Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[Eshnar]

MR said they were doing some 'informal' study, substitute informal for BS and it is more accurate. And even if the were doing a 'formal' (whatever that is) study, so what?

so doesn't change anything, as I said. If you're here only to troll, no matter the reason, you'll get banned.

And also you have put MRs BS as 'pure trolling' because they admitted it? What about people who are pure trolling but not admitting it? Why are they still here if this is the new rule of perma banning pure trolls?!

the rule is not new at all...
people who are pure trolling but do not admit it are indeed a big problem as we have to work a lot more to decide upon them. If someone do admit it is a lot simpler Anyway we didn't even permabanned him in the end, as you noticed, so exactly as we do to those who don't admit.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

so doesn't change anything, as I said. If you're here only to troll, no matter the reason, you'll get banned.

MR wasn't here just to troll.
They had lots of posts here (some trolling) and then in desperation made a stupid comment that should not have been taken seriously.

Let's be clear here, the informal stuff was hot air. Nothing more.
And the excuses have changed and are not consistent. Earlier it was because someone objected publicly. Now it's because they were 'pure trolling' (even though they weren't)

the rule is not new at all...
people who are pure trolling but do not admit it are indeed a big problem as we have to work a lot more to decide upon them. If someone do admit it is a lot simpler Anyway we didn't even permabanned him in the end, as you noticed, so exactly as we do to those who don't admit.

You did. He was perma banned. Only after it was raised that it was quite bizarre did it get reversed.

To make it simple: either MR is doing this informal stuff, and this is against forum rules (where?) - then they deserve the ban, right?!
Or it is noted that it was all a load of nonsense.

 

[Eshnar]

MR wasn't here just to troll.
They had lots of posts here (some trolling) and then in desperation made a stupid comment that should not have been taken seriously.

Instead it was, because many of us mods were already thinking he was a troll.

Let's be clear here, the informal stuff was hot air. Nothing more.
And the excuses have changed and are not consistent. Earlier it was because someone objected publicly. Now it's because they were 'pure trolling' (even though they weren't)

Tha reason was only this one I provided - the fact someone objected was only a sidenote, and no one said it was the primary reason.

You did. He was perma banned. Only after it was raised that it was quite bizarre did it get reversed.

Bans are often changed because the whole staff is never online at the same time, and we often discuss afterwards about decision that were taken while we were not there. The fact that bans are usually changed should be proof that we actually care about what we're doing. Plus, this thread exists also for listening to this kind of complaining, that sometimes can make us change our mind. And again, this should be a point in our favour.

To make it simple: either MR is doing this informal stuff, and this is against forum rules (where?)

Rule 6d apparently.

then they deserve the ban, right?!

Yes, s/he deserved a ban for trolling, because it's what s/he did.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Instead it was, because many of us mods were already thinking he was a troll.

Tha reason was only this one I provided - the fact someone objected was only a sidenote, and no one said it was the primary reason.

Bans are often changed because the whole staff is never online at the same time, and we often discuss afterwards about decision that were taken while we were not there. The fact that bans are usually changed should be proof that we actually care about what we're doing. Plus, this thread exists also for listening to this kind of complaining, that sometimes can make us change our mind. And again, this should be a point in our favour.

Again, none of this makes sense.

Either you were all in agreement and MR deserved the ban for pure/blatant trolling. Then there would be nothing to reconsider.
Or, someone jumped the gun, and used a daft post to justify a ban (and a lenghthy ban).

Rule 6d apparently.

Yes, s/he deserved a ban for trolling, because it's what s/he did.

Here is rule 6 (including D apparently)

6. No personal attacks.
. . .a) No insulting other members. This includes counter-insults ("he started it").
. . .b) No caustic insults or humiliation of individuals in public outside of this forum. Most public figures may be considered fair game for criticism or lampooning, but again, use common sense.
. . .c) No discriminatory remarks of any kind. Bringing up someone's race, religion, creed or similar for anything other than reference will not be tolerated.
. . .d) Blatant lying, baiting, or teasing other members will not be tolerated.

Nothing in that about 'informal' tests.

 

[Eshnar]

Again, none of this makes sense.

Either you were all in agreement and MR deserved the ban for pure/blatant trolling. Then there would be nothing to reconsider.
Or, someone jumped the gun, and used a daft post to justify a ban (and a lenghthy ban).

we were all in agreement that MR deserved a ban. The discussion was about the lenght.

Here is rule 6 (including D apparently)

6. No personal attacks.
. . .a) No insulting other members. This includes counter-insults ("he started it").
. . .b) No caustic insults or humiliation of individuals in public outside of this forum. Most public figures may be considered fair game for criticism or lampooning, but again, use common sense.
. . .c) No discriminatory remarks of any kind. Bringing up someone's race, religion, creed or similar for anything other than reference will not be tolerated.
. . .d) Blatant lying, baiting, or teasing other members will not be tolerated.

Nothing in that about 'informal' tests.

Informal tests don't exist.
MR "informal tests" consisted in baiting and see what happens. But baiting is against the rules so he got banned. To me it seems pretty straightforward. It could be a test or it could be that his God order him to do it, that is irrelevant.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

we were all in agreement that MR deserved a ban. The discussion was about the lenght.




Informal tests don't exist.
MR "informal tests" consisted in baiting and see what happens. But baiting is against the rules so he got banned. To me it seems pretty straightforward. It could be a test or it could be that his God order him to do it, that is irrelevant.

Again, this does not make sense.
Why should there be separate lengths? This is part of the current problem, different sanctions from different mods. If MR was trolling they should get x, if they continue to troll they move on to Y.

But MR was given a perma ban and when we asked this was the reason given:

Independent thought, as in undertaking research and analysis on the posts in the Clinic of individual members (using a purported scientific formula) who he deemed were anti Sky. To what end would he do this? Why would he say this? It certainly received the response he wanted.

A perma ban is not taken lightly but all the mods consulted on this one agreed, which is not always the case.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Again, this does not make sense.
Why should there be separate lengths? This is part of the current problem, different sanctions from different mods. If MR was trolling they should get x, if they continue to troll they move on to Y.

But MR was given a perma ban and when we asked this was the reason given:

You are not gonna win this unless you become a mod first.

 

[sittingbison]

DrMaserati, yes punishment should fit the crime. Which is why "appeals" are part of our culture. In this case a review changed the initial outcome.

18 valve (pithy), the simple fact is that in all walks of life "transparency" only goes so far, for many reasons certain information cannot be made public. Nothing to do with "hiding" leadership failure or any other aspect.

Perhaps a formalised ban length for certain infractions, and a graduated response level, is something we could all benefit from. I will discuss it amongst the mods.

 

[Eshnar]

Again, this does not make sense.
Why should there be separate lengths? This is part of the current problem, different sanctions from different mods. If MR was trolling they should get x, if they continue to troll they move on to Y.

There is a principle called punishment proportionality, in all the western cultures (dunno about the eastern).

But MR was given a perma ban and when we asked this was the reason given:

Independent thought, as in undertaking research and analysis on the posts in the Clinic of individual members (using a purported scientific formula) who he deemed were anti Sky. To what end would he do this? Why would he say this? It certainly received the response he wanted.

A perma ban is not taken lightly but all the mods consulted on this one agreed, which is not always the case.

so, in what way this contradicts what I said?

 

[ebandit]

lengthy bans?

in forum guidelines i read details of ban lengths................


All infractions will be given a 1 month expiry period.

Someone with no current infractions will receive a warning which is considered to be strike one.

A second active infraction will result in a 24 hour suspension (second strike)

A third active infraction will result in a 1 month suspension. (strike three).


yet in reality members can be banned without prior warning / given bans

of varying lengths on the whim of mods...........what has changed?

thanks!
Mark L

 

[Eshnar]

in forum guidelines i read details of ban lengths................


All infractions will be given a 1 month expiry period.

Someone with no current infractions will receive a warning which is considered to be strike one.

A second active infraction will result in a 24 hour suspension (second strike)

A third active infraction will result in a 1 month suspension. (strike three).


yet in reality members can be banned without prior warning / given bans

of varying lengths on the whim of mods...........what has changed?

thanks!
Mark L

The strike system was used during that Tdf and then dropped (it was probably meant to work only during that period). It is not active as today, so thanks for remind us that we have to delete it.

EDIT:
btw,
"Sock puppets, spammers, and trolls will be dealt with as usual."
means that ruling doesn't apply to those categories.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Don't worry. For only a small amount I can make sure you'll never test positive officially

And for a little more I can even make your enemies test positive.

Given how some posters are free to troll I can only assume they are already paid up members.

 

[Netserk]

Given how some posters are free to troll I can only assume they are already paid up members.

Can you mention just one poster who 'are free to troll' that hasn't had a ban?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Can you mention just one poster who 'are free to troll' that hasn't had a ban?

They may have been banned (I don't keep track) but, in general, are allowed freely to bait and add nothing to the discussion.

Out of curiosity how many times had MR been banned before the initial perma-ban?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is a principle called punishment proportionality, in all the western cultures (dunno about the eastern).

so, in what way this contradicts what I said?

Again, none of this makes sense. None of it.

I appreciate the time you spent discussing it here, but so far it has revealed quite a mess.
There was a new drive to have more mods. I assumed it was to have more people who are active in threads who could quickly quell 'trolling', rather than the previous where mods arrived to an inbox full of 'reports' and not know who started what.

For this system to operate correctly and fairly, then it needs some consistency.
The contradiction discussed above is that "all the mods consulted" agreed to a perma ban - indeed it is said it was not taken lightly. Then a short time later there is agreement that it was wrong.
If the rules or sanctions are in place there should be no need for consultation, debate and especially no need to change a decision.
(And the TdF rules are good, short bans that increase would sort out most of the trolling)

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

DrMaserati, yes punishment should fit the crime. Which is why "appeals" are part of our culture. In this case a review changed the initial outcome.

18 valve (pithy), the simple fact is that in all walks of life "transparency" only goes so far, for many reasons certain information cannot be made public. Nothing to do with "hiding" leadership failure or any other aspect.

Perhaps a formalised ban length for certain infractions, and a graduated response level, is something we could all benefit from. I will discuss it amongst the mods.

I said: "it's also a textbook excuse for leaders to hide behind," which it is. It just didn't (and doesn't) look good to me, in the face of controversial mod decisions and other seemingly questionable mod behavior. Obviously, I can't say for sure if that's what's going on here, or if you honestly believe that you "can't" be more transparent than you currently are.

Regardless, it's obvious to me, from nearly two decades worth of personal experience on other (mid-sized and large) message boards, that you can be. And that it can "work."

The thing that can sometimes limit it, is that mods -- and this obviously applies to regular users as well -- shouldn't post personal information about other users that those users haven't made public themselves. IMO. But beyond that, no, there isn't much that you "can't" discuss about a ban. I maintain that it's mostly about how you choose to moderate a forum.

 

[Eshnar]

Again, none of this makes sense. None of it.

none, you say?

I appreciate the time you spent discussing it here, but so far it has revealed quite a mess.
There was a new drive to have more mods. I assumed it was to have more people who are active in threads who could quickly quell 'trolling', rather than the previous where mods arrived to an inbox full of 'reports' and not know who started what.

true. Not sure why you mention it now though.

For this system to operate correctly and fairly, then it needs some consistency.
The contradiction discussed above is that "all the mods consulted" agreed to a perma ban - indeed it is said it was not taken lightly. Then a short time later there is agreement that it was wrong.

I thought it was pretty straightforward...
MR posted that --> the mods online in that moment (part of us) discussed and agreed to a permaban --> other mods come online and take part to the discussion + feedback from users (this thread) --> decision changed.
Again, what part of this doesn't make sense?

If the rules or sanctions are in place there should be no need for consultation, debate and especially no need to change a decision.

There is no way to have a set of completely objective rules and sanctions, as deciding if a post is baiting, trolling, OT or others is intrinsically subjective. That is why discussions are needed as an assurance for both users and mods.

(And the TdF rules are good, short bans that increase would sort out most of the trolling)

short bans (if I recall correctly the longest ban was a month) were good for their purpose, that was the TDF (that lasts three weeks, so a month ban was basically a permaban for the whole race).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

none, you say?

NONE.
Yet again, confirmed below.

true. Not sure why you mention it now though.

Because it was an assumption - which you have now confirmed.
My point is that it has not worked.

I thought it was pretty straightforward...
MR posted that --> the mods online in that moment (part of us) discussed and agreed to a permaban --> other mods come online and take part to the discussion + feedback from users (this thread) --> decision changed.
Again, what part of this doesn't make sense?

All of it.
Firstly, why the need to make a rush judgement? MR could have been banned for a short time and you could have considered the perma ban when all mods had checked it.

Then, why agree on a perma ban and then change it? The sanction was either correct, or not.

There is no way to have a set of completely objective rules and sanctions, as deciding if a post is baiting, trolling, OT or others is intrinsically subjective. That is why discussions are needed as an assurance for both users and mods.

short bans (if I recall correctly the longest ban was a month) were good for their purpose, that was the TDF (that lasts three weeks, so a month ban was basically a permaban for the whole race).

Actually there is.
The mods are quite capable of noting what is baiting trolling, OT etc, what has happened recently is mods have decided what the length of a ban should be. This does not appear to have anything at all to do with a post - but on how pissed off they are with a poster.

Your TdF paragraph again is wrong. (Why the need to seek perma bans? They do not work for most circumstances)

Genuine posters contribute to be heard, to make a point, to rebut a point, to share information, to correct information etc. A ban of short length stops that privilege, so they are careful not to violate rules.

 

[MarkvW]

Can you mention just one poster who 'are free to troll' that hasn't had a ban?

Had a ban. Returned with insulting posts. Had a ban. Returned with insulting posts. Had a ban. Returned with insulting posts. Bragged about it. Mod then quotes the poster in his sig.

Give me a break. You can at least be honest about the fact that there are favorites here.

 

[Netserk]

Had a ban. Returned with insulting posts. Had a ban. Returned with insulting posts. Had a ban. Returned with insulting posts. Bragged about it. Mod then quotes the poster in his sig.

Give me a break. You can at least be honest about the fact that there are favorites here.

So if I quote you in my sig you're one of my favourite posters?

 

[MarkvW]

So if I quote you in my sig you're one of my favourite posters?

Is that so?

 

[Netserk]

Is that so?

You tell me.

 

[Netserk]

Or do you also think that airstream is Miburo's favourite poster?

 

[MarkvW]

You tell me.

Okay… It is obvious that there are favorites here. You ought to do something about it.

 

[Netserk]

Just for the record. Yes I'm biased. I don't pretend not to be. That's why I discuss with the other mods.