A couple of suggestions...and in which javaman invitingly lays his neck on the block

The BBQ Pit
1

What with Independence Day approaching, and my thoughts turning to the meaning of democracy in American life, I’ve just perused the lengthy thread about Silo being banned, and I have some thoughts about what goes on here.

In the Silo thread, I found the usual arguments on both sides: those who supported his being banned, or at least the moderators prerogatives to ban him, with their variations on, “This is not a democracy”, or “if you don’t like it, don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out”; and the opposite camp saying things like “Well, licking the soles of boots offends my delicate sensibilities”. Silo had posted a workaround to enable Dopers to use searching facilities which had been discontinued due to resource limitations. This reminds us that this is a free board, and we’re all here by the grace of the Chicago Reader. That being the case, it seems to me that we, the members, have no basis for arguing. Beggars, so to speak, cannot be choosers.

Should the SDMB be more democratic? If so, how could we make it so? I’d suggest:

Due process in banning: Banning is the only punishment that the Board can administer. As such it is a serious matter and I think it should be done with some member participation. A “due process” could be devised in which complaints can be lodged by any member or moderator against a “defendent”. A mini-jury or tribunal would be formed consisting of, perhaps, three members. Two would be ordinary SDMB members in good standing, and the third would be a Moderator, but the moderator could not be the same one who lodged the complaint, nor the one in whose forum the alleged offense took place. The tribunal would consider arguments on both sides and render a binding verdict. Testimony would be ultimately posted in a new forum for the purpose, with the goal of providing a permanent record as well as to educate the members.

A very modest membership fee, to help support the system. I’m talking like one dollar a month, to be collected when and if someone accesses the board in the course of the month. I know this is anathema, but if the SDMB server is facing difficulty in handling the volume, then the volume, so to speak, must support the server. What could the administrators do with a few thousand dollars extra revenue every month? A lot. But I aknowledge this is a very sticky issue, and some way would have to be found to allow members to remain who genuinely can’t afford to pay.

2

I won’t do any neck chopping, and I’m not looking for a flamefest.

But that jury idea is quite possibly the dumbest thing I can imagine happening.

3

So what happens when the “jury” returns a verdict of “not guilty”, but the admins ban 'em anyway? Because that’s what has to happen.

This is, in effect, their house. If you were having a party and one guy was behaving like a dick, would YOU accept the votes of three “friends of good standing” if they said that he has to be allowed to stay? No way! This asshole is in YOUR house and you want him GONE.

I can’t even begin to see it being appropriate.

On the other hand and as I’ve said before, if we start paying to come here then the relationship does change somewhat to that of paying customers. Things are then slightly different. But this is old ground that was gone over recently in Ed Zotti’s ATMB thread about the server speed and I don’t feel that it’s the issue here.

pan

4

I disagree with both of them.

I see no reason why I, as a poster, should have any power to ban another poster. I value the free (and often spirited) exchange of ideas on this board far too much to risk coloring it with considerations abouit alienating poster Y or recriminations from teh friends of poster Z who I voted to kick. I cannot see any benefit from the “tribunal of banishment” which would offset even the slimmest risk that posters cease feeling free to vehemently disagree with each other.

Then there’s the whole question of how to chose teh “regular members” for the tribunal. It seems clear that you would not want “Poster Q who registered yesterday and shows strong signs of trollhood”. SO you need a standard. Perhaps you could restrict teh tribunal membership to people who have demonstrated a commitment to the board through long participation, who have gone beyond simple casual posting add significant value to this board, perhaps even folks who expend extra effort to make the boards a better community for us al – Oh, wait, those would be moderators.

As to a usage fee: I think this site is certainly worth it, but it seems to me that it would either be an administrative nightmare or would necessitate 2 separate board areas: one free ot teh public, one for paying members only. I think that would be an anathema to the stated mission of fighting ignorance. The subtitle “It’s taking longer than we thought” is funny. The subtitle “For those willing to pay for enlightenment” is not.

I woud very much be willing to send a donation to a “Board support” fund should the Chicago Reader" decide to create such a thing, but I strongly oppose the idea that even a nominal payment should be required to fully access the boards.

5

I don’t see how a tribunal would solve anything. The moderators and administrators are already a tribunal. If a different tribunal was formed these new members would be subject to the same critisizms that the moderators and admins now face. In any event, my impression is that the admins make decisions about banning, though the moderators are consulted.

As for membership fees, I think this sort of thing is up to the owners of the site. But I think it would severely excacerbate the first problem that you are trying too solve. People who are paying membership will feel even more entitled to have their opinions taken into acount then they are now, and will be less tolerant of administrative decisions.

6

Because you, as a poster, are a member of the community. The chief justification given by moderators for banning people, besides it being their house, is to make this a better experience for the rest of that community. That’s why I think you should have a voice in this.

**
OK, maybe three jurors is too few. It could be more, and the vote would have to be unanimous, like in real life. I don’t think that would be any worse than what we have now, where everybody chimes in after the fact and argues about whether the offending party should have been banned.

**
Easy. Anyone who has posted more than a certain minumum times could be chosen.
**

OK, maybe the usage fee was a bad idea for now. But somehow the additional equipment needed will have to be provided for. Maybe the “Board Support Fund” would work.

7

The analogy, though trenchant and amusing, is not entirely accurate. In a real-life party situation, the asshole cannot be ignored, almost by definition. But on a message board, we are always free to ignore someone’s posts.

8

The Mods and the Admins aren’t free to ignore anyone’s posts on this (or presumably any) message board, because they are the ones who have to enforce the forum rules, make sure no one violates fair use/copyright rules, enforce rules about threatening the boards, and keep people from behaving as jerks.

9

Erk.

Okay, hypothetical problems, here.
First- getting enough people willing to pay enough attention and spend enough time to enact the ‘trial’.

Look, we’re understaffed as it is; the main objection a lot of people have to joining the moderator staff here is the amount of time being a moderator takes. Now you’d be asking a lot of people to take a good bit of time to act as a jury. I don’t think we can depend upon getting a number of people to be able to commit to a certain amount of time spent doing such a possibly drudgerous, possibly onerous task.

Second- getting the trial to occur upon a timely basis.

Let’s say that a new poster, calling himself “Alex Dean Serlin” shows up and starts creating a bunch of new threads linking to sites about the wonders of magnetized penis-enhancers. A Mod identifies him as a spammer.

In our current situation, he gets banned and his threads deleted. No muss, no clutter, and very few tears unless Manny’s personally dicing the onions for his hot dogs again.

Under the proposed system, a Mod makes an accusation, people are ‘gathered’ together to present evidence and discuss punishment. Meanwhile, ADS continues to create new threads and by the time it is determined he should be banned, half of GQ is threads about “How to Attract Women With Poofy Hair”.
Third- getting the trial to a fair outcome.

Quite frankly, there’s a fuckload of opinions of what actually indicates being a jerk or not, and how much one must be a jerk, and whether redeeming qualities matter. Then add in possible friendships and relationships- I’d hate to try and convince Monster104 that Spoofe needs to be banned. (Not that I actually think Spoofe needs to be banned. Though I still think he should have kept the Bo Diddly.)

The point is less “the trial outcome will always be less fair than a decision by Tuba or Lynn” than it is “there is no guarantee that a trial outcome will be any more fair than a decision by Tuba or Lynn”.

And quite frankly, there is due process in banning. We have unbanned people who have made a strong case that either they did not know it was wrong or did not actually do what we thought they did, or people who we felt could actually straighten out and fly right.

10

Nope.

If folks want a democratic message board, they need to go found one.

11

I say we should take Dopers up to Zotti Hill and vote them off the boards.

Last one to survive gets to meet Cecil.

12

Sucks to your ass-mar, Ender.

13

Since this is the Pit, I’ll be blunt.

The first subtitle sounds funny at first, but upon reflection perhaps ironic. Both subtitles are true.

A major point of ignorance that needs fighting generally is the idea that something is really free. NOTHING is free. TAANSTAFL: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Everything costs something, INCLUDING KNOWLEDGE. Somebody has to pay. The Chicago Reader supports the SDMB. Where does that money come from? And the mods donate their time. 20 or more hours a week? How much is their time worth? The SDMB is free only to those of us who read and post. If funding is needed, it should logically come from us.

I don’t thing any “administrative nightmare” would necessarily occur. Of course, if it did, it would be reflected in the membership fee. Valued posters who couldn’t afford a fee could be paid for by the posters who value them.

14

That’s a LOUSY way of choosing things.

Some of the highest post counts belong to hit-and-run MPSIMS posters who add nothing of substance to the boards.

Others belong to people who need banning, themselves, or else, their friends.

Many of the posters who have shown themselves to be level headed enough to make these kinds of decisions (eg, many of the mods) have post counts lower than my own.

Honestly, this’d be like making the oldest person in town the judge regardless of their knowledge of the law, their fairness, or whether or not they’re a demented old coot.

15

That would be bad.

However, I’m not opposed to an open debate about the merits of uncut poofed hair on women in the 160-180 age bracket.

16

Now that’s comedy.

pan

17

Look, folks! It’s THEIR sandbox, as we are all willing to admit until someone gets banned that we like! Then, suddenly, the mods and admins are assholes!!

Let’s face reality here: there is no way to make this work without having the Mods/Admins be responsible for policing the posters… I’m not too thrilled about it, either, but that’s the way it HAS TO BE!

All of us, who have been here for a while, know (and MISS!) posters who have been banned for whatever reason … such is life! All of the banned posters have been warned several times that their behavior was unacceptable (for whatever reasons), but they all persisted in maintaining the same behavior. This resulted in their banning… that’s too bad! I wish they had listened, and modified their behavior…

I miss peace, Silo, Inor, and MANY others… but they were banned as a direct result of their own behavior!

Don’t blame the Mods/Admins for doing their jobs, please!

No one has been banned (in my experience) arbitrarily… if I missed something, someone please let me know!

In my time here, I have never seen anyone banned for NO REASON… all of the Mods/Admins have been (in my opinion) harsh, but fair…

There is a price to pay for being an active member of this community. That price is: don’t be a jerk!

If someone violates that, and is not amenable to modifying one’s behavior, one is banned. That’s the way it is…

What is so hard to comprehend about that?

18

As a matter of fact, something like this is already in place. I’ve had posters draw my attention to potential problems, by email. I appreciate this. In fact, earlier this evening I removed privileges from someone who has clearly mistaken the Straight Dope for X-Files Scriptwriters’ Message Board.

I don’t ban someone just on a member’s say-so. I DO, however, take a look at someone if I’m asked to do so, particularly if the person doing the asking is someone I know and respect. Is this prejudice on my part? I guess so. I do respect some posters’ opinions more than I do others. But I will listen to just about anyone. I might not ANSWER, but I’ll consider it.

Lynn

19

BAN HIM! BAN HIM! BAN HIM!!! Did you see what he did to my toothbrush???

20

That wasn’t YOUR toothbrush. It was just a spare that happened to be left around the house. And I threw it away.

(Dammit, I’m never gonna live that down.)