Banning without notice

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.

Which assumes that the power is abused, or that it is detrimental for us to use common sense.

Second, it is a sweeping change because in addition to "clarifying" the TOS (the founding document of netizenry at TF.N), you're proposing a shift in the moderator role - things are less of a judgment call than legalistic shackle. Any offense that isn't explicitly covered by the TOS suddenly becomes carte blanche *once*. That's utter nonsense, especially since you can't give me a better example than folks spamming themselves (which, as you state, is now covered by forum policy).

You're looking for change for the sake of change, and in the process, fundamentally affecting how moderators do our jobs. You're attempting to pull some teeth out of the position, and add a layer of bureaucracy to an already difficult job.

In effect, you're making an argument that the letter of the law ought to undermine it's spirit. That's nonsense.

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

You were free to share that detail earlier, but you didn't. Second, that's spamming, which is covered by the TOS (and has been for quite some time).

Again, do you have a hypothetical scenario to describe this, or are you going to remain in legalistic abstraction?

 

For the first time perhaps ever, I agree with Quixotic-Sith on this issue.

 

So the only way to kepe the peace is to ban people for things which aren't agaisnt the rules?

Is that the sort of peace you really want?


Which assumes that the power is abused, or that it is detrimental for us to use common sense.

How can the power to ban someone for something which isn't agaisnt the rules be anything but abused?

(the founding document of netizenry at TF.N)
I'm sorry but that's just bullpoopy. TFN existed logn before the TOS, the JC existed long before the TOS, it's no more a foudning document then the 21st amendment.

you're proposing a shift in the moderator role - things are less of a judgment call than legalistic shackle. Any offense that isn't explicitly covered by the TOS suddenly becomes carte blanche *once*.
Do you even know what the TOS says? Damn it do you even know what it is other then just saying "TOS TOS TOS TOS"? The TOS mentions few of the rules here, I already provided the example of posting the same threa din multiple forums. I do nto want the tOS expanded into a laundry list of possible abuses I want it slipped to remove the mods ability to ban people for things which aren't said in the TOS and in the numerous subsidiary threads as abuses.


That's utter nonsense, especially since you can't give me a better example than folks spamming themselves (which, as you state, is now covered by forum policy).

But it was not and in acting upon it we did not sue the TOS as carte blanche to ban anyone who did.

You're looking for change for the sake of change, and in the process, fundamentally affecting how moderators do our jobs.
No, I'm changing veyr little except for your ability to ban anyone for anything, somehting you seem to want to be able to do.

You're attempting to pull some teeth out of the position, and add a layer of bureaucracy to an already difficult job.

Oh please. Bureaucracy? How by making mods actually have to make policy in concert instead of banning for whatever reason they individually feel is neccesary?

You're right abotu one thing though I am trying to limit the power of individual mdos to act of their own accord and tryign to renforce the ability of the MS to act in concert.

In effect, you're making an argument that the letter of the law ought to undermine it's spirit. That's nonsense.

Really? The spirt of the law? Why is it when I read that I see "The innocent should be protected even at the cost of the guilty getting away in small" where as you seem to see "the guilty should be punished even if it means the innocent get hurt too"

You were free to share that detail earlier, but you didn't. Second, that's spamming, which is covered by the TOS (and has been for quite some time).

Quix please ducate yourself, and me. Please show me where spamming is mentioned in the TOS.

Again, do you have a hypothetical scenario to describe this, or are you going to remain in legalistic abstraction?

If I provided a hypothetical all you would do is abn it and say "done". I did provide an example which was dealt with in a way completely oppisate to the tOS but you dismiss it in favour of keepign your own personal power.

 

So the only way to kepe the peace is to ban people for things which aren't agaisnt the rules

Only because an issue hasn't come up yet, or it doesn't exactly align with an existing rule. Doesn't make a given offense any less wrong.

 

Sounds pretty damn good to me.

EDIT: And what KW said.

 

I would say that, in the vast majority of cases, even if it isn't against the rules (i.e. there isn't a written rule about that specific incident), it is something that should be against the rules, but isn't covered due to the fact that everything can't possibly be covered. This usually is because something like that has never happened before, so there is no precident. If we went ahead and let the first person to do something off, we would have people complaining about a lack of consistency, since whoever was able to get away with doing it before, and the next person missed the memo saying that it isn't allowed, so they shouldn't be banned either.

 

If you could type more coherently, I'll do my best to read harder. But it seems to me that you're groping for weak points in people's posts just for your personal satisfaction... and all this thread really boils down to is questioning the Mod Squad's ability to use a ban button.

The TOS is a catchall. It more than adequately explains what is/isn't acceptable. I don't have to rely on the TOS since I'm pretty sure I have the common sense to know what's fly and what's not. A newbie might be forgiven since they're still learning the ropes and probably don't know what they're doing, but when a veteran member breaks the rules, it's almost always a blatant violation since they've been around the block, but simply choose to ignore the TOS and whatever e-common sense they've obtained during their JC tenure.

The mods are in a position of trust. They must use their best judgement, not personal whims, when it comes to a situation where banning is an appropriate action. If they cannot discern whim from judgement, then they have no business moderating.

 

Only because an issue hasn't come up yet, or it doesn't exactly align with an existing rule. Doesn't make a given offense any less wrong.

Except It hought the point of having rules was to enumerate what was wrong, fi ti isn't included it obviosuly isn't wrong. While indeed you might have one or two cases where someone sues this to come up with an infraction(somethign veyr difficult, i encourage you to try and think of one, if nto practice it) I've already given one example of something which was wrong but since it was unwritten was being violated in good faith by people.

Furthermore, the rules can't be enforced based on personal right and wrong, that way leads to anarchy.
After all, should people be banned just for saying God(somehting that is considered wrong by some).

YJ there si only lack of consistancy where you ban people for something you retroactively decided was against the rules. After all if anything we do is banable without us having the opportunity to know so before hand, what can we do that isn't banable?

And YJ, the gulf between not knowing somethign si banable becuase it isn't said anywhere implicitly or explicit and not knowing because you refuse to look is a rather deep one.

The mods are in a position of trust. They must use their best judgement, not personal whims, when it comes to a situation where banning is an appropriate action.

And where is that in the TOS?

 

And where is that in the TOS?

It's right here, farraday:

"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."

 

How can the power to ban someone for something which isn't agaisnt the rules be anything but abused?

Er, because we are entrusted to know what the TOS is beyond rote repetition of "User agrees to not post knowingly offensive..."? Because you are implicitly assuming that an offense isn't an offense until it is labeled as such? It's a rather extreme example, but was it wrong to kill someone with malice and premeditation in a civilian context without due cause and/or without being in self-defense before 1st Degree Murder was codified?

You're asking for Napoleonic law here, which is prima facie ridiculous - if you can't predict every derivative of the TOS, or every possible infraction, you have to allow leeway in interpretation of the TOS. And that means the ability to ban without a warning.

(the founding document of netizenry at TF.N)
I'm sorry but that's just bullpoopy. TFN existed logn before the TOS, the JC existed long before the TOS, it's no more a foudning document then the 21st amendment.

But it is the document upon which the forums are predicated and by which they are moderated, so it isn't "bullpoopy."

Do you even know what the TOS says? Damn it do you even know what it is other then just saying "TOS TOS TOS TOS"? The TOS mentions few of the rules here, I already provided the example of posting the same threa din multiple forums. I do nto want the tOS expanded into a laundry list of possible abuses I want it slipped to remove the mods ability to ban people for things which aren't said in the TOS and in the numerous subsidiary threads as abuses.

No, I have no familiarity with the TOS. I'm winging it here. Do you normally get this much leeway with flame-baiting?

So now we see the real motivation - you want a loophole with an official stamp of approval. Not going to happen, as you are creating a system by which folks can get away with internet murder scot-free.

But it was not and in acting upon it we did not sue the TOS as carte blanche to ban anyone who did.

No, you warned them, and then set a precedent which could later be followed. I don't seem to recall you calling for a revocation of moderator power then, however.

No, I'm changing veyr little except for your ability to ban anyone for anything, somehting you seem to want to be able to do.

Because it's necessary for the job here. Otherwise my hands are tied by an empty legalism - because it isn't stated explicitly in the TOS, you are trying to create an *out* for folks to misbehave.

Oh please. Bureaucracy? How by making mods actually have to make policy in concert instead of banning for whatever reason they individually feel is neccesary?

By requiring every instance of trolling, flaming, flame-baiting, spamming, etc., not explicitly covered by the TOS to be preceded by a warning - that *by definition* adds another step in the moderating process, which makes things unnecessarily unwieldy and bureaucratic.

You're right abotu one thing though I am trying to limit the power of individual mdos to act of their own accord and tryign to renforce the ability of the MS to act in concert.

No, you're trying to use the letter of the Terms of Service against the spirit by creating an *out* for bad netizenry.

Really? The spirt of the law? Why is it when I read that I see "The innocent should be protected even at the cost of the guilty getting away in small" where as you seem to see "the guilty should be punished even if it means the innocent get hurt too"

Because the innocent have the recourse of contacting the JC administration via unban request and/or e-mail, and having a note to that effect added to their user notes to explain the situation. Beyond that, it's a matter of the interpretation of the TOS you choose to fiat upon it.

Really, farraday, we're talking about an internet message board, not civil liberties, not major surgery, or limb amputation for transgressions. In the *off chance* that a mistake occurs (the innocent is punished), a

 

All I see there is that the administration can ban you and there is no recourse, it says nothing as far as I can see on limitations of the administration's ability to ban for anything they so choose, which is, unless I'm mistaken why JGM is saying by the mods make decisions not based on personal whim, which it doens't say anywhere, or even imply, in the TOS which far to many mods assume is the be all of the JC rules(thus banend for violating the TOS).

And dp4m please find where it says posting the same thread in multiple forums is bannable. Since spam isn't even mentioned in the TOS obviously it's not even implied to eb agaisnt the rules.

And this does have a point, the rules are wide spread and not limited to the TOS, thereofre I am not asking for an enumeration fo the rules in the TOS just that any banning be becuase of an already enumerated rule and not based on personal whim, which is a power the TOS gives the mods.


Er, because we are entrusted to know what the TOS is beyond rote repetition of "User agrees to not post knowingly offensive..."?

Again with the TOS, please Quix if you actually understood the rules you wouldn't keep refering to them as the TOS.

Because you are implicitly assuming that an offense isn't an offense until it is labeled as such? It's a rather extreme example, but was it wrong to kill someone with malice and premeditation in a civilian context without due cause and/or without being in self-defense before 1st Degree Murder was codified?
1st degree murder ahs always as far as I'm aware been codified, howeevr to answer you legally you were able to kill certian minorities and it wasn't punishable, morally it may be reprehensible but i thought you were her to enforce the rules of the JC not your own personal morals.


You're asking for Napoleonic law here No, what I'm asking is to limit your powers by your own recognition fo the rules above what you want. It hought the mods were here because they cared about the JC, somehting which isn't evident bya desire to be able to abn anyone for any reason ex post facto and to preclude any limit on their power. For people who in all likliehood believe in the rule of law you seem not to understand it also should apply to you when you're in power. Whats wrong with limiting mods powers in writing instead of just whatever they feel like enforcing on each other?

If you can't predict every derivative of the TOS, or every possible infraction, you have to allow leeway in interpretation of the TOS.
TOSTOSTOSTOSTOS please bring up a completely unrelated issue. I'm talkign about thinks which aren't implictly or explcitly covered by the rules, if you want to talk about what's covered only by the TOS then you need that line simply because of the compelte inadequac of the TOS as a working document on the ruels of the forums.

And that means the ability to ban without a warning.

It doens't mean to abn them based on whatever rule you decide to make up and then make it retroactively apply to a situation so you can get a specific person.

But it is the document upon which the forums are predicated and by which they are moderated, so it isn't "bullpoopy."
No it really isn't, but thena gain since you think the TOS mentiosn spam I don't see why I'ma rguing with you about it.

No, I have no familiarity with the TOS. I'm winging it here. Do you normally get this much leeway with flame-baiting?

<eyeroll.gif> that's right any accusation that the mdos might not be perfect is flame bating

So now we see the real motivation - you want a loophole with an official stamp of approval. Not going to happen, as you are creating a system by which folks can get away with internet murder scot-free.

internet murder? now who's being melodramatic. And what we're talking about is somethign that would happen at best one time and even then in all liklihood unoticed.

No, you warned them, and then set a precedent which could later be followed. I don't seem to recall you calling for a revocatio

 

And dp4m please find where it says posting the same thread in multiple forums is bannable. Since spam isn't even mentioned in the TOS obviously it's not even implied to eb agaisnt the rules.

User agrees and acknowledges that any posts, nicknames or other material deemed ... harassing ... may be removed at the sole discretion of the administration.

I'd guess it falls under harrassing, though a bunch usually fall under advertising or commercial solicitation which is also an enumerated no-no.

 

farraday:

Trust me on this one--no one is getting banned indiscriminately for posting something another user finds offensive, at least not on the boards I've been on. I've seen people get away with a hell of a lot of rudeness.

The mods are in a position of trust. They must use their best judgement, not personal whims, when it comes to a situation where banning is an appropriate action. If they cannot discern whim from judgement, then they have no business moderating.

I have had no problems with the majority of the moderators here, and I think most every ban that has been issued has been due to a violation of the TOS--I know my one 48-hour spank was well deserved, and while I probably get about three warnings a week and can't remember what they were all for, it seems that they were all when I have lost my temper and allowed my Anakin Skywalker side to show--i.e. they were earned. There is one issue I have with a friend of mine who has been banned for six months, and I do know that one of her previous bannings was for "excessively asking for proof", which is absolutely ludicrous--but I'm not going to use this thread to protest that--I want to complain about it but I am still looking into exactly what process to use.

But anyway, the mods are humans, not computers, and what we should expect out of them is that they use their best judgment in interpretations of the TOS--and as I've said, I think most of them that I've dealt with do that well. They got to be mods because someone felt that they were good at being leaders and fairly enforcing the rules for all of us. This forum probably has 80,000 users, and quite a few of them do not make the mods' jobs very easy.

 

farraday,
Know that it warms my heart to see you calling for moderators to moderate according to the Terms of Service.

If anyone else made this thread, I don't think I'd be feeling so warm and tingly inside.

 

TOS?

Removed. Inappropriate... "harassing=spam =posting the same thread in multiple forums" I dont see why that isn't clear to everybody.
Are the mods trying to make posting here as difficult as possible or do they just delight in the epower they get from banning someone because they made the TOS as clear as mud?

As was clearly stated in my 3/5 post to the "Marking Out Swear Words thread, that combination of words is not acceptable. While you were active in that thread, consider this another warning to not curse.

 

If you play by the rules and respect people, you really don't have to worry about being notified of a ban. I understand what your point with the thread is however.

 

> Are the mods trying to make posting here as difficult as possible...

Well, several thousand users seem to manage just fine, day in - day out, post after post.

I would say there are actually a few users trying to make posting here as difficult as possible...

Hmmmm?

 

jp-30 all I'm asking is the mods stop pretending they're divine right monachs and accept written limitations instead of assumed ones.

After all I'm pretty sure most of you believce in the rule of law, even if in practice you favor autocracy as long as you're on top.

 

Ignoring your irrelevant "monarchs" quip for a second...

...explain to us clearly please why in your eyes we have to accept written limitations instead of assumed (ie common sense / case by case) ones, and more importanatly how doing so will better the JC.


Because I'm having a real hard time understanding what you're getting at and how it will improve this place.

 

Because frankly there is an inherent conflict of interests if the only people policing the administration are the administration.

It seems every time a change is brought to question the arguements are at the same time it is so small as to be unimportant and such not worthy of making and that it would also completely destroy the JC.

If you recognize you are human and make mistakes, why is it you refuse to put anything in the TOS or anywhere else limiting the possible scope of those mistakes. Everytime I turn aorudn it seems that the MS accepts all the power but none of the responsibility that comes with it.

You can whine all you want about how thankless a job being a moderator is, but the truth is you chose to become one and furthermore that you can quit any time.

The door is right there.
Mods complain about drama but for some reason don't feel they have any responsibilty towards it's creation(it's always problem users who take some small issue and blow it out of propotion, MS mishandeling and refusal to admit any kind of mistakes or sincere apologies not withstanding)
The MS continually shoots itself in the foot and then blames other people.
I'm reminded of a mod spending half an hour disembling and attempting to mislead people over the incontrivertable fact a mod who had stepped down had access while they were a vip, something which I certainly have no problem with but they did everything short of out and out lying to try and hide.

Since you apparently have very little ability to control yourselves ,accept some outside boundries. Enforce the rules, not whatever you personally think is right and wrong.

If you ever bothered to try something new you might realize that the wall you're beating your heads against is partially of your own making.

And if I have to tell you how following the rule of law rather then the rule of personal opinion makes things better then you're hopeless.

 

So, basically, this is all now a problem for you because Vertical went and removed the go... errr... ummm... gosh darned "or reason" clause from the TOS late last year?

While I can't speak for it as a whole, I'm sure the administration sincerely regrets causing you so much obvious distress over the wording contained in its Terms of Service.

How about we just put that removed portion back in for you and promise to try our darndest to moderate according to it. Would that allow you to sleep soundly at night?

 

"...to revoke this privilege at any time without notice should the administration deem it necessary..."

It means we don't need to notify a user before banning them.

Anything to discuss here? ?

 

If you ever bothered to try something new you might realize that the wall you're beating your heads against is partially
of your own making.

What if in fact we are talking to the wall, and not beating our heads against it?

I find such conduct more productive, but then again, I'm not your average Mod... or human.

Personally Farraday, I can see where your coming from, but that clause is in there for a good reason: to give the MS latitude to act in a situation where timing is critical. Any further extrapolation of the phrase "without notice" beyond that is without basis, and certainly not used in practice by any Mod I know of.