# What does it mean to be "banned" (as a WR member)?



## Language Hound

Lately I have noticed a couple banned members listed as being online in the "Members Online" box on the main Language Forums page.  At first I thought that they had just gotten banned and had not logged off yet.  However, the next day, I saw that the same banned members were listed as being online again.

Based on my understanding of the meaning of the word _banned, _I thought that once you were banned from WR you were no longer allowed to log in as a member and do other things you were able to do as a member.  I just read through another thread here (Banned Members Sending Private Messages) and was surprised to learn that banned members are still able to receive and, in some cases, send private messages, or what are now referred to as "conversations."

So my question is:  What does it mean to be banned?  Are there different levels or degrees? Is there such a thing as a temporary ban?

Thank you for helping me to understand this.


----------



## Barque

Language Hound said:


> What does it mean to be banned?


On WRF, it means you can't post anymore. As you say, you can still log on and send PMs.


Language Hound said:


> Is there such a thing as a temporary ban?


Yes, I believe there can be.


----------



## DonnyB

Yes.  Last part of the question first   - there are indeed occasional temporary bans, but they're extremely rare because past experience has shown that they have a low success rate.   Given that a ban is normally the culmination of many months of dialogue involving multiple messages, and at least two clear formal warnings, it makes little sense in most cases for a ban to be anything other than a permanent one unless there are unusual extenuating circumstances.

As I understand it, (and I'm open to correction here) a ban doesn't disable the member's login: it simply means they can only do the same things that someone who isn't a member, and has never been one, can do.  So they can read posts in all the public forums, but not reply to them or post there.

The current position vis-à-vis the use of 'conversations' by banned members (explained in the thread linked-to above) is being looked at in the light of its reported mis-use by some banned members to send abusive or pestering messages to people.  As in most similar systems, the facility to interact socially with other members is provided as a_ benefit of membership_, and consequently there's an argument for saying that it should be withdrawn if the membership itself is terminated.


----------



## Englishmypassion

DonnyB said:


> The current position vis-à-vis the use of 'conversations' by banned members (explained in the thread linked-to above) is being looked at in the light of its reported mis-use by some banned members to send abusive or pestering messages to people.  As in most similar systems, the facility to interact socially with other members is provided as a_ benefit of membership_, and consequently there's an argument for saying that it should be withdrawn if the membership itself is terminated.


It will be really bad and unfortunate if banned members are also banned from conversing through already existing PMs (it'd be playing a destroyer after being the creator). If someone doesn't want to hear from a banned member, they have the option to "leave" the conversation. 
Thanks.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Englishmypassion said:


> If someone doesn't want to hear from a banned member, they have the option to "leave" the conversation.


And if someone wants to keep in touch with a banned member, they can do so via email.


----------



## Englishmypassion

But one might not have the email address of the banned member.


----------



## Amren Shahida

A banned member should not be asked to be added up in any new conversation or should be disabled from any post.


----------



## suzi br

Paulfromitaly said:


> And if someone wants to keep in touch with a banned member, they can do so via email.


No they can’t. This is a fallacy.  I’ve been here for years and never traded email adresses with anyone. 

Friendships in here are important and I like it that banned members can still use PM. But I also see that it’s a great privilege and should be withdrawn (on an individual basis) if someone abuses it.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

suzi br said:


> I’ve been here for years and never traded email adresses with anyone.


That's your choice.
I have exchanged my email address with several people.


----------



## Englishmypassion

suzi br said:


> Friendships in here are important and I like it that banned members can still use PM. But I also see that it’s a great privilege and should be withdrawn (on an individual basis) if someone abuses it.



I agree.


----------



## suzi br

Paulfromitaly said:


> That's your choice.
> I have exchanged my email address with several people.


Not really relevant. Of course we don’t know we’re going to be stripped of our contact until one of you has gone. There’s no point in using email when there’s a perfectly good message system and which offers a protection for all parties. In short, your point about being able to email is still wrong.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

suzi br said:


> Not really relevant. Of course we don’t know we’re going to be stripped of our contact until one of you has gone. There’s no point in using email when there’s a perfectly good message system and which offers a protection for all parties. In short, your point about being able to email is still wrong.


You make it look as if people got banned out of the blue and therefore had no chance to exchange their email address.
Well, that's NEVER the case.


----------



## Aliph

I was just wondering why people get banned. I think it is important that the forums are moderated and that everybody follows the rules, but I saw some posts from people who got banned and their posts seemed to me helpful and harmless. Of course I don’t know the whole background.
@ Paulfromitaly can you tell us a little bit more about what we should absolutely avoid? It happened to me to make mistakes, posting too many questions in one thread or giving too much background to an explanation. It isn’t always absolutely clear what are the rules.


----------



## wildan1

The Forum’s rules clearly describe what we expect of members and also what behaviors are not allowed. If you follow them you will never risk being banned.

Banned members didn’t respect those rules despite more than two warnings about unacceptable activities. Also, a ban is never done without the concurrence of more than one moderator.


----------



## suzi br

The things you can still see are not the things they get banned for!

The “evidence” you’re seeking is deleted. So you never know the particular reasons for anyone being banned.


----------



## Aliph

suzi br said:


> The things you can still see are not the things they get banned for!


Ok. Thank you! I understand better.


wildan1 said:


> Banned members didn’t respect those rules despite more than two warnings about unacceptable activities. Also, a ban is never done without the concurrence of more than one moderator.


Good to know!


----------

