Mods banning people when they seem to have offered another chance?

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

Close, you're on the right track, but not quite. My complaint was basically, a warning (or citation or admonishment or whatchamacallit) that says "Don't do this again" or anything similar. That's the magic phrase (or anything similar) that implies you won't get banned -- not just now anyway -- but you could get banned next time. So I don't think the mods should ban someone after issuing a warning worded anything like that.

OTOH, sometimes when a poster posts the final straw, the mods will write something to the effect: "Okay, that will be all. You're outta here." (After some, typically generous, number of prior warnings.) I don't know how a mod action like that could ever be called a "Warning" or anything synonymous.

ETA: Is this thread just going in circles now? Upon re-reading what I just wrote in this post, it appears, basically, to just repeat the argument in my OP.

ETA2: Or compare the banning of Jaledin today. Marley23 cites and links the final "warning" he received. Yes, he called it a "warning", but that he didn't say "Don't do this again". He said "...your posting privileges will be under discussion."

[Senegoid]

(Missed edit window.)

ETA2: Or contrast the banning of Jaledin today. Marley23 cites and links the final "warning" he received. Yes, he called it a "warning", but he didn't say "Don't do this again". He said "...your posting privileges will be under discussion."

ETA* (Did I just double-post this remark?

[kidchameleon]

So you want the Mods to let that behavior continue in the thread until the mods can come to the conclusion that the poster should be banned or not? Would you be okay with that in a thread that was very personal to you?

[twickster]

There's no particular magic to the phrase "don't do this again." I use it with people who are not on thin ice, but the fact that I use it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not.

We have a full staff of mods, all of whom have their own writing styles. We make an effort to keep things fairly consistent, but when it comes down to parsing the specifics of the phrasing of a note, warning, admonition, or slap on the wrist -- no.

If we say "don't do this again," it means "don't do this again."

If we say "no warning issued," that means that there is no mark on your permanent record, but there could have been.

If we issue a warning, you should keep in mind that this may lead to additional sanctions if it's part of a pattern of behavior.

If we issue a warning for behavior that the user has previously been suspended for, it will almost definitely lead to additional sanctions.

[Marley23]

This discussion is getting literal-minded to a degree that is not useful. I say "don't do this again" or "please don't do this again" in almost every single warning I give, plus many of the mod notes. Whether we use that language or not, the meaning of a note or official warning is the same. They mean 'you just did something that is against the rules, here's why, so don't do that again.' Sometimes we include more particulars and sometimes that does not seem necessary depending on the situation, and we'll explain further if there are questions.

Originally Posted by Senegoid

ETA2: Or contrast the banning of Jaledin today. Marley23 cites and links the final "warning" he received. Yes, he called it a "warning", but he didn't say "Don't do this again". He said "...your posting privileges will be under discussion."

Yes, because Jaledin had been warned about that same kind of behavior many times (five or six, including a suspension in January). He'd been told "don't do this again" a bunch of times and it had not worked. Colibri was informing Jaledin he was probably going to get suspended or banned.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Originally Posted by BigT

Of course he's arguing semantics. That's the point. You don't get to make up your own definitions of words, any more than you should let me get by calling people "cocksuckers" even if I say that, in my mind, that's a good thing....

No. Sometimes, it really is a matter of semantic loopholes at play. A word like warning has new meanings now. It no longer only means what it used to mean. If the OP doesn't believe me, he should ask his boss if it's ok to make the same mistake after his one verbal and two written warnings.

That last written warning is really your pink slip.

That's if you are the kind of cat to wrack up warnings. When I get fired, I tend to go out with a more old fashioned, out of the blue "You're FIRED!". No warnings issued.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

ETA2: Or contrast the banning of Jaledin today. Marley23 cites and links the final "warning" he received. Yes, he called it a "warning", but he didn't say "Don't do this again". He said "...your posting privileges will be under discussion."

When issuing a Mod Note or Warning, I usually add "Don't do this again" as a matter of course. It is not ever meant to imply that the poster will necessarily be given a chance to do it again.

If I've had the time to check a poster's infraction record beforehand, and see that he or she has enough previous warnings to consider a suspension or ban, I'll include "Your posting privileges will be under discussion." But sometimes if a thread is in danger of running off the rails because of the poster's remarks, I'll issue the warning before checking the details of his history. The lack of this statement doesn't imply that the poster may not end up being suspended or banned for the offending post.

As twickster says, there are no magic words. Some posters expect that our mod notes and warnings should be written with the precision of a Supreme Court decision. As it is, I try to be as explicit as possible.

Any poster that has previously been suspended should be aware that they could potentially be banned for any new infraction. We shouldn't have to give them advice about not committing new offenses. Posters who are on the verge of banning have already received a bunch of previous warnings, and have had the rules explained to them multiple times. There's really no excuse for committing new infractions.

[Lazlo Hapsburg]

I decided it would be best to just withdraw from this discussion because most people know that no matter what they may say, you can virtually never win an argument with moderators or administrators.

They will wrap themselves up in incredible layers of "we are virtually the best ever and the nicest ever and no one is as good as us." But then they will resort to what I consider to be "dirty tricks".

However, the level of baloney has just risen to such heights that I find I cannot remain silent any longer.

Let me give you an example of one of your so-called "dirty tricks".

1) A poster unknowingly breaks some rule.

2) A moderator or administrator approaches them (just as pleasant as can be) and asks, "Did you do such and such"? If the poster foolishly co-operates with them and tells them the truth saying, "Why yes Sir, I did that. Is that a problem?" Then they are a "proven" offender and the mod can ban them with a clear conscience.

IMO, that is a dirty trick because you are using a members innocent naivety against them.

One of the moderators up thread said, " No Mod can simply ban a poster (other than a spammer or proven sockpuppet) on his or her own".

Excuse me for laughing but when it is "proven" by an innocent admission out of the poster's own mouth, it just stinks that is then used against them. At least that is my opinion.

There is a reason why the criminal justice system has the Fifth Amendment so that the police and DA's can't trick people into saying things they can then use against them when they could never otherwise arrest or convict them. And thank goodness for that.

I suppose you will all have a hundred reasons why I am completely mistaken about this and just don't know what I'm talking about and why it is perfectly OK for you all to use whatever devices you want to have your way.

I guess the bottom line is that it is your board and you can do whatever you want.

My point is simply that it stinks. At least that is my opinion.

I hope people are still permitted to post contrary opinions here. Although I would not be surprised if that was taken away from us one day "for the good of the board", of course.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Lazlo Hapsburg

I decided it would be best to just withdraw from this discussion because most people know that no matter what they may say, you can virtually never win an argument with moderators or administrators.

They will wrap themselves up in incredible layers of "we are virtually the best ever and the nicest ever and no one is as good as us." But then they will resort to what I consider to be "dirty tricks".

However, the level of baloney has just risen to such heights that I find I cannot remain silent any longer.

Let me give you an example of one of your so-called "dirty tricks".

1) A poster unknowingly breaks some rule.

2) A moderator or administrator approaches them (just as pleasant as can be) and asks, "Did you do such and such"? If the poster foolishly co-operates with them and tells them the truth saying, "Why yes Sir, I did that. Is that a problem?" Then they are a "proven" offender and the mod can ban them with a clear conscience.

IMO, that is a dirty trick because you are using a members innocent naivety against them.

One of the moderators up thread said, " No Mod can simply ban a poster (other than a spammer or proven sockpuppet) on his or her own".

Excuse me for laughing but when it is "proven" by an innocent admission out of the poster's own mouth, it just stinks that is then used against them. At least that is my opinion.

There is a reason why the criminal justice system has the Fifth Amendment so that the police and DA's can't trick people into saying things they can then use against them when they could never otherwise arrest or convict them. And thank goodness for that.

I suppose you will all have a hundred reasons why I am completely mistaken about this and just don't know what I'm talking about and why it is perfectly OK for you all to use whatever devices you want to have your way.

I guess the bottom line is that it is your board and you can do whatever you want.

My point is simply that it stinks. At least that is my opinion.

I hope people are still permitted to post contrary opinions here. Although I would not be surprised if that was taken away from us one day "for the good of the board", of course.

What an absurd post. Your very first post in the thread is to declare that you are withdrawing from the discussion, a discussion to which you haven't yet added a single thought.

It is a "dirty trick" to ask a question about whether you've done something, and then act based on your answer? You are responsible for knowing the rules, and not knowing them is not a justification for breaking them. Nor is it a moderator's job to give you some kind of internet Miranda rights.

[kidchameleon]

Has anyone ever been banned because they admitted to doing something wrong and the Mods called them a "proven" offender?

[Colibri]

Lazlo,

If you are talking about the case of someone being banned for having two usernames, we've already explained that if the offense was actually inadvertent and the person has no other offenses, they can apply for reinstatement. Such requests are normally granted.

If you are talking about some other case, I have no idea what it might be. Without more specifics, there's no way to comment on it.

We do ban people who appear to be spammers, socks, or trolls without warning. But when someone gets in touch with us via email or webmaster mail, we do evaluate whether or not we might have made a mistake. If we are convinced the offense was not deliberate, they may be allowed back in.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

Has anyone ever been banned because they admitted to doing something wrong and the Mods called them a "proven" offender?

I don't think I've heard the term "proven offender" here. Could you give an example of what you mean by "doing something wrong"?

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

Has anyone ever been banned because they admitted to doing something wrong and the Mods called them a "proven" offender?

We've occasionally banned trolls who publicly admitted they were trolling.

If Lazlo is talking about someone admitting to having two usernames, well, yeah, we'll ban someone for that. But I suspect that Lazlo isn't actually giving us the full story.

[Lynn Bodoni]

When we find someone is using two names, usually we do ban both, while we contact the offender and explain that s/he can only have one name, so pick one, and we'll merge the names, or we'll unban the picked name and leave the other one banned. In cases like these, we assume that the offense was innocent, and the poster didn't mean to break the rules.

Now, if someone has been banned, and then comes back with a new name, and we discover this, then yes, that's an instapermaban. The poster knows full well that s/he was banned, and is trying to get around it.

I suppose that spammers would claim that they didn't read the Terms of Service before posting their spam, and that they innocently offended. However, I find it impossible to believe that someone is ignorant enough to think that it's really OK to post spam.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Lazlo Hapsburg

I decided it would be best to just withdraw from this discussion because most people know that no matter what they may say, you can virtually never win an argument with moderators or administrators.

They will wrap themselves up in incredible layers of "we are virtually the best ever and the nicest ever and no one is as good as us." But then they will resort to what I consider to be "dirty tricks".

However, the level of baloney has just risen to such heights that I find I cannot remain silent any longer.

Let me give you an example of one of your so-called "dirty tricks".

1) A poster unknowingly breaks some rule.

2) A moderator or administrator approaches them (just as pleasant as can be) and asks, "Did you do such and such"? If the poster foolishly co-operates with them and tells them the truth saying, "Why yes Sir, I did that. Is that a problem?" Then they are a "proven" offender and the mod can ban them with a clear conscience.

IMO, that is a dirty trick because you are using a members innocent naivety against them.

One of the moderators up thread said, " No Mod can simply ban a poster (other than a spammer or proven sockpuppet) on his or her own".

Excuse me for laughing but when it is "proven" by an innocent admission out of the poster's own mouth, it just stinks that is then used against them. At least that is my opinion.

There is a reason why the criminal justice system has the Fifth Amendment so that the police and DA's can't trick people into saying things they can then use against them when they could never otherwise arrest or convict them. And thank goodness for that.

I suppose you will all have a hundred reasons why I am completely mistaken about this and just don't know what I'm talking about and why it is perfectly OK for you all to use whatever devices you want to have your way.

I guess the bottom line is that it is your board and you can do whatever you want.

My point is simply that it stinks. At least that is my opinion.

I hope people are still permitted to post contrary opinions here. Although I would not be surprised if that was taken away from us one day "for the good of the board", of course.

You said essentially the same thing in the other thread.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...4&postcount=55

You're long on accusations but short on actual information.

Provide the name of your friend who was banned for such actions and we'll investigate the circumstance.

As I said in the other thread-------if we were in error, we'll reinstate the person and I'll personally apologize for our error.

Your move.

[the lone cashew]

Join date, April 2012. Seems odd that so much resentment has built up in such a short amount of time.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by the lone cashew

Join date, April 2012. Seems odd that so much resentment has built up in such a short amount of time.

We banned his "friend."

[Senegoid]

I'm disturbed and offended to learn of the sock puppets .999... and 1 which, through extensive and labor-intensive investigations, have been proven -- PROVEN! -- to be the same (as discussed and repeatedly proven in a recent GQ thread). I demand they both be banned immediately!

[TubaDiva]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

Has anyone ever been banned because they admitted to doing something wrong and the Mods called them a "proven" offender?

Might have happened where someone was a general nuisance and that was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, but usually no.

If someone's confessional about something and strives to do better, we usually agree that's what they should do and we go forward. For example, we've had people admit to multiple screen names. If they 'fess up we don't ban them for it, even though it states clearly in the registration agreement that we will ban multiple screen names from the board. If you tell us, we merge up the names into one screen name and that's the end of it.

[Lazlo Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by samclem

You said essentially the same thing in the other thread.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...4&postcount=55

You're long on accusations but short on actual information.

Provide the name of your friend who was banned for such actions and we'll investigate the circumstance.

As I said in the other thread-------if we were in error, we'll reinstate the person and I'll personally apologize for our error.

Your move.

My move?

I sent you a private message two days ago but you never replied to me.

I'm sorry but I see that as being "Your Move".

[Lazlo Hapsburg]

Sorry. I missed the edit cutoff time period. So I'm re-submmitting my post with some changes.

My move?

I sent you two private messages on Oct. 12 approx 4:30 pm (Board time) but you never replied to me.

I can't see how that makes it my move. I see that as being "Your Move".

I decided to communicate with you privately because you seemed like a very reasonable individual.

However I must say that I have had some private communications with a few of the mods and admins (E.G. TubaDiva & Marley) and others and they have always been very polite, and friendly to me in private. But it sure seems different in public.

I have no idea why.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Lazlo Hapsburg

Sorry. I missed the edit cutoff time period. So I'm re-submmitting my post with some changes.

My move?

I sent you two private messages on Oct. 12 approx 4:30 pm (Board time) but you never replied to me.

I can't see how that makes it my move. I see that as being "Your Move".

I decided to communicate with you privately because you seemed like a very reasonable individual.

However I must say that I have had some private communications with a few of the mods and admins (E.G. TubaDiva & Marley) and others and they have always been very polite, and friendly to me in private. But it sure seems different in public.

I have no idea why.

I think I'm reasonable. I got your messages. I didn't see where they required an answer.

You explained that your friend was banned about 5-6 years ago. You also contended that he never was warned and never acted like a jerk.

How can I(we) possibly respond to your accusations without knowing the screen name(s) of your friend. I've said twice publically that we'll investigate and see what happened. I just need the screen name..................

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Originally Posted by samclem

I think I'm reasonable. I got your messages. I didn't see where they required an answer.

You explained that your friend was banned about 5-6 years ago. You also contended that he never was warned and never acted like a jerk.

How can I(we) possibly respond to your accusations without knowing the screen name(s) of your friend. I've said twice publically that we'll investigate and see what happened. I just need the screen name..................

As an aside, I think there is value to responding to PMs and emails if only to acknowledge that you received it. There are probably some that are obvious in not needing a response, but messages that part of some larger discussion certainly warrant at least a minimal response.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen

As an aside, I think there is value to responding to PMs and emails if only to acknowledge that you received it. There are probably some that are obvious in not needing a response, but messages that part of some larger discussion certainly warrant at least a minimal response.

I think you're correct. I probably should have.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Lazlo Hapsburg

My move?

I sent you a private message two days ago but you never replied to me.

I'm sorry but I see that as being "Your Move".

Send me a PM giving the usernames of the individual you are complaining about.

Your move.

[Lazlo Hapsburg]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Send me a PM giving the usernames of the individual you are complaining about.

Your move.

I have decided to continue this discussion in private with a staff member whom I trust and I have so notified that staff member.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Lazlo Hapsburg

I have decided to continue this discussion in private with a staff member whom I trust and I have so notified that staff member.

I don't think the results of that conversation should be private. There was a public accusation that a member was treated badly by staff and banned for no reason. I think we should have the screen name of that person so we can judge for ourselves how fair or unfair their punishment was.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I don't think the results of that conversation should be private. There was a public accusation that a member was treated badly by staff and banned for no reason. I think we should have the screen name of that person so we can judge for ourselves how fair or unfair their punishment was.

Trust me--I'd make it public, but that name isn't forthcoming..............

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by samclem

Trust me--I'd make it public, but that name isn't forthcoming..............

Perhaps you are not the "trusted" staff member that Lazlo will confide in. It would be nice, should that "trusted" staff member actually exist and receive a name, that it be shared with the rest of us.

[April R]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Ah, yes. Attack of the micro-zombies. Wait while I get out my micro-garlic.

Micro-zombies aren't affected by micro-garlic

That's micro-vampires silly

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Perhaps you are not the "trusted" staff member that Lazlo will confide in. It would be nice, should that "trusted" staff member actually exist and receive a name, that it be shared with the rest of us.

In the mod/Admin loop, we share.

Based on all posts/PMs so far, it won't show up.

[Irishman]

So Lazlo has no evidence and is just throwing around crap accusations. Good to know. We can all pin this one, so the next time this accusation surfaces, we all can point to this proof that the accusation is a lie.

[April R]

I think y'all take this entirely too seriously.