2

Suppose there is a user who repeatedly

  • Writes low-Q answers that often need to be removed
  • Asks off topic questions that need to be closed
  • Doesn't want to improve his posts because he thinks they're perfect
  • Writes offensive comments against a few of our members

but at the same time occasionally writes a proper answer.

Is the latter then a reason to not ban this person? On any other SE site I'm active on, the third or fourth points would be enough on their own. Here, that doesn't seem to be the case. Are we using different guidelines here?

The problem with not banning a user but only removing his low-Q posts, is that the negative reputation is discarded, and the user gains reputation and privileges while he isn't representative for the community.

NB: yes, this is about a specific person. Apologies for asking this way. I flagged one of this user's posts with basically this story as a custom message, but only got 'helpful' back.

  • 1
    I would not be opposed to banning more aggressively. I'd like more feedback from the community as to what level is necessary. I wasn't aware this one was particularly lax because the only other one I participate on regularly does not tend to attract the same sorts of users (primary out-of-scope behavior there is translation requests; only "rudeness" there is when the native speakers tell us non-native speakers that we are wrong). – virmaior Jun 22 '15 at 7:18
  • @virmaior in that case I'll add discussion to the tags. – user2953 Jun 22 '15 at 8:02
  • Personally, as one of the persons who once got banned somewhere, I would like you not to impose stricter rules about this issue. I think I can guess who ( or may be am I? ), but I have learned there and always have been wondering for a long time is, How about asking the community to make this whole site a paid site. The intrinsic problem, to me, lies on the relationship between the moderators and the users. As it is said, nothing is cheaper than free stuff, and if moderators get paid for their -- fixing --, I guess the entire problem will be improved from the very ground, I think. – Kentaro Jul 6 '15 at 22:42
  • I tried to say, nothing is expensive than free stuff with apology. – Kentaro Jul 6 '15 at 22:47
  • And more to say, it may be a good case if a questioner really wants his / her answer, how about putting a tag I would like to pay ++ dollars for the best answer, though the excessive amount could not be a good idea. – Kentaro Jul 6 '15 at 23:00
  • @KentaroTomono I think that's a terrible idea. It won't be allowed on SE. – user2953 Jul 7 '15 at 7:31
  • ugh...thank you for your direct and straight answer. I do not dislike that. – Kentaro Jul 7 '15 at 10:30
1

I've seen a few such users like this, and they generally follow a similar pattern of leaving after a couple weeks.

The problem with outright banning is that one hopes that it's a matter of that person not understanding the community norms.

That being said, it is a bit tedious to work through review queues and need to give the same user the same feedback over-and-over again about the basic factual and rhetorical problems with his or her posts. There is obvious rudeness (people using inappropriate language for example), but it is also rude to ignore constructive feedback (which seems to be the whole point in participating in Philosophy.SE).

  • 1
    I think the issues on this SE are compounded by scope misunderstandings, some of which seem to be pernicious in the respect that the people who hold them are derisive of the purported scope but still want to "participate" or at least this seems true of a few recent additions -- some of whom write quite intelligibly within the scope of their own alternative definition of "philosophy" – virmaior Jun 23 '15 at 0:42

You must log in to answer this question.