Management and enforcement.

About This Message Board
1

We want to make the management and enforcement process more transparent to you, our users. In the past, we have been hesitant to disclose information about a poster who is banned, out of respect for their privacy. Since a banned poster cannot respond to comments, we also felt it unfair to them to have much discourse on the subject.

For a long time we were such a little place that everybody knew everything about everyone and memories ran deep and long. We didn’t have to keep a lot of records and we didn’t have to keep track of stuff. This is certainly not the situation today.

For the most part, our members are not management problems. The majority of moderating actions involve small errors that are easily pointed out, either by us or other members, the offense gets corrected, the lesson is learned, that’s the end of it. We don’t hold these little things against you, it’s chalked up to whatever, anything from newbie missteps to ignorance of posted rules to getting carried away in the heat of an argument to posting drunk to . . . you name it. Accidents happen and we know that and once the accident’s cleaned up, we forget about it.

It is the larger pattern of behavior that gets our attention big time. When we ask a person to do something and they don’t do it. When we ask a person NOT to do something and they do it. When a person, even a long-time member, continues in this pattern of behavior and ignores corrections or warnings, we look at that sharply.

We do keep records of major offenses and warnings. (Contrary to popular belief, they don’t expire, but we do take all elements of a situation into play when considering action; every case is different.) The more persistent the offender, the more attention gets paid. That’s when we have to do something. Please don’t make us go there.

This means that sometimes we have a situation where a long-time member and beloved poster is banned from our Boards. We regret when this happens, but the situation is usually so egregious that we have no other reasonable choice.

In the past, partly out of respect for the privacy of the banned person and partly because most people knew what was going on, we did not publicize the reasons for the banning. One consequence of this was that some members would become angry over perceived unfairness or injustice that a long-time member would be banned, and the storm of protest would lead us to publicizing the reasons anyway. Then the anger would be quieted down as their perception changed when the multiple offenses were clear.

It seems silly to put members through that process. We should communicate the reasons that a long-time member was banned.

This will need to be done in a calm, fair, open, and objective manner. And we will allow other members to comment of course, while recognizing that the banned person is unable to respond to your comments on the Boards.

This is our proposed policy change, and we invite comments.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

2

I think that’s a good policy.

Such information normally comes out anyway, in the “Why was XXX banned?” threads that pop up in the Pit, albeit sometimes garbled and fragmentary.

3

It makes sense to put the calm, rational explaination before the hysterical post, instead of two pages into it.

4

I understand the privacy and discretion concerns that motivated the original policy. That said, if the problem comes to such a head that it required a banning, then the bannee has already been publicly indiscreet, and almost certainly publicly warned. So if the infractions are public, and the punishment is public (i.e., “Banned” appears in the user status), then so should be the reasoning for that punishment.

5

I agree that it makes sense to present a calm, organized, and tactful explanation out to the public-at-large. If for nothing else, I would think some would learn of others mistakes or wrongdoings, and not do those things.

Tripler
pbw is right. If the crime is public, the sentence should be as well.

6

Seconded, plus what pbw said. I agree with the proposed policy.

7

This makes good sense. It’s about time.

Haj

8

I agree. When a long-time or well-known poster disappears, it’s going to come forward anyway. Hopefully, this policy should eliminate some of the hysterics and drama.

9

It’s a good idea. As said above, most of the info will eventually come out, either here, or in other venues, and there will always be an element of exaggeration, if not outright bullshit. Hearing it directly from the staff would go a long way in pointing out what not to do, and will also preserve any respect a banned poster would still deserve, without the “I heard jjtm broke into TUBA’s house and ate her cat” speculation.

10

I like it.

It all tends to come out in the end anyway. Why not cut out most of the speculation and drama before it even starts?

11

I join the chorus.

–Cliffy

12

One small troublesome item to look out for:

When an admin makes the case of why PosterX was banned, there may be those who still disagree with the banning and leap to the defense of PosterX. In doing so, they will wind up Pitting the administration. And I commend this board’s administration for allowing that to happen (in the Pit). Other boards would simply shut down all dissenting threads.

However, there will be those who, when they see PosterX being defended, they will leap to the defense of the Administration showing that they agree with the banning (and good riddance). However, this entails explaining why PosterX was so deserving of being banned (IOW, ripping into PosterX).

So, even though you may not want a follow-up pitting of the PosterX whom you banned, it will likely take place if other members start defending PosterX.

But this is what usually happens in the Pit anyway whenever a long time poster is banned. I’m just saying that while you may not want other posters to Pit someone who can not defend themselves… it will happen as a response to those who Pit the admins for banning that banned poster.

Peace.

13

It’s a fine line, and one we’ve wrassled with internally for quite a while now. On one hand is the need to respect a banned poster’s right not to be pilloried without chance of response. On the other hand is the broader issue of rules and enforcement. It’s pretty danged hard to separate them. How to protect the individual but still document reasonable interpretation and enforcement of the rules? Let’s face it, any vital community is still a collection of individuals, and man, are we ever blessed with rampageous individualists.
As Tuba said, it seems reasonable to make the process and documention behind actions more transparent. Maybe it will reduce the upset of bannings. Not eliminate it (fat chance) but at least lay out the reasons and track records up front. It might be easier, and ultimately more respectful, of the banned as well as the rest of community. Worth a try.

14

I’m pleased. The non-disclosure stuff still makes sense for spammers and drive-by trolls, but a post explaining the departure of established posters is a good idea. I’d like to see such posts made here in ATMB with any discussion - as distinct from questions - going in the Pit.

15

Is this really a right, though? If someone has broken board policy to the extent that a banning is warranted, received several public warnings and still continues the behavior, I’d say they’ve given up any pretense to such rights. When they are banned, they are no longer a member. No one worries about flaming non-members, be they co-workers, random people on the street, or George W. Bush.

I agree that it’s perhaps a courtesy, but once courtesy is strained to the point of causing dissension in the ranks, I say hang courtesy. I think this is a good policy change for all the reasons posted above, and we should no longer put the feelings of banned posters above the feelings of current members in good standing.

16

Well… there is a difference between pitting someone who isn’t a member at all and never was, and pitting someone who was part of the “community” for a time but now isn’t… and the reason for the status change is the subject of the discussion.

However, we agree that we’ve gone too far in the past in “respecting the privacy of the individual” at the cost of anguish and anger and other high emotions on the part of others. That’s why the change in policy.

We’re sort of feeling our way along, here, and have been for several years, trying to decide what’s best for the boards and the community we’re building. The whole concept is evolving (and probably will continue to evolve, for a long time) and so we try one way that seems right, and then decide to make changes when a different direction seems better.

17

Excellent. I commend you on that mindset. I remember a couple of years ago when the talk of paid subscriptions was poo-poo’d.

18

Hypothetical to consider, here: Suppose it comes to light that a member who’s been around for a while is a sock puppet (either previously banned or not). In that case, the reason for banning would be clear-cut from the mods’ point of view, but it might not be obvious to all members that the member in question was a sock. Furthermore, the mods’ determination that the member was a sock was probably based in part on privelidged information unavailable to regular members and on methods which the mods prefer not to discuss. And any discussion of this would fit into the category of the banee getting extra attention, which is something to be avoided.

So, in such a case, would you

A, Not say anything at all, and let the members figure it out on their own;

2, Post a thread “It has come to our attention that so-and-so is a sock puppet; please do not discuss”, or

d, Post a full discussion of the type described in this thread?

19

“It has come to our attention that PosterX is a sock puppet. Unfortunately, we can not reveal how we have come to that determination, since that would reveal privileged information and/or our means of ferreting out sock puppets. <include link here to the “no sock puppets rule” in the FAQ>. We’d prefer if you didn’t discuss this, since the attention and dissension that sock puppets create is one of the reasons people use sock puppets. While one may feel the need to mourn the loss of this poster, remember, what we saw was a facade. And while one may want to flame this person for that facade, it will provide no benefit for the board… they are gone. Thank-you for your cooperation. -StafferX”

20

nice. just don’t go all PC on us k?