why we don't just kick and ban people for repeated disruptive backseat modding the same as anything else

We do, don't we?

I don't really see what the issue is, here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It'd be easy to redirect banned users to it, i.e. telling them to join it in kick messages or simply informing them once they join 17.

An appeals channel being +m all the time would be simple, and we could deal with user appeals as they come . And when spammers/trolls try to choke up 17 with appeals or whatever (as has happened once or twice recently), it won't be in view of literally anyone but staff. Without an audience (and the occasional person chiming in when they shouldn't), that'll certainly be less of a problem (though of course it won't eliminate it).

I'd offer up #site88 if we decide that's a solution with merit, I've kept it registered for a while now but I don't use it for anything.

Operators have always been able to temporarily ban people who cause problems in 17, and to permanently ban them if it's an ongoing problem. It's just not standardized, and takes place at operator discretion. What's the specific benefit to standardizing this? If it's to encourage operators to do it more, does that outweigh the possibility of encouraging operators to overuse it?

(While I confirmed on chat that I didn't miss any policy changes preventing operators from banning people from 17 for disruption, the opening post implies that kicking is the only option available to operators here.)

Similarly, operators have always been able to use +m during an appeal (or other 17 discussion) if they wish. What's the specific benefit to requiring +m? Does it really outweigh problems created for new users?

The downside is that this change will increase the barrier to entry for new and returning users. It means that we will want to append the Chat Guide to explain +m in 17 and that anyone who joins will have to PM an op for voice. This will affect everyone's user experience, while it will have a much lighter impact on 17's daily function if the operators in 17 just remove users who continually disrupt the process. (And those who are disruptive, rather than merely unhelpful, tend to repeat the behavior.)

(Also, yes, half-ops can speak during +m, everyone with voice or above can).

• Anyone who wants to observe can do so
• Only people directly involved can comment while shit is going down
• Increasing the speediness of appeals and other proceedings
• The appellant is assured that they are the focus
• Upset parties can't make comments which are unhelpful or useless

Backseat modding consists of actions such as non-staff acting as staff or ops in 17, offering incorrect or false help, or interrupting staff when they're busy helping or dealing with a problem. Peanut gallery comments involve non-staff users butting in during disc action and ban appeals with unnecessary or unhelpful comments.

Both have been dealt with by kicks or such in the past but the purpose of this thread is to formalise the procedure. After discussion in opchat and SSSC there is apparently consensus to start handing out 24-hour bans for the offenses. Discussion and suggestions can be had in here and if no other proposals are offered within a week it'll become standardised.