Zero Tolerance

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Vaderize03, Aug 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TripleB Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    Obi-Wan Said

    Trip, fifty percent of the stuff you say is now considered a bannable offense man! Any ad hominem attacks on liberals and democrats are out.

    Well, I have to dispute that. For example, there were a few personal slurs directed against me and my cat personally were thrown out at me by Ender_Sai and GOnk a few day's ago and neither of them seemed to have suffered any ill effects for it.

    But, I will try to direct my ire against "Liberalism" and "the Democrat Party" which I beleive are still in.
  2. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 10
    OWM, whilst I love healthy debate and dissent as much as the next person, you claimed V-03 had no right to ban you.

    Each time you post, you are explicitly warned that in doing so you agree with and submit to the Terms of Service and Rules of Conduct. I quote now from the Rules of Conduct:

    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. User agrees that this Agreement in its entirety applies to both public and private messages.


    Simply put, my old friend, they got the guns, we got the numbers, guns win.

    E_S
  3. Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Why bring this up at all? But since you did, that was the most unfair ban of all. All I did was repost a rule in the rule thread, no commentary, NOTHING. I just reposted a rule and I got banned. Even if reposting a sentence that the mods themselves wrote is a bannable offense, you proceeded to ban me for actions I had already been disciplined for and had stopped doing. Namely, the PM spamming. It would kind of be like if the mods added four days extra banning to my sentence last week (for the labeling 1-day ZT ban I got) for my PM spamming four months ago. THat didn't make any sense Vader, Kimball already warned me to stop PM spamming and I did, you had no right to ban me for it.

    You were banned in that case because you were told to drop it. Last I checked, "Drop it" does not mean "find some other way to complain or protest about it". You were specifically pushing it, and you know it, just like you told me specifically that you would not post with your sock while banned under the ZT policy, but you did anyways.

    And I still don't think what I wrote to get my most recent ban constitutes a flame or even an improper label. I stated that I believed conservatives were all too willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on his war record. Is that really a bannable offense now? Without even a warning?

    OWM, I had banned my own brother the day before for a very similar statement (which was directed at you personally, I might add), even though I largely agreed with his statement. You don't see him here complaining about it, do you?

    I know you all like people to act all kind and decent, but most of you are patriotic Americans (or wait, I probably can't say that anymor either?) and this type of policy on speech should shock your moral compass to SOME degree

    Here's a dirty little secret for you:

    This is a private message board. You have no Free Speech here, and that is a perfectly American principle. Free Speech in the US is only protected from interference by the Government. As much as some people may make comparisons, neither TFN, nor the Senate in particular is a government.

    You are free from government interference if you wish to set up your own message board, but your free speech ends once you "step into" another person's board.

    Kimball Kinnison
  4. TripleB Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2000
    star 4
    You were banned in that case because you were told to drop it. Last I checked, "Drop it" does not mean "find some other way to complain or protest about it". You were specifically pushing it, and you know it, just like you told me specifically that you would not post with your sock while banned under the ZT policy, but you did anyways.


    Well, OBI-Wan, as I am sure you remembered, I was just as upset as you were over losing that thread. Irrelevant though, as you and I both planned it out where once Kerry announced his running mate, you would be ready and would run to recreate a new thread with yourself as it's master again.

    So you and I can both chuckle, that we were able, in the end, to get what we wanted.
  5. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    OBM, we do have discretion to act within our guidelines.

    If you think that you have been treated unfairly, that's fine. You have been around long enough to know how to deal with it.

    But when a conservation ends, it ends.

    More later.

    Peace,

    V-03
  6. Cheveyo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    Cheveyo
    "...No need to keep records..."

    Ever heard of the division of labour? In theory, one mod does the PM warnings and keeps up with that correspondence. Those cases needing more discipline are passed to the second mod, who starts editing and issuing public warnings (warnings in the forum itself), then those needing even more deterent are passed to another mod who does the banning and keeps up with those durations and rebans. The labour becomes easier as the discipline progresses, because the numbers of offenders goes down gradually.


    Yes, I've heard of the division of labour. This usually implies that theres is a strong enough work force to enable such a division.

    You may also know that division of disciplinary actions in management pertaining to individuals in the workforce is counter-productive, because there is too much room for error--meaning too many slip through the cracks, policies are not upheld, and overall work ethic deteriorates.

    Finally, Matter, you say that in theory this would work. I'd like to point you back to the now immortal words of Sidney Morgenbesser (see my sig). It's all great in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.


  7. DarthMatter Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 12, 2004
    star 3
    But once again, Cheveyo, your exact words apply just as well to ZT, or any policy. You're not really saying anything - just trying to shoot me down. Try analyzing the specifics of one policy over another, instead of throwing bumper stickers at me...
  8. Cyprusg Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    I stated that I believed conservatives were all too willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on his war record.

    You are frickin kidding me, that's why you were banned?

    I was banned for asking someone if they had an objective source blocker on their browser...

    Vaderize you have to talk to your fellow moderators *cough*Kimball*cough* about some of these completely ridiculous bannings and selective moderating. Seriously, it's just not cool.

    In fact I'll probably get banned for saying that...

    *shakes fist*

    I wish we could vote for moderators.
  9. Cheveyo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    I have a better idea, Matter. Try posting with civility, and you'll find this whole thing to be a non-issue.

  10. Cheveyo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    I wish we could vote for moderators.

    I'm glad we don't. Modd'ing should not be a public popularity contest.

    And really, this is a private place, not public domain. The guidelines of democratic self rule don't apply here. ;)

    To borrow the phrase...

    "We're not a democracy. We're a Republic." (Although we're really not even that.)

    hehehehe
  11. Cyprusg Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 16, 2002
    star 4
    And really, this is a private place, not public domain. The guidelines of democratic self rule don't apply here.

    Thanks Cheveyo, I was completely unaware of that....

    [/sarcasm]

    I wasn't serious about voting...but maybe we could have a recall vote!

    (not serious about that either for all those that are humor impaired)
  12. DarthMatter Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 12, 2004
    star 3
    Glass houses, Cheveyo ;)

    But doesn't this relate to ZT? Because we disagree, from your POV your sarcasm is funny but mine isn't. Theoretically, depending on how a particular mod feels right now, one of us could get edited or banned, the other would get away with it, and their would be no appeal process. How is that fair in practice??

    What I meant by "throwing bumper stickers at me", is your recommendations, while surely valid, aren't specific to ZT. They can be applied anywhere for anything, which is great, but in this case, we have a very specific policy and a bunch of views on it. I think ZT is inconsistent at best, Draconian at worst, and someone else might think it's a Godsend at best, omlette-breaking at worst...
  13. Cheveyo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    But doesn't this relate to ZT? Because we disagree, from your POV your sarcasm is funny but mine isn't. Theoretically, depending on how a particular mod feels right now, one of us could get edited or banned, the other would get away with it, and their would be no appeal process. How is that fair in practice??

    Actually, there was no sarcasm in my post. my "hehehehe" was in reference to an inside joke/long-going statement often used when it is mentioned that the US is a democracy. It's an old joke from these boards. And while my sarcasm can at times be biting, I've been fairly called on it, whether I think it's funny or not.

    What I meant by "throwing bumper stickers at me", is your recommendations, while surely valid, aren't specific to ZT. They can be applied anywhere for anything, which is great, but in this case, we have a very specific policy and a bunch of views on it. I think ZT is inconsistent at best, Draconian at worst, and someone else might think it's a Godsend at best, omlette-breaking at worst...

    I knew what you meant by your phrase. And my statements that followed still stand.

  14. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Even if the zero tolerance policy is forced community building, it's still a kind of community building.

    As Ben Franklin would have told us, either we all band together, or we'll be banned separately.
  15. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    *sigh*

    This will all go away as long as people continue to behave. That's all we're asking....

    So far, it's working beautifully.

    Peace,

    V-03
  16. MasterZap Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2002
    star 4
    One massive problem with all this is that Bannings are obviously arbitrary and when banned, the bannee gets no indication of why.

    I was just banned, and I frankly do not have a bad photoshopy of a clue for what. None.

    Absolutely, totally, and one-hundred-and-ten percent zero clue.

    I've said nothign wrong, done nothing wrong.

    I don't know which posting of mine was overzealously interpreted by a overzealous mod, but I sure as heck would like to know.

    Personally, I feel unmotivated bannings should not exist. (And with this I mean, the banning should be made with a written motivation, that is displayed on the ban screen. And no, the "you have violated the terms of service" is not detailed enough :) )

    Oh btw, it would be REALLY nice if PM's worked even during a ban.

    Your overzelous moderation was nearly causing me some serious real-life business problems due to this fact.

    Tsk.

    /Z
  17. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 9
    Zap: Did you try sending in an unban request? That's usually the best way to get information about a ban. You can also log in with a sock (although you cannot post with it) to PM a moderator for information.

    Personally, I feel unmotivated bannings should not exist.

    I agree. Fortunately, they don't happen too often, and I'd say at least a semblence of justification is always present (even if it's mistaken).

    (And with this I mean, the banning should be made with a written motivation, that is displayed on the ban screen. And no, the "you have violated the terms of service" is not detailed enough happy )

    That would require a coding change, and that's difficult at best to obtain.

    Oh btw, it would be REALLY nice if PM's worked even during a ban.

    Also would require a coding change.

    I'm noticing that since some members here are primarily focused on the Senate, they can be unaware of some of the larger issues surrounding the boards and policies.
  18. MasterZap Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2002
    star 4
    Zap: Did you try sending in an unban request? That's usually the best way to get information about a ban.


    I did, but got no reply. Zero nada nothing.

    You can also log in with a sock (although you cannot post with it) to PM a moderator for information.


    I tried to create a new login to be able to straighten it out but I never got the activation email for it either.


    Oh, a thought: Emailing a person thats banned saying "you were banned because..." doesn't require no coding changes.


    /Z
  19. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 9
    I did, but got no reply. Zero nada nothing.

    Unusual, though it does happen.

    I tried to create a new login to be able to straighten it out but I never got the activation email for it either.

    What e-mail provider did you use for it?

    Oh, a thought: Emailing a person thats banned saying "you were banned because..." doesn't require no coding changes.

    Many people don't include e-mail addresses in their profiles, and only administrators have access to private e-mails. Some people remove their private e-mails as well.
  20. Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Kimball, Vader, I am only addressing this issue becasue you felt the need to bring it up. (And Ender, I don't think you know what we are talking about here, I'm not talking about a Zero Tolerance ban but a previous ban that Vader brought up in an apparent attempt to drudge up my past bad behavior for some reason.)

    Again, as far as that ban is concernced, here is how I see it:

    1. Darth Mischeveous broke forum policy by posting a new elections thread without contacting a mod first.
    2. Kimball decided he was cool with it and sanctioned the new thread.
    3. I began arguing relentlessly with Kimball to open the old thread for sentimental purposes.
    4. I begin PMing everyone I know to convince Kimball to soften his heart and change his mind. I could not understand why something trivial that meant something to me and meant nothing to him could be so important.
    5. Kimball warned me to stop PM spamming him by getting other people to convince him to open the thread.
    6. I continue posting random negative comments in the DM election thread.
    7. Vader, a newly minted Mod, must take action to stop my disruptive actions. He asks me to stop complainging about the thread closing.
    8. I got to the rules thread, and simply repost the forum rule that DM broke by starting a new thread on a subject for which there existed an active thread.
    9. Vader proceeded to ban me for the continued "complaining," which was tenuous at best, sicne I wasn't complaining, I was simply pointing out a rule that Kimball himself had helped write. But fine, that's a mod call and perhaps it was a justified ban.
    10. What was NOT justified was Vader then adding several more days to my ban for the PM spamming. I had ceased such action. It would be like if I flamed TripleB a month ago was warned to stop, and then did stop, and then yesterday I improperly labled all conservatives as something negative. I should be banned for the improper label I just committed, but not for the flame I committed last month.

    -Now, you mod seem tired of the discussion, if you feel that way close the thread. However, Kimball, it does comfort me to know you banned your bro for insulting me, even if you now claim you agree with the insult, (but quick thought, didn't you just indireclty flame me just now? How about a self imposed 24 hour ban for yourself? :p ), but this thread is here available for me to complain about zero tolerance for improper labels, so his offense was different than mine. As far as free speech goes, you sort of made a bogus argument because I never claimed this was a public forum with constitutional protections of speech, but I did comment on the fact that we share certain values and that zero tolerance seems to stray from said values.

  21. Kimball_Kinnison Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    1. Darth Mischeveous broke forum policy by posting a new elections thread without contacting a mod first.

    And, as I have explained to you repeatedly, he did not break the rule. You are misinterpreting it to suit your wishes. THe rule refers to if a topic is locked for being redundant or inappropriate, do not repost it without permission from a moderator. As he had not had a previous thread by the same topic locked, his actions were completely outside of that rule.

    Kimball Kinnison

    EDIT:

    10. What was NOT justified was Vader then adding several more days to my ban for the PM spamming. I had ceased such action. It would be like if I flamed TripleB a month ago was warned to stop, and then did stop, and then yesterday I improperly labled all conservatives as something negative. I should be banned for the improper label I just committed, but not for the flame I committed last month.

    Actually, it was completely justified within the rules. While I was the one that confirmed the PM spamming, I passed the decision on how to handle it to Vaderize because I was involved in the dispute. Your punishment for both that offense (which has never required a single warning before banning) was completely according to the established guidelines for moderator actions.

    However, Kimball, it does comfort me to know you banned your bro for insulting me, even if you now claim you agree with the insult, (but quick thought, didn't you just indireclty flame me just now? How about a self imposed 24 hour ban for yourself? :p ), but this thread is here available for me to complain about zero tolerance for improper labels, so his offense was different than mine.

    In substance, his comment was no different than yours. The only difference is that he was directing his at you (as part of a response to you) while you made yours more general towards all conservatives. Both such actions are against the ZT policy.

    As far as free speech goes, you sort of made a bogus argument because I never claimed this was a public forum with constitutional protections of speech, but I did comment on the fact that we share certain values and that zero tolerance seems to stray from said values

    Private control of private property is one of the core American values. To claim that banning someone from a private message board goes against common values completely ignores that fact. The zero tolerance, as applied to a private forum, is no more against those values than a homeowner deciding what is allowed in thier home is.

    KK
  22. Qui-Gon_Lennon Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 15, 2000
    Fine. That wasn't even wasn't what I was complaining about. But that is clearly what your rule said even if it wasn't what you personally might have meant. Regardless, that is a moot point because it has nothing to do with the VADER ban, which you still haven't addressed, just avoided. That point is the last one, number 10, its highlighted.

    As for posting with socks even though I said I wouldn't, when I wrote it I meant it, I had no intention of breaking the rules. After you explained to what the ban was for, I felt it was ridiculous and decided I would rather be banned for a long time for something appropriate than for a day for something so minor as a statement stating conservatives give Bush's record less scrutiny on his war record while giving Kerry more scrutiny.

    I suppose I don't really care because this seems like a short fix (like Japanese internment) than a long term solution, and there is no way you will have the ability or strength to carry this policy out, I am now confident it will be the three of you that won't be able to carry out the policy.

    EDIT: Right, and I am not disputing that a man doesn't have the right to determine the extent of speech in his own home, but if you made a rule that in your home you wouldn't allow anyone to speak ill of the PResident or his policies, I would still claim that while you have the right to do so it is still betrays the basic moral concept of a free exchange of ideas we believe in. No argument about private speech being allowed or curtailed, just about your particular application.

    As far as the previous ban goes, you are mistaken. You specifically warned me to cease and desist, you are being disingenuous if you state otherwise, you didn't turn anything over to him until after you warned me about the PM spamming. You turned the issue of moderating me over to him, at which point he warned me about complaining about your decision publicly. He claims I violated that rule, but it doesn't give him grounds to ban me for violation of another rule that I head ceased committing days prior and had falied to repeat.

    Zero Tolerance is a stupid idea. I don't mean just on these boards, they started that garbage in high schools and I opposed such policies then too.

    EDIT:
    Both such actions are against the ZT policy.

    -Well then how do you justify not banning yourself? You just told me that you agreed with a negative remark about myself as a liberal, either way you violated your own Zero-Tolerance policy by affirming your belief in either a negative stereotype about liberals or a personal negative flame against me.

    I don't think stating that you agreed with a negative personal flame is appropriate either way.

  23. Darth_Deus Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2000
    star 4
    I tried to stay out of this thread, for fear of being banned, but I can't stay out any longer.

    I brought up the issues of fairness and bias a few months ago when a thread I created about Dick Cheney was shutdown by mod much more conservative than I am. I did not call him a conservative....I don't want to get banned. :) I was told there was already a thread dedicated to this topic. The thread I made was about Cheney dropping the "f" bomb on the Senate Floor. I was directed to take my discussion to the Kerry vs. Bush thread. Although neither Kerry nor Bush were the topic of my discussion, I was directed to this thread because out of 3500 posts, there were TWO about Cheney swearing. A thread that might prove to be embarassing for Cheney was closed. However, several threads about Michael Moore, mostly unfavorable, were allowed to stay open. Being the concerned forum member that I am, I alerted the mods to the inconsistancy. I was told there was none! We had threads about Disney Blocking Moore's Film, Michael Moore: Does He Hate America, and a couple of others I can't remember exactly. I pointed out that the Disney/Moore thread already had dozens of posts (in a thread less than 500 posts long) that said Michael Moore hated America. Those numerous posts though were not enough to designate that as a "Michael Moore Hates America" thread. So, a thread titled "Michael Moore, does he hate America" was allowed to open, and stay open after I repeatedly pointed out the inconsistancy. Still, they tried to claim there was none. Finally, I pulled out my zinger. I checked every thread about Michael Moore, terrorism, the 9/11 comission, etc.... and discovered that NO ONE had suggested that Michael Moore LOVED America. So, I started a thread titled, "Michael Moore: Does he love America?" If I do say so myself, it was brilliant. It seemed pretty obvious to me all along. If 2 posts out of 2500 make a thread officialy the place the discuss something totally unrelated to the title of the thread, then why wouldn't a dozen posts in a much, much smaller thread do the same thing??

    2/2500 < 12/500

    But, by creating the "love" thread, there was no argument to be made. There were NO posts about Moore loving America.

    0/200 = 0 :)

    It took many posts, and the ratio above to finally get somewhere. The redundant threads about Moore were finally consolidated.

    I was told that I should have discussed this via PM's. (which I did...but got no where) I was also told I should have taken my complaint to a higher mod. Like who? Who is going to admit there is a right wing bias?
  24. Darth Mischievous Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    The policy is in effect due to past circumstances that started to render this forum out-of-control with personalization, flaming, and baiting.

    The new policy has indeed made a positive difference here.

    If a member isn't mature enough to exhibit restraint in posting when topics are heated (among other issues, some of which are being discussed here in this thread), then that member should evaluate their future in contributing to this forum.

    This is a place for mature and sensible individuals to discuss a wide variety of issues in a level playing field. It is a place to learn about differing perspectives - not for egotistical self-gratification by proving others wrong.

    I remain with the belief that having stringent requirements for posting here improves the quality of the posts. Members must know that these issues can be extremely personal to other members and that disrespectful commentary isn't appropriate in this particular venue.
  25. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    First of all, I did not receive a single unban request from you, Zap.

    Second of all, before you accuse me of being "overzealous", I would like to remind you that I sent you a PM asking you to please tone down the sarcastic and frankly rude nature of the majority of your posts.

    I received no reply. If you think that I am being dishonest, I would be happy to post the content of that PM publicly.

    After what seemed like having my request be ignored by you, under the zero tolerance rules, I handed out 24 hours. Since I didn't see an unban request by you, I assumed that you weren't interested; now, it's entirely possible that your request got lost or misplaced, or that I looked for it incorrectly. These things do happen.

    When they do, if you don't hear from a moderator after submitting an unban request, then log on with a sock and PM.

    The fact that you accused me of being overzealous in public-rather than PM me and ask what the problem was-doesn't enhance my perception of your character. For your information, yours was the second ban I have handed out in my entire moderating career. It takes a lot to get me to do this and therefore you must have really stepped over the line.

    Please keep that in mind before you make accusations of "overzealousness". Thank you.

    V-03
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.