Moderators

[Dr. Maserati]

Because I think that is a line that society accepts it is wrong to cross. In any sphere of debate, it is the nuke, which immediately ends all discussion. Imo it should carry a penalty that distinguishes it as unacceptable.

And is that penalty a months ban?

That is the question I am asking, does it deserve a months ban? - your first answer was that it was "understandable", now you are on about distinguishing its unacceptable - which it was, but again, is 1 month in your opinion the appropriate response?

 

[northstar]

so you think netserk deserves a ban for lacking maturity?

Mark L

I think he should remove the lyrics from his signature. Bannable? That’s up to the mods to decide. Netserk knows the rules (no hateful or offensive language, no baiting), yet creates an offensive signature immediately after Amsterhammer’s ban discussion. Could be just a co-incidence though.

 

[The Hitch]

And is that penalty a months ban?

That is the question I am asking, does it deserve a months ban? - your first answer was that it was "understandable", now you are on about distinguishing its unacceptable - which it was, but again, is 1 month in your opinion the appropriate response?

I dont know if theres some formula to work out the exact length any offense should carry. For me its significant enough that it deserves a not short ban, but not bad enough to carry an extensive one. What else can I say. The moderators decided a month was a fair suspension this time, theyve decided that before, I don't think there's anything too off there.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I dont know if theres some formula to work out the exact length any offense should carry. For me its significant enough that it deserves a not short ban, but not bad enough to carry an extensive one. What else can I say. The moderators decided a month was a fair suspension this time, theyve decided that before, I don't think there's anything too off there.

I am being sincere here - what would you do if you were a mod?
(For the record,IMO a ban was warranted, but just enough to cool down)

 

[sittingbison]

apropos of not much:

perhaps the precedent was set in the past with wishing ill upon others. It has certainly been the case that saying such about a rider or member has earned a ban.

Here is a list over the past year or so of bans for threats, wishing ill etc:

banned college for a month for the serious offence of threatening other users.

Norwegian has been banned for one week for insulting and threatening another user.

HiCadence has been banned for a week for celebration a rider's crash.

iZnoGouD has been banned for a week for wishing a rider to crash.

EnacheV has been baninated for a month for implied threats to mods...lucky its not a permaban.

Amsterhammer has been banned for a month for wishing another poster's death

Jackie Treehorn is permabanned for being a vicious ***

length varies... possibly due to the nature and culture of the mod? Certainly not unprecedented at a month.

From memory Amsterhammers situation was debated at some length. The problem with this kind of "offence" is that it upsets some more than others, and in that case its tough luck if you happen to get a hanging judge. As to a prescribed length of ban? Same with all other bans, and in my country most laws...its up to the judge. Mandatory terms is a relatively new phenomenon and certainly causes social uproar here.

 

[sittingbison]

No compliments from me, Bison, and whoever else is left from the mod staff....

no problem Amsterhammer, wasn't expecting any

 

[sittingbison]

...An even better example I think is that Graham chap the other day*. Apparently (and I'm taking this from the horse's mouth, SB) the original decision to perma-ban was because he was politely discussing Sky in a thread about, erm, Sky, which, although 'not against the rules' was likely to 'derail' the thread.....

Yes I know it turns out Graham was a sock-puppet, and maybe he was, and maybe that deserved a perma-ban anyway, but it doesn't make the original decision to ban him for having a polite on-topic discussion in the relevant thread any less ludicrous...

this is where we have to agree to disagree RownhamHill. I went over all his posts, a clear pattern emerged that he was taking the mickey. Nothing polite about it.

He had ALREADY derailed the thread by getting balanced and objective posters like Liberty Seguros and red_flanders to politely restate at length info that had been discussed many times before. The Hitch actually summed it up at the time much more succinctly than I.

As to the sockpuppet, it was no surprise to me it turned out he WAS a sockpuppet, but that was not the reason he was banned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

apropos of not much:

perhaps the precedent was set in the past with wishing ill upon others. It has certainly been the case that saying such about a rider or member has earned a ban.

Here is a list over the past year or so of bans for threats, wishing ill etc:



length varies... possibly due to the nature and culture of the mod? Certainly not unprecedented at a month.

From memory Amsterhammers situation was debated at some length. The problem with this kind of "offence" is that it upsets some more than others, and in that case its tough luck if you happen to get a hanging judge. As to a prescribed length of ban? Same with all other bans, and in my country most laws...its up to the judge. Mandatory terms is a relatively new phenomenon and certainly causes social uproar here.

Not mandatory - just common sense application.

Lets be honest here - I don't think TheHitch was looking out their window at every car passing after Amsters outburst, or that Hitch had trouble sleeping because as the date approached that Amster was to be released back on the internet.

This was cool down, apologise, behave situation. Nothing more.
And I would say the same about Bro's ban too.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Not mandatory - just common sense application.

Lets be honest here - I don't think TheHitch was looking out their window at every car passing after Amsters outburst, or that Hitch had trouble sleeping because as the date approached that Amster was to be released back on the internet.

This was cool down, apologise, behave situation. Nothing more.
And I would say the same about Bro's ban too.

very good imagery

 

[The Hitch]

Lets be honest here - I don't think TheHitch was looking out their window at every car passing after Amsters outburst, or that Hitch had trouble sleeping because as the date approached that Amster was to be released back on the internet.

I was not the target of the comment for which Amster was banned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was not the target of the comment for which Amster was banned.

Oh **** - apologies, I thought you were.
So who was - and why did you comment?

 

[The Hitch]

I am being sincere here - what would you do if you were a mod?
(For the record,IMO a ban was warranted, but just enough to cool down)

I would talk to the other moderators, offering 1 month as my own suggestion (because its not just about cooling down, telling someone to "_ off and die", is a offense that requires a deterrent) and go with whatever the group collectively agreed on.

 

[The Hitch]

Oh **** - apologies, I thought you were.
So who was - and why did you comment?

The target was Big Mac.

I commented because I was shocked to see he had not got banned for it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The target was Big Mac.

I commented because I was shocked to see he had not got banned for it.

Ok, thanks.

I appreciate the response and agree that a ban was appropriate, but not the length. The reason I asked you was because IMO you are one of the best posters here, and as a mod I think you would be excellent, as you understand what a forum is.

I remember before how you were one of those suggesting shorter bans in general. And if need be then extend on that, which IMO is the way to go overall.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I think he should remove the lyrics from his signature. Bannable? That’s up to the mods to decide. Netserk knows the rules (no hateful or offensive language, no baiting), yet creates an offensive signature immediately after Amsterhammer’s ban discussion. Could be just a co-incidence though.

While I think the lyrics are pathetic, Netserk's use of them is minimal and non direct. Banning this avatar or Netserk in this case would be a mistake.

And lets not forget that millions of teenagers (and maybe even grown men) sing along in happy homes to the type of garbage Eminem produces.

 

[AussieGoddess]

In considering the length of bans, I think its important to consider the possible harm caused. Trolling - its annoying, but not so much. Petty slanging back and forth - a bit more so. Insults and threatening behaviour ... much more so. And the punishment should reflect that.

It is interesting to me as this week in Australia, a media presenter by the name of Charlotte Dawson committed suicide.

She suffered from depression and had various challenges facing her ... but its relevant here because last year she was the target of a bullying/trolling/hate campaign on twitter - which directly led to a suicide attempt that night.

She had quite a large number of people insulting her - using the hashtag #diecharlotte and telling her to go hang herself.

She was a vulnerable person with a mental illness - who was subjected to cyber bullying to the point that she posted "you win xx" and took a bunch of pills.

My point is - you dont know the person on the other end of the computer.

You dont know what state they are in or their vulnerabilities. Using language that can be interpreted as threatening, or repeated cyber bullying can be incredibly harmful to some people. Many will be able to walk away, will just brush it off, or will fight back ... but some people can not.

Whether its a real threat or just a bit of slanging - if the person on the receiving end is vulnerable, it can do a lot of emotional damage.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

In considering the length of bans, I think its important to consider the possible harm caused. Trolling - its annoying, but not so much. Petty slanging back and forth - a bit more so. Insults and threatening behaviour ... much more so. And the punishment should reflect that.

It is interesting to me as this week in Australia, a media presenter by the name of Charlotte Dawson committed suicide.

She suffered from depression and had various challenges facing her ... but its relevant here because last year she was the target of a bullying/trolling/hate campaign on twitter - which directly led to a suicide attempt that night.

She had quite a large number of people insulting her - using the hashtag #diecharlotte and telling her to go hang herself.

She was a vulnerable person with a mental illness - who was subjected to cyber bullying to the point that she posted "you win xx" and took a bunch of pills.

My point is - you dont know the person on the other end of the computer.

You dont know what state they are in or their vulnerabilities. Using language that can be interpreted as threatening, or repeated cyber bullying can be incredibly harmful to some people. Many will be able to walk away, will just brush it off, or will fight back ... but some people can not.

Whether its a real threat or just a bit of slanging - if the person on the receiving end is vulnerable, it can do a lot of emotional damage.

A modern media person typically plays the social medias to own advantage. Some are successful, others fails. Some are fragile others strong. Such is life.

Having said that, a malicious targeted campaign is very different from what is going on on this forum with many different posters, opinions and moderation.

 

[RownhamHill]

this is where we have to agree to disagree RownhamHill. I went over all his posts, a clear pattern emerged that he was taking the mickey. Nothing polite about it.

He had ALREADY derailed the thread by getting balanced and objective posters like Liberty Seguros and red_flanders to politely restate at length info that had been discussed many times before. The Hitch actually summed it up at the time much more succinctly than I.

Yes we definitely will have to disagree.

The claim that posting on topic stuff in a relevant thread is 'derailing' because it somehow 'gets' (as if they didn't have any choice) other posters to respond with equally on-topic replies is extraordinary.

Ibegs the question WTF is a discussion forum for if it's not for discussing the topic at hand?

Especially, in this case, when you've got a a thread that is 23,000 posts long. 23,000. I think some individual posters have posted over 1,000 times in it (and let's just assume they haven't made 1,000 unique points. . .). Yet somehow a handful of posts in February 2014 have somehow uniquely 'derailed' the thread worthy of a perma-ban.

On that logic you should lock most of the threads on the Clinic and ban us all.

 

[EnacheV]

at the risk of Dr Vortex' wrath decsending upon me I have to point out that every single one of EnacheVs posts is nothing but idiotic trolling, and Im also pretty sure ventoux boar is a previously banned troll. Probably the same one that got nuked a day before he showed up.

so is there any reason to keep these posters around?

at the risk of Dr Vortex' wrath decsending upon me I have to point out that every single one of the sceptic's posts is nothing but idiotic trolling.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Is it possible to ignore a particular thread?

 

[Netserk]

Is it possible to ignore a particular thread?

Don't open it.

 

[red_flanders]

Yes we definitely will have to disagree.

The claim that posting on topic stuff in a relevant thread is 'derailing' because it somehow 'gets' (as if they didn't have any choice) other posters to respond with equally on-topic replies is extraordinary.

Ibegs the question WTF is a discussion forum for if it's not for discussing the topic at hand?

Especially, in this case, when you've got a a thread that is 23,000 posts long. 23,000. I think some individual posters have posted over 1,000 times in it (and let's just assume they haven't made 1,000 unique points. . .). Yet somehow a handful of posts in February 2014 have somehow uniquely 'derailed' the thread worthy of a perma-ban.

On that logic you should lock most of the threads on the Clinic and ban us all.

I would agree. Well put.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Don't open it.

Thank you but i was asking about an ignore function.

 

[hiero2]

Thank you but i was asking about an ignore function.

No "will power", eh? I think I can understand.

No function to ignore a thread.

 

[the sceptic]

at the risk of Dr Vortex' wrath decsending upon me I have to point out that every single one of the sceptic's posts is nothing but idiotic trolling.

Is that the best you could do? Dont worry though, dr V has a soft spot for troll bots.