What do you think of the Dr Maserati permaban?

[ebandit]

absurd

The salient point is entirely negated by your absurd example. It is specifically against forum rules to tell any member to FOAD, Amsterhammer found that out with a one month ban. Apparently suggesting that a particular mod is a bad mod and has it out for someone is a worse offense.

my absurd example directly mimicked the ridiculous point I replied to

................priceless!

Mark L

 

[thehog]

It was pretty obvious that Berzin knew what he was doing.

I mean, is there any better way to wind up the vortex than deleting its borderline off topic posts, while posting off topic yourself?

So all in all, Dr Mas should get a short ban for losing his mind, and Berzin should stop being an awful mod.

Or

If there any better way to wind up the vortex that was treating him like a regular poster

I jest but you get the point.

 

[King Boonen]

...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Chewie - I asked you nicely to calm it down with the insults yesterday and I'm asking you again now. I won't be so nice if I have to ask you again.

What are you talking about? I replied to a poster who slammed other posters by indicating that the poster in question needs to reflect on themselves. That isn't an insult, that is a fact. I realize that you hated me as a non-moderator, but as a moderator, I would hope you could lose that bias.

Why no warning to King Boonen?

 

[Elagabalus]

What are you saying here? Berzin is mod. Dr. Mas stated in so many words Berzin didn't have the right to moderate where Dr. Mas was concerned. Therefore Dr. Mas was saying he won't allow himself to be moderated. Far from the first time he's done it. Looks like he was wrong.

Ultimatums have a way of garnering reactions people don't like.

Dr. Mas is the one who pushed it way over the line. Yes, the mods could have ignored it. Do you know how many times they already have? How much time they've wasted trying to explain this to Dr. Mas? I don't. I guarantee you it's a lot.

Seems pretty simple to me, if he wanted to be a member he would have simply addressed his points to Daniel Benson directly. Clearly he wanted to make a public point. I'm sure he's lapping up all this attention now, and has achieved his goal of making a bit stink.

Not particularly productive or good for the forum, but I'm sure he's enjoying it on some level.

So did Berzin actually talk it over with the other mods? The perma-ban is way OTT.

 

[thehog]

So did Berzin actually talk it over with the other mods? The perma-ban is way OTT.

He did and Berzin didn't ban him.

 

[King Boonen]

The rules are not applied the same in every thread and not applied the same to every poster. It's called moderation, in fact the rules are not applied the same by each moderator.

This site should realize the value that someone like Mas brings and adjust accordingly. That Mas had a run-in with ONE moderator doesn't mean the moderator has no culpability in what the outcome was. Mas is more valuable as a member of this forum than Berzin. Simple as that.



Yep. Including the mods.

Fair points, I believe personally that they should be applied the same to everyone, and yes that includes mods. The moderation for me is stopping the bickering and moving conversations along, applying the rules should be done the same across the board, it's the only fair way to do it.


I'm sure Mas has had many run-ins with many mods and I''m guessing a huge number of discussions behind the scenes, the mods do this for free and at some point they have to think enough is enough, we're sick and tired of spending a huge amount of our time on one poster, he's gone. You can see which way I voted in the poll, I'm just trying to see it from their point of view.

Berzin is also an Admin I note, so I'd personally hold him to a higher standard than the mods.

 

[Granville57]

So did Berzin actually talk it over with the other mods? The perma-ban is way OTT.

He did and Berzin didn't ban him.

It was a group decision and one of the mods -- not Berzin -- volunteered to do the deed.

Good quote, Granville

 

[Havetts]

Dr Mas vs the whole forum and its rules, principles & moderators.

And you guys are really surprised about the outcome?

 

[MarkvW]

Dr Mas vs the whole forum and its rules, principles & moderators.

And you guys are really surprised about the outcome?

Not surprised at the outcome at all. The process that got there, however...

 

[Elagabalus]

Good quote, Granville

Well, OK but if Dr. M's perma-ban is allowed to stand then Sniper's perma-ban must be re-instated! It's only fair to the JV thread!*





I'm only partially kidding ...

 

[Netserk]

well, ok but if dr. M's perma-ban is allowed to stand then sniper's perma-ban must be re-instated! It's only fair to the jv thread!*





i'm only partially kidding ...

. .

"permanent" bans don't have to be that way. If it is clear that one is willing to change their behaviour and address the reasons for the initial ban then on review, a permanent ban may only end up being a few months.

The problem is that in most cases the response is to spam accounts. Often the reason for permabanning in the first place is because of account creation to avoid a temporary suspension. A ban is never going to be overturned without a sustained period of abstinence.

 

[aphronesis]

quel surprise

 

[darwin553]

What if the decision of the whole cabal is seen as unreasonable?

Then we really are doomed!

 

[sublimit]

Would it have even got to this point under the old guard of Francois, Barrus, and even more recently Heiro. Mas probably deserved a short suspension, but the fact is, it should never have got that far to start with.

Its like inviting painters in, saying you want magnolia, watching them paint it magnolia, and then banning the painters when they have finished painting because they painted it magnolia.

That aside, the clinic 12 are just upset because now its only the clinic 11.

I go with that. Getting told off and reprimanded by Francois or somebody like Susan for that matter then you can usually take it but he clearly didn't respect the newer mods.
He seemed in permanent argument mode for as long as I can remember which is OK but was a tad tiresome of late so probably deserved it.

 

[skidmark]

...is this the place where I can start a campaign to bring back DAOTEC?

 

[Netserk]

...is this the place where I can start a campaign to bring back DAOTEC?

At least temporarily for the Vuelta a Colombia

 

[veganrob]

No Permaban for the Dr

Bailiff, whack his peepee.



Cheech and Chong

 

[hiero2]

The salient point is entirely negated by your absurd example. It is specifically against forum rules to tell any member to FOAD, Amsterhammer found that out with a one month ban. Apparently suggesting that a particular mod is a bad mod and has it out for someone is a worse offense.

Completely disagree. Imo, you sound like sour grapes, not a valid argument. The only part of your counterargument that has validity is the F part. However, since ebandit was using his typical facetious format, one would normally take the actual wording with a grain of salt - or three. In which case, he pretty much nails the precipitating moment.

As I recall, Dr Mas said something quite close to "Don't touch me. Don't touch my posts. If you do I will see to it that you will be gone forever from these forums." Unfortunately, I don't think he had the power to follow through with any such threat. Well - not unfortunately, as that would have been extremely poor form if he DID do something like that. But the statement does have something in common with FOAD - it is usually used to mean something like "Go away and leave me alone". Although FOAD is vulgar and can carry more meaning.

While I agree that this is unfortunate, I have to agree with others who have pointed out that it had probably become inevitable. Dr Mas just would not work through the channels. He and Airstream (and some others) shared this trait in common. They just kept pushing at the sore spot, even when it was demonstrated to be ineffective. With predictable results.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Completely disagree. Imo, you sound like sour grapes, not a valid argument. The only part of your counterargument that has validity is the F part. However, since ebandit was using his typical facetious format, one would normally take the actual wording with a grain of salt - or three. In which case, he pretty much nails the precipitating moment.

As I recall, Dr Mas said something quite close to "Don't touch me. Don't touch my posts. If you do I will see to it that you will be gone forever from these forums." Unfortunately, I don't think he had the power to follow through with any such threat. Well - not unfortunately, as that would have been extremely poor form if he DID do something like that. But the statement does have something in common with FOAD - it is usually used to mean something like "Go away and leave me alone". Although FOAD is vulgar and can carry more meaning.

While I agree that this is unfortunate, I have to agree with others who have pointed out that it had probably become inevitable. Dr Mas just would not work through the channels. He and Airstream (and some others) shared this trait in common. They just kept pushing at the sore spot, even when it was demonstrated to be ineffective. With predictable results.

That's not what he said.

Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati

Hi Berzin,
I see you are online.

I noticed again that you are back deleting my posts for no good reason. I assume you are baiting so I will put a stop to it now.

You are not, under any circumstances (including this post), to mod any of my posts ever again. Do what you do best - sit on your hands.
You are not to edit, modify, snip or delete any of my posts in any way- if you have a problem with that - then you, not I, run along and take it up with Dan and bring him in here.

And if you attempt another stunt like you did last week with me, or anyone else - I will go straight to Dan, with all the screen grabs and other information about what you do, (and what you don't do) - and I will make sure you are Netserked.

(And if any other mod interferes with this post they will suffer the same fate)

The decision to perma-bann was/is lame.

 

[PeterB]

I visit this section of the forum very rarely so I noticed this discussion only now. I also post very occasionally and therefore did not have opportunity to develop any kind of relationship with either party of this argument. I never had any dealings with any of the mods. I am saying this merely to demonstrate that my opinion is quite likely unbiased.
I also do not have any idea about the history of communication, bans and warnings between the mod and poster in question. I understand that the reason for perma ban was the post quoted in this thread. This is how I read it:

The post seems to carry two messages:
1. The poster wishes that the specific mod does not moderate his posts. He also hints that reason for this wish is some previous occurrence, on which he felt he wasn't treated fairly. Note that the poster does not demand not to be subject to moderation at all, he just asks not to be moderated by this specific mod.
This reminds me of a common feature of probably every developed judicial system, which gives the parties of the case right to argue prejudice of the judge and demand replacement. It is of course required that there are some grounds for this; however, it is sometimes sufficient if there is at least a doubt about the judge's impartiality in order to accept the demand and replace the judge. All of this in the interest of fairness and transparency of the eventual judgment. Given the frequency of interactions between members and mods on this forum, some level of bias could have very well been present.

2. In his second message, the poster reserves the right to seek justice (to the extent of his opinion) at the mod's supervisor. This also reminds me of a feature of every normal administrative proceeding: that you can appeal the decision to relevant institution of higher instance. Also at this forum, mods "render judgments" based on their interpreting of certain set of rules. As in real life, these judgments are not necessarily just at all times, and therefore some situations may require rectification by a third party, i.e. an appeal of some sort.

You will certainly agree that not even the worst criminal can be sentenced only for claiming prejudice of the judge, or for appealing court's decision. Yet, in this case this is what arguably happened. Therefore I voted No in the poll.
My ideal response to the post in question would be like this:
1. Moderator's supervisor considers grounds for the poster's demand and communicates findings or conclusions, if any, to the poster. It is very well imaginable that the mod is asked to refrain from moderating this member - this would not in my opinion hurt running of this forum in any way
2. The post is of course deleted - it does not belong to public
3. Irrespective of the decision on point 1., a temporary ban should probably be handed, but not for the content of the post, but more for its tone (as the same message could have been communicated in much more friendly way)

Of course this is not real life but internet forum. This place does not belong to the members. The management of the site and mods (via authority granted to them by the management) have right to decide, whether they want a particular member to stay being a member, or whether they want to end his/her membership. If they wanted this particular poster to retain his membership, they had other options of dealing with this issue. They however decided not to utilise them, but issue permanent ban, thus suggesting that they do not wish that this member continues on the forum. And this is their right, irrespective of any "justice" element involved.

 

[MarkvW]

This forum could definitely use meta moderation.

 

[darwin553]

I visit this section of the forum very rarely so I noticed this discussion only now. I also post very occasionally and therefore did not have opportunity to develop any kind of relationship with either party of this argument. I never had any dealings with any of the mods. I am saying this merely to demonstrate that my opinion is quite likely unbiased.
I also do not have any idea about the history of communication, bans and warnings between the mod and poster in question. I understand that the reason for perma ban was the post quoted in this thread. This is how I read it:

The post seems to carry two messages:
1. The poster wishes that the specific mod does not moderate his posts. He also hints that reason for this wish is some previous occurrence, on which he felt he wasn't treated fairly. Note that the poster does not demand not to be subject to moderation at all, he just asks not to be moderated by this specific mod.
This reminds me of a common feature of probably every developed judicial system, which gives the parties of the case right to argue prejudice of the judge and demand replacement. It is of course required that there are some grounds for this; however, it is sometimes sufficient if there is at least a doubt about the judge's impartiality in order to accept the demand and replace the judge. All of this in the interest of fairness and transparency of the eventual judgment. Given the frequency of interactions between members and mods on this forum, some level of bias could have very well been present.

2. In his second message, the poster reserves the right to seek justice (to the extent of his opinion) at the mod's supervisor. This also reminds me of a feature of every normal administrative proceeding: that you can appeal the decision to relevant institution of higher instance. Also at this forum, mods "render judgments" based on their interpreting of certain set of rules. As in real life, these judgments are not necessarily just at all times, and therefore some situations may require rectification by a third party, i.e. an appeal of some sort.

You will certainly agree that not even the worst criminal can be sentenced only for claiming prejudice of the judge, or for appealing court's decision. Yet, in this case this is what arguably happened. Therefore I voted No in the poll.
My ideal response to the post in question would be like this:
1. Moderator's supervisor considers grounds for the poster's demand and communicates findings or conclusions, if any, to the poster. It is very well imaginable that the mod is asked to refrain from moderating this member - this would not in my opinion hurt running of this forum in any way
2. The post is of course deleted - it does not belong to public
3. Irrespective of the decision on point 1., a temporary ban should probably be handed, but not for the content of the post, but more for its tone (as the same message could have been communicated in much more friendly way)

Of course this is not real life but internet forum. This place does not belong to the members. The management of the site and mods (via authority granted to them by the management) have right to decide, whether they want a particular member to stay being a member, or whether they want to end his/her membership. If they wanted this particular poster to retain his membership, they had other options of dealing with this issue. They however decided not to utilise them, but issue permanent ban, thus suggesting that they do not wish that this member continues on the forum. And this is their right, irrespective of any "justice" element involved.

Great post.

 

[Ripper]

So Mods, is the Doc gonna be unbanned?

 

[Netserk]

Has he asked them to unban him yet?