Banning without notice

User acknowledges and agrees that the use of the Jedi Council Forums is a privilege, not a right, and that the administration of the Jedi Council has the right, at its sole discretion, to revoke this privilege at any time without notice should the administration deem it necessary.

Of course being in the TOS this has an obvious and distinct meaning which is impossible not to understand.

Nevertheless I'd like a clarification and if neccesary a dissucusion on the useage of the word notice.

It is quite acceptable to ban people without telling them beforehand. It is in fact almost desired since telling them before them requires their reciept of the message which could delay the whole process and make things harder on both parties.

However there si another way to look at the word notice which I am sorry to say seem to be acceptable to some.

As in, without notice that what they're doing is agaisnt the rules.
Certainly having the rules written down somewhere and to a lesser extent the TOS is considered fair warning. Any new member is asked to look over a plethora of documents containing many rules they'll probably never have to worry about(no cobbing?), however when a rule is not mentioned anywhere or is so estoric as to defy reasonable searching it strikes me as against the intent of this place to ban or punish someone for it.

Without warning must then refer to giving them prior notice to their banning, not prior notice to the fact something is against the rules(this quite obviously does not include such rules as "use common sense").

I would ask that the MS recognize this and clarify the TOS a bit to establish that while warning may not be given what is allowed will be.

As a side effect this means that yers some members will get away with things one step ahead of their being banned. However in most cases it is fairer to the JC in general to allow such examples to go unpunished followed by he rule plugging the gap rather then to allow mods the leeway of banning for any reason.



Suffice to say, we are never going to implement a policy wherein "all a person has to do in order to get away with something is to be the first person to do something that doesn't have a specific rule against it." Since that's not going to happen, and this discussion hasn't gone anywhere else, I'm locking this. If anyone can come up with a good reason why it should be reopened, PM me.

 

farraday -- not everything in life can be accounted for ahead of time on paper.

The TOS is a "good faith" document, the "without warning" clause is in case someone acts against "good faith."

 

No it isn't because it in effect gives the mods the right to ban for any reason, which is in effect the right to ban for no reason at all.

Soemthing that was expressly removed from the TOS.

 

However in most cases it is fairer to the JC in general to allow such examples to go unpunished followed by he rule plugging the gap rather then to allow mods the leeway of banning for any reason.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Better that everyone gets the punishment that they deserve, whether lighter than the guidelines suggest or heavier, rather than blind following of rules and regulations for the sake of following rules and regulations. If we were dealing with peoples? futures in a legal system, I?d agree with you; that?s not the type of thing to have leeway in.

But on a Star Wars message board? As long as things are family friendly, most decisions are fair, and the few unfair ones are corrected within a short time span, then it?s all good. I think that people get decisions that are more fair by moderators using common sense, and having leeway in which to use common sense.

 

No it isn't because it in effect gives the mods the right to ban for any reason, which is in effect the right to ban for no reason at all.

Soemthing that was expressly removed from the TOS.

So, let me ask you O Protector from EMP... how would you account for circumstances that arise that need to be punished that AREN'T in the TOS?

 

Posting here is a privelege, not a right.

You have a problem with the fact that you could be banned without knowing what you did? Then leave.

It's Josh's BBQ. We're just munching on the burgers and dogs.

 

The guidelines? I wasn't aware there were any on bannings. Except fo course what common sense dictates.

The current system is incredibly dependent on the fact that each mod is right rather then that the rules are right and the mods enforce them. It is quite obvious that while niether is perfect the second is more preferable then the first.

After all, the mods are wrong some of the time and they don't need the rules to protect them. The rules should protect the users from the mods who being in power seldom need protection beyond the support of their other mods.

Jeffro, me posting my views is my privledge, if you don't like it, leave.

And frankly Josh may own the land but the rest of us brought the food.

 

The guidelines? I wasn't aware there were any on bannings. Except fo course what common sense dictates.

The current system is incredibly dependent on the fact that each mod is right rather then that the rules are right and the mods enforce them. It is quite obvious that while niether is perfect the second is more preferable then the first.

After all, the mods are wrong some of the time and they don't need the rules to protect them. The rules should protect the users from the mods who being in power seldom need protection beyond the support of their other mods.

Right, that's my question which you haven't answered:

How do you write a set of rules that accounts for every, single possible infraction of "family friendlyness" allowed here on the boards?

 

I'm a bit confused, farraday. Haven't you strenuously argued in the past that the TOS cannot possibly contain everything we need for all the different situations that come up?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

Amen, Jeffro.

In case you do get banned "without warning", does it really take that much effort to ask the Administration what happened?

It's a double-edged sword. They have the right to punish, you have the right to question the punishment.

 

Quite obviously the MS doesn't.

Isn't it strange that thsoe in power seldom seem the need to change the structure that gives them that power.

In any case the TOS mods seem to forget that the rules of the JC aren't contained in it but instead from a mishmash of other threads and notices and in the collective understanding of what words mean, no matter how frought with inconsistancies and obvious mistakes that is.

However what I would like is that when something comes up that isn't covered by the rules(which is relatively rare) it be recognized as such and patched afterward instead of turnign the rules into a verbal prtzel(and people accuse me of word bending!) to cover it. LEt the first instance slide since you werne't prepared to deal with it and formulate policy based on you mistakes rather then trying to hide your mistakes with autocratic assumptions of unchecked power.

If people had bene payign attention they would notice I am not asking for an enumeration of rules in the TOS, however since they are enamoured with their own power to do what they will they often miss that.

 

"Jeffro, me posting my views is my privledge, if you don't like it, leave.

And frankly Josh may own the land but the rest of us brought the food."

PPOR that I said I had a problem with you posting your views.

And you're right - he DOES own the land. It's no different from a restaurant reserving the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

Yes and are they allowed to refuse service for any reason? I think not.

After all no shirt, no shoes, no service, is one thing, no dogs or jews is another.

The MS should recognize the primacy or the rules over their own whims if for no other reason then while the rules are open to interpretation, whims are completely arbitrary.

Edit// And both Jeffro and JGM seem to ahve stopepd reading at the title otherwise they would know I am nto talkign about banning people without telling them why, but banning people withoutsaying before hand that what they ended up doing was against the rules.

Then again the difference may be lsot on some.

 

If people had bene payign attention they would notice I am not asking for an enumeration of rules in the TOS, however since they are enamoured with their own power to do what they will they often miss that.

Right -- I did notice that. Which was why I was confused... you're essentially asking for anarchy.

For if we have a RULE that states: "Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us!" And ANY first infraction of something that CLEARLY deserves to be punished but isn't enumerated in the TOS will be let go. Under all circumstances.

I know that *I'D* be trying to circumvent the rules and be that first person to get SOMETHING (anything!) by the Mods in that case. Hey, as long as if I get the correct wrong thing past them, it won't matter! Get out of jail free card for me! w00t!

So, apologies if I don't buy into the notion of enlightened self-governance...

EDIT: After all no shirt, no shoes, no service, is one thing, no dogs or jews is another.

Untrue, I believe. I still think that private clubs can discriminate against whomever they desire. Jews, blacks, women, etc...

 

"Yes and are they allowed to refuse service for any reason? I think not.

After all no shirt, no shoes, no service, is one thing, no dogs or jews is another."

The owner can do whatever the hell he wants. If he wants a civil suit on his hands, he can ban all the Jews he wants.

And by the way...way to ignore my request to PPOR. Sadly enough, I'm not surprised in the least.

"Edit// And both Jeffro and JGM seem to ahve stopepd reading at the title otherwise they would know I am nto talkign about banning people without telling them why, but banning people withoutsaying before hand that what they ended up doing was against the rules.

Then again the difference may be lsot on some."

1. No, I've kept reading. Everything I've said applies to both situations.

2. Last time I checked, subtle flames (although, this one isn't quite subtle enough) were grounds for banning in comms.

 

Keep things appropriate here, please.

Edit// And both Jeffro and JGM seem to ahve stopepd reading at the title otherwise they would know I am nto talkign about banning people without telling them why, but banning people withoutsaying before hand that what they ended up doing was against the rules.


So, are you essentially saying that if we don't have a specific rule against something, someone can get away with doing something if they're the first person to do so?

 

<sighs> dp4m would you please point me to where it says posting the same thread in multiple forums is against the rules?

As a note you won't find it in the TOSa nd yet it is still an understood rule, is that anarchy?

What I'm asking for is that the mods not only ahve a reason for banning(which should be obvious) but that the cause is previosuly stated, explicitly or implicitly, as against the rules.

I'm saying that in bannign for somethign you don't ahve a rule agaisnt you get drama, which you seem to want to cut down on, as long as it doens't involve limiting yourselves.
Besides the scope of things which would end up banable but currently aren't explicitly or implictly so is probably rather small, on the other hand in the current way of thinking the scope of thigns which you can be banend for is effectively limitless.

Including being a jew or a pole of white or black or anything. I do nto see the reason why you feel the need to reserve for yourselves the power to ban people for anything you so choose.

Especially if in your own mind you hold to some principle of law.

Edit// Jeffro it is indeed far to subtle for me if saying someone doesn't grasp something is a flame in any context. Furthermore you refered to people being banned without knowing what they did, obviosuly this is not what I'm refering to.

 

The premise of this thread begs for equivocation. Quite a lot is covered in the TOS - which we go out of our way to ensure the person is familiar with (from the moment of signing-up to a link on *every page* of the forum) - and the rest is handled on a case by case basis. A lot of stuff is common sense (which evidently isn't so common).

Give me a "for instance" before trying to create sweeping change in the TOS. What is a potentially bannable offense that isn't covered in the TOS, derivatives thereof, or by common sense?

 

And both Jeffro and JGM seem to ahve stopepd reading at the title otherwise they would know I am nto talkign about banning people without telling them why, but banning people withoutsaying before hand that what they ended up doing was against the rules.

I could hardly read that. I'm not that fast a reader, so there's no hurry in typing such a quick, sloppy retort.

Anyway, there really isn't much difference between the two scenarios. One's a pre-ban message, the other's a post-ban message. Either way, you'd still be banned. And if you don't have the intellect to figure out what you did wrong, then I don't think you have much business posting here anyway.

And you can stop being the devil's advocate any time now.

 

I would object to your reference to banning in the TOS, however since it seems to be more of a rallying cry then an understood appraisal of what actually happens, I'll let it slide.

In any case although I can not imagine one at the moment(given the ingenius nature of the posters I'ms ure somehtign will arise sooner or later) I'lld raw one form my own history as a mod.

several posters ahd been posting in reply to themselves with socks not only in small but rather extensively. While nothing was said agaisnt it in the current rules discussion resulted in the new understanding that doing so was against forum policy. No one who did so before the rule was amde was banend for it as far a sIw as aware but they were warned of the rules new existence to keep them from doing it again.

Compare this to what the TOS says where those users would have been banned before any rule was made or published, in effect allowing an individual mod to set policy, perhaps based on personal prejudice, instead of it being the decision of the mods as a whole.

Edit// JGM pelase read harder, I am instead refering writing and posting the rules before you ban people for them and nto banning for anything before they wre posted.

And the devil doesn't need and advocate for hell is empty and all the devils are up here.

 

"Including being a jew or a pole of white or black or anything. I do nto see the reason why you feel the need to reserve for yourselves the power to ban people for anything you so choose."

Because they CAN. Welcome to real life - the world of have and have not. There's a fantastic quote in NathanDahlin's profile: "Moderators, Inc. - We Ban Because We Can." By posting, you are agreeing to the TOS...every last letter of it.

And lest we forget - you, as well, were once an upholder of that "unjust" system.

 

I'll ask my question again:

Are you saying, farraday, that all a person has to do in order to get away with something is to be the first person to do something that doesn't have a specific rule against it?

 

First, I don't think any of our moderators would have "banned first, explain later" in that situation - that "offense" seems to be more of a bid for attention or attempt to waste some time than an effort at bad netizenry.

Second, I think it's more a "could have been banned" scenario, than a "would have been banned" scenario. Again, unless that behavior occurred time and time again, with a concomitant disregard for warnings, I don't see a ban there.

Again, you're asking for sweeping change based upon a hypothetical that you're having a hard time explaining. Exactly how can we respond to a poorly-defined scenario, or for hypotheticals that can't really be put into a hypothetical example?

 

Jeffro let me repeat again, why do the mods require the power to ban someone for any reason?

And KW, in short yes.

However the longer answer is that in the long run there are few times someone will get away with it and not trying to retroactively 'get them' will give you more stability. Because despite what dp4m thinks the supply of suers who are goign to try to be the first to get awya with something is rtaher small and likely to end up in trouble for another reason first, the supply of users doing somehting the mods might frown upon in all innocence is much higher and I see little reason to be so fearful of the first group you take it out on the second.


Quix how si it sweeping? Please tell me? what changes will you have to make? All I'm doing is trying to limit or remove a pwoer the mods don't need because it is more detrimental to innocent users then guilty.

And Quix when a user posts 150 times in a row betwene himself and his socks you're arguign thats onyl a warning?

 

"why do the mods require the power to ban someone for any reason?"

Because it is in the best interest of the boards for the staff that runs them to have the power to "keep the peace," as it were.