Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[ebandit]

favourites?

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

of course we all have favourites

mods who are also regular posters may have their impartiality tested / questioned

i appreciate the mods efforts.............may luck be with them

Mark L

ps if i added ha Ha! i'm only trolling.........would i be perma banned?
.......like there is no scope for a 'lil fun on the forum

 

[Eshnar]

NONE.
Yet again, confirmed below.

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

Having new mods isn't actually related with what happened to MR - the mods who decided for the permaban were not only the new ones nor the olds.
The staff has pretty much worked always like this, as far as I know.

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.

it was a rushed decision, yes. We all make mistakes, you know.

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

It wasn't, evidently. Now we think it is. Do you think it is too?

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.

hence why we need to discuss it afterwards. There are no precise rules about the length of the bans and there never were - 2011tdf apart - it's all to the mods' will.

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

do you have any evidence for what you just said? I'd say if the strike system was dropped is because in the end mods found it did not work.

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.

amen.

 

[Hugh Januss]

of course we all have favourites

mods who are also regular posters may have their impartiality tested / questioned

i appreciate the mods efforts.............may luck be with them

Mark L

ps if i added ha Ha! i'm only trolling.........would i be perma banned?
.......like there is no scope for a 'lil fun on the forum

That wasn't trolling......more like brown nosing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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

I have no major problem with that.
While I might wish that it does not extend in to your role on moderating I accept that it probably has at times. Which is why it was good that a number of new mods with various opinions (or bias) were sought. It provides balance and fairness.

But with respect, you guys need to huddle and come up with a consistent approach on the rules and appropriate sanctions. Remember most posters want to discuss (not troll) so they will not only adhere to fair rules, but assist in its implementation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Having new mods isn't actually related with what happened to MR - the mods who decided for the permaban were not only the new ones nor the olds.
The staff has pretty much worked always like this, as far as I know.

it was a rushed decision, yes. We all make mistakes, you know.

It wasn't, evidently. Now we think it is. Do you think it is too?

hence why we need to discuss it afterwards. There are no precise rules about the length of the bans and there never were - 2011tdf apart - it's all to the mods' will.

I think this covers all the above points.

Perma bans do not work for the majority of cases. Quite frankly most bans over a week are very severe.
The only reason I can see why they are used is because a particular mod becomes frustrated and it is a way to clear an inbox.

A mods role (IMO) is to keep discussion moving along without trolling.
If personal, off topic or flaming/baiting posts were addressed quickly (warning followed by short ban) it would address most issues.

do you have any evidence for what you just said? I'd say if the strike system was dropped is because in the end mods found it did not work.

amen.

No, I have no evidence of that. But by the sounds of it you don't either.

My opinion is that during the TdF more mods were 'on' and were less tolerant to trolling. Which is what I expected when the new mods came on.
I also thought that it worked very well during the Tour.

 

[Eshnar]

No, I have no evidence of that. But by the sounds of it you don't either.

I don't, in fact I just have the feeling it didn't work, otherwise there was no reason to drop it.

 

[Netserk]

I have no major problem with that.
While I might wish that it does not extend in to your role on moderating I accept that it probably has at times. Which is why it was good that a number of new mods with various opinions (or bias) were sought. It provides balance and fairness.

But with respect, you guys need to huddle and come up with a consistent approach on the rules and appropriate sanctions. Remember most posters want to discuss (not troll) so they will not only adhere to fair rules, but assist in its implementation.

I do try hard to put all bias aside when acting in the role of a mod, but that doesn't change the fact that I am fallible and subjective.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't, in fact I just have the feeling it didn't work, otherwise there was no reason to drop it.

I am pretty sure the reason it was not extended was because at the time CN did not have enough mods, particularly mods in various time zones.

 

[Eshnar]

I am pretty sure the reason it was not extended was because at the time CN did not have enough mods, particularly mods in various time zones.

I don't think so, as the strike system is pretty time-saving with respect to the usual one.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think so, as the strike system is pretty time-saving with respect to the usual one.

I don't actually know what that means.

Regardless, you appear to be dismissing this on something you don't know about during the Tour, rather than on its own merits.

 

[Eshnar]

I don't actually know what that means.

It's time saving because it's partially implemented in the forum itself. We can give infractions with a few clicks.

 

[ElChingon]

Would appropriate if mods took example and long term trolls to task.

 

[ebandit]

Unbelievable

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

UNBELIEVABLE! today in the sky thread thehog get's a personal warning

.......free to carry on trolling

unlike those members who are pro team sky.............they received lengthy

bans

Mark L

 

[Netserk]

UNBELIEVABLE! today in the sky thread thehog get's a personal warning

.......free to carry on trolling

unlike those members who are pro team sky.............they received lengthy

bans

Mark L

1st: thehog has had many bans. Hardly 'free to troll'.

2nd: pro-sky posters also receive warnings before a ban is handed out. Unless if the offend is so bad that it calls for an immediate ban.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's time saving because it's partially implemented in the forum itself. We can give infractions with a few clicks.

Again, I dont know what this means.

And to be clear - I do not want or need to know nor do I think it is in the forum interest to say how things are done by the mods. Let the trolls work for their trolldom.

However, I do not see what convenience has to do with it.

1st: thehog has had many bans. Hardly 'free to troll'.

2nd: pro-sky posters also receive warnings before a ban is handed out. Unless if the offend is so bad that it calls for an immediate ban.

It is this sort of thing that suggests personal bias.
TheHog has by your wording "many bans", yet gets a public warning. MR gets a perma ban for some nonsense post.

 

[Eshnar]

Again, I dont know what this means.

And to be clear - I do not want or need to know nor do I think it is in the forum interest to say how things are done by the mods. Let the trolls work for their trolldom.

However, I do not see what convenience has to do with it.

well then I'm afraid we can't go any further

 

[Dr. Maserati]

well then I'm afraid we can't go any further

Actually you can. But so far I have read things that are immaterial.

This is rhetorical - why become a mod, what was it you hoped it would do?
I trust it was to make the forum 'better' or more usable.

I do not see what forum software has to do with anything. At present it seems the mods are left to come up with their own interpretation of the rules and sanctions and that the only options they can come up with is on how long to ban someone.

How are general members meant to know what is or is not acceptable when there is no consistency?

 

[Eshnar]

How are general members meant to know what is or is not acceptable when there is no consistency?

actually there is consistency - and the rules of this forum are pretty much equal to any other forum out there, so it doesn't seem to me so hard to know whether something is acceptable or not. And for those who can't, there are written rules anyway, so what's the problem?
As for ban lenghts, I can surely admit sometimes aren't as consistent as we'd all want - and that's something we have to work on (and we are working on).

 

[Dr. Maserati]

actually there is consistency - and the rules of this forum are pretty much equal to any other forum out there, so it doesn't seem to me so hard to know whether something is acceptable or not. And for those who can't, there are written rules anyway, so what's the problem?
As for ban lenghts, I can surely admit sometimes aren't as consistent as we'd all want - and that's something we have to work on (and we are working on).

The only consistency is the inconsistency.

You cannot have consistent rules (the same as forum that I couldn't care about and is irrelevant) and then have sanctions that are inconsistent.

And people rarely read rules - maybe when they first join. What they will go on is what is written and what is tolerated.

 

[ebandit]

well said dr m

It is this sort of thing that suggests personal bias.
TheHog has by your wording "many bans", yet gets a public warning. MR gets a perma ban for some nonsense post.

dr m knows.................

Mark L

 

[Netserk]

It is this sort of thing that suggests personal bias.
TheHog has by your wording "many bans", yet gets a public warning. MR gets a perma ban for some nonsense post.

So it would be less biased if he never had any bans?

 

[Eshnar]

The only consistency is the inconsistency.

You cannot have consistent rules (the same as forum that I couldn't care about and is irrelevant) and then have sanctions that are inconsistent.

You can, if the rules don't regulate the extent of the sanctions, which is indeed the case here. But the rules - stating what is allowed and what is not - are pretty consistent.

And people rarely read rules - maybe when they first join. What they will go on is what is written and what is tolerated.

And that's perfectly fine, as people who don't even bother reading the rules certainly don't bother investigating bans lenghts either. For them, the only thing that matters is what they can write and what they can't, and that's perfectly understandable by the mods' public warnings and by other users' behaviour.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So it would be less biased if he never had any bans?

The bias appears to be how you have different sanctions for different posters.

IMO - that is now what is happening in this forum.
It is actually very simple - moderate the content, not the poster.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You can, if the rules don't regulate the extent of the sanctions, which is indeed the case here. But the rules - stating what is allowed and what is not - are pretty consistent.

Rules are merely words if there is any inconsistency in how they are applied.

EG - Rule 1, the mods enforce it so I don't break rule 1.
Rule 2 the mods let slide, that rule then becomes redundant.

And that's perfectly fine, as people who don't even bother reading the rules certainly don't bother investigating bans lenghts either. For them, the only thing that matters is what they can write and what they can't, and that's perfectly understandable by the mods' public warnings and by other users' behaviour.

To the blue - please stop making **** up, this is annoying. And is completely irrelevant.

The highlighted would be true if it is consistently applied - it is not.

 

[python]

i've been reading this thread's defensive reaction of the mods (re. the permabans) and the multitude of dissatisfied/disappointed/critical long-term posters, and i've been wondering:

what exactly is/are the reason/s behind the PUBLIC parallel locked thread announcing 'member suspensions' ?

i have thought of a dozen of good/bad reason for or against the public thread, personally, i started to lean to a conclusion, the tread is counterproductive, but would like to hear from others both mods and non-mods...

is it for the sake of transparency ? but doesn't a banned member software plate already tell when he/she is banned ?

why is it important to announce to everyone that so-and-so has been banned, when, in practical terms, the matter is really between the forum mods, the banned member a very limited number of direct participants affected by the banned member ?

is it to make an example to promote a deterrence ? even a superficial analysis of the facts will tell that a deterrence like that is an abysmal failure...

is it to provide clarity ? i can't see anything more confusing then the typical reasons posted in that thread (granted, 'trolling' is a good reason yet when considered away from a public view - as post afte post by the current admins tell us - it helps little to alleviate the confusion)

is it to to publicly embarrass/humiliate the banned member ? i have no idea but THAT (if that's a goal or not) is actually the most accomplished outcome, deserved or not...

then, there is this tiny thing of sparing the moderating crew from defending itself against the avalanche of furious members due to a hasty decision by a single inexperienced mod ?

and what did the public announcement to ban someone do - in real well recorded and proven terms - to the forum reactions at large ?

it served to reinforce the 'friends' to gloat or the 'haters' to endlessly protest. again, it served the polarization and spite rather than promoting the transparency, self-reflection, deterrence..

these are my quick thoughts on what appears a set up for the forum unnecessary tension and polarization..