Since you seem to be the only Admin/Mod reading any of the sub themed threads…
I, and several others, have asked, in several threads, about making some more specific rules for posting, other than the easy to abuse generic “Don’t be a jerk” rule.
Since we will now be paying, many of us would like some clarification. You have to admit, in the past year, there has not been much consistancy.
Comments? Thoughts? Official word?
This is not the official word, but just my eerily accurate interpretation of reality:
The “Do not be a jerk rule” is part of the larger “We can revoke your privileges at will any time we want rule.”
You might ask (and indeed, your OP implictly does ask)… Why does this board and many other boards have this rule?
The answer is this. If they listed bannable offenses as being X, Y, and Z. Then some jerk is going to come along and do Q, which the board administrators never thought of, but is certainly worth banning the jerk who did it because Q is just downright offensive (or illegal, or disruptive, or etc…).
However, if they ban someone for doing Q, that jerk will then sue the Board saying, “But Q wasn’t listed as a bannable offense.”
The same thing happens if someone does X, which is listed as a bannable offense. The Board bans the jerk who did X, but now that jerk is taking them to court claiming, “It looks like X to you, but it’s not, and I’m going to get a jury of my peers to prove it.”
By having a ‘bannable at will’ clause in its agreement with people who wish to be Board members, then the Board administrators don’t have to worry about being sued for violating its own membership agreements. When someone does X, Y, or Z or the unexpected Q; then the administration can ban the jerk at will without proving that the jerk broke any specific rule.
Now, you might say to yourself, “That’s all fine and good for a Free Board, but when I pay for a Pay-For Board, I want a membership agreement which will allow me to sue the Board administration if they ban me unfairly.”
Good luck finding one. Almost all Pay-For Boards have a ‘ban at will’ clause to protect their asses from being sued for breaking their own banning procedures.
I can’t speak for this Board’s administration, but I’ll bet all I own that they’re gonna keep their “ban at will” and “don’t be a jerk” policy when it becomes a Pay-For Board. You can complain all you want and demand a membership agreement that will give you hard and fast banning rules, but don’t count on it. If it don’t like the membership agreement, then don’t join.
You can certainly ask they reconsider. Fine. When they say ‘no,’ please don’t whine about it. That’s their business model (and the business model for almost every other Pay-For Board) and if doesn’t work, they’ll have to live with it, and you can gloat when that day comes.
In the meantime, realize that your request (and by “your” I also mean all the ones asking for a banning offense list and procedures) is unusual, and the SD isn’t being unreasonable.
Peace.
This is exactly the question being asked by Howard Stern, and his 18 million listeners, of the FCC. elitist fodder How can any paying member know when they are “being a jerk” on the SDMB if the rules aren’t specifically delineated? This is the fundamental principle of free speech …
The whole point of the “Don’t Be A Jerk” rule is to allow the mods to act as a court justice, instead of as a computer.
If you just try to list every stupid thing that some idiot can pull, you’ll miss things that you hadn’t though of. And then people pull stupid stunts like using the board software to hide the banner ads, or posting threads that scare everyone into thinking they were killed, because there’s no rule that says specifically not to do them. (Both of these have actually happened: both resulted in bannings.)
The Jerk Rule is meant to catch that stuff. What we’re stuck with, then, is trusting in the mods to be reasonable, and accepting that they can make mistakes. We do get to criticize them in The Pit, and some mod decisions have, in fact, been reversed. But it’s not frequent.
The point is not to have evil overlord witch-cackling control over your fate. The point is to ask that you behave civilly. If you cross the line, you almost always get a warning. And you can also ask to be unbanned, if you can make a case as to why you were unclear that what you were doing was jerkish.
The useful, and necessary, side benefit is that the Administration can ban you for any reason or no reason at all. If you look in the long Terms Of Service Agreement with almost any internet service, you’ll see cluases like that - it’s to protect them from liability. It gives them an out if they need one. They’re not just relishing their emperor-like control over you. If they were so powermad, they’d have banned you already for your constant suggestions to that effect in related ATMB threads.
Notice how much you’re allowed to criticize them so far? In the discussions I’ve witnessed and joined on the SDMB, I’ve found little unreasonable restriction of peoples’ speech. And don’t forget, you have no right to free speech here, anyway. If the board wanted to make a rule that you could only say positive things about the European Union, they could do so, and not be infringing upon your rights. Just like I can ask you not to talk about politics at my dinner table. Heck, we’ve got a rule that says no personal insults outside the Pit. Is that a human rights travesty? No.
Long story short: The Jerk Rule is sort of a social contract. There’s a generally-agreed-upon collection of behaviours that are Jerky, just like in real life. In real life, people won’t hang out with you if they think you’re a jerk. On the boards, they prevent you from posting. If you’re not sure what the mores of this virtual society are, lurk for a while. It’s like visiting a new country. Figure out how thigns are done among the locals before you immerse yourself in it.
Court of Justice? Maybe SDMB could set up this up as a new forum. Obviously, this couldn’t be a referendum format, only the accused and his “legal” counsel v. SDMB. Members should, however, be permitted to view the proceedings.
I think we’re pretty well served by the current system.
The mods are more than busy enough. None of them have time to sit and argue over whether someone is a jerk or not. Seeing as the only difference between the old board and the new board is that you pay to post on the new one, and the registration agreement will include a clause that says if you get banned, you forfeit your fee, there is no difference, really. The board will operate as it has before. It’s like getting tossed out of a bar – only now the bar has a cover price. Don’t expect your five-dollar cover back if you throw your beer on the live band and the bouncer thinks it’s inappropriate.
And don’t expect the bouncer to sit and argue, either.
If you (general you, here) think the bouncers around here are too heavy-handed, or if you just don’t like the possiblity of being tossed out without recourse to point at a text agreement and bicker, maybe this isn’t your kind of bar. You may find, however, that any bar-owner will kick you out if you piss them off enough.
Graciously, they’ve provided a whole forum for you to complain about the moderation of the board. If you have real concerns about current Mod practice, or if you develop them in the future, you can always start a thread there.
btw, don’t tell me not to whine or complain. I’ll do as I damn well please. You don’t have to read what obviously upsets you.
Plus, I’m not asking for a specific, word by word, thought by thought policy readout. However, I think we are entitled to more than just the whim of an ill tempered mod on a bad day. Especially now that it’s a pay to play system.
And another thing, who would sue for $4.95?
Most of all, I’d like some Dope Staff feedback, not guesses by members, no matter how well meaning. Anybody else’s Qs can go here, too. This isn’t a pit thread, though (at least not yet), so let’s keep it to requests and questions for now.
You are clearly talking about physical threats. I don’t have any idea how you equate SDMB to a bar? How does what I say in these forums hurt you? I’m talking about freedom of speech, particularly, when I am expected to pay for it …
You have no freedom of speech here, paid or otherwise.
Hung up on that distinction? Try this one: go into a bar, start cursing at the band, making lewd gestures at the waitress, insulting the bartender, and making racist remarks about some of the patrons. See what the bouncer does with you.
Simple. A bar is a place where you go to spend some time in the company of other people, to chat with friends, watch what’s going on. It’s a priavtely-owned space that’s open to the public, but the owner can decide if he doesn’t want certain members of the public in his bar.
Well, if I have to put with racist, insulting, disgusting, offensive, or hateful remarks, they can be painful. If you post false answers to a GQ, somebody can get hurt. If you just go around doing various jerkish things, I get annoyed.
That’s how.
I’ve said it already, and so have others. You have no right to free speech here. This isn’t the market in Athens. It’s the Chicago Reader’s playground, and they make the rules. You’re not paying for a safe pace to say whatever you please. You’re paying to post on the boards, with the understanding that you follow the member agreement, including the clause that says you can be banned for any reason.
Golly, a thread with my name in the title, I’m thrilled.
We’ve said it before, but I’m happy to say it again. We deliberately do NOT want to specify all the rules. We do not want to draw up a legal code, with Violation 4(b)(iii) spelled out. None of us have the time or inclination to do so. And it would be useless anyway: if we drew the line HERE, someone would put one toe over the line to see what happens.
The analogy to a court is flawed. A court is trying to decide questions based on a law code. The analogy to a bar is better (IMHO), we don’t need to spell out exactly what separates obnoxious behaviour from merely annoying behaviour.
The answer to that is that there is almost always a warning before a banning. Certainly, if the behaviour is border-line or dubious or debatable, there’s a warning. And certainly, if the person has been around for any length of time, there’s a warning. The warning usually spells out the inappropriate behaviour, fairly clearly.
Warnings are sometimes public, but most often they are done privately through email. We don’t want to embarrass people needlessly. Thus, it might appear that someone is banned with no (public) warning, when the reality is that they have had several (private) warnings. Perception is a funny thing, especially when full information is not available to the public. But this is a situation where we don’t want to make full information available – it’s a question of respecting the privacy of the members.
This notion that moderators arbitrarily ban someone on a whim is nonsense. Usually, there are SEVERAL warnings (all mods get email copies, so we know who’s doing what). In some cases, we have lengthy debates before issuing the warning, because the questionable behaviour is not clearly a bannable offense. In some cases, we have lengthy debates after warnings are issued – again, usually someone trying to push, as if we were a law court with technical legalities.
There are, from time to time, people who are banned without warning. These are usually obvious offenses. The first post that’s a link to “Buy my home-made sex movies.” The sock of someone who’s already been banned. The “For a good time, call…” Etc. These folks don’t need warnings, they know what they’re doing.
So, no, we don’t see any need to be more explicit than we’ve been. When we see multiple cases of offenses, we add a specific line to the rule. But “Don’t be a jerk” has served very well.
Thank you, Dex, for the official word (and some clarifications).
over and out; catch you on the flip flop, good buddy; we gone, bye bye
I didn’t know about the private emails. That makes me feel better, actually.
Tha problem I have (and I’m not angry, or trying to stir anything up) is that I was suspended and then banned with functionally no warning. I did not receive any email, and did not really receive any official warnings at all. My “joke” thread resulted in an immediate suspension without warning.
My emails attempting to clarify the situation weren’t answered until after my one-week suspension was up; I was ignored as far as I can tell. Then, after I started my (admittedly out of line and over the top) pit thread, I was banned the next morning, without an on board warning or an offboard email.
I would simply appreciate an email next time if I’ll be paying to get banned.