I believe that we’re talking about the banning of Le Jacquelope and athelas, and the suspensions of Diogenes the Cynic, New Deal Democrat, and CitizenPained, as listed in this forum. I don’t think turning this into a thread about one particular poster is particularly productive. Just my opinion, of course … I just wanted to agree that I’m glad to see these users off the board, and I hope that the ones who are merely suspended show they’ve taken the right lesson from it when and if they return.
Thanks for the positive feedback on what we’re doing – but please let’s refrain from discussing the specifics of any poster, since neither the banned nor the suspended can respond to remarks made about them.
Thanks,
twickster for the SDMB.
My apologies - I thought people were just being kind of precious by not saying who we were talking about.
Yes, in general, I don’t think it’s a good policy to try to keep active troublemakers around because they generate board traffic. I’m not saying that’s what is happening, but I think in the long run they don’t add to anyone’s board experience. On the other hand, you don’t want to end up with everyone just marching along in lockstep, all agreeing with each other. To sum up, I’m glad it’s not my job to make these decisions. 
Discussion of particular posters belongs in pit threads as noted earlier. But FTR, the board has banned several long time posters. I don’t think that is the guideline. For that matter, I don’t think board traffic is relevant here either.
Nah, it’s like Beetlejuice. If you mention a banned poster’s name three times in a row the mods have to unban them.
Yet if they are pitted a couple of dozen times in the first place, each time by a different board member, then all they get is a suspension. 
And if you mention their names on three different mirrored servers, then Biggie Smalls misses the LA Dopefest.
As long as you don’t say Jehovah.
No worries. Jehovah may witness, but he’ll never testify.
Unless he wants to rage against the machine.
I appreciate that concern, but on the other hand, it’s pretty difficult to talk about the merits of a banning and the Board’s policies, without reference to the specific bannee.
For example, in one of these cases, a lot of posters (myself included) feel that a particular long-time poster was given far too much leeway by the mods.
If we can’t name that poster, directly or indirectly, how can we provide any effective feedback to the mods?
Yes, IMO talking about “Bob” when we know who “Bob” really is is just silly word games.
But, you say, lets talk about specific behaviors. Well, the “Bob” in this case has unique specific behaviours, so again everybody knows who the frack you are talking about anyway.
And finally, the last time there was a thread here in the ABTMB complaining specifically about “Bob” (started by me IIRC), “Bob” being present didn’t help matters either (except to sooth his fragile ego perhaps). “Bob” just used his typical jerky behaviours to tap dance around/deny his jerky behaviours. And folks getting sucked into the “Bob” show, along with much help from “Bob”, ended getting the thread locked before the weekend was over (IIRC, in any case it didnt last long).
I agree it’s difficult to discuss this kind of thing without referring to individuals. We still don’t want to kick people when they’re down.
For effective feedback to the mods, there is private messaging and e-mail.
Emphasis in original.
So are you saying that posting about community standards on the ATMB is not effective? What’s the point of having this forum, then, if not for posters to talk about their idea of community standards, in an open dialogue with the mods?
Well, it isn’t like banned posters are what all or even most of the threads in this forum are about.
Thats true. But then where the heck ARE you supposed to discuss “community” standards. PM and emails are for private stuff IMO. Discussing community problems and standards in private is in general a bad idea IMO. It needs to be discussed HERE. If the mods are hesistant to “kick a man when he is down” then they just need to “mod up” and keep the discussion here on the straight and narrow and discuss “Bob” without “kicking” “Bob”.
I’m likely outa here shortly for up to a week without internet access. But, what the hell, so is “Bob”, so its all good.
Perhaps we could postpone this community discussion until Bob gets back? It’s bad form to pile on those who can’t respond. Just a thought.
It works better when people don’t make a point of sticking a toe over the line, which is what you’re doing here. This thread will get locked if people just want to use it to list their personal gripes with any banned or suspended poster. The thread is for questions or comments about the rules and about our moderating.
Except that no-one’s ever figured out a way to discuss moderating (except Czarcasm’s idiotic “super-sekrit pms” idea*) without discussing what’s being moderated.
This is stupid beyond words–we’re supposed to be grown-ups here and we all know who’s being talked about. Thus:
I think you guys made a good call with the recent Dio/CitizenPained decision and I commend your moderation. Kudos and thanks.
No insults to the posters in question, just comments on the moderation. Can we put this “Bob” or “No posts, just PMs” stuff away now?
*Yeah, let’s have a message board but keep messages about community issues private. Sheesh :rolleyes: