When Someone is Banned

Freebase Dali · 06-13-2011, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

I see the posts for which he was infracted have now been deleted, nice move, so now all we're left with is your account that it was "totally justified". Some people might buy that, but not me. I had a chance to read the posts, and back and forth that followed, I'm calling bull****.

It's actually a policy the mods have adopted to delete posts that people are infracted for. The reason being, we constantly get people ragging us saying that we're being unfair because the comment wasn't addressed. Obviously, the community doesn't get notification that we infracted someone, nor can they see the infractions. I think most folks agree that it's better that way, but it creates a catch-22 because then we're accused of hiding "evidence".

Believe me, it sucks when you get pestered non-stop because an offensive comment that has already been dealt with has been left displayed only for a mob of people accusing us of being unfair because they're ignorant about the steps we took to address it. Easy solution: Address the situation and remove the post.

But also, we remove the posts we think are offensive (and especially at the request of the person being offended), because... um... they're offensive. That's our job, and that, for damn sure, is stated in the rules and is not a recent addition, although it may have been paraphrased, but I'm sure most people with a normal level of intelligence will understand the concept if they took the time to read and understand them.

Quote:

Now is the time to go back and ammend the rules to include whatever rule you think he broke, by the way. This is exactly what I'm talking about everytime in this thread, although to a lesser degree. It's this kind of selective enforcement of self-made rules that are causing these problems, or "drama" as you like to put it. Enforce the ****ing rules, as they're written, and provide REAL justification if your actions are really justified. Empty explanations come cheap.

Not sure if you realize this, but the mods write the rules. They weren't handed down by the Moses of this website's creators. They're a result of activity that moderators have deemed important to address, and serve simply as something to both guide members, and point to when actions are taken to rectify situations that go against the standard set. Not sure if you caught the part that states "these rules are subject to change at any time", but we weren't entrusted as moderators simply to uphold a written rule... we were entrusted as moderators to do whatever we felt was necessary to make sure this place didn't go to shit. We've got a pretty good collection of intelligent adults that are capable of making decisions to this effect. When we justify our decisions, we do that amongst the moderators... but don't think we don't take the community reactions into consideration.

Quote:

In a rare case where I got to see the unfoldings of the situation before it was systematically removed from public eye, it's obvious that by looking at the actual happenings that you were in the wrong. Yet, the posts are deleted, and you claim justification. At this point, it's your word against his, and the threat of a perma-ban is waiting if he pursues the issue further. A gross misuse of mod power if I've ever seen one.

In short, yes, it's a big deal that you acted like a bullying hypocrite because someone said something off-color that you didn't like. Please, MB, if we're going to have BS rules, apply them fairly.

1. Systematically removed from the public eye:
Do you think spam shouldn't be systematically removed from the public eye? Insults? Trolling? I'm just wondering whether you understand the concept of what moderators do on an internet forum...

2. Your opinion versus an entire team of moderators, PLUS insulted members who have complained REPEATEDLY about those insults and occurrences. I'm sorry, I like you a lot man but I just gotta go with the obvious choice here.

3. The threat of perma-banning is a result of continued behavior that goes along with number 2 above, plus the rules and all. I haven't seen any moderator post that he'll get perma-banned if he pursues the issue of his banning. I could have missed it, but I was under the impression that the concept involved pursuing continuity of his behavior that got him banned. Maybe you could clear that up for me.

Quote:

p.s. Yes I know this is an internet forum, and that I'm over-reacting in almost every post I've made in this thread, including this one. But that doesn't mean I don't believe every word of it. I see something I don't like, I'm going to comment on it. I know the mods don't have sinister intentions, and I don't think they're evil. I've been around long enough to remember nearly all of them when they were regular members before they were modded, and they seem like decent people for the most part. I just hate how when someone gets banned, it's turned into this big to-do. A he-said, she-said nightmare.

Good point here. That's why it may be even better if we close this thread, and simply tell users that if they have questions, they can PM moderators. But I, and none of the other mods, would just close the thread, because then we know we'd be accused of trying to suppress public inquiry and get tossed into the pit again.

crash_override · 06-13-2011, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I wouldn't like to have the thread moderated. I think it would subvert the entire discussion in the thread, and cause further mistrust of us. It's good for it to be wide open, but frivolous posts are merely wasting bandwidth and irritating the people who are attempting to have a discussion.

This is an excellent post, thank you for the concise and fair response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

It's actually a policy the mods have adopted to delete posts that people are infracted for. The reason being, we constantly get people ragging us saying that we're being unfair because the comment wasn't addressed. Obviously, the community doesn't get notification that we infracted someone, nor can they see the infractions. I think most folks agree that it's better that way, but it creates a catch-22 because then we're accused of hiding "evidence".

Believe me, it sucks when you get pestered non-stop because an offensive comment that has already been dealt with has been left displayed only for a mob of people accusing us of being unfair because they're ignorant about the steps we took to address it. Easy solution: Address the situation and remove the post.

But also, we remove the posts we think are offensive (and especially at the request of the person being offended), because... um... they're offensive. That's our job, and that, for damn sure, is stated in the rules and is not a recent addition, although it may have been paraphrased, but I'm sure most people with a normal level of intelligence will understand the concept if they took the time to read and understand them.

I am aware that this is how most cases are dealt with in this manner, and I understand that this policy is in place for good reason to protect members from personal attacks and remove clutter from the boards. In that sense, it's great. But in situations where posts that would normally be admissable as every day chatter are being infracted, I don't think it has the same bearing. In short, it's like communism, it looks good on paper; but when applied to real situations and administered by man, faults arise. It can be abused and applied to situations wrongfully, and we'd both be lying if we said it hadn't been done before, perhaps even recently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Not sure if you realize this, but the mods write the rules. They weren't handed down by the Moses of this website's creators. They're a result of activity that moderators have deemed important to address, and serve simply as something to both guide members, and point to when actions are taken to rectify situations that go against the standard set. Not sure if you caught the part that states "these rules are subject to change at any time", but we weren't entrusted as moderators simply to uphold a written rule... we were entrusted as moderators to do whatever we felt was necessary to make sure this place didn't go to shit. We've got a pretty good collection of intelligent adults that are capable of making decisions to this effect. When we justify our decisions, we do that amongst the moderators... but don't think we don't take the community reactions into consideration.

So basically what you're saying, in short, is that the mods are essentially handing out vigilante justice and shooting from the hip on a case by case basis? That would partially explain the lack of continuity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

1. Systematically removed from the public eye:
Do you think spam shouldn't be systematically removed from the public eye? Insults? Trolling? I'm just wondering whether you understand the concept of what moderators do on an internet forum...

2. Your opinion versus an entire team of moderators, PLUS insulted members who have complained REPEATEDLY about those insults and occurrences. I'm sorry, I like you a lot man but I just gotta go with the obvious choice here.

3. The threat of perma-banning is a result of continued behavior that goes along with number 2 above, plus the rules and all. I haven't seen any moderator post that he'll get perma-banned if he pursues the issue of his banning. I could have missed it, but I was under the impression that the concept involved pursuing continuity of his behavior that got him banned. Maybe you could clear that up for me.

1. Now you're putting words in my mouth. Of course SPAM should be removed from the boards, but I personally felt that the post in question, and the posts that followed were a valid part of the discussion at the time, which would mean they aren't SPAM. I also DO understand what a moderator does on an internet forum. That doesn't mean that mistakes don't get made and that certain instances shouldn't get called into question. As I've said before, I feel the mods do a great job most of the time, but things happen and I ask questions. I personally didn't get the warm and fuzzy from the duga - oojay situation and really didn't care for duga's response to the matter. That's why I spoke up the way I did.

2. Taking the mob mentality to this doesn't seem like the right approach. I'm not trying to stand toe-to-toe with every moderator on the forum, and likewise I don't want you/them teaming up against me, I don't have a personal issue with any of you as a matter of fact. You are entitled to your opinion, if that happens to be that you support and agree with every decision that a mod has ever made, then so be it.

3. By continued behavior, do you mean posting on the boards? ****ing chickens? Robbing liqour stores? Walking old ladies across the street? What are we talking here? Are you saying that oojay has a record of insulting people leading up to this, and this is why he was infracted on a post having nothing or little to do with previous violations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Good point here. That's why it may be even better if we close this thread, and simply tell users that if they have questions, they can PM moderators. But I, and none of the other mods, would just close the thread, because then we know we'd be accused of trying to suppress public inquiry and get tossed into the pit again.

No one is tossing you in the pit. You maintain the upper hand of authority the entire time. I know I tend to ask a lot of questions and inquire a lot when things go down, so that statement may have been directed at me. That's fair.

But I don't think this thread should be closed, it's a great thread that could be used to solve a lot of problems and answer a lot of questions if people used it correctly. Mods as well as regular members.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 06-13-2011, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oojay

What (mostly) pisses me off is that my "infraction-worthy" post was fact, not opinion. Like it's okay for someone to make stupid posts, but against the rules for someone else to point out that those posts exist (especially when those posts are made by a mod). I said that Vanilla posts about what flavor of frosting her vagina tastes like and which members she wouldn't kick out of her bed (content that was taken from HER OWN posts in HER OWN thread). Ever heard of not killing the messenger?

What relevance did that have to the current discussion though? It sounds like you have a problem with what I like to talk about by your random mention of it. If you don't like my vagina talk, stay out of the Twat thread. Easy.

crash_override · 06-13-2011, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

What relevance did that have to the current discussion though? It sounds like you have a problem with what I like to talk about by your random mention of it. If you don't like my vagina talk, stay out of the Twat thread. Easy.

It was in reference to the degree of what people can and can't say or post without disiplinary action being taken. Perfectly relevant statement, even if poorly applied. It seems that duga is the one with the problem about who says what in this situation, since he was infracted for it. Furthermore, if you don't like us discussing the offensiveness of your posts, then stay out of this thread.

See, it's easy to solve problems when having things your way is always the answer. Try finding a solution that is fair for all parties involved, that is the real challenge.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 06-13-2011, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

It was in reference to the degree of what people can and can't say or post without disiplinary action being taken. Perfectly relevant statement, even if poorly applied. It seems that duga is the one with the problem about who says what in this situation, since he was infracted for it. Furthermore, if you don't like us discussing the offensiveness of your posts, then stay out of this thread.

See, it's easy to solve problems when having things your way is always the answer. Try finding a solution that is fair for all parties involved, that is the real challenge.

Considering you're randomly discussing me of all people I will continue to be in this thread. Thanks but I'd rather not take orders from you.

I was also addressing oojay, I'm sure he's perfectly able to speak for himself. If you have any more problems with me, PM me or another mod.

crash_override · 06-13-2011, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Considering you're randomly discussing me of all people I will continue to be in this thread. Thanks but I'd rather not take orders from you.

I was also addressing oojay, I'm sure he's perfectly able to speak for himself. If you have any more problems with me, PM me or another mod.

Challenge not accepted then?

The first portion of that post was an instrument to show the selfishness of your original post, not to be confused as my actual feelings or as 'orders' to you in any way.

Also, if you're posting messages meant to be addressed or read by only one person in a public thread, maybe you're the one who should consider PM-ing.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 06-13-2011, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

Challenge not accepted then?

The first portion of that post was an instrument to show the selfishness of your original post, not to be confused as my actual feelings or as 'orders' to you in any way.

Also, if you're posting messages meant to be addressed or read by only one person in a public thread, maybe you're the one who should consider PM-ing.

Orders again?

Have fun discussing this child-like drama by yourself.

crash_override · 06-13-2011, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanilla

Orders again?

Have fun discussing this child-like drama by yourself.

I thought the "maybe" in my statement had clearly inferred it as a suggestion rather than an order. But if I have to come right out and say it, I will.

It was a suggestion, not an order. Your highness.

I actually think it's a pretty good one too, considering the circumstances.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 06-13-2011, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

I thought the "maybe" in my statement had clearly inferred it as a suggestion rather than an order. But if I have to come right out and say it, I will.

It was a suggestion, not an order. Your highness.

I actually think it's a pretty good one too, considering the circumstances.

Damn straight.

And just to ease the tension in this thread, here is a picture of the highness herself, Natalie Portman:

**Janszoon** · 06-13-2011, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

It's actually a policy the mods have adopted to delete posts that people are infracted for.

Sorry Freebase, but I need to clarify that this is a policy some mods have adopted, not all of us. With the exception of spam, I generally avoid deleting posts.