This is very confusing

Post Reply New Topic

Can the moderators please make a visible red "x" mark on the members who are banned? It would really help, because I have trouble finding out who of them are banned, f. ex, if a guy has been banned immediately after he has written a message, I couldn't possibly know it, and that's an unfair reason to ban ME.

They don't like to generally spark gossip and such by advertising every time somebody is banned.

You're not going to get banned for replying to a message or something silly like that. If you think someone might have been banned, or wonder why someone hasn't posted or something, you can always PM a mod and ask. Generally, it's a privacy thing. Lots of other sites have big hullabaloos over bannings.. when someone is banned from WP, it's generally because they were trolling and disrupting things, so after they're banned, the point is to get back to discussions about autism-related topics, rather than go on and on about trouble. There are more than enough sites dedicated to talking about trouble.

For resolution, you'll have to take that up with Alex.

Has this scenario that you are worried about ever happened?


M.

It's happened at times, yes.

I think you know you completely evaded the point there.

There are very clear rules about not talking about banned members. If we talk about a member who is banned and has a red cross marking them as banned we are expected to know and we can likewise be warned or banned without right of appeal or redress.

If a member is silent banned and does not have the red x then as a banned member we similarly (by the same ruling on talking about banned people) we can likewise be warned or banned without right of appeal or redress.

It is a silly and unmanageable ruling and easily solvable by making all banned members show as banned and THAT is the issue NOT what fuss other sites make nor whether members can choose to talk about whatever nor even whether mentioning a member is somehow inciting "trouble".

Irrespective of whether this can/has/will happen, the fact that it has potential to be used as an unfair weapon against members by a mod who may not be acting in the site's best interests IS paramount. Could such a situation ever exist at WP? I think we all know the answer is a definitive YES.

No, actually I got to the point that you're evading with complaints. Nobody is unexpectedly banned unless they've decided that they have decided that the rules don't apply to them. At that point, they've already received many warnings, and chosen to ignore them. Saying the ban was unexpected in such a case is like throwing a lit match into a take of gasoline and then claiming the the combustion was unexpected.
The conceptual problem with a rule that you can break unintentionally isn't with the rule itself, but with being punished for the infraction. If I were notice that someone hasn't posted in awhile, wonder why, check their recent posts and find nothing indicating why they haven't posted (no "I'm going on vacation," no major conflicts that suggested they could have been banned, etc) I might start a post in the Members Only section asking if anybody knows where the person has gotten to. If it turned out that the person had been banned for having multiple accounts or something else I couldn't have known about, a moderator locked or deleted the topic, and then sent me PM explaining that, not only would I have not been punished for the accidental infraction (it's not a nasty thing to do to PM someone to inform them of something) but they would have answered my question as to why the person wasn't posting.
So, if the accidental infraction of the rule is corrected simply by informing the person, the theoretical unfairness is moot.
Discretion is what has served to separate WP from all of the other gossipy sites that never actually have real discussions. I hope it's not something that's going to change.

Based on my experience, I think I can say that no one is going to get banned for unknowingly talking about a banned member. A warning, yes. A ban with no other reason attached, no. Once you've gotten a warning about it, however, you know that member has been banned. At that point, if you continue to discuss the person, then you are intentionally breaking the rule, and it now carries more weight. There are many times people have either chosen to not read moderator pm's or to ingore what was said there-in; that doesn't change the reality that yes, they were told.

If you read your warnings/moderator pm's and take them to heart without constantly fighting them, this should never become a problem.

We are aware there are issues that can be caused by the rule, and are considering it. For now, follow the advice above.

How is it fair that someone gets warned for talking about a banned member when no-one knows they're banned?

Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard. As far as I'm concerned, if I get in trouble for talking about someone with no red X under thier name, I will challenge it.

Some dude gets banned and no-one knows.

I mention that banned member has nice fashion sense and I met them IRL

I get banned.

WHY?

If a member is banned, it should be public knowledge so people know not to talk about them. Its really secritive and covering stuff up if you get warned that a member is banned through PM, and everyone else is none the wiser.

You're just making work for yourselves.

Some members are afraid to open their PMs when they are from a mod because they are scared what it's going to say.

I'm not aware of any instance that would give any member cause to be afraid to open a PM sent to them by a member of the moderation; if you are, feel free to PM me with the specifics. Not acknowledging the issue does not make it go away, however - ignoring feedback or a warning from a moderator is not a good course of action in my estimation.


M.

Again MaggiDoll. Nothing to do with giving rise to gossip. In fact this has nothing to do with my point and I am struggling to see where it comes into play.

Halle Bopp is dead on rights with this and I think you can not but see the simplicity of her argument.

IF a rule is there to be obeyed then I am not saying people ought not reasonably obey it and that it ought not be enforced. The mods ought to be the ones enforcing this rule. All good. No debate over any of this.

IF a rule is broken BECAUSE the rule is ineffectual like the do not talk about banned members but the site does not make it clear who is banned then the site has a responsibility to make it clear.

The theory of people having the potential to be banned over the lack of concievable knowledge due to non-disclosed bannings is ridiculous. You can argue it but it would be a ridiculous stand to argue against.

Will the Mods do this? Will they take this into account? I would LIKE to believe they would. I would like to believe they would check or not make a mistake or not act in a way that was mean-spirited (but in the letter of the law so to speak). Unfortunately I have seen worse behaviour than such an infraction by mods here so the point is valid and that ties in nicely with League Girl's post about whether people ought to be afraid of a Mod's Pm warning.

The truth is it is not anything silly or unreasonable that is being suggested here. Show all banned members as banned OR allow people to talk about banned members. Transparency and trust are good values for any forum.

No?

If the consensus is that the "X/banned" indicator is what is wanted, then that request needs to be directed at the person who has the ability to respond to it - Alex - over those who do not have the ability to implement the change desired. I've expressed to Alex my thoughts on the matter already; I encourage you to do the same.

The moderators do enforce the rules, and I have yet to run into situation where someone was banned for discussing a banned member or has good reason to be afraid to open a PM from a moderator. Have individuals been warned in the past for discussing banned members? Absolutely, though in many cases those warnings came when the member continued their discussion despite the request to stop.


M.

Also I found out you can ask a mod if a member was banned or not and they will tell you but they will not discuss the banned member's issues with you so therefore they will not tell you why that member was banned. So you were just making assumptions Maggiedoll about why they were banned assuming they were trolls who complain about this place at other forums.

I didn't see any indication from MaggieDoll that she was saying why anyone was banned; there were a few suggestions tossed out as possibilities, but I did not find an instance where she alluded to possible situations - and ones that have been discussed in the public forums previously. Members have been banned for having multiple accounts; people have been banned for spamming; people have been banned for repeated rule violations. These are addressed in the rules themselves, as it says that members may be warned or banned for violations depending on their severity. It appears that the "question" being answered is why they weren't posting - the answer being that they were banned, for whatever reason that might be. MaggieDoll, if I am wrong, please feel free to correct me... I'm just posting my interpretation of what was said.


M.

I'm at a loss as to where you've been called a troll by MaggieDoll, LG. I cannot speak to any warnings or issues relating to you or another member here on WP.


M.

Interestingly, almost every person I have ever seen complaining about this rule are those people who are banned from WP and have, without approval from Alex, opened second (or later) accounts

There exist other sites devoted to discussing people banned from WP. I don't see why there is any need for WP to host such pointless discussion. It is, after all, a free world.

The rule states that "discussion of banned members and why they were banned" is prohibited. In fact, any discussion of other members is discouraged, as per the remainder of that rule: "and anything else that purposely causes conflict with other members".

I usually regard any discussion of another member as being impolite - at the very minimum.

=============

So far as the red X badge is concerned - I feel that is very rarely justified. The only occasions I believe it should be used are such as ones where an extreme troll has caused so much concern to genuine members, that it is essential to make it clear that this particular account is banned, and hence the genuine members can stop reporting the gross offender.

Where a member has had a brief "meltdown" and has been banned until such time as they have calmed down and are willing to conform to the rules, labelling them with the red X would be a needless embarrassment to them.

Where they refuse to amend, or seem incapable of amending, their behaviour, the red X becomes just something to flaunt, each time they return with a new account.