breaking forum rules, whether they're broken one time or many times.

too broad, all people pay taxes, all people die the keys to are how much or how long

Scepticalscribe · Aug 29, 2013

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

Image

█ = Breaking the Forum Rules

That is brilliant. Cue the sound of prolonged and sustained applause......

Indeed, if there was an icon to indicate enthusiastic applause, that is what I would have added, here.....

HexMonkey · Aug 29, 2013

We don't have a way to collate aggregate statistics on ban reasons, although I can confirm that the vast majority of bans are for spammers.

We do gather statistics on post reports, but that's not quite the same (eg a report for spam is likely to lead to a ban, whereas reports for most other issues are less likely to).

Mac'nCheese · Aug 29, 2013

ejb190 said:
Awsome! I needed that laugh!

GermanyChris said:
But I think he means immediate ban, not ban after many times in the corner..

Some of us are on our last straw so it's no surprise.

GGJstudios said:
Too hysterical! And true!

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

Image

█ = Breaking the Forum Rules

I laughed too but doesn't the op mean WHICH rule was broken?

Doctor Q · Aug 29, 2013

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

It looks like a very useful analysis. I only wish I had color vision so I could understand it!

mscriv · Aug 29, 2013

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

Image

█ = Breaking the Forum Rules

Doctor Q said:
It looks like a very useful analysis. I only wish I had color vision so I could understand it!

Well played Blue Velvet, that was very funny.

Mac'nCheese said:
I laughed too but doesn't the op mean WHICH rule was broken?

You are correct. I know this is a sensitive subject, but I was just curious about it. I would love to know how much of a problem, (i.e. frequency) it is that people are trying to create a second user account or generally what percentage of our community has gotten the boot for being inappropriate in how they communicate with their forum peers.

Thanks for the info about spammers. I didn't even think of that as I assume most spamming is done by bots and not real people. Good to know.

m4v3r1ck · Aug 29, 2013

Is banning not the virtual equivalent for "The Naugty Chair"? ;-)

Astroboy907 · Aug 29, 2013

BDM STUDIOS NL said:
Is banning not the virtual equivalent for "The Naugty Chair"? ;-)

Nah, getting a thread in the Wasteland is

Shrink · Aug 29, 2013

BDM STUDIOS NL said:
Is banning not the virtual equivalent for "The Naugty Chair"? ;-)

I believe Banning is more like..."Go away and don't come back...ever!"

annk · Aug 30, 2013

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

Image

█ = Breaking the Forum Rules

Scepticalscribe said:
That is brilliant. Cue the sound of prolonged and sustained applause...... Indeed, if there was an icon to indicate enthusiastic applause, that is what I would have added, here.....

I just have to post to say I agree, absolutely brilliant.

BDM STUDIOS NL said:
Is banning not the virtual equivalent for "The Naugty Chair"? ;-)

That's "time-out", the temporary suspension.

Banned is usually used for the extreme ends of the scale: a member who has one spam post, or the result of increased moderation escalation of a long period of time, where reminders, warnings, and temporary suspensions just didn't make a difference. But I guess it depends on how any one person defines the naughty chair.

If HexMonkey says it can't be done, then it can't be done, but I too would've been interested in this. So I definitely get why the question was asked.

pastrychef · Oct 3, 2013

How long does a time-out last? Are there any consequences to being placed on time-out multiple times?

Thanks.

OllyW · Oct 3, 2013

pastrychef said:
How long does a time-out last? Are there any consequences to being placed on time-out multiple times?

Thanks.

Have you read the Moderation FAQ?

The rules and moderation guidelines are applied equally to all forum members but messages and disciplinary actions depend on the rule involved, the nature of the violation, and the user's history of prior violations. Repeated rule-breaking causes stronger actions, so a reminder one time can become a warning or time-out the next time.

pastrychef · Oct 3, 2013

OllyW said:
Have you read the Moderation FAQ?

Thanks for the link. Never even came close to seeing it.

gnasher729 · Oct 3, 2013

HexMonkey said:
We don't have a way to collate aggregate statistics on ban reasons, although I can confirm that the vast majority of bans are for spammers.

We do gather statistics on post reports, but that's not quite the same (eg a report for spam is likely to lead to a ban, whereas reports for most other issues are less likely to).

If you do any statistics, I think pure spammers should be excluded - someone who joins just to spam shouldn't be counted as a member at all.

Macman45 · Oct 3, 2013

Blue Velvet said:
Putting my Doctor Q hat on for one moment, early statistical analysis has generated an interesting pie graph:

Image

█ = Breaking the Forum Rules

Superb!

roadbloc · Oct 4, 2013

BDM STUDIOS NL said:
Is banning not the virtual equivalent for "The Naugty Chair"? ;-)

That'd be a time-out I think. Banning is a final 'kbaidontcomeback' thing as far as I'm aware.

chown33 · Oct 4, 2013

roadbloc said:
That'd be a time-out I think. Banning is a final 'kbaidontcomeback' thing as far as I'm aware.

I don't think it's completely final. The user named "eric/" was banned for some time, but his current status is "Guest".
https://forums.macrumors.com/members/617977/

Just sayin'.

Members Banned Statistics

macrumors 601

macrumors Ivy Bridge

Suspended

Moderator emeritus

macrumors Westmere

macrumors 601

macrumors 65816

macrumors Westmere

macrumors 601

macrumors Ivy Bridge

Administrator emeritus

Suspended

Administrator

macrumors 601

macrumors 68030

macrumors 65816

macrumors G3

Administrator

macrumors 601

Moderator

macrumors 601

Suspended

macrumors G5

macrumors G3

Moderator

Our Staff