Discussing Banned Members
- Thread starter Boba Debt
- Start date
4 immediate thoughts come to mind.
1 - The ex-member is not there to defend themselves from accusations.
2 - Because there are a plethora of spineless keyboard commandos who seem to be emboldened by the inability of someone to "fight back." Many seem to be encouraged to make more bold statements in the absence of a member than they would otherwise have the fortitude to muster.
3 - Such "bold" and untouchable attitudes lead ignorant people to making statements that might be construed as libelous and while the site has a certain level of indemnity from the things said by those posting here, why would we encourage such a thing or put ourselves in a position in which there was even the chance of us being pulled into a legal fray?
4 - A banned member is no longer a part of this community, no longer has a voice or sway over the membership, so unless the member is actively participating in an activity that might adversely affect the membership there is no reason to bring them up.
1 - The ex-member is not there to defend themselves from accusations.
2 - Because there are a plethora of spineless keyboard commandos who seem to be emboldened by the inability of someone to "fight back." Many seem to be encouraged to make more bold statements in the absence of a member than they would otherwise have the fortitude to muster.
3 - Such "bold" and untouchable attitudes lead ignorant people to making statements that might be construed as libelous and while the site has a certain level of indemnity from the things said by those posting here, why would we encourage such a thing or put ourselves in a position in which there was even the chance of us being pulled into a legal fray?
4 - A banned member is no longer a part of this community, no longer has a voice or sway over the membership, so unless the member is actively participating in an activity that might adversely affect the membership there is no reason to bring them up.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Hey, I liked some of them too, but to echo Art: They cannot defend themselves if attacked. So, it is best to just say they are net-dead.
I am a member of another board, a top notch maker of items, who got bent about something trivial, and demanded they remove his name from every post. He became known as A---- N------, and the only discussion about it was the resale of his items, as he threatened legal action against the boards should there be discussion about him.
Libel is actually kind of easy to prove, and as we all know, nuisance lawsuits get filed all the time. And it costs you loads of money even if you are not guilty of it.
Actually, you might be surprised at just how much freedom of speech you are legally alllowed on the internet, considering that the potential negative you have to say about another individual or company is true. If this weren't protected, there could never be a bad review of anything. I wouldn't dare presume to give anyone legal advice but the posturing from many internet bullies of suing someone for merely mentioning their name has been shown time and again to be protected. A lot of people cave due to ignorance, but all you have to do is do some google searching for internet libel and internet defamation of character and the precedents are quite clear.
With that being said, we still see no point in encouraging such behavior (based on my points above) in any way except to potentially protect our members from those who might do them harm.
With that being said, we still see no point in encouraging such behavior (based on my points above) in any way except to potentially protect our members from those who might do them harm.
Boba Debt
Master Member
Who cares if they can't defend themselves. We hammer a lot of people that can't defend themselves such as directors and producers.
As far as 2 and 3 are concerned they apply to anyone, as long as people are just getting stupid with their posts there is no reason no to comment on "banned" members
4 doesn’t make much sense, if someone wants to know the deal on a banned member what's the harm with someone giving them an honest account of why that person got banned?
As far as 2 and 3 are concerned they apply to anyone, as long as people are just getting stupid with their posts there is no reason no to comment on "banned" members
4 doesn’t make much sense, if someone wants to know the deal on a banned member what's the harm with someone giving them an honest account of why that person got banned?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Boba Debt
Master Member
By the way, I have never felt the need to talk about a banned member, I just think the over reaction to someone that does is silly.
Closing that thread the other day because I posted a funny movie based parody that was prop related seemed just a bit to nanny state.
Closing that thread the other day because I posted a funny movie based parody that was prop related seemed just a bit to nanny state.
exoray
Master Member
Sometimes it's about "Taking The High Road"
And it's generally regarded by most people as an admirable, positive, diplomatic, or ethical course, rather then the contrary...
That is actually a double-edged sword. While we certainly don't want to encourage the promotion of banned members' wares, it is unrealistic to believe that no active member will ever buy something from a banned member or that banned member's wares simply don't exist in the greater prop community. It is also tough to warn newbies of certain unsavory banned members if banned members can't be mentioned. The staff is currently discussing this very topic.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
I think discussion of banned members shouldn't be treated any differently than discussion of existing members or even never registered individuals or companies, the reasons stated for the ban seem to make little to no sense.
They can't defend themselves, well firstly whose fault is that ? secondly they shouldn't have to defend themselves it's the staffs job to ensure that any discussion stays within the limits of the rules(e.g nothing offensive, threatening etc etc), as long as it does what's the issue ?
This brings me onto the legal issues raised, why would it make any difference legally if the person or company in question is a non member, banned member or existing member ? it's not like you waive your legal rights to sue an rpf member for libel because you're an existing member too.
And it's not like this rule is applied all the time anyway, we all know any thread with the words Vader or Stormtrooper in the title always end up with discussion of banned members and their wares anyway.
They can't defend themselves, well firstly whose fault is that ? secondly they shouldn't have to defend themselves it's the staffs job to ensure that any discussion stays within the limits of the rules(e.g nothing offensive, threatening etc etc), as long as it does what's the issue ?
This brings me onto the legal issues raised, why would it make any difference legally if the person or company in question is a non member, banned member or existing member ? it's not like you waive your legal rights to sue an rpf member for libel because you're an existing member too.
And it's not like this rule is applied all the time anyway, we all know any thread with the words Vader or Stormtrooper in the title always end up with discussion of banned members and their wares anyway.
outlander
Sr Member
I question whether an explanation of the long convoluted history would serve any purpose for defstartrooper?
To my esteemed colleague from Essex:
There are members who were banned for excellent cause, back in the day.
Much like a death row inmate in California, these guys would love to have their cases reviewed yet again by new eyes. They love the attention and they dream of a day when they can return to a public soapbox and perform the circus routine once again for inexperienced and naive impressionable types who can easily be manipulated. Nothing feeds a dysfunctional primadonna ego like one more curtain call to the limelight.
There are three gentlemen that spring most readily to my mind.
Their names constantly reappear in the mod threads as revently banned when their latest attempts at infriltration here have been uncovered.
I ask you, defstartrooper, why would a banned person who professes contempt for the rules of this forum and the membership of this forum spend so much time trying to become a part of it?
Why glorify them by discussing them? Why give them and their issues any credibility at all?
Art: I don't know if you know the tale, but one of our "Keyboard commandos" actually drove ten hours to a prop party to stand behind his words. It's kind of funny, actually, as a friendship arose when the two got to know each other.
But I agree, there are many people on the internet who are emboldened by a certain sense of anonymity.
To my esteemed colleague from Essex:
There are members who were banned for excellent cause, back in the day.
Much like a death row inmate in California, these guys would love to have their cases reviewed yet again by new eyes. They love the attention and they dream of a day when they can return to a public soapbox and perform the circus routine once again for inexperienced and naive impressionable types who can easily be manipulated. Nothing feeds a dysfunctional primadonna ego like one more curtain call to the limelight.
There are three gentlemen that spring most readily to my mind.
Their names constantly reappear in the mod threads as revently banned when their latest attempts at infriltration here have been uncovered.
I ask you, defstartrooper, why would a banned person who professes contempt for the rules of this forum and the membership of this forum spend so much time trying to become a part of it?
Why glorify them by discussing them? Why give them and their issues any credibility at all?
Art: I don't know if you know the tale, but one of our "Keyboard commandos" actually drove ten hours to a prop party to stand behind his words. It's kind of funny, actually, as a friendship arose when the two got to know each other.
But I agree, there are many people on the internet who are emboldened by a certain sense of anonymity.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
To my pal from Michigan 
I get where you're coming from but this isn't about letting banned members back in or giving them an arena to air their thoughts and views, it's about shutting down threads or giving people warnings for the mere mention of a banned members name.
Now i can concede that some banned members might take the opportunity to speak by proxy via another member but i'm pretty sure should that member use the opportunity to continue the behaviour that got that person banned originally the mods would take action against anything that broke the sites CoC.
An interesting question but there is a flipside as is usually the case in many things in life, on one hand yes it's possible that there will be some people who support that individual and equally there will be those that are completely opposed to those views.
I've always been of the mind that it's more useful to gain knowledge from all quarters rather than remain in darkness and ignorance.
Always best to get as much of the story as you can rather than none in my view.
Many of these banned members are still active within the replica prop community even if they no longer have a membership here, would it not be useful for people to know the background of these people and their wares and be able to discuss it freely rather than deal with them out of ignorance of their past or present ?
Not sure why that would be relevent a sockpuppet is a sockpuppet and will be removed by the staff.
I get where you're coming from but this isn't about letting banned members back in or giving them an arena to air their thoughts and views, it's about shutting down threads or giving people warnings for the mere mention of a banned members name.
Now i can concede that some banned members might take the opportunity to speak by proxy via another member but i'm pretty sure should that member use the opportunity to continue the behaviour that got that person banned originally the mods would take action against anything that broke the sites CoC.
An interesting question but there is a flipside as is usually the case in many things in life, on one hand yes it's possible that there will be some people who support that individual and equally there will be those that are completely opposed to those views.
I've always been of the mind that it's more useful to gain knowledge from all quarters rather than remain in darkness and ignorance.
Always best to get as much of the story as you can rather than none in my view.
Many of these banned members are still active within the replica prop community even if they no longer have a membership here, would it not be useful for people to know the background of these people and their wares and be able to discuss it freely rather than deal with them out of ignorance of their past or present ?
Not sure why that would be relevent a sockpuppet is a sockpuppet and will be removed by the staff.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
If a banned member was banned for poor business transactions, shoddy workmanship and generally poor costumer conduct... not being able to warn others from dealing with them... well... is kinda dumb and the RPF is doing a disservice to its members if that is not allowed to be talked about.
While DST and I don't see eye to eye very often and while we certainly understand and support the ideas that members like Outlander are presenting, DST does make some good points... and I think this comes down to which bannned members you are referring to.
We are somewhat beating around the bush here so lets just cut through a bit of the PC stuff and call it like it is.
In the past the rule of not discussing banned members was created more or less for the 4 initial reasons I gave... I am sure past staff members might elaborate a bit more but the issue boiled down to 1) not wanting members to dogpile someone who could no longer defend themselves, 2) not wanting members to feel emboldened by the banned members absence to make potentially libelous statements and 3) eliminate the ability of a banned member's proxies to either promote their products or ideas on the board.
However, as DST has pointed out, in creating a rule that totally eliminates the ability of members to even mention a banned member, we actually tie our hands and eliminate the ability to warn fellow members of recasters, scammers and other unsavory characters.
However, we don't want to see members simply reminding everyone about banned members who don't add much if anything to the hobby and were primarily banned due to a personality incompatible with the community at large. Taking shots at these individuals after they are no longer a member of the community serves no purpose or service and shouldn't be done.
A lot of this comes down to the way information is presented and as Exoray very aptly put it, taking the high road. Unfortunately, when many post "negative" information, they can't seem to help but take personal jabs or make sideswiping comments, mixing opinion in with fact and that is where problems begin.
As a note, we are rolling out a revision to the CoC today and some of it deals with this particular issue...
We are somewhat beating around the bush here so lets just cut through a bit of the PC stuff and call it like it is.
In the past the rule of not discussing banned members was created more or less for the 4 initial reasons I gave... I am sure past staff members might elaborate a bit more but the issue boiled down to 1) not wanting members to dogpile someone who could no longer defend themselves, 2) not wanting members to feel emboldened by the banned members absence to make potentially libelous statements and 3) eliminate the ability of a banned member's proxies to either promote their products or ideas on the board.
However, as DST has pointed out, in creating a rule that totally eliminates the ability of members to even mention a banned member, we actually tie our hands and eliminate the ability to warn fellow members of recasters, scammers and other unsavory characters.
However, we don't want to see members simply reminding everyone about banned members who don't add much if anything to the hobby and were primarily banned due to a personality incompatible with the community at large. Taking shots at these individuals after they are no longer a member of the community serves no purpose or service and shouldn't be done.
A lot of this comes down to the way information is presented and as Exoray very aptly put it, taking the high road. Unfortunately, when many post "negative" information, they can't seem to help but take personal jabs or make sideswiping comments, mixing opinion in with fact and that is where problems begin.
As a note, we are rolling out a revision to the CoC today and some of it deals with this particular issue...
Ttaskmaster
Well-Known Member
I guess it's a bit like those people down the pub, who go on and on and on about their horrible ex-boyfriend/girlfriend?
You know they split up, but it's really none of your business and you probably won't care why. You only need to know that they're gone.
Here, as I understand it, being banned could happen for two reasons - Being an arse or being a swindler of some sort. Would you want to deal with either?
I guess so long as you know the names of the banned (cor, that sounds like a film title), that's all you need to know.
People who do good work come highly recommended and are highly spoken of, so you know which ones to trust.
You know they split up, but it's really none of your business and you probably won't care why. You only need to know that they're gone.
Here, as I understand it, being banned could happen for two reasons - Being an arse or being a swindler of some sort. Would you want to deal with either?
I guess so long as you know the names of the banned (cor, that sounds like a film title), that's all you need to know.
People who do good work come highly recommended and are highly spoken of, so you know which ones to trust.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Yeah but some people tend to change their online identity and that information isn't updated in the banned members list, somebody banned 5 years ago could have changed their online ID numerous times and people may unwittingly end up dealing with someone and later only after the fact find out it's someone they probably shouldn't have or wouldn't have had they known.
I'd much rather the mods made a decision based on what way the discussion is going rather than a blanket ruling just at the mention of a name.
