Banned users

I've noticed a lot of users banned recently that I'm confused about why exactly they were banned.

So while I'd like some feedback from moderators I'm mostly posting this here to discuss whether it would be appropriate to put the reason why a person was banned depending on the circumstance. Trolls and newly joined members that are banned quickly probably not, but longtime users? It makes me a bit uneasy that no reason is given considering their long post history.

I realize there's a balance between keeping people ignorant (for protection) and letting them know (for encouragement/warning). You see this in churches...but it's like losing a person and I wonder if bans can be appealed or what exactly is the system for this. Alas, so also, having ban information not publicly known is also a safety feature for "saboteurs".

I've only come across one reason given under a person's name that I vaguely recall somewhere but a listed offense seems like it could help. Note: I don't know if it actually does or not but it is an option.

So since mods rarely interact here it seems like this is the best place to discuss bans. If any of you want to @a mod or something, feel free.

Also note: I agree with almost every ban that has taken place, some a bit slow but I do find it encouraging when it happens to a person I find particularly troubling. I don't report them (only one post I think) and usually just ignore them because without the additional data of other users reports it could just be personal and I am a bit "too" careful about that sometimes. Plus it's hard to pinpoint why to report someone sometimes and without the aggregate picture I just assume that it will get done eventually (and it does). So I'm not being anti-mod in the post, I'm just curious but I don't think it's just idle curiosity.


For instance. If when you click their name. Instead of "this user's profile is not available" it says Banned. Offense: trolling/flaming/baiting. PM a moderator for evidence or some such.

Likely the second would receive no response because really why do you need to know? There may be some extenuating circumstances when you might be allowed access to that info but rarely. Still an option to know that it might be known if sufficient reasons were provided and an interest taken.


Another long post...I'd break this up but whatever you want to interact with (if anything)...

Does anyone know where the rules for the site are?

I don't recall seeing a list of offenses/infractions. Seems reasonable to have these policies clearly laid out, but then again, secrecy is a method too...


Oh and this isn't an issue that is completely tied to the framework of the site. Stickying threads is a thing so just like the guidelines, something could be added somewhere to direct someone to as well as to smooth out the reporting process. I've seen one of the mods mention that sifting through large amounts of posts is taxing and that it would be for sure for myself...exhausting. That's another reason I don't report, I may have misread and while I think they shouldn't be posting for the guests, it's difficult to describe the reason since posts can be so varied.

Seems like "report" "reason 1" "post #237" "Thread: Chocolate bars are nice" would simplify the process.


Any thoughts/suggestions/advice?

Personally, I hate to see anyone banned regardless of their views or forum decorum. I do agree though about the obvious trolls and those promote bad conduct or have denounced Christianity in general and try to persuade others to do the same. I believe that you have made valid points and the suggestions have merit. Regarding the Chocolate bars are nice thread - are we talking about dark chocolate with a high cocoa content or Hershey's?

Regarding bans. I've seen several times users caution others that discussing bans isn't allowed and they seem to address this as a grave offense. So, I'd like to suggest that moderators at least pin this information in a clearly visible place because most people can't guess that this is a rule, I went over pinned mod posts before and didn't find this warning in there. Plus, I have not seen people here claim that anyone was banned unfairly or protest moderating decisions. It's not like that. People just get used to each other over time and simply sometimes ask what happened, is all.

As to recent sudden bans, I've seen one of the mods say something to the degree that CC became very steeped lately in mean bickering (BDF especially) and thus after a long period of patience towards users they decided to "clean house" - on both sides (in order not to be unfair). But don't take this as their words, I'm just saying what I personally got from their post. I'm sure that doesn't answer all questions you might have, but that's all I know.

@Mii
I'm not mod but bans are purposefully not discussed and discussing them in threads or chats are forbidden.
A lot of unexpected stuff goes on behind the scenes of CC. A lot of stories that aren't made public.
So no way mods are going to field PMs asking for details. Not to mention they may be flooded with requests.

From what I can recall those banned whose reasons are listed typically seem to be scams, frauds, etc...

In the past there were various types of bans, including temporary. Since the new site Robo has been quite tight lipped regarding posted rules, explanations of any sort, even details about paying and what you get, frequency etc... Basically we're kept in the dark about everything, even site rules.

I'm not sure how much more streamlined reporting can be. If a post has something offensive click the report button and type a brief explanation. They get the user name and post number automatically.
The problem with reporting, at least in the past, is the amount of reports that are not actually for broken rules, and thus nothing can be done. One guy says pre trib, another post trib and one reports the other. Stuff like that.

Well thanks for the reply. Not trying to intentionally break rules or anything. I had imagined if I started a thread discussing banned users it would likely get locked but I do think it could be beneficial. It seems unreasonable that someone I got to know for a while here on CC and even started out expecting them to be banned and then over time I kept trying to get along with them and eventually had no issues...to find them later banned.

Cool enough interpersonal progress and while it would be possible for me to be vague about the person specifically. Speaking vaguely about the experiences is what many people do (pastor's included) if perhaps too many details is inappropriate.


^That itself is vague perhaps but I don't know...it's seems strange that even mentioning a banned user is against the rules. I feel that banning is probably a difficult decision and if this were some sort of church lobby (being that a body of believers congregates here) then it would be hard to conceptualize as I haven't ever really wielded that sort of power personally.

Still, knowing so and so got banned for such and such is a motivator away from that sort of thing for those who want to congregate here and it gives them no excuse really for repeating that behavior. I guess I've not ever experienced it like this before. It's true that in leadership in churches the discipline is most always private and not public but this is a public forum.

Just caused me to ponder a bit. I'm not saying there is anything wrong here but I want to understand. I know it's a long shot because does it really matter for me personally? Perhaps not but I do appreciate your info @Subhumanoidal

When I have questions such as this I will typically PM trusted members and ask them. Not for the purpose of questioning or challenging mods' decisions but instead trying to find out what led up to those decisions (such as looking at a thread and figuring out what went wrong and where it went wrong).

For a short time, CC did try listing some of the reasons for bannings under usernames -- you would see a name that was banned, and a reason given under it such as "Fraud."

I think it has to be considered though that a whole host of situations can arise, and it's tricky to find a way to approach them in a one-size-fits-all manner.

For instance, I have known of people here who were harassed by other, and the member who was harassing them was putting on an act of being a 110% showcase level of Christian behavior. But behind the scenes, the person was sending suggestive or explicit messages to those of the opposite gender. If that person got banned "for no reason", other members would throw a riot and vehemently defend that person to the death -- all without having a clue as to what this person was doing behind closed PM boxes.

We have also had people trying to garner sympathy for reasons such as claiming a close relative died (their Facebook account apparently showed otherwise,) the family business went up in flames (someone found the stock photos that the member had used,) or people who were catfishing for significant others (pretending to be something they weren't and leading another person on.)

Unfortunately, it can happen anywhere on the internet, certainly not just CC -- and how does an administration handle that fairly, and with some kind of blanket treatment? If you're going to list the reasons for one banning, you'll have to give the reasons for all, and this might not be possible. I can just imagine a member name saying, "Banned. Reason -- Attempted Sexual Exploitation of Other Members." Would that even be legal? And I have heard of some having to go to legal means to get someone to leave them alone. Likewise, would putting up such a reason publicly fall under slander if someone tried to sue the owner of the site?

But yet if you watched the accused person on the forums or in chat, they seemed like the sweetest, most holy fellow Christian you could ever meet.

This certainly isn't CC's fault. Any online platform is going to run into these problems, and I don't know what the best ways to handle them (and I'm sure glad that I'm not the one who has to make those decisions.)

I know it's frustrating and confusing that there isn't a set list of "Allowable" and "Ban-Able" behaviors, but even if such a list was provided, some people would still transcend beyond it and find some way in which they qualify for a banning in ways no one has thought to list.

I understand how confusing it is, but I can see why they don't explicitly list the reasons for banning any longer.

If anyone has specific question about a particular behavior, I would suggest contacting Robo or the mods.

was it someone who regularly posted and now they are banned

I think depends on mods so check with them. The banned user might have got into a fight with another user and both might have been banned although they might have been ok with their interactions with you.

If you are male for example you probably wont be harassed by another male poster but if you are female it can be a completely different story.

Of course it could be the other way round but again I would check with the mods if the person in question is someone you are concerned about.

If someone is making someone else really uncomfortable and fearful, stealing their ID or asking for monetary donations, threatening or harassing or stalking that would be a cause for banning IMHO.

I dont think ppl would be banned for having disagreements over theology, or posting in the wrong forum. They could have a cooling off period after a heated debate or something but as far as I know its a mods decision and they can give any reason they want to.

non believers and atheists quickly learn that posting hateful things and trying to persecute christians online on a christian forum isnt going to work. Im sure the mods are looking out for our safety and we forum users are thankful they do.

we are not supposed to discuss the 'banned'

what we see in the forum is not all there is to why a person may be banned

long time users are often given chances which they blow time after time and then, well, the door opens and they are told out you go

it is not really our business what goes on between a person and the mods behind the scenes

that being said, seoulsearch pretty much nailed it

Agree. Bad decorum on the Forum

enquiring minds want to know

I cannot disagree there, if I get banned I will definitely come back and and satisfy those inquiring minds.

I hope your humor stretches for this one

That is absolutely hilarious ... oh my perfect!! Love it!!!

I have a great sense humour always!!!

you know, I laughed out loud at that one...so bad laughing at your own jokes haha

yeah I know you are pretty good at humor Canadian, ay?

Soon as I looked at it I laughed out loud ... I laugh at my own jokes too sometimes.

I was like hooked on that song and video for the long time.... that makes it especially funny to me.!!!

Yes Canadians do have a great sense of humour.

I'm not sure whats unreasonable. That person has done something wrong and gets punished. If you met someone off line, became friends and they broke the law and went to prison would that be unreasonable?
Is it the polices fault for such an "unreasonable" act or your friends fault for breaking the law to begin with?

Most rules are pretty obvious for this site. And if you break them you get banned. It seems to me that's all that is needed. And even for the less obvious rule breaking often times other members will warn users their actions can get them banned.
As a member of this site I've not been banned in 9 years. Others even longer. It's not hard. And this site is pretty lax. I'm certain I could have been, but thankfully I've not been.
Really no one has an excuse for breaking the rules here, or not for very long.

Really the current policy seems ideal. If details were released then those details would be falsely relayed by others, and again and again until multiple false versions were floating around. Prohibiting discussion eliminates gossip and misinformation.

Also as you said, in churches you expect such things to be done in private. Meaning no one else knows, and you use that comparison. But for CC you want it made public. CC isn't really doing anything in public, but the effects can't help but be seen due to the nature of the format.
Should a church release the private details of church discipline? If not why should CC?

Honestly it could be that I am willing to lend assistance if help is needed and I'm just trying to understand a bit more about the site that is private. Even being more active as a sort of "hall monitor" which any sincere user could be as a "reporter" seems to require some sort of illumination for me personally. I don't have a program to sift the bulk of threads and while I have come across threads that vaguely discuss it, it's a lot to go through.

Like I could answer my own questions as to what is publicly available with a person's posting history but it becomes unavailable to me as a public user when they are banned. I could sift through the thousands of posts of a moderator but that is a long task without a program.

No, I'm not suggesting that what is private is like going to the movies...on display. There are things I notice about the people that get banned and I don't say anything because I expect the mods to take care of it and they do. I am perhaps just trying to understand my own response to these situations if nothing else.

Could be I'm out of line. Not my goal or intention. I definitely still have some maturation to undergo in my interactions with authority

Yes indeed. It is strange that while it is frowned upon discussing the reasons why someone got banned yet this tread with the topic of banned users was approved. I do agree in that besides a post history other factors may come into play when considering a ban such as inappropriate conversations and other such actions. I am always curious about why a long time member was suddenly banned but don't press the issue. OnceFallen was gracious enough to state the general rationale of the banning of the OP of the Not By Works thread. I would leave it at that. Overall, the mods, who are unpaid and are generous in volunteering their time, performed their service admirably.

Anyway, there are times where I am inappropriately curious. There's a verse in the OT about wizards who peep and while I don't think I'm doing anything wicked, could be idle curiosity and I have felt it related to me pretty clearly that some things are NOT for idle curiosity. If you need to know you will, but otherwise...it's inappropriate.

So I'll probably just take what you all have offered so far, it makes sense to discuss this sort of thing privately but while I've had private discussions about such things it's uncomfortable when I don't know someone. Peace.

@Oncefallen you can lock this if necessary. Apologies.