I'm fed up....

Post Reply New Topic

i'm sorry that people feel uncomfortable about the decision - truly. it was made after lengthy discussion amongst the moderators. we have a policy that issues regarding individual members are not discussed in public, and so i have to say that the story isn't necessarily as simple as it may appear, and much goes on "behind the scenes".

there is a difference between censorship - in which case, this thread would have been removed - and allowing personal attacks or incitement, which are unacceptable on WP. members are never given warnings or banned without a lot of discussion, and each case is examined, and previous stuff taken into account, whether positive or negative.

obviously, i understand that it may look as though the mods are making arbitrary decisions, or are biased, or heavy handed, at times. the alternatives are to make everything public - which would compromise the dignity of members - or to do far less in what has been called "police work", which would lead to many members becoming alienated, feeling threatened, umpteen flame wars... you get the picture. as far as i am aware, no moderator here actually enjoys the more "police-y" jobs we have to do.

WP is set up as a support forum - as far as is possible - not as a flame forum. anything does not go here, for that reason.

i hope that makes things a little clearer.

Vivi
(as Admin)

This wasn't directed at me, but I'll add a comment:

You SB2, do not know the full history yourself, as you've only been here a matter of weeks. RobertN's views, and the way he transmits them, are well known to those who've been here a while. He's said a lot worse about me than he has about you Americans; but despite that, I wouldn't wish to see him banned. He's part of the furniture here.

I've read that robertN is being reinstated after a few weeks: that's good; I can see there is reason to that, and that the ruling elite could be justified in that course of action.

One other thing:



Bad analogy. The owner of this site purports it to be a "community". That would imply (to my way of thinking) that the members of that community actually make it such — the community cannot exist without us; we provided tangible input. Practically, and morally, that gives us a say in what happens — of course the practical aspects of that are a little tricky. Moreover, financial input from members has been requested, and has been given. Whose "home" is it?

I'm not suprised that he got suspended. I think the writing was on the wall there. This may come as a suprise to some people, but I do not wish to see RobertN permanently banned either. He may hate my guts, but the feeling is not mutual.

he's on aspietalk.co.uk whining about the ban.

I would imagine that he is raising hell about it wherever he goes.

Ascon,

I agree. I do not know the entire story. You have also stated that he has said much worse directed at you. Also he knew where he stood in regards to policy. We need to take this out of the context and put it together as a pattern against the guidelines set up by the homeowners. And that little contract you agreed to when you became a member. I am grateful for the leniency by which rulings, SEEM, to be handed down. If you were to read the policies, you would make note that this could be a warm and fuzzy website full of articles and not opinions









it was a simple cause to affect outcome.

Last edited by SB2 on 22 Dec 2005, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For the sake of not beating a dead horse i will now edit my previous statement and sent it to you via pm.
perhaps that would be better. no-one of us commoners could possibly know the extent of the truth.

unfortunately I don't think it does make things clearer, it only leads to more questions.

obviously having secret discussions about members behind their backs also compromises their dignity, so if you're going to do that then surely it's essential that people have confidence in the moderators and the procedures they follow? but, like I said, this decision and the way it has been carried out has caused me to lose confidence in the moderation. hand-waving arguments of the 'we discussed it lots and lots and lots so it must be fair believe us!' are not convincing. you seem to be aware that the decision appears arbitrary, heavy-handed and biased, so I'm sure you'd agree it needs more justification than 'I'm sorry you don't agree with it, but we're not telling anything!'.

what is going on "behind the scenes"? what procedure - if any - is being followed, and how are we to have confidence that such a procedure really is fair and independent of the bias of individuals? and as for "previous stuff taken into account, whether positive or negative.", how is this done, and what counts? it's quite something to make interpretations of statements as 'positive' or 'negative', how are these interpretations made, and what input does the person accused have in their own defence? what support, representation or advocacy do they have, as I'm sure it's unfairly hard for certain individuals to cope with both the difficulties of being under accusation and having to communicate a defence.

I appreciate you are a volunteer and I do not wish to be making anything harder but if moderators make questionable decisions they are only making their own lives harder, and this decision has certainly upset me.

To clear things up:

We do not discuss members behind their backs. We mostly discuss what actions we think we should take according to certain situations.

Our system of warnings and bans is not biased and we try the best we can to be consistent. Warnings and bans are most commonly given for personal attacks, which are not tolerated at WrongPlanet (this is clearly stated in the forum guidelines). A member is banned for a short period of time when he or she receives a third official warning. So whether or not a member is banned is based on the number of warnings he or she already has.

When a moderator spots something that is questionable, he or she posts a link to that thread/post in the moderators forum. The other moderators evaluate it to decide whether or not it violates form guidelines, and if it does, a moderator suggests what action to take. The others voice their aggreement or disagreement with that suggestion until we can come to a consensus.

As for members supporting themselves... If it is the first time a member has been the perpetrator of a personal attack, he or she will most likely receive an advisory. The advisory just tells them to delete the offensive material, that personal attacks are not permitted, etc. Also the moderators keep an eye on certain threads that often lead to heated debates. We read what members have written so we pretty much already know what is going on.

Personal attacks are not allowed at WrongPlanet. If a member is the perpetrator of a personal attack on another member or a group of members, he or she should expect to receive a warning.

Bec
as mod

I just read through that thread - I wouldn't call it whining at all.

He seems to be thinking over his actions, and the other members are giving him tips on how to deal with some of the members here.

I look forward again to reading his commentary when he comes back.

ive never been aganced americans or america because thats being a nazi but i do find it weird how war is used to slove most things in amerca but if there keeping the population down a bit so my grand children can live in a not so over populated world then im happy with what there doing but still words can only meen so much but if america became more understanding of other ways to solve there problems it will be great. and so thenpeople wont think there all aholes because one of my online friends is america and is nice to me cause she under stands and respects me having AS and dosent get angery with the stupid things i say to her. how ever it would be funny if the terrorist blew up the hollywood sign imagin the reaction.