06-29-2026, 06:31 PM
Theory is in the standards guide. This thread covers specific scenarios and how to handle them.
The rules lawyer
User who responds to every moderation action with a detailed argument about why it does not technically violate the rules. Approach: engage once, briefly. Explain the spirit of the rule, not just the letter. If they continue arguing, stop replying and flag the thread here. Do not get drawn into extended debates. Moderators do not need to win arguments.
The ban evader
New account that is clearly the same person as a banned user (same writing style, same topics, same targets). Action: permanent ban on the new account, note the original account in the reason. Do not engage with the account before banning. Flag to admin if you are unsure.
The low-grade antagonist
User who never quite crosses a clear line but consistently creates friction - slightly rude replies, borderline dismissive comments, never constructive. This is the hardest category. Action: informal PM warning early, documenting the pattern. If it continues across multiple threads over weeks, a formal warning is appropriate even if no single post is a clear violation.
The good-faith boundary pusher
User asking about security techniques that could be dual-use. They seem genuine. Approach: answer the educational question, watch the thread for follow-ups that clarify intent. If follow-ups push toward operational help for unauthorised activity, warn and lock.
Targeted harassment between users
Two users in a recurring conflict that follows them across threads. Action: warn both if both are contributing to it. Move the conflict to a PM resolution if possible. If it continues publicly, temporary ban on the instigator or both. Do not pick sides publicly.
The "I was just joking" post
Something that violates the rules, removed, then defended as humour. Jokes can violate rules. Remove the content, issue the appropriate action, note that the intention does not change the impact.
The rules lawyer
User who responds to every moderation action with a detailed argument about why it does not technically violate the rules. Approach: engage once, briefly. Explain the spirit of the rule, not just the letter. If they continue arguing, stop replying and flag the thread here. Do not get drawn into extended debates. Moderators do not need to win arguments.
The ban evader
New account that is clearly the same person as a banned user (same writing style, same topics, same targets). Action: permanent ban on the new account, note the original account in the reason. Do not engage with the account before banning. Flag to admin if you are unsure.
The low-grade antagonist
User who never quite crosses a clear line but consistently creates friction - slightly rude replies, borderline dismissive comments, never constructive. This is the hardest category. Action: informal PM warning early, documenting the pattern. If it continues across multiple threads over weeks, a formal warning is appropriate even if no single post is a clear violation.
The good-faith boundary pusher
User asking about security techniques that could be dual-use. They seem genuine. Approach: answer the educational question, watch the thread for follow-ups that clarify intent. If follow-ups push toward operational help for unauthorised activity, warn and lock.
Targeted harassment between users
Two users in a recurring conflict that follows them across threads. Action: warn both if both are contributing to it. Move the conflict to a PM resolution if possible. If it continues publicly, temporary ban on the instigator or both. Do not pick sides publicly.
The "I was just joking" post
Something that violates the rules, removed, then defended as humour. Jokes can violate rules. Remove the content, issue the appropriate action, note that the intention does not change the impact.