Another thumbs up to the policy change, from someone who always reads “why was PosterX banned” threads. Also, many of us who are now reasonably well established posters weren’t even here during the earlier offenses that contribute to another poster’s banning, which can make it seem like an out of the blue thing. As somebody recently posted somewhere, the internet is still pretty new to all of us and we’re still figuring out how to use it. Situations like these that take place over the course of a few years are now coming up.
A good point. I’d see this more of a “don’t speak ill of the dead” kinda thing. At this point, what they want doesn’t matter, since they ain’t here, but the peopel who are still here wouldn’t want to see their good memory tarnished.
I think this policy makes excellent sense. In the case of the recent banning of a fairly well-known member, I found that linking to examples of the behavior that led to the banning made the mods’ actions much more transparent and straight forward.
The other reason this makes sense is that it might, in a sense, reassure me and other neurotically Nervous Nellies. I have been warned for some intemperate posts on my part in the past, and I sometimes wonder if I am on the Official Moderator Shit List, and my next screw up would be my last.
The kind of explanation described above would make bannings of other, long-term Dopers seem much less arbitrary and “a bolt from the blue”.
Anyway, I think this is a good call. I hope it works out.
And Liberal, if you read this thread, I appreciate it when you remind us all that it is bad sport to attack someone who cannot defend himself, in threads like “Why Was PosterX Banned?”
Regards,
Shodan
Not that PosterX wasn’t a jerk. He should have been banned long ago.
As I’ve argued in the past, sharing the reasons that people are banned will help all of us learn how to be better citizens of the Dope. Most bannings of long-time posters aren’t because of obvious and clear-cut things like sock puppetry or spam, but because of more subtle offenses over time. The rules here are flexible, as they should be, but that sometimes causes a little bit of confusion. Offering us a “judicial opinion” instead of just a “verdict” will make it easier for us all to interpret the laws.
I like the idea, though you never know what the unintended consequences might be. But I also like the idea of not bashing people who can’t respond. I guess I’d like to see a thread (not a sticky — let it die when it’s time) with an OP worded as mildly as possible, without unnecessary detail. For example:
GOOD:
The administration, in consultation with the moderators, has banned Polycarp today for a series of rules infractions and behavior problems. These include posting death threats, ignoring moderator warnings, and violating our copyright rules over a period of one year. The ban is permanent. While you may discuss the administrative action (the banning), you may not discuss the banned poster.
BAD:
We’ve had it with Polycrap’s incessant trolling and political leftness. He took the moral high ground, and he got knocked down. Good riddance. He thought his sh*t didn’t stink, and he took advantage of our generosity and tolerance. He’ll get his membership back when Hell freezes over. Our decision is not to be a topic of discussion, but there are threads and [url=]here where you may throw rotten tomatoes at him.
Liberal posting example of what he thinks would be a GOOD post in such a thread and by doing this mentions an active member by name.
Thereby giving readers not familiar with this member’s postings the impression that
a) This member is banned for the reasons he states
or
b) this member, although not banned, in the past violated the SDMB rules as described by Liberal.
BAD: Liberal posting an example of what he thinks would be a BAD post in such a thread and by doing this again mentions the same member while altering this member’s name in a way that it becomes an insult.
GOOD: Liberal postis his examples of BAD versus GOOD without mentioning any member (or if he can’t find a method to make such a post without mentioning an active member, using his own membername in his example).
Salaam. A
If he would be your brother or not makes no difference. Members who read your post easily can come to the conclusions I pictured.
I never saw Polycarp violate any rules and I am also familiar with your posting style yet I don’t think that can be said about every member of this message board.
A post worded like yours can in lmy opinion only lead to wrong interpretation and guessing games.
It seemed to me at first glance that you used someones name that you obviously had no problem with. Your intent was clear to me.
I like the new rule and how it was recently used. I have one question. Since it is going to be explained in ATMB are the inevitable Pit threads going to be closed?
I disagree with you on this matter. While we should not sit around and mercilessly bash the bannee, we must be allowed to discuss whatever aspects of his or her on-board behavior led to the banning.
One more voice added to the chorus in favor. While I realize this may add a bit the administration’s burden, having a clear explanation available as to why a poster was banned will quell a lot of confusion and unfounded speculation. Well, it won’t wipe that sort of thing out entirely, of course, but I’d say it’s mostly, if not all, good.
Now that we have this in effect, is there any chance of having a grandfather clause and being able to find out precisely why prolific posters before **vanilla **and Zagadka were banned if asked?
I think the administration can be proud of its efforts to be just and fair to everyone. In the spirit of the above statement, I’d like to make the following suggestions.
A limited time period for posters to register their comments regarding the banned person in one thread only.
Allowance for the publication of an e-mailed post by the banned person (self defence) in the designated thread at the discretion of the administration.
This isn’t really necessary IMHO. The thread will eventually die down in time, as all threads do. If someone has been off the boards for two weeks and returns to see one of their longtime favorite posters was banned, that person should still have the opportunity to ask questions. I don’t see any real reason to shut down the thread, unless it gets too ugly.
This strikes me as a possible mess, because if the poster defends himself/herself via email and an admin posts it, other posters will respond to that, and then we’re faced with two prospects, neither pretty:
The banned poster sends more emails to the admin to defend the attacks on his defense, and the admin gets drawn into an email/posting by proxy pit war, which would be a waste of their time.
The banned poster is only allowed to post “by email” once. Why even bother, since this person has lost all priveleges? If the banned poster feels the action was unjust, the proper channel for him to take is private email with the admins.
Also, is there a reason the banning notices are being placed in ATMB instead of the Pit? I think that bannings of long time members are likely to result in discussion anyway, might as well put them in the Pit to begin with. ATMB is not well read, and you’re going to wind up with more threads like this one. (Matter of fact, that’s how I got to this thread in the first place.)
