A question...

i am sure that this is not the first or the last time this question has been brought up, but here i go anyways.

Why arent bannings a public matter? There are a number of positive reasons for it to be, but i want to hear why it isnt first...

 

You don't air dirty laundry.

 

Yet mods have no problem announcing someones ban.

See you in 24

Honestly, unless you were the one who was banned it's none of your business.

 

I have to agree with MasterKing on this one...i believe bannings shouldn't be completely delegated to the MODs. Us, the users, the people who actually use these boards, should have some say in who is and is not allowed on and what they can or can't say. It's simple democracy and that's not what we have here. What the MODs have created is a dictatorship.

 

I have to agree with MasterKing on this one...i believe bannings shouldn't be completely delegated to the MODs. Us, the users, the people who actually use these boards, should have some say in who is and is not allowed on and what they can or can't say. It's simple democracy and that's not what we have here. What the MODs have created is a dictatorship.

Lay down the pipe kid.

 

The JC isn't a democracy, and I'd say 2004 has demonstrated that quite well.

I've always believed that bannings should never generally be made public. In the case of egregious moderator error or abuse of power, that may be different.

Too often, public discussion of moderator action turns into a burning at the stake and people discuss everything with the benefit of hindsight.

 

I have to agree with MasterKing on this one...i believe bannings shouldn't be completely delegated to the MODs. Us, the users, the people who actually use these boards, should have some say in who is and is not allowed on and what they can or can't say. It's simple democracy and that's not what we have here. What the MODs have created is a dictatorship.

Considering you joined less than a day ago, I'd have to say you don't really use the board much. And the mods do use the boards, just as if they were regular users. Except, maybe as not as many posts. Again, considering your time spent here, I wouldn't go around saying this place is a dictatorship, I certainly think it's not.


It's more like an Empire...

-KNick

 

I have to agree with MasterKing on this one...i believe bannings shouldn't be completely delegated to the MODs. Us, the users, the people who actually use these boards, should have some say in who is and is not allowed on and what they can or can't say. It's simple democracy and that's not what we have here. What the MODs have created is a dictatorship.

you haven't been here long so I won't go around pointing fingers like that. Besides I can see why the mods don't make bannings public, its because it can very well embarrass a user, someone could very well use the reason in an arguement on them. You haven't even seen what the Senate floor is like or this place is when a hot topic takes off. Someone could say hey weren't you banned for spamming up the boards?

Thats something a user who has been banned would never want to see in an arguement

2004 seems to be a bad year for some reason

put the stick down kid

 

once again, the 'embarress a user' excuse is irrelevent because no one is talking about mandatory announcing of all bans, only for the ability for users, if they feel they have had an unjust decision against them, to raise the issue in an arena where more than just the mod (who is going to stick with their banning) and the head admin (who is going to side with the mod) know of the situation, thus increasing the possibility of something actually being done about the constant array of overreactionary and trivial bans.

or, in other words, balh blah blah

 

yes epic that is what i am talking about, not a forum where a systematic announcement of all bannings and then a thorough discussion of the banning takes place. It doesnt seem neccesary to have a complete no public discussion policy on all bans. I would think that there is room for some public discussion over the issue...

 

I've always believed that bannings should never generally be made public. In the case of egregious moderator error or abuse of power, that may be different.

Or entertainment value. Never forget the entertainment value.

In all seriousness, I do recall that there was some discussion concerning maintaining a level of privacy while simultaneously making it clear that a certain kind of behavior was against the TOS. A narrow path, to be sure, and not fool-proof, but workable.

 

yes epic that is what i am talking about, not a forum where a systematic announcement of all bannings and then a thorough discussion of the banning takes place. It doesnt seem neccesary to have a complete no public discussion policy on all bans. I would think that there is room for some public discussion over the issue...

If a user is banned, that is the business of that user and the administration only. Is is no one else's business. That is not going to be changing.

Ultimately, any banning is at the discretion of the administration. That is very clearly stated in the TOS. This isn't some kind of democracy, nor is it a judicial system. As blunt as this may seem, if you can't accept that, then you are always welcome to find some other message board that will allow such things to be discussed.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I agree with what KK have said, its no one elses business except for the person who was banned and the admins and the mod.

 

again i dont think that anyone is saying that people who dont want the issue discussed in public will have it done so. But is someone wants to have a public discussion are they intitle to one?

 

again i dont think that anyone is saying that people who dont want the issue discussed in public will have it done so. But is someone wants to have a public discussion are they intitle to one?

Saying that they are entitled to the discussion is to claim that it is some sort of right for them. It's not.

Again, this may sound harsh, but on this board, no one (not even moderators) has any rights. The only people who have any rights at all are the owners. For all of the rest of us, even being here is a privilege. That privilege can be revoked at any time and for any reason.

Is that fair? No, but neither is a mass demotion of moderators. Neither is outlawing a certain type of fanfic. Neither is disallowing certain acronyms. However, in the end, fair isn't the deciding factor.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Ultimately, any banning is at the discretion of the administration. That is very clearly stated in the TOS. This isn't some kind of democracy, nor is it a judicial system. As blunt as this may seem, if you can't accept that, then you are always welcome to find some other message board that will allow such things to be discussed.


woa their KK, i am not criticizing, nor even lobbying for change to any degree, just trying to understand why thing are as they are... calm down there captain quick draw. Sadly enough i understand where the admin is coming from, i just disagree with some of their practices. It would seem to me that there would be a greater amount of accountability on this issue, as well as others if things were ran in a more open fashion, and i also think that there are enough intellegent people to back the mods on bannable issues, as well as other issues that may come up. I dont know it is just kinda offsetting to see such a hush hush attitude on things...

 

woa their KK, i am not criticizing, nor even lobbying for change to any degree, just trying to understand why thing are as they are... calm down there captain quick draw. Sadly enough i understand where the admin is coming from, i just disagree with some of their practices. It would seem to me that there would be a greater amount of accountability on this issue, as well as others if things were ran in a more open fashion, and i also think that there are enough intellegent people to back the mods on bannable issues, as well as other issues that may come up. I dont know it is just kinda offsetting to see such a hush hush attitude on things...

The thing is, I am personally getting sick of many of these questions being pulled out every week or two, and then having it phrase as if we are violating some user's rights. We aren't, because users don't have rights here. As I said, neither do moderators.

It is a matter of privacy. While the user may not mind it, we still will not discuss specific bans publicly. Quite simply, it is none of your business if we ban user X for any reason. We try to deal with individuals on an individual basis.

Look through Comms at how many questions are answered with "it should be a case-by-case basis". Now, look through and see how many accuse moderators of a double standard of some kind. If we started discussing each of these "case-by-case" situations here, you wouldn't see any real improvement. Instead, you would only see complaints of double standards in those case-by-case situations.

As for the cry of "accountability", there is only one kind of accountability that really matters in the end here, and that is the accountability of moderators to the owners. While the users' enjoyment of the boards needs to be taken into account with that (as that is part of the responsibility given to mods), that is only one portion of the accountability, not the entirety of it.

There shouldn't be any need to bring it all out into public. Comms should be the slowest of forums, not a busy one. It has often been said that moderators should be users first, and moderators only when needed. Just because we happen to be moderators doesn't mean that we should have to spend every moment of our online time moderating. Adding additional layers of bureaocracy to the mix only separates moderators further from their communities, as it takes more of their time away from participating in the community.

Also, what do you do about users who won't let things go, or whose bans are for more than just public actions? For example, I recently banned a user for some over-the-top inflammatory posting in one thread. That user had a history of stirring up trouble, but I was planning on a 24-48 hour ban. Then, their unban request and PMs from a sock continued to flame me using language and images that are clearly prohibited on the boards. As such, I extended the ban length with each additional violation (to a total of a week). In one of the PMs, the user basically admitted that he was trying to get banned. However, from the public view, his offense was worthy of only 2 days.*

Now, if said user were to come back and try to dispute the ban afterwards, how much information should we have to pull out in order to justify ourselves to the public? Should we have to post the unban requests (including inappropriate material)? How about the PMs? How about their IP information, or the users on the same IP address?

Recently, I spent about 2 weeks tracking down an account that seemed suspicious. Finally, after 2 weeks, I was able to identify it as the sock of a perm-banned user (who was trying to sneak back). My research heavily involved many personal details and IP checks on the user, as well as going over many old posts. How much of that should have to be posted to support banning the user (if someone else should complain about it)?

In the end, public discussions of bannings will result in far more problems than they may try to solve.

Kimball Kinnison

* Lest anyone start accusing me of bein

 

The thing is, I am personally getting sick of many of these questions being pulled out every week or two, and then having it phrase as if we are violating some user's rights. We aren't, because users don't have rights here. As I said, neither do moderators.

i understand your frustration, but it is your job to deal with this. Is anyone forceing you to be a mod, or a mod of the comms? Sorry bud, welcome to the world of being a moderater. If you dont like it then resign. IMO there is no reason for you to get all twisted over a simple question. To a lighter extent, you dont have to answer in this thread, merely let it slide and encourage GS or Raven to answer.

<<<skipping over the rest to avoid an all out arguement when all i wanted was a simple answer>>>

* Lest anyone start accusing me of being ban-crazy, I worked out a deal with that user (as I often do). I rediced his ban back to 3 days, but if he causes trouble again, the additional 4 days get added back onto his next ban. I've done this with many different users, and have not yet had to add any additional time onto any bans because of it.

chill man, no one is attacking you...Although i think this statement shows that you are percieveing it that way... Go take a vacation or something, relax a little...

and feel free to lock the thread, i dont see anything beneificial coming out of this in the future...

 

i understand your frustration, but it is your job to deal with this. Is anyone forceing you to be a mod, or a mod of the comms? Sorry bud, welcome to the world of being a moderater. If you dont like it then resign. IMO there is no reason for you to get all twisted over a simple question. To a lighter extent, you dont have to answer in this thread, merely let it slide and encourage GS or Raven to answer.

The problem is that many of the questions asked are worded in a way that shows a very real misunderstanding of the situation. As I was discussin this thread with one user over IM, he made a very interesting observation. Too many people misunderstand the Bill of Rights, and think that it applies to everything that they do. Because of that, you can see here in Comms people wanting to treat the boards like a democracy, users who complain about censorship and free speech, and those calling for more "accountability".

However, such claims are baseless on a privately-owned internet message board. Legal structures such as the Bill of Rights only apply to the governments that adopt them. This message board is not a government, and so none of those rights-based approaches are valid here.

My last post is about the most thorough answer given on the subject ever in Comms (at least that I have been able to find, and that covers the last year and a half). As you can see from that post, there are many reasons for the policy being how it is.

It is a privacy issue, more so than just "if the person wants to discuss it there shouldn't be a problem" (IP address checks can show multiple users on the same IP, such as through a proxy). How much information should we have to provide to justify it? If the ban is based on an IP check showing a banned user, and the host name indicates it is likely a static IP, how much of that should we post?

It is an administrative reason. Additional levels of bureaocracy only serve to widen the gulf between users and moderators.

It is a simplicity issue as well.

It is all of these and more.

chill man, no one is attacking you...Although i think this statement shows that you are percieveing it that way... Go take a vacation or something, unwind a little...

I never said that you were attacking me. I added that last bit because this is a thread on discussing bannings, and as I used a recent ban (without identifying information) as an example, I also took the time to provide the complete story as best I could. I have had several people recently accuse me of being "ban-happy" when they cross the line, or extending bans on a whim. Considering the number of PMs I've gotten on that issue lately (including some that did extend bans by a bit), it seemed prudent to add that bit of explanation.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimbal, Bravo. Exellent answers.

 

Stop gushing. It gets a little ridiculous.

 

Kimball,
I have had several people recently accuse me of being "ban-happy" when they cross the line, or extending bans on a whim

As ridiculous as this sounds, is there any chance that these people could be right? Just playing the devil's advocate on this.
On a side note, you seem like your getting burned out over this whole thing and I am here to tell you it ain't worth it. If your not having fun here what's the point?
Just go back to being a regular user and enjoy yourself, there's no need to let a Star Wars message board get you this worked up. Your last few posts bleed frustration.

 

As ridiculous as this sounds, is there any chance that these people could be right? Just playing the devil's advocate on this.

Honestly, looking at the combined histories of those who have complained, I doubt it. As I said before, I often offer a deal to lessen a ban length for users, especially when they continue in behavior (such as swearing in unban requests or PMs) that extends a ban.

Additionally, I actually rarely ban users. In the last 30 days, I've only banned 10 uesrs, and 4 of those bans were bans where I put in an IP ban, unbanned the user, logged into their account (to verify PMs) and then logged out and reinstituted their original (non-IP) ban. Another 2 of those bans were for serial trolls that I caught. I'd hardly consider that "ban-happy".

On a side note, you seem like your getting burned out over this whole thing and I am here to tell you it ain't worth it. If your not having fun here what's the point?

I'm not getting burned out, not by a long shot. However, there is no need for the same users to constantly bring up the same complaints over and over again, especially when they have been told that it's not going to be changed.

For example, the issue of discussing bannings in public. No matter how many times we say that we will not discuss individual bannings in public, how often does it come up? I can count at least 3 different threads in the last month that have touched on the subject. I shouldn't have to keep repeating the policy. That one is not going to change. Period.

Wouldn't you start to get weary of it? At times, it seems like a child in the back seat going "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" over and over.

I am here as an administrator to help improve things. I still have both the desire and the ability to do that. I promise you that I have already thought ahead to the time that I will step down (it will definitely be before May 21, 2005, as that is when I get married), but that time has not come yet.

Kimball Kinnison