Banned members

Post Reply New Topic

I find this quite silly. I'm sure people who get banned invariably know exactly why. I'm sure they get feedback from other members long before a mod is brought into the fray.

Would you advise that parricides were given two warnings before being convicted?

This site is not a game.

Why in the world would Alex lock threads talking about this?

this thread isn't locked. are you a conspiracy theorist or something? ridiculous.

In my view, warnings wouldn't serve to pardon posters who clearly and deliberately break important rules in a belligerent fashion, but rather to warn people who appear to be "cruisin' for a bruisin'" before things get that far. Alex does permit some behavior on this site that would not be customary at many other forums of this nature and size. That fact--combined with the fact that a couple of the rules appear a bit nebulous to many of us--can lead to confusion over the de facto expectations, which in turn leads to posters taking liberties in imitation of others without knowing exactly where to draw the line. This is especially likely in an environment where the majority of posters are on the autistic spectrum (or close to it). We overthink things, take things literally, find loopholes, and inaccurately estimate social expectations.

For all I know, such warnings are already being carried out. But the way TM1 phrased one of his earlier posts (and Calandale's assertion about Alex's policy) appeared to indicate that the axe could fall unexpectedly on an a hypothetical socially impaired poster who thinks that his contributions are acceptable content. I have a lot of faith in our mods and I am not insinuating that I believe this is occurring--I think it isn't. But I can see why someone would be frightened at the idea of a "no warnings" policy. When I read that, I instantly ran over my own posting style in my head, wondering "Do I spam? Am I too suggestive? Is my way of doing things okay?" If we can take measures to provide a more clearly defined environment for a community whose members naturally tend toward a bit of insecurity, paranoia, and lack of certainty over social rules, then I think we should.

I'd love to talk with Alex, if he's willing. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of sending email into the void without knowing if I'll be attended to.

I'll respond to you.

Are you going to respond in the thread, or do we need to PM?

Thanks! I've essentially laid out my thoughts above and I'd very much like to know what you think of it, here or via PM. I've got to go out for a bit at the moment, but I'm eager to discuss it with you.

You think? I'm not so sure. I know a couple of
people who have NO idea why they were banned.

This happened to me (a temp ban), at another site,
and once I was reinstated, I asked a few questions,
and basically got an apology from the admin who
did so.



No, it's NOT a game, but neither are most of the
offenses all that threatening, IF the person involved
can reform. I've seen a lot of such, at other sites,
especially when given temp bans, rather than reprieves
from full bans. AND, this site provides something which
may just be of great value to it's members - taking that
away, forever, is a painful thing to do. I saw that only
the most unrepentant and damaging among us deserved
that expulsion.

Sometimes though, warnings are handled so poorly,
that they push people over the edge. Again, some
things should serve to bring an immediate and full
ban. Some should be banworthy, but draw a warning,
or a temporary ban, as a means to be less extreme.
Public warnings, though perhaps a bit humiliating, serve
the additional effect of clarifying the issue for EVERYONE.
But, this is something which Alex would have to change
his mind about.



Seldomly, after the effect that they caused. But, that's a matter
of choosing the wrong fight, and executing poorly.


Yeah. But, social impairment could also lead to
irrationally attacking suggestions from the mods
too.



I'm sure YOU are in no danger.
I, however....

I think public warnings are better than private ones, for that and also because some people here don't check their PMs, so they would miss them in some cases not intentionally, so making it public for them to see I think that would work better.

Of course, it does depend upon the issue.
But, public ones have the advantage of
allowing the whole community to see what
standards that the staff is operating on, and
to judge appropriately, giving the staff additional
input as to how they should steer the site.

I also suspect that when threads are cut apart
by mods, they should leave some sort of explanation,
in situ, in order to note the action, and the reason.
Again though, my understanding is that Alex is not
in favor of this, either.

We have no control over such a person's reaction. We shouldn't let the possibility of a poor reaction by a fraction stop us from giving a service that could reach out to some people whose needs would not be met by the current system.




I think I have seen you get away with things that I would see you drawn and quartered for.

Oh, just kidding. A bit.



Yes. Plus, I don't think that warnings have to be issued in a challenging or humiliating manner. It's entirely possibly (and vital, really) to redirect with respect.

These go together. This is the real problem. I haven't
found that the mods have shown much capability for
making such suggestions, in a manner which is tactful.
I never had a problem, with the couple of suggestions
that I made - I tended to do so as a co-conspirator, rather
than as some policeman, but that had more to do with
my particular image here. I can think of one case, where
my suggestion was refuted, but no real harm was done -
though some here would have taken it as some sort of
disrespect for authority, something which mods should
be VERY tolerant of. You might be able to manage
it. People talking about iron fists and such are absolutely
unsuited to do so, at this point.

See, moving the site to a more moderated one is going to
upset a lot of people. It has to be done gradually, almost
imperceptively. This takes such skill in manipulation, that
is very difficult to find, picking mods at random. And those
who really think that they can do so, are often mistaken.


You just like the idea of me being torn
apart into pieces.

Not true. I would rather be warned, then banned on the spot and confused,

I think the point people are not understanding is banning is not the usual alternative to a warning. When a warning would seem the right thing to you and others I say simply removing the offending post is more practical. The problem is removed and no one is confronted with authority.

Out of curiosity--aside from posters who are clearly trolls--how often does this scenario occur?