Should mods be able to ban people 'for their own good'?

This may be the first instance of this particular case, but the trend toward abuse of power has become disturbingly more frequent. This is not from all mods, but seems to be the same ones over and over again. It is the symtpom of the more damaging problem.

 

I outlined three things,

1) we're not making it policy to ban people based soley on someone's word

2) we will act on a case by case basis when there is proof provided.

3) there is proof in SOTS's case

This was not a perfectly handled situation from the very beginning but is hardly worthy of all this.

 

I trust Sape that by your post you've never told a member why someone was banned?

Thats all they did and if that's a violation of trust all you mods are guilty.

The problem here is that a mod was caught doing something wrong and none of you want to admit it.

Anyone with sense can see that banning a family member because you think it's in their best interest isn't something that should be happening. Hell me and AYBABTU agree on this.

 

"Hell me and AYBABTU agree on this."

And that's a lot scarier than all this Halloween nonsense.

AYBABTU?

 

I don't talk about the boards to anyone I know in real life. I don't want anyone to know how much of a dork I am. And abuse of power should be reserved for situations where there is abuse of power. This is someone doing what they think is right, not erasing every single person's posts, logging in as someone else and cussing, or changing color schemes for the heck of it.

 

Don't put words in our mouths. Some admins disagree with what was done while others support it. So we're divided. That's life. But we also recognize the rare occurence of this. I would say don't expect a policy to result from this.

 

Doing what they think is right, for someone else.

Not the boards. Noone told me when I became a mod it was my job to arbitrate what people should be doing with their time.

Persoanlly if I had a fmaily member who i thought might sink into here(after all it hadn't happened yet) I think talking to them mgiht be a bit more productive then going high and mighty mod and banning them.

Edit// I said none of you want to admit it. Until mods start coming in here and saying that the ban shouldn't have happened I'll stick by that. Until then it's just the mod wall protecting one of their own even though they screwed up.

 

My agreement with farraday and AYBABTU has caused strange galactic alignments of the Moon, Mars, Venus and my copy of Steve Perry's "Shadows Of The Empire".

A real life word maybe worth a hundred Messageboard bans.

And again, I agree with Qui_Gonn_Jim23, there have been a few cases recently of "Power Abuse" on the place of the moderation. What I find more difficult is the (maybe imagined by me) hostility towards members of the AC from some Mods. It seems as if we sometimes are regarded as "pests" rather then having the best interests of the Boards at heart.

UKS

 

Who took a leak in your Corn Flakes since you left Mod Squad? There's one thing about resentment and there's another about using Comms as your personal target practice.

 

Sapient, he tried to raise it in the Advisory Council but it was locked.

That is why he raised it here.

UKS

 

"My agreement with farraday and AYBABTU has caused strange galactic alignments of the Moon, Mars, Venus and my copy of Steve Perry's Shadows Of The Empire."

That's odd, because I haven't been able to get Steve Perry's song "Oh Sherry" out of my head all day.

You should've been gone...

AYBABTU?

 

Well, hopefully I'm not lumped in as someone who treats the AC like that. But this should have also not been brought up in the AC. That is STRICTLY MY OPINION. I see this as farraday recognizing he had a former admin in a vice and exploited it. I wouldn't say this had this not been an unfortunate continuation of a trend.

 

So, it's not that it wasn't wrong, but I'm a bastard for bringing it up.

Thanks a lot Sape.

 

I'm not convinced by your arguments that this is inherently wrong (nor by others that it's inherently right).

It's a legitimate question when you're dealing with minors. To what extent are we not merely permitted but obligated to comply with the wishes of caretakers if that relationship can be proven? The case in point happened to involve a brother, but I see no reason to assume that it did not involve a parental wish, or at least parental approval. And to what extent are we obligated to turn our backs and be completely impartial? It's a question that's raised in any profession or position that deals with minors. Should public libraries filter the internet for kids? Should students be allowed to have a prayer group on public school grounds?

The question here isn't on the same level of importance to parents probably, but it's in the same family of questions, and the answer isn't clear-cut. It's been decided differently by different bodies for years. So please do us the favor of not acting like SotS broke the law of gravity here.

 

Your words, not mine. Don't try to turn this on me via a faux sympathetic situation of big bad mod picking on innocent little farraday.

 

I find it funny that the person who *asked* to be banned "for his own good" before he reached 10,000 posts (or shortly thereafter, i don't remember exactly) is asking this question.

 

He is not the parent and from the info involved this came from his own violition not from a parent or gaurdians.

You can't see the problem with that? You don't see a problem with a mod deciding whats best for a user?

I asked to be banned, we're talkign about people who don't and yet are still banned 'for their own good'.

 

Sure, but this is someone's lil' brother, not a random user. We do not, nor have we ever, banned based on that. How can we further this conversation when this is probably the first and last time this will happen?

 

You're contradicting yourself Sape. First you say he wasn't banend because he was SotS brother then you say it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't SotS brother.


Why was he banned then?

 

In the case we're talking about, we're talking about a brother--presumably acting with parental consent, otherwise we'd have heard of it by now--taking an interest in his brother's activities. As it happens, the brother is a mod, and acted on it himself. But he could as easily have PM'd another mod and made the request, and we'd have the same situation, provided he could provide both proof of the relationship and of the parents' wishes.

It is not simplistic, and--unlike you--I'm not pretending it is. You're making a melodrama of what is essentially an intellectual question. Do I think the intellectual question needs answering? Yes. Do I think the answer is pre-ordained either way? No. It's a reasonably precedential case here. Let's argue it reasonably.

 

I don't presume parental consent.

And we'd only be in the same position if there was an actual reason.

Is there? was there something his brother did not just the fear of what might happen?

Or are you saying you ban people on parental request because they might spend to much time here?

 

Farrie...are you concerned this might lead to a slippery slope where mods are doing this willy nilly across the boards?

 

I'm saying that's the question. To what extent would we be obliged to respond to parental wishes, no matter what their reasoning for those wishes?

 

I think the problem here is unilateral action, something that most of you people are yelling at the President for at the moment, but don't seem to think applies here.

 

Not really salty, I'm quite certain most mods realize this is a violation of their responsibilities to the board, even if the leadership demands they not appear to break ranks when outside the mod squad.

Parents are responsible for their children, not the JC. The JC can choose t help by banning a user if the parent requests but it is not required.

Tell me Galadrial would you ban a user because a parent contacted you and stated the fear their child might be infected by jewish thinking on the boards?

You have a brain, use it. SotS intentions may be pure as freshy driven snow, but his intentions aren't the point, his actions are.

As far as we know he took it upon himself to ban a user for their own good. His relationship to the user may be a mitigating factor but it doesn't fix the problem they were banned because a mod feared what might happen, not what had happened.