Staffing Pre-Banning/Asking To Leave Immediately

[Icewolf 258]

Unless the person in question had been banned for a serious offense (like harassing a member, sending unsolicited porn, breaking the law), then I wouldn't preban them on the basis of the quality of their writing. They need to be allowed to learn and grow, and even though you had problems with them before, they could have changed in that time. They can only do so if given the opportunity to do it.

[missmanyface 19]

Okay so I will start this by saying that I am - admittedly - a bit of an elitist. I am extremely picky about who I chose as my writing partners and who I plot my characters with because I am old enough and have been at this shit for long enough to where I feel like I have that right to do so as a writer. Just because someone wants to plot with you doesn't mean you have to do so with them.

 

That being said, I am also an admin at a site that has no-WC but considers ourselves literary advanced. What I have found that happens on most sites (more often than not) is that poor writers will tend to be weeded out naturally after a while anyway. So yes, their application may not be the most beautifully written thing or they may not quite understand the intricacies of the English language as some other players, but we will accept them anyway. That doesn't mean that they will get a thread with every single person on the site, but they will either improve with the site or eventually stop coming around. 

 

I want to be clear and say that does NOT mean I encourage people to purposefully shun a player or ignore them by any means. But I am a firm believer that we as writers have a right to choose who and what we put on a page. Those that can't keep up with the others around them tend to just disappear on their own anyway, so why waste the effort of stressing yourself out by holding their hand?

 

That's what I've found in my experience, anyway!

[Quell 249]

 It's also a mess to be rude on small sites because a mediocre writer who replies is better than Shakespeare who replies one time a year. There's a balance to everything. 

 

But yeah. Turning newbies down flat (assuming they've joined the site successfully) is weird. If you're going to have a vetting process to get rid of writers who are not up to standards, then I would think they would be asked to continue on in their search during the application process... (presumably when it is denied politely and professionally).

[Maleficent 15]

For me I am a soft touch and I'd probably give them a second chance in hopes they've learned something since last time but depending entirely on how long ago it was I dealt with them and how serious I found issues with them to be. For instance, if I asked them to leave the other site only a few days ago I'd probably not let them join because I already know they aren't able to handle the forum/expectations/mesh with the community/whatever it is.

 

Because it isn't a behaviour issue it is just down to ability, I'd be tempted to let them try again because maybe a new site and some experience in the time since I last dealt with them have helped improve them. In your situation, I'd let them join but the first sign of them requiring too much of my time I'd probably be letting them know as gently as possible that I didn't think the site was right for them. I don't have an awful lot of time spare and the time I have I want to spend it playing, not teaching someone how to write.

 

Now, maybe controversial but I do find some 'ability issues' are actually behaviour related, excessive hand-holding and coddling for example may be down to the person being immature or testing boundaries. For example I once dealt with someone who needed me to talk them through every single step of joining a site- everything from registration to posting. Now at the time I was a lot more patient and had more time so I was willing to go the 'extra mile', that said it quickly became obvious to me that this person wasn't interested in learning, they wanted me to do all the work for them. There was no way they'd get anything out of RPing with us and I doubted anyone on the site would get anything from her and after I asked her to leave (after a whole day of 'but you can't just decide you're married to character x! Let me explain again... wait no no nooo, I don't mean you can now marry character y, you can't marry anyone, what are you doing?!'), I banned her so she couldn't join again. I then learned she'd done the same thing on a few other similar sites so there is a chance she was just a troll.

 

So second chances are a good thing but you have to do what is right for you. If you don't want this person on your site you have every right to pre-emptively ban them from joining because you know your site and you know your own limits.

[Nerissa 15]

Like @Morrigan said, it's your forum your rules. If you don't like the behavior, remove it! Give warnings and such and if they ignore it, that's grounds to remove them.

[Lilythe 12]

My personal opinion would be that it's a new site so they get a fresh slate, but I would make sure that you maintain your standards in your application process. For example, include a writing sample as part of your application and then when you deny/pending their application, explain that their sample was the problem. Give them constructive criticism, and let them keep trying to whatever the maximum attempts for your site are (some have limits, others don't). 

 

Perhaps they've gotten better. Perhaps not. But at least by including the writing sample in the application you would have grounds to not accept their character without feeling guilty. 🙂

[Marin 14]

I only consider immediately banning someone an appropriate reaction if I know they are very toxic, and they know I know they're very toxic, AND they've been banned by me from other websites for it. If they then go on to pretend nothing is wrong and don't even make any promises to do better, they're getting the banhammer. That has almost never happened to me, though.

 

Other than being really toxic, I figure the rules should be solid enough that the problem will resolve itself if they're enforced. No need to deny them the chance. If I'm pinching pennies with effort that much, I'd be better off taking a day or two off and coming back to it.

[Hypester 28]

Yeah, it's really hard to justify an auto-ban for 'being annyoing' when the whole thing is about communication, and to not communicate or accept communication feels shady, to me personally, though I understand the desire.

 

If the person is annoying instead of offensive, then "No" is your friend. They can apply, because anyone can apply if your site is set up to be open. You just hold it up to the same standard. If it's a chore to read through, then stop reading and message them that it's a chore to read through and reject it, or maybe even give them another chance to fix it, then reject it. If you're tired of handholding, then just... don't. Clearly state the expectation. "We expect you to read the rules and other people's posts and catch on to what we need. If you can't, then try a different site."

 

Chances are, though, you don't want to communicate with this person at all, even in the app process or casually. It's not fun, and you want to only have fun on this site. In which case, you have a problem, because as an admin you low key have a responsibility to interface with everyone who can find your site. If you don't want that, you need an invite-only site or another admin to lead out at least on that front. This is part of the strength of having writing partners instead of a site anyone can log on, you get to be exclusive without ever having to actively reject people.

 

So on this particular issue, maybe ban them maybe not, but take a look at what your goals are for your site and ask if your operation, rules and advertising strategy actually help accomplish this. Because if you have problems like this, maybe they don't completely.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Hypester