Sure. I could read every post seven made in the last months and analyze it trying to see what parts made them worthy of banning him. Or I could ask you, the mods. The ones that are supposed to know exactly why they are punishing him and save a lot of time. I mean, you didn’t ban him out of an impression, did you?
With respect, Marley, given that you were adamant about his banning being justified, given that it turns out it was NOT justified (we have an official staff statement saying it was wrong to ban him), I think you are not really qualified to answer questions about this issue. Your position was made clear, but it was an incorrect position. Someone else should step in and discuss this, and you probably should bow out.
ETA: I should add that I am among those who, in viewing the evidence provided, can reach no other logical, rational, likely conclusion than that he was going to be suspended until he tweaked TubaDiva publically, at which point he was unceremoniously kicked out the door for having the effrontery to do so. And the circle-the-wagons efforts afterwards tend to confirm this hypothesis, in much the same way that the kerfluffle over the use of the word “cunt” was clearly related to usage directed at one particular staff member.
The behavior dates back to maybe March, but I thought I answered your question. I could pick out individual posts, but aside from the ones that drew warnings, I think few would stand out on their own. Taken as a totality, the fact that he was doing nothing except complaining and attacking one other poster is the issue.
I will give your opinion as much consideration as I always do, DSYoungEsq.
One might also wonder why a long-time Member might have so much to complain about. His reasons for sticking around are his own, and it’s certainly not your place to speculate.
You may not be able to reach any other rational conclusion, but this theory is wrong, as speculations about our motives generally are. We discussed suspending or banning Seven over the weekend, prior to the stunt with the private message, based on the constant snarking and complaining and the snarkpit thread. We had not reached a conclusion. Unsurprisingly when he moved ahead with the PM, it exacerbated things. The issue was not (does it matter if I say this?) that he posted a private message.
It’s fun for some people?
You may not feel it’s our place, but at times we’re required to attempt to understand someone’s motives as we decide what to do about their actions.
Well, I’m sorry, but I still say that if you are going to ban somebody, you should be obliged to post tangible evidence of their misbehaviour. The idea that you all just banned a poster out of a general feeling that he may or may not be trolling scares the hell out of me. That literally leaves you carte blanche to happily ban anybody.
And that’s even besides my other point: let’s say that he totally, absolutely and undeniably only complained about the board and argued with another poster. So? As long as he had a point to make on every one of his posts, why should the frequency or variety of subjects even matter?
See, it’s that kind of dismissive crap that’s causing most of these problems.
I did. I posted two warnings, a link to Seven showing off the signature, a mention of the snark threads and a discussion of his overall posting history. You could examine his enlightening contributions in threads like the Liberal/blog farago, but it’s ultimately about a pattern of behavior more than one individual post.
Given that we ban a handful of people a year, I suggest this concern is a bit misplaced. Posters worry a lot about abuses of power here when power isn’t very often exercised in the first place.
Assuming facts not in evidence. 
I don’t think acting out a vendetta with one poster or screwing around with the staff qualifies as contributing anything.
I’m sorry that an honest assessment of the situation bothers you, but yes, some people here do complain pretty much because they enjoy it. I’m not characterizing all complaints that way, but that’s how it goes.
“Understand” should not equal “assign.” I realize after a certain amount of time in the position it’s the easiest thing in the world to jump to assumptions, but if someone tells you their motivation why not give the benefit of the doubt? It’s disheartening to tell someone ‘I was not aware of that’ and be told ‘I don’t believe you.’
Sure some people spend a LOT of time on the boards and know every single thing that is happening but I would say they are in the minority. Even the mods don’t know everything that’s going on. You all say so when there are complaints. ‘Did you report the post? I can’t be expected to know everything that’s going on here.’ Well neither can most of us. Sometimes real life takes us away a few days, sometimes a month or so. We miss things. Is it really that difficult to believe we missed a thread where an example of a similar situation happened? Is it that unbelievable to think that our motivations are exactly what we say they are? And if it is, then maybe it’s time the person with the cynicism to take a step back for a while and let someone a bit more objective and a bit less embittered look at the issue.
Yes, you did. You just never explained what was wrong with either the signature (apart from pretending that it was all about copyright violation) nor what was wrong with his posting sstory, or even evidence that said story was true. You have the power to ban, you have the responsibility to do so with clear thoughts.
And let’s say that he was waging a vendetta against Liberal. Not all vendettas are actually empty of meaning. They both may have been arguing about deeply significant issues. Or fun issues, at least. nor is any criticism of this board automatically without merit just because. Just linke me or quote some threads that form this overall pattern, as you should have done at the very first post in this thread, and I’ll be able to judge that by myself. Not asking for much, really.
Perhaps. From your responses, it seems that your default position on any complaint is dismissal.
If that is, indeed, your honest assessment, then maybe you should question your ability to moderate.
We give people a great deal of benefit of the doubt, I think. Most warnings are for slips of the tongue where people get annoyed and go over the line, they get a warning not to do that, and life goes on. Not all cases are quite that straightforward and not all people are that honest. When people repeatedly give us reason to think they’re not acting in good faith, I don’t think we’re required to assume that they are.
If my default position was dismissal, I wouldn’t make myself available to respond to ATMB threads as often as I do.
I will grant that.
I find this response disturbing. Indeed, my first inclination is to consider it complete snark.
Ignoring for a moment the possibility of snark, explain why we should continue to pay attention to your attempts to justify the ban, given that those justifications have not changed during the course of the controversy, yet the ban was overturned after discussion by a more complete grouping of staff? Either the justifications are incorrect, and should be terminated, to be replaced by something else, or the decision to overturn the ban was done for reasons other than incorrectness of the ban in the first place.
So let’s start with this:
Do you agree that the ban was an incorrect decision?
I’m sorry you find it disturbing that I chose not to accept your directive.
It’s your choice to pay attention or not and I see no reason I need to argue for your attention. It’s not worth my time to argue about.
Whether you believe Seven deserved to banned, suspended, or deserved no punishment, I think it’s obvious that the staff’s decisions were based on the same set of actions by Seven: the prior warnings, his posts over the weekend, etc. So I think I’m able to comment on that situation.
Now here is an interesting question. The problem is I’m left wondering if I can provide a useful answer. If I say yes, I believe you would interpret that as an agreement that none of my prior answers count, because if the ban was incorrect, the reasoning behind the ban was incorrect. (In fact that issue is about whether or not a ban was the correct response to the situation.) If I say no, I suspect I would be accused of making a prejudicial statement toward Seven and making it clear I would try to have him banned at the drop of a hat.
That’s alright. He doesn’t wear hats.
Or you could just give your opinion. You’re presumably allowed to disagree with your colleagues and that would be ok. You’re allowed to change your mind too.
I didn’t find that disturbing at all. But your message is a snarky way of saying, “I pay no attention to you, you goat-felching idiot.” I’ve opined before, I’ll say it again: moderators have no business engaging in snarky responses. A simple, “I’ll take that under consideration” will do, if any response is needed at all.
If you say no, you should then think to yourself: “ok, self, I think he should be banned for doing these things; as it turns out, I appear to be wrong, so maybe they weren’t as egregious as I have thought they were.” You might then think about what that means regarding your apparently dogged insistence upon making the same arguments post the ban-reversal.
If you say yes, then you should think about WHY your position on the issue has changed, and apply that thinking process to your dogged insistence upon making the same arguments post the ban-reversal.
So, I’ll repeat the posited question: Do you believe the banning was an incorrect decision?
(editing mine)
This reads as if you’ve adopted the Us vs. Them attitude I’ve seen with some of the longer time staff here, and it’s a real shame. Long time posters who are unhappy about aspects of the board are not the same kind of animal as some new troll who just showed up to yank your chain. Ascribing simple and single-mindedly nefarious motivations to them is dismissive and lazy.
Personally, I think you should adopt the following guidelines toward complainers:
-
New posters who complain too much get banned. It’s easy – you’re either a sock, a troll, or not a good match for the site.
-
Otherwise, treat posters at face value. Answer their questions, let them complain if they want, but as long as they stay within the rules, let them be.
-
Your feelings as mods should not be the guiding force on getting rid of people. The guiding force should be disruption to the board. If someone is making it hard for regular posters to enjoy the boards, e.g. by hijacking threads or dominating every discussion, take action. If you’re just sick of them riding your ass every time you explain your actions poorly in ATMB, tough titty.
What attracted me to this board in the first place was the fact that nitwits like Reeder and december were given such a fair shake. It’s the plurality of opinion and attitude combined with fair, impartial moderation that makes for an interesting board.