First Draft for suspension/banning procedures

[Jet Black]

We have come up with an initial draft for suspension/banning procedures. The aim is to set a protocol in place that allows discussion with users who we feel have become disruptive in order to try and solve any problems that we can, before we actually enact any suspension/banning.

Please have a look over the following and make any comments you feel are relevant.

If you become so disruptive that staff feel that you may warrant a suspension or ban, the following procedure takes place:

You will be contacted and asked whether you want the discussion to take place privately or publicly. This gives you the opportunity to offer up any mitigating circumstances in the environment in which you feel most comfortable.

If you choose the public option, we will start a thread in the Town Hall. Posting ability in that thread will be restricted to staff and yourself. The thread will be closely moderated, and the staff posts and votes public.

If you choose the private option, the discussion and subsequent vote will take place privately, in the In Confidence sub-forum where they will only be visible and post-able to staff and yourself (and also the ombudsman, if one is requested by you).

If you choose to have the discussion privately you are able to switch it back to public at any point, upon request. If you want it to stay private that's your choice and any non-involved but interested parties will have to live with not knowing all the details. Likewise, if you initially opt for public discussion and then want to make it private, this is also allowable upon request.

Caveat: If you are a Spammers or a sock-puppet of a previously banned user then you will get banned immediately, without going through the above process.

In terms of the actual suspension/ban times we are proposing a geometrical progression, for example something like 1 week, 3 weeks, 9 weeks, ban, though this would be taken on a case by case basis.

While the ombudsman position is not explicitly mentioned in this, if an ombudsman position is implemented in future, the above may be modified to include that, but for now, this is our idea..

we're looking forward to your input.

[DMB]

What would be the mechanism for friends/enemies of the accused to put forward mitigating circumstances/further evidence against? If I were to be accused, I think I might want a few friends to testify on my behalf. OTOH if someone I thought was a discredit to the board were accused and I thought not all the evidence against him/her were being assessed, I might want to add to it.

[Luis Garcia]

Is it possible to give someone read only access to their PMs once they've been banned, even if only for a few days?

[umop apisdn w,I]

What would be the mechanism for friends/enemies of the accused to put forward mitigating circumstances/further evidence against? If I were to be accused, I think I might want a few friends to testify on my behalf. OTOH if someone I thought was a discredit to the board were accused and I thought not all the evidence against him/her were being assessed, I might want to add to it.

While we won't be starting (or encouraging) commentary threads to accompany these discussions, we won't be hiding or locking them either* - so you could start such a thread (either in the Town Hall or in the In Confidence area if you prefer) and give your input there. In fact, since the "Posting ability in that thread will be restricted to staff and yourself" bit will be enforced by policy rather than by technical means, it is likely that posts made to the discussion thread itself will be split out and end up in just such a commentary thread.

Obviously, the person under discussion prefers to have the discussion privately, then you won't be able to add your support because you won't know it is happening - but that will have been their choice, not ours.

* Won't be moving or locking for being commentary, of course. Posts may still be split out if they break the normal posting guidelines.

[Jet Black]

Is it possible to give someone read only access to their PMs once they've been banned, even if only for a few days?

Well as the above outlines, there would be opportunity for discussion prior to a ban, (except in emergency cases), so someone about to be banned could make PMs in that time. I guess it would be possible to suspend someone for say 72 hours before a ban is to be implemented, to give that person opportunity to PM people.

[Luis Garcia]

Well as the above outlines, there would be opportunity for discussion prior to a ban, (except in emergency cases), so someone about to be banned could make PMs in that time. I guess it would be possible to suspend someone for say 72 hours before a ban is to be implemented, to give that person opportunity to PM people.

But, suppose we were to enter into discussion about whether I'm about to be banned... it probably wouldn't occur to me at that point to go through my PMs copying out my info. What I mean is read only access after a ban so that people can collect up contact details they keep there, that kind of thing.

Sort of how you get ten minutes to clear your desk after you've been fired.

[Jet Black]

Well as the above outlines, there would be opportunity for discussion prior to a ban, (except in emergency cases), so someone about to be banned could make PMs in that time. I guess it would be possible to suspend someone for say 72 hours before a ban is to be implemented, to give that person opportunity to PM people.

But, suppose we were to enter into discussion about whether I'm about to be banned... it probably wouldn't occur to me at that point to go through my PMs copying out my info. What I mean is read only access after a ban so that people can collect up contact details they keep there, that kind of thing.

Sort of how you get ten minutes to clear your desk after you've been fired.

yeah, as I said, when we tell someone "you're banned" we can put them on suspended for 72 hours. they can PM (I think) and clear their desk but not post publically in that time, and then the suspension is upgraded to a ban.

[Luis Garcia]

yeah, as I said, when we tell someone "you're banned" we can put them on suspended for 72 hours. they can PM (I think) and clear their desk but not post publically in that time, and then the suspension is upgraded to a ban.

OK, that's cool, thanks.

[Garnet]

This all works for me. It will work even better when the ignore thread hack is installed. I don't care to read all that stuff, but I know others do.

[The 800# Gorilla]

This all works for me. It will work even better when the ignore thread hack is installed. I don't care to read all that stuff, but I know others do.I agree with Garnet. There is a great need for the ignore thread hack after the upgrade.

[nygreenguy]

This all works for me. It will work even better when the ignore thread hack is installed. I don't care to read all that stuff, but I know others do.


Agreed and agreed.

[dancer_rnb]

Is it possible to give someone read only access to their PMs once they've been banned, even if only for a few days?

Well as the above outlines, there would be opportunity for discussion prior to a ban, (except in emergency cases), so someone about to be banned could make PMs in that time. I guess it would be possible to suspend someone for say 72 hours before a ban is to be implemented, to give that person opportunity to PM people.

Perhaps a derail, but the term just caught my attention.
"Emergency cases" will also need review, maybe even by the membership at large.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I already have that hack built into my system. When I see a thread I don't want to read, I don't click on it. It is much easier than ignoring posts. I can't imagine reading every thread on this board.

[B Cereus]

I like what has been proposed so far, but I'm such a pansy-ass poster that I will probably never get a warning or a suspension (though I did get a warning at IIDB!). :p

[David M]

In terms of the actual suspension/ban times we are proposing a geometrical progression, for example something like 1 week, 3 weeks, 9 weeks, ban, though this would be taken on a case by case basis.

While the ombudsman position is not explicitly mentioned in this, if an ombudsman position is implemented in future, the above may be modified to include that, but for now, this is our idea..

we're looking forward to your input.

Will you respect any wish for privacy of the person who made the original complaint? and if so, how?

[Jet Black]

Is it possible to give someone read only access to their PMs once they've been banned, even if only for a few days?

Well as the above outlines, there would be opportunity for discussion prior to a ban, (except in emergency cases), so someone about to be banned could make PMs in that time. I guess it would be possible to suspend someone for say 72 hours before a ban is to be implemented, to give that person opportunity to PM people.

Perhaps a derail, but the term just caught my attention.
"Emergency cases" will also need review, maybe even by the membership at large.

well by emergency cases I would mean someone who is told that they are to be banned, and then go on a PM spam spree or something like that. but yet, any emergency stuff should be justified.

[Jet Black]

In terms of the actual suspension/ban times we are proposing a geometrical progression, for example something like 1 week, 3 weeks, 9 weeks, ban, though this would be taken on a case by case basis.

While the ombudsman position is not explicitly mentioned in this, if an ombudsman position is implemented in future, the above may be modified to include that, but for now, this is our idea..

we're looking forward to your input.

Will you respect any wish for privacy of the person who made the original complaint? and if so, how?

well yes, by not revealing who they are :) this should not have any imact on the suspension/banning procedures anyway as the original complainant (where there is one) is not involved.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I like what has been proposed so far, but I'm such a pansy-ass poster that I will probably never get a warning or a suspension (though I did get a warning at IIDB!). :p

This is an official Admin warning that you must buck your ideas up and get your act together, or there will be no cake.

(Better, now?)

[ravenscape]

No cake? That's harsh.

[Dreadnought]

I'm not particularly concerned with the problems of the individuals who manage to get themselves banned here. This is just one new forum among plenty of others on the net. Perhaps in a year or two when there are more feelings invested in the place that should be a concern, but the situation at iidb during the debacle is not an analogy to this forum yet.

One little reservation about what I just said though and that is that I consider there to be a difference between long standing posters who have been active and positive forces in the community for a long time and any newbie with an attitude that should happen to cruise by. I'm not really sure how, or if, that difference should be expressed in the handling of problems and bannings, but it is a concern. As yet nobody here is in the former category, but the current admins and mods come closest.

[Christina]

We've already had one issue with someone who started being obnoxious almost immediately, but he stayed on the right side of the rules. People just laughed at him until he left. Sometimes they can be handled by just letting people bounce them around a bit. A lot of the time obnoxious people can't handle being laughed at and not taken seriously. If they stick it out, then the process can kick in.

[jastity]

Won't the prospect of a public thread all about them to plead their case be an irresistable lure to trolls? A chance to score points with their mates while tying the staff up in knots?

I can see why recent events has made it seem like a solution but it may create other problems.

[Christina]

I think it will, but I don't want to see us making our policies around the small percentage of people that do that sort of thing for attention. Every policy can be gamed to some extent and I think that's where mod and admin discretion has to come in. Otherwise I think we end up creating policies to address the lowest common denominator of behavior and that's not fair to the majority of members. I'm pretty sure that our admins aren't going to be easy to troll, although it might look that way for a little while to let it work through the process.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Won't the prospect of a public thread all about them to plead their case be an irresistable lure to trolls? A chance to score points with their mates while tying the staff up in knots?

I can see why recent events has made it seem like a solution but it may create other problems.

Yes - but it is a necessary evil. You guys want transparency, and that's the price we pay.

At least it is only that final thread that will be public for them to have "fun" with - not all the staff discussion where we try to decide whether they are adding to the community or just trolling. Having that visible would be far worse.

[Octavia]

Will you respect any wish for privacy of the person who made the original complaint? and if so, how?

Yes. I see no reason for reported posts to be made public - at least not the reporter. I can see a case for the gist of the post being given. For example:

Admin: We've had a complaint of trolling about you.
Troll: What? Where?
Admin: the post was reported. The person said that they thought it was trolling because [insert paraphrase here].

Is that sort of thing acceptable? :)

[Garnet]

Some members here want total transparency. I don't. I've seen it on other forums and I haven't been impressed. From my perspective, when things start to go to shit on a forum, I can tell without reading mod forums or anything else. I think the measures that are being drafted are sufficient without reading about how many cups of STFU the mods and admins consider when baking a troll.

[Gooch's dad]

It looks good, and let me request now that the thread discussing my banning be made public. :)

[David M]

Will you respect any wish for privacy of the person who made the original complaint? and if so, how?

Yes. I see no reason for reported posts to be made public - at least not the reporter. I can see a case for the gist of the post being given. For example:

Admin: We've had a complaint of trolling about you.
Troll: What? Where?
Admin: the post was reported. The person said that they thought it was trolling because [insert paraphrase here].

Is that sort of thing acceptable? :)

Absolutely :cool:

[B Cereus]

I like what has been proposed so far, but I'm such a pansy-ass poster that I will probably never get a warning or a suspension (though I did get a warning at IIDB!). :p

This is an official Admin warning that you must buck your ideas up and get your act together, or there will be no cake.

(Better, now?)

Ooh, much better....not only have been Officially Warned by An Admin, but it's all public besides! :notworthy:

[Stout Drinker]

I think that proposal is very good.

[Jet Black]

I have made a couple of modifications and put them to the staff for consideration. If there are no serious concerns we will vote on it in a couple of days time. here is the proposal as it currently reads with the 2 modifications highlighted.

If you become so disruptive that staff feel that you may warrant a suspension or ban, the following procedure takes place:

You will be contacted and asked whether you want the discussion to take place privately or publicly. This gives you the opportunity to offer up any mitigating circumstances in the environment in which you feel most comfortable. (1) The identity of the complainant, where there is one, will not be revealed to you for their privacy.

If you choose the public option, we will start a thread in the Town Hall. Posting ability in that thread will be restricted to staff and yourself. The thread will be closely moderated, and the staff posts and votes public.

If you choose the private option, the discussion and subsequent vote will take place privately, in the In Confidence sub-forum where they will only be visible and post-able to staff and yourself (and also the ombudsman, if one is requested by you).

If you choose to have the discussion privately you are able to switch it back to public at any point, upon request. If you want it to stay private that's your choice and any non-involved but interested parties will have to live with not knowing all the details. Likewise, if you initially opt for public discussion and then want to make it private, this is also allowable upon request.

(2) If banned, you will initially be suspended for a period of 48 hours in which you may save and make PMs and conduct any final business. If you abuse this suspension period, it will be cut short.

Caveat: If you are a Spammer or a sock-puppet of a previously banned user then you will get banned immediately, without going through the above process.

[Octavia]

No objections to the new stuff here.

[umop apisdn w,I]

And a new proposed anti-drama modification from me...

If you become so disruptive that staff feel that you may warrant a suspension or ban, the following procedure takes place:

You will be contacted and asked whether you want the discussion to take place privately or publicly. This gives you the opportunity to offer up any mitigating circumstances in the environment in which you feel most comfortable. (1) The identity of the complainant, where there is one, will not be revealed to you for their privacy.

If you choose the public option, we will start a thread in the Town Hall. Posting ability in that thread will be restricted to staff and yourself. The thread will be closely moderated, and the staff posts and votes public.

If you choose the private option, the discussion and subsequent vote will take place privately, in the In Confidence sub-forum where they will only be visible and post-able to staff and yourself (and also the ombudsman, if one is requested by you).

If you choose to have the discussion privately you are able to switch it back to public at any point, upon request. If you want it to stay private that's your choice and any non-involved but interested parties will have to live with not knowing all the details. Likewise, if you initially opt for public discussion and then want to make it private, this is also allowable upon request. Since the decision about whether the discussion is private or public is yours, not ours, this would mean that you could choose to make it private and then either quote-mine or just plain misreperesent selected portions of its contents publicly in order to cause trouble or drama. To counter this, the privacy of the thread is an all-or-nothing affair - and if you choose to make any part of it public then this will be interpreted as a choice that the whole thing should be public so that the entire discussion can be seen accurately and in context.

(2) If banned, you will initially be suspended for a period of 48 hours in which you may save and make PMs and conduct any final business. If you abuse this suspension period, it will be cut short.

Caveat: If you are a Spammer or a sock-puppet of a previously banned user then you will get banned immediately, without going through the above process.

[DMB]

Seems fair to me.

[Jet Black]

some slight jiggling with the rewording, no real content change:

If you become so disruptive that staff feel that you may warrant a suspension or ban, the following procedure takes place:

You will be contacted and asked whether you want the discussion to take place privately or publicly. This gives you the opportunity to offer up any mitigating circumstances in the environment in which you feel most comfortable. (1) The identity of the complainant, where there is one, will not be revealed to you for their privacy.

If you choose the public option, we will start a thread in the Town Hall. Posting ability in that thread will be restricted to staff and yourself. The thread will be closely moderated, and the staff posts and votes public.

If you choose the private option, the discussion and subsequent vote will take place privately, in the In Confidence sub-forum where they will only be visible and post-able to staff and yourself (and also the ombudsman, if one is requested by you).

If you choose to have the discussion privately you are able to switch it back to public at any point, upon request. If you want it to stay private that's your choice and any non-involved but interested parties will have to live with not knowing all the details. Likewise, if you initially opt for public discussion and then want to make it private, this is also allowable upon request. The choice of privacy will be an all-or-nothing-rule, so if you choose to release any extracts from the discussion where the discussion is private, we will release the whole discussion up to that point.

(2) If banned, you will initially be suspended for a period of 48 hours in which you may save and make PMs and conduct any final business. If you abuse this suspension period, it will be cut short.

Caveat: If you are a Spammer or a sock-puppet of a previously banned user then you will get banned immediately, without going through the above process.

[Garnet]

That works.

[alien billie]

That looks good.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Looks good to me. My addition was a bit wordy anyway, so it deserved pruning...

[Pan Narrans]

(Yay, first post!*)

Looks good so far, but I'd like to add one thing to the discussion. The procedure as it stands now leaves it up to the disruptive person to respond to the staff and the thread where his status is discussed, creating a potential loophole. Perhaps it's a good idea to put some reasonable time frames in there, for example:

- If no preference for a public or private thread is given within 48 hours, a public thread will be created. This thread can be made private as per normal procedures.

- If no response is given in the thread to support the disruptive poster (either by the poster himself or by some other person) within one week of the creation of the thread, the poster is banned/suspended.

To add to the latter point, it might also be prudent to put a fixed time frame on the discussion thread: if it goes on for too long without reaching a conclusion, the accused is given the benefit of doubt and not banned/suspended.

Just some thoughts that might be useful, feel free to rip them to shreds ;)



* I guess it's kind of weird to make my first post here to meddle in the organization of the board. I'd better make an introduction right away...

[Per Ahlberg]

Yes, that's good. This takes TR a very long way indeed from the secrecy and arbitrariness of IIDB.

Picking up on the argument from the "cronyism" thread, it seems to me there's a big difference between staff being able to discuss situations in private (which is essential) and being able to act punitively against established members without presenting any arguments in justification (which is not OK). This proposal seems to strike a good balance and augurs well for the future of the board.

[Jet Black]

(Yay, first post!*)

Looks good so far, but I'd like to add one thing to the discussion. The procedure as it stands now leaves it up to the disruptive person to respond to the staff and the thread where his status is discussed, creating a potential loophole. Perhaps it's a good idea to put some reasonable time frames in there, for example:

- If no preference for a public or private thread is given within 48 hours, a public thread will be created. This thread can be made private as per normal procedures.

- If no response is given in the thread to support the disruptive poster (either by the poster himself or by some other person) within one week of the creation of the thread, the poster is banned/suspended.

To add to the latter point, it might also be prudent to put a fixed time frame on the discussion thread: if it goes on for too long without reaching a conclusion, the accused is given the benefit of doubt and not banned/suspended.

Just some thoughts that might be useful, feel free to rip them to shreds ;)



* I guess it's kind of weird to make my first post here to meddle in the organization of the board. I'd better make an introduction right away...

well the thread would be by default private and would be made by the disruptive poster in the "in confidence forum" - though you're right that there should be some time frame on it, though I don't know if this should be fixed, since several things can slow discussions down. perhaps once we have the ombudsman position up and running there can be some interaction there.

now go and make your introduction thread ;)

[umop apisdn w,I]

I do see the point, though, that if we say to someone "Start a thread in public or private (your choice) so that we can discuss banning you..." then they might just either say "No - and since you can't ban me without such a discussion then tough!" or even simply ignore us.

At some point we have to concede that they are trying to game the system and start the discussion without them (and since they had not chosen to do it privately we'd presumably do it publicly, so that people can see that they are avoiding participation in it).

[Pan Narrans]

well the thread would be by default private and would be made by the disruptive poster in the "in confidence forum" - though you're right that there should be some time frame on it, though I don't know if this should be fixed, since several things can slow discussions down. perhaps once we have the ombudsman position up and running there can be some interaction there.


The scenario I had in mind had a disruptive poster who wasn't inclined to cooperate with the staff to discuss his potential banning. In such a case, the staff (or the ombudsman) will have to start the discussion at some point.

I was thinking of making it a public thread by default so that there can be no doubt that something is being done; the thread can then be made private when this becomes necessary.

now go and make your introduction thread ;)

Yes sir! :drillsergeant:

[Jet Black]

I do see the point, though, that if we say to someone "Start a thread in public or private (your choice) so that we can discuss banning you..." then they might just either say "No - and since you can't ban me without such a discussion then tough!" or even simply ignore us.

At some point we have to concede that they are trying to game the system and start the discussion without them (and since they had not chosen to do it privately we'd presumably do it publicly, so that people can see that they are avoiding participation in it).

How technically feasible is it to hide and unhide threads that a member has not started though? I know the settings of IC are such that only the thread starter and staff can see the thread, but say I start a thread to discuss with Pan Narrans whether we should suspend him or not, and then we make it private by moving it to IC, how would PN be able to see it?

[Jet Black]

ok, I just had a quick fiddle, and if I start a thread and a non-staff member posts in it, then if I move posts into IC where the non-staff member is the first poster, the non-staff member can see it.

so it should work.

[Luis Garcia]

There's just been a spate of people banned at II for not responding to OANs, because they haven't been there since before they got the OAN.

If you're going to add a clause saying "if you don't respond within a week we'll ban you anyway" can you make it "if you don't respond within a week of your next activity on the site"?

If they've permanently buggered off, it won't matter anyway. If they haven't, they'll have chance to defend themself when they get back.

[umop apisdn w,I]

There's just been a spate of people banned at II for not responding to OANs, because they haven't been there since before they got the OAN.

If you're going to add a clause saying "if you don't respond within a week we'll ban you anyway" can you make it "if you don't respond within a week of your next activity on the site"?

If they've permanently buggered off, it won't matter anyway. If they haven't, they'll have chance to defend themself when they get back.

I remember when we implemented that over at IIDB. It wasn't a problem with people permanently leaving - after all, who cares about that?

It was a problem with people getting an OAN and then buggering off to "lie low" for a couple of months only to slowly start posting again once we'd forgotten all about it.

[Matty]

I think the measures that are being drafted are sufficient without reading about how many cups of STFU the mods and admins consider when baking a troll.
:D beautifully put.


Yeah that all reads very nicely to me. The time frame aspect suggested by PN would seem to make good sense too.

[Luis Garcia]

I remember when we implemented that over at IIDB. It wasn't a problem with people permanently leaving - after all, who cares about that?

It was a problem with people getting an OAN and then buggering off to "lie low" for a couple of months only to slowly start posting again once we'd forgotten all about it.

So is it possible to set a flag on the account that messages an admin next time someone is active?

[umop apisdn w,I]

I remember when we implemented that over at IIDB. It wasn't a problem with people permanently leaving - after all, who cares about that?

It was a problem with people getting an OAN and then buggering off to "lie low" for a couple of months only to slowly start posting again once we'd forgotten all about it.

So is it possible to set a flag on the account that messages an admin next time someone is active?

I haven't a clue, to be honest... That's a question for the Sysadmins.

[ravenscape]

If there's a way to do that, I sure don't know about it. We need to keep this in the realm of what's possible without tweaking the crap out of vbulletin code. Otherwise, upgrades will become a nightmare for everyone.

[Pendaric]

At the moment it's open to all staff - that could potentially give 20+ voices against one poster. That looks a lot too much like dogpiling to me.

We should limit the amount of staff who can be involved in the discussion - something like two admins and two mods.

[Octavia]

^The chosen Ombuddy should be able to take part, as well, to make sure that the person doesn't feel ganged up on. I'd go for one admin and one forum mod.

[ravenscape]

^The chosen Ombuddy should be able to take part, as well, to make sure that the person doesn't feel ganged up on. I'd go for one admin and one forum mod.
Sounds good! The participants can certainly ask for input from other staff outside the thread if they need it.

[DMB]

Re time limits and so forth: the following scenario occurs to me:


X posts something totally outrageous, so bad that there are multiple complaints and calls for banning
Unbeknown to anyone on the board, X has had some sort of mental breakdown IRL and is carted off to the funny farm for quite a few months
X therefore fails to respond to any messages from anyone here
Finally, after a long time, X comes back cured with no recollection of the inflammatory incident


Would it be possible for X to have been banned in absentia in such circumstances, and how would s/he be dealt with on return?

[Jet Black]

I have put the suspension banning procedures up for vote in the staff forum. we will let you know the result. As yet there are no explicit time limits set on responses and so on.

[RBH]

Re time limits and so forth: the following scenario occurs to me:


X posts something totally outrageous, so bad that there are multiple complaints and calls for banning
Unbeknown to anyone on the board, X has had some sort of mental breakdown IRL and is carted off to the funny farm for quite a few months
X therefore fails to respond to any messages from anyone here
Finally, after a long time, X comes back cured with no recollection of the inflammatory incident


Would it be possible for X to have been banned in absentia in such circumstances, and how would s/he be dealt with on return?My first guess (and it is a guess) is that the person would email an explanation to the admins via the Contact Us link at the bottom of every page, and then we'd talk about it. Clearly one can come up with any number of hypotheticals that raise problems for any policy, but in over four years on staff at IIDB I never saw that particular one happen.

[Jet Black]

Re time limits and so forth: the following scenario occurs to me:


X posts something totally outrageous, so bad that there are multiple complaints and calls for banning
Unbeknown to anyone on the board, X has had some sort of mental breakdown IRL and is carted off to the funny farm for quite a few months
X therefore fails to respond to any messages from anyone here
Finally, after a long time, X comes back cured with no recollection of the inflammatory incident


Would it be possible for X to have been banned in absentia in such circumstances, and how would s/he be dealt with on return?My first guess (and it is a guess) is that the person would email an explanation to the admins via the Contact Us link at the bottom of every page, and then we'd talk about it. Clearly one can come up with any number of hypotheticals that raise problems for any policy, but in over four years on staff at IIDB I never saw that particular one happen.

yeap. I think that while we have these procedures in place, there should always be a certain amount of give particularly for unforseen consequences.