Recent Posts

Scott - i think there's been a slight misunderstanding; OP is saying that this user comes back with the same email address despite the global ID being selected when banning. Just wanted to put that forward just in case there might be a system hiccup.

Are you 100% certain that it's the same email address and that this user isn't using like, variant letters? eg, lIl and III are not the same (the first is lower case L, upper case i, lower case L; the second is all uppercase i), or something to that effect? Additionally, are they using the same email provider? Is it always a gmail account, as a for instance?

If you're 100% sure that there's no possibility that they're sneaking variants / different providers by you, then a PB staff member will have to look at this during business hours which are M-F, 9am to 5pm Pacific (-8 GMT). As you noted, banning by all three options should force this user to create a new global account (email), username, and get a new IP every time and so it is abnormal that they keep returning with the same credentials albeit a different username.

Beyond that though... if the emails and usernames and IPs are all different with each registration, there's literally nothing anyone can do. It's unfortunately a limitation of the internet, not PB's software. There are a few more invasive ways to make it more difficult, but none of those options are viable or realistic for an online forum service (they're usually for downloaded software such as a competitive video game).

To be honest, this is why you SHOULD have visible, well known staff: if you need to take a break, you need a team of people you can trust to hold your standards, and that your community can trust to do the same as an extension of your authority. At minimum you should appoint a deputy to do so, even if it's only when you're absent for a long period of time.

Sharing responsibilities in decisions doesn't mean letting them set their own vibes individually; ultimately you should be taking a leadership position. Let me put it this way: let's say something bad happens on the forum and you for whatever reason are being held accountable for that event. These sometimes-mods, do you think they'd stand in the fire with you? Would they take equal responsibility for the fall out? Or would they step away and say that it isn't their forum, they just helped out sometimes?

I understand where you're coming from, but "Separate Art from Artist" doesn't mean avoiding calling them out for bad social behaviour; it means that you can separate their behaviour from your enjoyment of their work. It's not a get out of jail card they can use to avoid responsibility for their behaviour.

At the end of the day, it's your forum. Ultimately, you are responsible for the kind of community atmosphere you build. Personally, I have a very low tolerance for repeat offenders. People who make art or important contributions should be held to the same standards as those who don't — if they're long term members then they should tbh be held to a higher standard to show new members how they should behave.

More food for thought: do you want their contributions at the price of being a toxic atmosphere? Maybe it's not too toxic, but even though I would probably like the subject of your forum, hearing this would put me off from joining.

When was the last time you were an active member of a forum with a good vibe and active, engaged, and friendly staff? If it's been a while or if you've only had bad experiences, it might be good to join one so you can feel what it's like and then go back to your forum with fresh eyes and try to look at the situation from the perspective of your members.

Of course none of what I say really matters in the long run; it's your decision and your decision alone. But I hope I've offered something to consider in the future. Happy to answer any more questions — I alluded to my main job earlier, but in light of your context I feel I should mention that I am a retired illustrator/designer (still do it as a hobby sometimes) that currently is a game developer and i've worked on some pretty big titles. If my experience, broadly speaking, can be of use to you, please let me know.

This message has been moved to Support Board by Kami.

No need to apologise, I also have the autism lmao so my bluntness was a neutral tone rather than anything negative. I deleted my post because I wanted to clarify first not because I was upset in any way — I remember what I said and tbh it wasn't particularly eloquent and I had only recently woken up. Maybe this time will be easier for me to get the words out.

I used to have a very heavy moderation hand, personally. But while it worked, it did mean that a few folks churned out when they probably didn't need to if I had been more willing to be flexible in my judgement. But I was young and stupid, as many of us are then. Since then, I have hit what I feel is a happy balance between making sure that community / forum purpose is healthy + using a more discerning and nuanced approach to enforcing behavioural expectations. Twenty years is, after all, a quite a bit of time to experiment, gather data, adjust, and grow as a forum admin / community manager.

For example, I renamed my list of behavioural expectations from "Rules & Guidelines" to "User Handbook" to adjust for a bit more of a casual vibe. Within the handbook itself, most of the things listed are positive directives: instead of "don't be a jerk", as a for instance, I say "Treat others with respect, kindness, and empathy". And so on.

Barring any extreme circumstance (like anything TOS-breaking, bullying, plagiarism, etc) I try to keep my actions in a manner that in my profession is referred to as "leading without authority". While I do have authority from a functional perspective because I am physically able to deny access to the forum, I don't have any real power to make someone behave — I can't fire them or anything. In light of that, I prefer to say things in a way that gets the user's "buy in"; in other words, involving them in the process of the reprimand for their behaviour. This tends to help the ones who have good intentions but may be missing the mark.

Instead of saying something like, "You keep calling people names which is against the rules so if you do it again I am gonna ban you!" a gentler, but still authoritative and direct approach often works better:

"Hey [name]! I just wanted to touch base about some posts you have made recently. Just a reminder, everyone on the forum should treat each other with respect, kindness, and empathy. Some of the posts you've made recently raised a flag, so I wanted to check in and see if everything is okay, and if not, if there's anything I can do to help."

HOWEVER.

Part of the reason I kept trying to figure out how to respond initially is while I'm totally aligned with you on not wielding your mod abilities / admin position like a cudgel against your members, I just really get the vibe that you've avoided this so hard that it's ended up that they run your forum, not you (at least from a practical perspective).

Sure, some folks may be behaving out of pocket unintentionally. But by your own admission there are people who are simply unpleasant.

Past trauma and/or potentially autism, a bad day, etc provides a reason for someone's behaviour but does not absolve them of the responsibility of, and accountability for, their behaviour and actions. If I roll over someone's foot when I am in my wheelchair and hurt them, and my response to them telling me I hurt them is "I'm in a wheelchair so that's not my problem", I'm still disabled and in a wheelchair but it does make me an a-hole. Similarly, reacting in a way that harms others if you have PTSD, autism, bipolar, a really bad day at work, feel upsetti spaghetti because the store ran out of milk, whatever, is still your responsibility to address and make amends for the impact your actions had on others.

There is a pretty big line between being understanding and empathetic of peoples' circumstances and histories, and rolling over so you avoid conflict. Quite frankly I think that some of these people are taking advantage of your non-confrontational nature and your kindness to get away with being jerks.

You're right that everyone runs their forums their own way, but if some of your members think you should be stricter, that's generally a sign that you've developed an unhealthy community environment and the ones that are asking/suggesting that are in desperate need for someone who will advocate for their needs too.

I don't mean to make this a lecture, exactly, but let me end this with an analogy; I don't mean to make you feel badly, but it's more so you can hopefully understand my perspective.

Let's say I own a private lot and in that lot I create a wonderful garden. I invest a lot in making this garden a beautiful and inviting place, and when it's where I want it, I start inviting people to come join me. Maybe we just hang out. Maybe we have parties. Who knows! It's just a nice place to hang out and socialise.

Over time, some of the people I invite start destroying the garden. It's little things at first, like plucking flowers before they have a chance to fully bloom or leaving a little graffiti scribble on a bench. The garden is still beautiful for the most part, but the wear and tear is becoming obvious.

The other people who come to my garden tell me I should talk to the people who are messing things up and tell them to stop. But the people who are messing things up are like, well if you tell me to stop doing this then you're just like this terrible person I know who did the exact same thing to me for no reason. You don't want to be like that terrible person, so you back off and they keep doing these little acts of vandalism.

Eventually, that garden is going to be completely destroyed. The people who came to the garden to enjoy its beauty with other garden-enjoyers no longer feel it's worth it to come, because the people vandalising the place are still doing it and have made it an unpleasant place to spend time in.

What would be the right thing to do here? Do you allow your garden — the community you have built — to continue deteriorating due to a handful of people making it unpleasant? Or do you kick them out until / unless they can learn to enjoy the garden without destroying it or being jerks to other visitors?

Just food for thought.