About this new Communications policy....

Any user with a decent level intelligence [read: you know how to eat] can figure out how to escalate things down the Admin Circle before bringing it to ANOTHER THREAD in Communications.

You're very critical of the JC community's common sense, and with good reason. If you spend time writing a no-brainer FAQ, you'd be preventing lots. I'll be responsible for marketing the FAQ in a way that no moron will gaze right past it.

 

So I take it this initial locking phase was just an over rigerous opening move, designed to illustrate that things are changing?

 

So Comms is going to get even more FAQed eh?

 

Probably. It'll cut a lot of the redundant crap around here.

 

PB: Not sure when I'll be updating the Comm FAQ, but is there anything that you want to include in it?

Everyone, please provide suggestions so that I know which questions are most relevant. It seems that some of the questions in the FAQ now need to be deleted.

 

Regarding the official "Why was User X banned?" thread:

LB: It's not such a bad idea, but PB has a point. Even if such a thread was instituted, I sincerely doubt that users would adhere to it. You would still see separate mod-bashing user-whining threads popping up. Let it go to PM and be dealt with out of the public eye. And even if users did comply and use the one thread, it would become a spam factory with countless posts of pointless bashing.

On another note, I support the suggestion for the 24-hour extension once a question has been answered. But even if that rule is not initiated, there still exists the option for a mod to re-open a thread based on a user's PM.

 

I would like to think that if we said "go to PMs" people would do that, but for some issues - like the demoting of tonyf for instance - will pour over into Communications no matter what "official" things we say or do. I don't think it is a bad thing either. Some situations deserve to be heard in an open forum like this. A few say some bannings are not always in the right. They should have an outlet to express themselves once the proper procedure has been exhausted.

Perhaps I haven't explained myself, thinking others have read Nathan's ideas on the subject:

---

Step 1: Send a PM to that moderator, respectfully asking him why he acted in that way and letting him know that you were offended by it or felt that it was somehow inappropriate. If applicable, you can mention another member or two that feels the same way you do, thus adding a bit of validity to your point of view. Correspond like this until either (a)you reach an understanding with each other or (b)feel that the communication is going nowhere and that further action must be taken. If (a), you've worked things out easily and quietly. If (b), proceed to step 2.

Step 2: Start a respectful thread in Communications, putting forth links to all applicable evidence and asking the members and moderators to post their thoughts. The two keys to making this successful are respect and evidence. If you lack one or both of these, you will likely not be taken seriously. If you meet these two criteria, your thread falls under my personal protection and will not be locked without a very good reason. It's important that you guys always have a way to question the way we do things. If you do not get a satisfactory response from the moderators in which they either (a)explain the reasoning behind that moderator's actions or (b)agree with you and inform you of what action will be taken, then you should proceed to step 3.

Step 3: Send me a PM, pointing me to the thread and asking for my input. If you don't get a satisfactory response that way, either, procede to step 4.

Step 4: Send a similar e-mail to Josh or Scott (Josh@theforce.net and Scott@theforce.net, respectively), pointing them to your Communications thread and asking for their input. If this still doesn't get results (and you should have gotten a satisfactory response somewhere in this process), proceed to step 5.

Step 5: Though you may not like this...leave. Hopefully, you won't ever reach this point, but it's entirely possible that this will happen to a handful of people. At this point, it's quite obvious that your views are not compatible with those of the other JC members, JC moderators, or TFN staff. Hence, you should go find another SW discussion board that suits your fancy. You will be unable to enjoy yourself on the JC and should move on with your life. I hope that you'll at least send me a little note if it ever comes to this, so I'll have some idea of why you're leaving. If more than a couple of people do this for the same reason, it will definately cause us to think long and hard about the way we do things.

---

While this is for judging "The Accountability of Moderators," it can easily be used as a guideline of what to do in case of an argument over a banning.

My idea: Take Step 2 and instead of having them start a separate thread, have them go into the official thread on the subject of banning and state their (or their friend's case) in there.

Hm. It would be a hard thread to keep on target, but it's not that great of a challenge. What else have we to do?

 

You've raised a very good point. Not that my opinion matters at all in the grand scheme of things, but I'm starting to think that an Official thread for these matters just might work. And if a harsh spamming penalty could be enforced for the thread, it likely wouldn't grow too fast or get out of hand.

 

so you mean creating official why was i banned threads and such?

 

An official thread to respond to bannings, period. If User X was banned, and User Y wants to say something about it, he can go to the official thread rather than start yet another "Why was User X banned?" thread.

At least that's how I understand it.

 

No, we're not going to get in the habit of revealing some of the information why users have been banned.

• It's really none of a member's business, if a member knows, great, if a member desires to know, [in some instances] fine.
• Some of the details in a ban are extremely personal and should be kept confidential.
• I don't have time to announce to everyone why I banned someone, especially when I have to go through 100 aliases. Any Admin can lookup the reason, so if the Admin who banned User X is not available, a member can ask another Admin to explain the reason [if it is acceptable to do so].

The job we were asked to do here was to be kept in the shadows so members can enjoy discussing Star Wars to the fullest. Like it or not, this is mostly nothing that members should be concerned with.

 

It's a tremendous shame some people place board politics before SW.

 

"Some of the details in a ban are extremely personal and should be kept confidential."

Bans shouldn't be made for personal reasons; they should be made because someone broke the rules. The details of why someone was banned should be explainable like so:

"User X was perm banned for flamming several users who wish to remain nameless. This user also used profanity, posted inappropriate pictures and posted as a sock while banned. Thank you and have a pleasant day.

Etc. Etc.

Mod X"

Simple yet detailed, short yet effective in silencing all but the most stubborn opposition.

 

But if we're not going to explain the reason for the ban beyond "Flaming some users", why not just say "he was banned for breaking the rules", which is obvious anyway?

The reason people ask "Why was user X banned" is because they foolishly think the mods just banned him/her out of nowhere, for no reason.

What we need to get across to people is that users are banned ***when they break the rules***. If a user is banned, he was banned ***because he broke the rules***. Why does there need to be an explanation?

Vertical

 

Some people information and they'll see certain bannings as excuses to rid the JC of unwanted riff-raff, ie the hubub around TFU's and Ethril's banning.

Providing a touch more than just "he broke rules, you happy now, we go" isn't too taxing.

 

LB- I said the details were personal, not the reasons. I could bring up a few examples, but then I'd not be respecting privacy. At any rate, you'll probably run across one or more of these scenarios as your length of service here extends into units of years.

I'm with Vertical. We were asked to do a job here, which is take care of people not following the rules. If someone has been banned, they haven't been following the rules. If this banishment is an injustice, you better believe that the other Admins will deal with it, since they are all able and notified of banishment-type manners.

This is a Star Wars message board, not an experiment where you can observe the way people manage things from a online social environment.

 

Mixed communciation. My bad, Preach.

And yes, I am sure I'll ban where the details are personal. But my point was about the reason, not detail. So with that, I'll cap off this night of posting.

Good luck to all of you taking finals!

 

Lord Bane's steps:

Step 1: Many times I've been told to shut the hell up and mind my own business. PMing some mods is useless

Step 2: Same response, plus the thread gets closed before any answers

 

In your specific case, yeah. When will you learn?

 

perhaps we need a truth and reconciliation commission here

 

Is it my imagination, or did the last two pages of this thread disappear? Who did the deleting, and why? Pretty shady, if you ask me.

 

There have only been two pages. Did you happen to change your "Max Messages Preference" in Change Display Settings?

Indeed, shady.

 

****EDITED DUE TO USER STUPIDITY****


Sorry, you're right SOK. Nothing to see. Move along, move along....

 

Uh Vracer, I think that was in a different thread. That proposal one I think.

 

hi