Party's Over

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, not to worry... I could ask probably tomorrow?

wow. I completely missed all the anarchy. I can't say that I've ever had a personal problem with any of the mods.

I do, however, also agree with the members who have a problem with the "discussion of banned members" rule. Don't get me wrong, I'm a rule follower and if they say "don't" I won't. However, I think sometimes bans NEED to be discussed because sometimes it was done unfairly. Sure, maybe it should be discussed in private amongst the mods or whatnot. But I, personally, don't see why everything shouldn't be transparent to the members. Why shouldn't we know why soandso was banned? Perhaps it is just to prevent heated discussions as often there are opposing viewpoints that are euqually valid and will never meet. I don't know.

I'm kind of glad I missed this all when it went down. It is very upsetting. I love WP.

Members come and go on a site for a wide variety of reasons. If someone is banned, the site does not need a huge post-mortem about whether or not it was justified. The banned person is by definition excluded from talking about it, for a start. Those with strong opinions about it may not be privy to all relevant information, including events that happened offline or out of the public view. The moderators, who are privy to this kind of information, run the risk of violating the privacy of all concerned if they make it public.

That said, when there is no visible indication of whether or not someone has, in fact, been banned, how does one avoid inadvertent discussion of banned members? Off the top of my head, I can think of about half a dozen people who used to post in the Dino-Aspie Ex-Café, but no longer do. Which of these people were banned, and which are merely having a break from posting? How can I inquire about any of them without risking breaking the rule? I would sooner be able to see it by looking at their profile, rather than be expected somehow to "know" it by osmosis or inference. Or, worse, to receive a PM that says, "Shhh, we're not supposed to talk about you-know-who. "

Put it out in the open. Take the guesswork and speculation out of it.

I can see why we have that rule here about discussing of banned members. One: That person isn't here to defend themselves. Two: He doesn't want a drama to break out over why the person was banned.

But if that person was mentioned and the person wasn't even talking bad about him or her, I don't see why it be wrong. My name had been mentioned in a few posts back when my SG account existed and I was silent banned then.

My point. Whoever mentioned you in posts was breaking the rule — whether they knew you were silent banned or not. A forum with an active membership in the thousands is too large to run on rumour. Make it clearly known which accounts are banned and which are not.

That's why that rule shouldn't be black and white because we aren't psychics. No warnings shall be sent for it either if the person didn't know the other user was banned or sending them PMs telling them it's against the rules to discuss banned members and to follow the example for other users than telling them "(wp name here) is banned so don't continue discussing him since it's against the WP rules to discuss banned members." I would have liked that better if I got that PM instead.

I don't think there should be a list of who's banned. I don't think it's any of our business. Rather, I think we shouldn't have an absolute prohibition on talking about banned members.

I think that keeping everything secretive allows too much room for corruption since no one can call the mod's descision into question.

I believe in the kind of transparency Mith above, refers to.
I think what has happened recently is a good example of what can happen when there are no checks and balances on an individual who may be moderating or operating out of a position of power without fully understanding the responsibilities inherent within that role or position. For me, it is not a personality issue. Transparency and being held to account actually helps an organisation, a forum and/or a corporate company or business or non-profit org. operate more effectively in the long term.
Transparency as an ideal is a great thing. As a practice, it engenders a sense of fair play, democracy and safeguards against that very human tendency to get drunk on a little bit of power. (and we can ALL go there. that is what makes us human! )

An indicator for those who are banned isn't the worst idea I've heard, though I have also heard arguments to the contrary. However, I think it is important to keep into consideration that while the backend is not transparent to the membership as a whole, that to assume that there is no communication, discussion or transparency there isn't accurate either - a great deal of discussion does take place regarding the site's issues. Ultimately, as members and moderators here, we're accountable to Alex's discretion.


M.

To make a rule:

... and thereafter to say "it shouldn't be black and white" or "we shouldn't have an absolute prohibition" (in other words, to leave it up to the moderators' discretion) is a recipe for trouble on any discussion forum, let alone a forum for people with Asperger's Syndrome. Allowing this sort of prevailing ambiguity does a disservice to everyone. Including — especially! — the moderators whose job it is to make the hard judgment calls and to wear the consequences afterward.

(Edit: Waves to Lau )

The rule states there are three things disallowed... Discussing locked topics, discussing banned members AND why they were banned, and anything else that causes conflict. A strict interpretation of the rule suggests it's fine to discuss a member who has been banned, or discuss why a non-specific member was banned, but not who and why. There is a missing comma from the rule, but if they mean it to cover banned members in general, they should either drop "why they were banned", separate "why" as a forth item, or change "and" to "or".

(See previous post quoting rule.)

M.[/quote]

I'm glad that you quoted it, since the thread is gone.

He must have checked the moderation log to figure out what happened to LG's and her husband's accounts and all their posts. Do you guys have the deleted posts in a special forum or are they gone?[/quote]

This coming from an Intenshitty admin who's equally as corrupt.

She also admitted it to him and in her sig. I don't know why she did it. She must have been that angry to do such a thing. I think I was the only one to ever step forward to make him be aware while others couldn't. Plus I found out my friend here PMed him the evidence. So I see I had help.

He says he has them but the posts I have made in the last two weeks are dead gone. So that means all the posts I have made under my husband's account are gone except for the first one he's ever made. The rest were done by me as a test to see if the same issue happens and it did. I signed my SG name in every post to get caught. So it was like a trap I did.

What do you mean by equally as corrupt Peah?


Edit: Just got a PM telling me I did not do this alone and many stepped foward telling him about her so I had lot of help. Well I feel special now. I guess I am not hated here as I thought. Thanks everyone.

Once again, I've got to admit that it was quite the party a few days back, don't you think?