Allowing moderators to ban.

[Andy98]

I'm curious. Should moderators be allowed to ban, in your opinion?
(Doesn't really matter how the ban is issued: infraction-wise or traditional).

I have never heard of a forum that does not allow their mods to issue bans until very recently.
On a forum that I moderate, I cannot issue bans in any way possible, and all infractions I give must be overlooked by the admin staff before fully implemented.

I really hate this. Moderating should be fun and educating, IMO. With all these restrictions, I find myself acting more like a forum janitor than a moderator. If the admins don't trust their mods with banning and infracting, what's the point of employing them?

What are your opinions on this issue?

 

[doubt]

What are your opinions on this issue?

I agree with your admins.
Do your job properly, you might be issued with more permissions later on.

 

[haqzore]

I agree with not allowing bans.

I disagree with requiring a review on all infractions.

 

[AgitatedRainbow]

I think moderators should be given permission to issue infractions, but controlled by the admins if the level of consequences becomes to severe for them to handle. Let each moderator individually prove themselves so you can have that bond of trust between you and your team.

Strict admins create sneaky moderators.

 

[Andy98]

I think moderators should be given permission to issue infractions, but controlled by the admins if the level of consequences becomes to severe for them to handle. Let each moderator individually prove themselves so you can have that bond of trust between you and your team.

Strict admins create sneaky moderators.

This is understandable.
Perhaps leave banning to SuperModerators or supporting administrators.

 

[AgitatedRainbow]

It's always up to the Admins discretion, but I don't think the banning power really lies in the moderators. That leads to abuse and upset members.

 

[Num7]

My mods can't ban and I can understand why the admin reviews infractions for the reason following.

I wouldn't mind allowing them to ban the spammers and keep the board clean, but there's one risk I don't want to take: I don't want a moderator to deal with troublemakers without me knowing and banning someone for a stupid reason I'm not aware of. This risk can be very low I have to agree, but I don't want that to happen at all. I want to know what's going on.

You're talking about a forum janitor. If you consider your mod job being only about deleting crappy posts and banning people, then you're missing a big part of why you are actually a moderator. Yes you have to keep the place clean and in order. But you must also be there for the members, make them feel like at home and get them involved in the community. A moderator's duty is to make sure the forum is happy and active.

Hope this helps.

 

[R44]

Ok, I'll bite:

Over on AN, I allow the mods to Ban, issue infractions, whatever. If a user has an issue, they can PM the moderator, contact the team leader, then if not resolved, contact me. It's what is referred to as the "Escallation process", and if things aren't escallated properly, I ignore it.

I keep tabs on what is going on, though, mind.

 

[zappaDPJ]

I take a slightly different approach. Nobody, moderators, admins or even myself as the forum owner bans a user without a consultation first unless it's an obvious spammer. That way bans are by consensus and we all share the responsibility. Perhaps it's an indication of how seriously I take banning a member.

I don't run infraction systems but I do allow moderators to issue warnings.

 

[Zero Numbers]

A moderators job isn't just to clean up what mess users make. They are there to interact and help activity go along.

 

[LeadCrow]

Regular mods should not need concerning themselves with banning, as user management is a task better left to those assigned to manage users (admins usually, followed by supermoderators then maybe global moderators).

 

[AgitatedRainbow]

Administrators deal with users,
Moderators deal with content. Administrate and moderate.

 

[AgitatedRainbow]

Of course, moderators should always be a part of the community. That's why I don't hire moderators from applications strictly, you let the best of them stand out in a community and pick from that. You need someone that knows how to be part of the forum itself.

 

[Andy98]

Regular Mods should stick to infractions, but SuperModerators should be able to at least issue Hellbans, since they moderate on a more global basis (hence "global moderator").

 

[Fudien]

Hmmm, when I first read the OP, I was going to say that Mods should be able to ban. Then I read the replies, and now I'm not so sure. To give them banning rights would give them the same permissions as me, except for some of the behind the scenes stuff...and where would the distinction lie? I think all Staff should feel like a team, work together etc etc, but there needs to be some final line, some final say so that can't be overridden and perhaps not allowing them to ban is the way to achieve that.
And as has been said a couple of times, Mods are there for the content and the members, not the member management side. Let them earn additional permissions as they prove their abilities, it will help prevent abuse of power. I don't agree with every infraction being second checked - if they don't trust that you can perform this task without them checking up on you, why bother letting you do it in the first place?

 

[Bigguy]

I allow them to do most things but not kick a member off the site. That would have to go by an admin so that both sides of the story are heard first before anything and then to see if an agreement can be reached without a ban or kick.

 

[Greg]

My personal philosophy is that anyone I trust to add as a mod, I trust to have powers to ban and give infractions. I find it interesting that some of you have mentioned that mods deal with content, admins deal with users. Dealing with content is perhaps a bigger responsibility than dealing with users, because your mods help control the entire tone of your community. That's bigger than any single member.

While my mods have the power to ban on their own, the decision making process is generally crowdsourced a la zappaDPJ's method. I find that works well.

 

[Hershire]

When we started, we gave mods access to temp ban with the understanding that they were only to ban people that obviously needed to be banned.

Unfortunately, we apparently did not make that 100% clear. One of our mods got into a personal conflict with a regular member and they thought it was their "moderator duty" to temp ban the member in retaliation.

Long story short, that moderator is no longer a moderator.

However, our mods can still temp ban a user. I've let our guys know only to ban obvious users (ie. spammers or trolls) and to let the admins know so that we can permanently ban them.

 

[Hangman]

Yes through the warning system.

 

[dojo]

No. I had few mods who banned people without any good reasons, so I don't allow anyone to do anything 'serious' on the forums (this includes deleting threads/banning people etc.).