Warnings are the reason for bannings. So yes.
Thanks but there are warnings without bannings and vice versa. Not necessarily a one to one, if you will.
I’m not sure I understand the question – but the rules are the rules. If you break the rules, you might get an admonition (a simple “knock it off,” nothing official goes on your record); you might get a warning (official, we keep track of them); you might get suspended; or you might get banned. Which of these happens depends on a number of other circumstances, including patterns of behavior.
I think CircleofWillis would like to know exactly where we draw the line when it comes to warnings and bannings.
There is not set amount of warnings which equal a ban at the moment.
Becareful what you wish for possibly kind of thing :\
Understood completely. Thanks for the info.
So would it be fair to say that if Poster X posted some really heinous crap but didn’t necessarily break an “in stone” rule; that a moderator could admonish, warn, or ban based on previous behavior/posting history Poster X?
On other words, a moderator isn’t bound by a set of commandments, for lack of a better word, to moderate a poster? Just being a jerk and offensive is enough.
I’m having a hard time envisioning a scenario where “posting really heinous crap” wouldn’t constitute “being a jerk,” at the very least.
Me too, me too.
But again, thanks for the info and the clarity
Subject, of course, to an appeal to the TM, who might clamor for a reversal of said moderation, which might, then, actually be reversed.
Banning differs in that it requires (aside from spammers and socks) the consent of multiple Mods including at least one administrator.
In other words, the relative popularity of the poster or poster’s viewpoints CAN have an effect on the warnings or moderation in general of a given poster?
Agreed. My assumption would be, however, that a poster’s continued use of the previously warned behavior would lead toward banning if it got that far. Correct?
“Don’t be a jerk” was originally the only rule on this message board, and it is still the prime one. As time has gone by, various specific rules have become codified in an effort to provide more guidance as to what kind of behavior is considered jerkish. However, it is impossible to codify ever single possible type of jerkishness that can be imagined. (Some of our posters have been very creative that way.;)) But just because we have codified some of the specific rules doesn’t mean we have done away with the most general one. It especially doesn’t mean that anything that doesn’t fall within one of the specific rules is permitted.
Couldn’t agree with this more and would hope that is the “gold standard” of rules, for lack of better words.
However, it can only work to save a poster who has run afoul of a Mod’s decision. It cannot be used to get someone Warned or banned.
Nor would I want it to, except to say that a poster who IS being a jerk should be, at the very least warned or admonished or whatever, without having to find a specific rule that was broken and any subsequent trail along the moderation path be followed as warranted by that poster’s history.
ToeJam said:
I believe that note is really more of a legal disclaimer thing - “We reserve the right to ban you for any reason at any time just because we can, and you have no recourse, you are here because we let you be here.”
However, the administration tries to run with a more solid and consistent basis, including a lengthy system in order to ban someone. Internal policy is to be fair and reasonable, not capricious and whimsical in moderation.
CircleofWillis said:
From the link provided by Fenris:
CircleofWillis said:
Of course there is a lot of subjectivity in “some really heinous crap”. If said “really heinous crap” doesn’t violate an explicit rule, one might wonder just how it is heinous. One person’s heinous is another person’s true opinion and all that. Yada yada yada.
[sub]I’m really scared where this is headed. Please don’t go where I think this is going. fingers crossed (And no, I’m not going to explain, because by explaining I will guarantee it goes there.)[/sub]
It may also help to think of one’s interactions with the Dope in relationship terms, and not just as a legal contract. How many times can you be obnoxious before your friend stops hanging out with you? When your girlfriend tells you that you’re being a jerk, is is more productive to tell her that your conduct did not fall within the previously-established zones of forbidden behavior, or to talk to her about why she’s upset? Insisting upon an unbending legalism and pushing the limits among one’s companions IRL is a way to get ostracized, and it can be helpful to think through one’s interactions with other Dopers in the same way.
That purpose is served by the ignore function, whether internal or computer-assisted. Mod actions are more like if you leave one ice cube in the tray and the cops bust in and take you to jail.
Which is, of course, my point vis a vis having objective rules. The SDMB is not a friendship; I’m not dating it. I prefer to think of it as a community. Communities that want to flourish intellectually provide a lot of leeway for differing viewpoints. Vague rules, in my opinion, encourage people to toe the line out of fear, and are often enforced inequitably. The Potter Stewart obscenity quote above is maybe more apt than was intended; obscenity prosecutions tend not to be a bastion of uncontroversial bright line cases.
That being said, I don’t think enforcement here is particularly biased (except in a few cases), but I would like to see less vague rules as a means to ensure that it remains so in the future.
Message boards allow for a large fraction of all possible human interaction. If we had really specific rules they’d be 4,000 pages long and nobody would ever be able to remember them.
ModBot 3000 will. Coming soon, along with robot butlers.
We don’t have fully functioning sex robots yet.