Suggestion to pre-emp "why has xxxx been banned?" questions..

[haahoo]

I don't mind giving a short explanation when people ask it, but I refuse to let myself be dragged into a discussion. We've had very bad experiences with that. Some of these debates have lasted weeks and even months, and spread out over various forums and blogs. That's very bad for the board.

Yes, I understand that and indeed my idea was merely a suggestion that could be considered on its merits to STOP such things occuring..

Facts of life here are..

1. There are rules.

2. Admin make the rules, not posters..

3. There is perhaps NO need to debate the worthyness of any ban, but it is in my opinion good to show that any bans and infractions are "earned" on the basis of the rules as laid down.. Best done, i suggest, preemptively.. Such a thread need not be anything other than an "informative" one, no need to invite replies, as that is something that I have seen done in the past and that is asking for trouble.

If a casual poster asks "why was xxxx banned?" it will create more shit and timewasting destraction and folk DO notice when regulars are getting banned.. Indeed, regulars probably have more likelyhood of being banned owing to post volumes being more likely to create adverse reactions from folk who take a dislike to personailities..


I have not noted any "unreasonable" bans etc on the basis of the rules as laid down recently, which is a good reccomendation as I am indeed a very judgemental person..

As I say, I am only making suggestions and probably the person most often banned from here i will still state that it aint my forum and I have no "right" to dictate what happens here, and my influence shall be as anyone elses is, based on what I post and how it is recieved..

[haahoo]

It doesn't take a genius to ascertain input vs attributed output. To say you're not interested in conflict is laughable. Every action you undertake contradicts you're denial.

[Celtic Druid]

So says the man who has his two faces in a seeming battle with himself. As indicated by his inability to know just how long he can leave a post without altering or deleting it..

You have precisely zero credibilty as far as I am concerned in representing the average father when you display such obvious inability to control your own impulses.

Ha ha, you measure my need for perfectionism as a negative flaw (some have OCD). As for credibility as a father? I have positive traits in abundance, I have physical scars through seeking to see my children (big long deep ones), I have a prison sentence because I sought to see my children. So don't tell me I'm somehow inefficient as a father. I'm there, I'll take the knocks and ask "is that all you've got."

[haahoo]

Ha ha, you measure my need for perfectionism as a negative flaw (some have OCD). As for credibility as a father? I have positive traits in abundance, I have physical scars through seeking to see my children (big long deep ones), I have a prison sentence because I sought to see my children. So don't tell me I'm somehow inefficient as a father. I'm there, I'll take the knocks and ask "is that all you've got."

Well I have never had a prison sentance for anything, not that I would suggest it is a bad thing that a man has got a sentance for doing what he believes is correct for his kids..

But, "judge ye not let ye be judged" my good man..

[Celtic Druid]

But, "judge ye not let ye be judged" my good man..

And with that reasoned sentiment I'll take the lead and end an unnecessary bickering fest. I hope you get to see you're kids this holiday period and that things work for you.

[christianj]

Decisions to ban are taken seriously and discussed by admin and people with access..
Many times a situation has arisen where a person should have been banned and was not due to this process..

If we left it to general consensus nothing would eventuate, we would end up with the exhaustive and unnecessary postings as I witnessed when some individual was banned for proper reason..

To change that would not only not work but would be a total waste of time..

You will just have to trust the people responsible, to make that decision, end of subject..

[haahoo]

And with that reasoned sentiment I'll take the lead and end an unnecessary bickering fest. I hope you get to see you're kids this holiday period and that things work for you.

Yes, you too, I shall be seeing as many kids as I can, not an easy task what with geographic dispersion and some of the mothers being a pain..

[yohan]

Suggestion to pre-emp "why has xxxx been banned?" questions..

I am not in favor of banning until really necessary because of abusive trolling or otherwise serious insults etc.
Banning, editing, deleting is very rare with this forum administration.

I think, it makes maybe sense to reply to the question

Why has xxxx NOT been banned?

Answer:

Why should I care?
Generally, all members have an option which is called IGNORE LIST.

In case XXXX is a pain for your eyes, use the IGNORE option and his/her postings will not appear on your screen.

Do not answer postings from members, you prefer to be banned - use the IGNORE option. If such a member is not receiving any replies, he/she will move on to another forum by his/her own decision.

[Adrian]

Actually, I thought about this at length. (LOL -- I know -- no one cares.) I take it all back -- I think I kind of agree with haahoo. What you should do is create a special area for complaints. Then, what has to happen for a ban to happen is someone has to post a complaint about someone in that form and defend their position that that person should be banned. Of course, they should do this with citing a board rule and explaining how it has been violated. Then, the admins all get together and decide if that is a compelling argument while the accused has the opportunity to address and rebut his accuser. The admins issue a verdict and take action.

It does sound all very lawyerly, but it would create not only forum rules but "case law" that people could look at and see how those rules actually get implemented. Plus it has the added benefit of being interesting (primarily to me).

On the other hand, this seems like it would be in direct violation of and/or antithetical to essentially the only board rule of not attacking other members....

[Adrian]

On the other hand, this seems like it would be in direct violation of and/or antithetical to essentially the only board rule of not attacking other members....

In fact, that makes it all the more amusing and interesting. Someone could start a new complaint that they are being attacked in that very forum. It is potentially self-policing. If someone makes a frivolous complaint, then that could be, in turn, complained about. (I would LOVE to see all of this actually happen in a non-contrived fashion. We would start to create some sort of internet legal system, like second life or something. I'm sure it has already been done somewhere...)

[Marx]

What you should do is create a special area for complaints. Then, what has to happen for a ban to happen is someone has to post a complaint about someone in that form and defend their position that that person should be banned.

This is precisely what does happen. Every member can see a 'report post' button. Clicking it takes them to a form where they fill in details as to why they are reporting it. It isn't used for recommending a ban, as members simply do not carry the administrative weight to do so - but it does bring 'bad posts' to the attention of administrators and moderators. Once a post/complaint is issued, it is followed up by a series of replies from the admin & mod team discussing whether it is worthy of an infraction/ ban / warning. All this, however, happens in an area open to those who carry the weight to actually carry out the action (ban / infraction / warning). As no other member is capable of issuing a ban/ infraction or warning, there is no point in having everyone and their aunt involved.

Of course, they should do this with citing a board rule and explaining how it has been violated. Then, the admins all get together and decide if that is a compelling argument while the accused has the opportunity to address and rebut his accuser. The admins issue a verdict and take action.

If a member objects to their infraction or warning, they can use this section of the forum [LINK] where only they and the admins/mods can review their posts - so it remains private, but open to the pertaining folks.

Obviously, a ban cannot be handled through this mechanism. However, the site does give guests (i.e. banned members need to sign out and then view the site as a guest - hence, contrary to popular lies by some previously banned members, they CAN view the contents of this site AND they can contact the top admin) the ability to use the contact form where they can appeal via their email address/access.

If people cannot be blessed to learn the basics of forum usage, it's no use them then crying on other forums about how bad this place is when it offers several avenues for their complaints / appeals to be heard.

[haahoo]

I think adrian has added something of interest, I know that other forums do use a similar system and the best one I saw was a very big forum that basically explained all the infractions etc in an open area.

(Though I dont know why, it was not a forum that was political or whatever in any way, I think it was some historic discussions forum or something!)

I think it helps because when "justice is seen to be done" it sets an example that befits much of the purpose of a board that is asking the same of wider society?

But, of course its up the board owner and what he feels comfortable with, but I am sure that such a system would actually REDUCE the gossipping, speculation etc and silly accusations..

[Marx]

...but I am sure that such a system would actually REDUCE the gossipping, speculation etc and silly accusations..

As my memory serves, one member here did become privvy to reasons behind a handful of bans in a tight window of time, through emails and PM's exchanged between he and myself.
Even after seeing the fuller picture, and as my memory serves he acknowledged valid points had been made in defense of making the bans, he continued to misinform folks on other forums about policies of this forum and general bad-mouthing of it (here).
It seems to me, an open access area would only invite argumentative folk... especially if they had a liking for the banned individuals.

[haahoo]

As my memory serves, one member here did become privvy to reasons behind a handful of bans in a tight window of time, through emails and PM's exchanged between he and myself.
Even after seeing the fuller picture, and as my memory serves he acknowledged valid points had been made in defense of making the bans, he continued to misinform folks on other forums about policies of this forum and general bad-mouthing of it (here).
It seems to me, an open access area would only invite argumentative folk... especially if they had a liking for the banned individuals.

There is no logical reason why a person who understands and appreciates the reasoning etc. behind policy decisions, bans etc., Would necessarily find it alters his or her opinions on the issues and belief systems..

This IS an argumentative forum, it ACTIVELY PROMOTES arguement, that is what a debating forum is about!!

It does not seem to be a forum that insists that everyone agrees about everything, but there are of course RULES AND POLICIES that apply.

The break those rules or speak against the policies (written or unwritten) may result in infractions, which may be applied and seen to be applied according to the rules, but, even if the infracted person understands and appreciates the reasoning behind it all, it will NOT NECESSARILY alter his or her belief regards the policies etc..

For example, i could post on a board and get infracted severly constantly because I post stuff they dont like.. (usually stuff that is promoting ideas like male head of family etc, that seems to greatly offend many MRA's!).

While I understand WHY I get the infractions, I DO NOT AGREE with the policies of the boards all the same!

But, their boards, their rules!!

They are free to run their boards as they see fit, I am free to disagree, I may get infracted, but thats life.. It aint the end of the world and as we know, the internet is a free resource where anyone can create their own boards etc..

Id say many "arguments" about bans etc are because of loyalties to individuals, but it is odd to see that often folk sway radically from one side to another regarding those they proclaim loyaties to..

When folk start ganging up and taking sides, well, it seems loyalties to individuals often matter more than the issues..

That is when we should accept DISSPASIONATE JUDGEMENT from persons who have no loyalties as such to the folk involved, or can stay above such things..

There are many factors to consider, the worth of those inidividuals is a practical one too..

I note that otis ended up being banned..

Well, I sorta like otis in a way, but he aint a big shot thinker is he? Or even much of an activist.. So, his temp banning is hardly a loss to the movement..

Then again, someone like fschmidt got banned, because he posted on a dangerously divisive topic, even though he explained his thinking very well, the "side taking" came in and started to try and twist things, destracting from what could have been an interesting debate.. (would probably have been never ending, but so what??)

fschmidt was thinker. Perhaps he did not post according to the party line, but his thoughts were interesting and thought provoking.. A loss I would say..

If there is one rule that I would think is "reasonable" it would be..

"Dont piss off the admins in any way"..

Because, ultimately, thats what the bans etc are about arent they?

Someone becomes a nuisance, a destraction, viewed as a "trouble maker" and then they are more trouble than they are worth..

But, it can hardly be news that many MRA's are by nature "trouble makers" and rabble rousers..

One thing that no board like this will EVER succeed in is stopping folk from talking, about whatever they want..

If they dont do it here, they will do it somewhere else often..

By being open about things, but "containing" the argumentativeness and stuff, "false accusations" and misunderstandings etc will surely be less likely, and when they occur, be more likely to be seen as invalid..

I have noted MANY TIMES that the main reason quoted by those who "dissapear" from the movement is that they are pissed off with the constant bickering about petty crap..

This is decimating the ranks, but it wont be solved by saying "shut up and do as you are told"..

because the reaction will be in many cases, the profferring of the "middle finger of the apocalypse"..

Some times folk who get repeatedly banned from "soft" forums or "trigger happy" forums, gravitate towards "harder" or more tolerant forums etc..

But, since they are there "preaching to the converted" it may not satisfy them so well..

If folk need to see an example of just how bickering and accusations of "stalinism" can decimate a group, even a once effective one, look at how f4j was destroyed from within and above by power struggles etc.

Openess always helps I think.

The accusation often leveled at Matt O connor was that he treated members of his own group in a very similar way to how the courts had treated them..

And there is much evidence available to back up those claims..

I am sure this board does not want to be defending itself against similar accusations?

There are many variations of management styles that can be chosen, I am just offerring suggestions..

[Marx]

For example, i could post on a board and get infracted severly constantly because I post stuff they dont like.. (usually stuff that is promoting ideas like male head of family etc, that seems to greatly offend many MRA's!).

While I understand WHY I get the infractions, I DO NOT AGREE with the policies of the boards all the same!

Understood, but in the example I gave - this was not the case. The situation was closer to this:

Member321 thought the reason for Member987's ban was because of abc. Via email's, member321 was informed of the background somewhat to the situation and explained why the ban had occured, which was actually not so much 'abc', but rather 'def' 'ghi' 'jkl' and 'mnopqr'. 'stuvwxyz' was additional, but not pertinent.

Member321 conveyed some gratitude for explaining to him why member987 was banned - and then continued telling everyone else at other places the reason was 'abc' - even though he'd just spent a week or so discussing 'def' 'ghi' 'jkl' and 'mnopqr'.

So in short, there's little point in explaining reaosn behind bans - because as history has proven, even when the full explanation is given, misinformation continues being spread by those who believe they know more than those who did the ban.