Discussing Banned Members

[Art Andrews]

Don't know what the issue is here guys but lets cool it a bit on the personal stuff. Clearly you disagree (although I am not entirely sure what about as both of you seem to have good points) but lets move on.

For anyone else who might have suggestions regarding the updated guidelines, I have opened a new thread, specifically for that.

 

[Lear60man]

Thanks Art.

I kinda figgerd there was a little wiggle room as long as we all used our heads. I agree that people dropping banned names to hawk their product is a no brainer. Cleared up thanks!
Christian

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I can only say how we worked it on The Den (I know it is not the same as here and you guys have other rules here), but the general consensus was, if you want your account deleted, it is because you don't want to be here, so if you have your account deleted, you are leaving for good with no intentions of coming back - hence: the ban.

They left on their own accord. They could just have gotten their account inactivated, but chose deletion. To whoever wished for this option it was clearly stated that they should reconsider, because a deletion of the account meant no coming back EVER. Inactivating an account and they could just take a break and come back later. Deletion was still chosen, so that was clearly their intention to never come back. They made the decision, so they should stick with that decision and not have others give the staff grey hairs about it.

Gone means gone... so stay gone.

 

[Darbycrash]

I just wanted to toss out a few observations from having been a member here before the CoC and then after.

Before the CoC:

This was a truly underground board at the time that the membership was comprised of many talented artists and film industry professionals. It's just the nature of the beast when you get many dyanmic personalities in the mix there is going to be a lot of arguing.

I will say though back in those days there were a lot more projects happening on this board. And even more of a willingness to share findings. I also think more scammers were unmasked due to the freedom of speech aspect.

Granted the board had its share of dramas with fights over some ridiculous things. At the end of the day it would work its way out. The mods pretty much jumped in when things were just absolutely out of control.

After the CoC:

Many of the old core membership that was around was either banned or left out of frustration.

It's a rough transition as an adult when you have someone telling you that now you can't say something on what was an open forum.

I would say that transition and how complex the CoC which was supposed to assist the mods ended up making things more complicated.

If you guys do ever decide to review banned members. Which wouldn't be a bad idea. I wouldn't make it an overly complex review process since that would take you guys forever.

It would be truly interesting to see what would happen if you did this:

Just had banned members if they truly wanted to come back. They first off needed to contact you guys. And secondly in their own words take the time to explain to you from their side what head lead to their banning. If someone truly feels they shouldn't have been banned and expect you guys to review this make them put in the time as well.

I personally think you guys would be surprised at who even took you up on that. I suspect it would be much lower numbers then on the ban list. I also think a few names that many suspect would be on it wouldn't.

Just an idea since I think while the original idea of the CoC was to help the mods. I think made board moderation overly complex at times.

Art I think that change in the CoC is a step in the right direction.

 

[Malbona]

I have mixed feelings about banned members that asked to be banned coming back but I can see how time heals wounds.

I worked in a factory that I felt was total hell at the time. I couldn't wait to get laid off. When it happened and the plant closed, I danced with joy.

Several years later, I look back on the place with some fond memories. The place has actually opened back up under different management and I have considered applying to work there again.

This board has been like that. At one time, I felt the quality of this place went downhill considerably under certain old regimes of moderation. I didn't bluster and ask to be banned when I had enough. I simply changed my password to something randomly typed on the keyboard and logged out. It kept me away and kept me from being a drama queen like the others. It was a simple matter to request a new password via the help feature when I was ready to return.

I don't post much anywhere unless I feel I have something to contribute but I enjoy reading the threads and learning new things. As an old timer(10+ years) I miss seeing some old friends around here but maybe I'll connect with a few new ones.

 

[SithLord]

DK0667, I do understand where you are coming from and I won't say that we will NEVER consider it, but it is something we are not considering at this time.

I will tell you that in the short time that I have been on the staff, I have had a number of members ask to have their accounts banned and I have done everything I could to discourage them from making that decision final, because as the policy stands it IS final and often the things we are bent out of shape about today and make melodramatic pronouncements about today seem silly and trivial in the light of tomorrow. We do everything we can to point this out to members and to discourage them from self-banning.

Interesting that there are that many asking such a thing? How about this....why not have it so that once you become a member here, you cannot request a self-ban, but you can have your account closed, and it could be reopened at a future date. Since now there is a help email that could be possible. The problem however is there might be some that take advantage of that and just go through cycles of opening and closing their accounts. But then there could be a clause that once an account is close the administration reserves the right to either open it or leave it closed.

The whole idea of "i'm going to ban myself" doesn't really make sense from the point of view that only the mods should be able to determine if someone is worthy of a ban. That way the member can simply leave of their own volition and the whole matter of considering or dealing with self-banners would be avoided. But I believe that if they did so in the past knowing the implications fully, then they should live with it. Plus odds are if they came back, they would in time end up doing exactly the same things that got them banned in the first place.

 

[Art Andrews]

Interesting POV, sl. And I think you have some very valid points. I can tell you, coming from TDH, we will not ban someone at their request as we feeling banning is a punitive action and if someone no longer wants to be a member of TDH we just tell them to leave and don't log back in, but there account stays active.

While some people may argue it, Malbona and Qui really nailed the issue... members simply lacking self control. If you no longer like the site or are angry with how things are being handled, no one is MAKING you log in and no one is MAKING you post.

I find it interesting that the same people who argue that we have too much policing and too much hand holding are the same people who advocate reversible self-bans... which is basically the staff having to take action on behalf of a member who is incapable of controlling themselves, which is the same kind of hand-holding those individuals otherwise argue against.

The truth of the matter is that those arguing about the self-banning issue aren't really interested in a change in policy in regard to future self-bans... but trying to work out another clever flanking maneuver to bring back very specific previously banned members.

If the staff decided to take a stance in which we no longer allowed members to self-ban it would still have no effect on the past and those who have been banned for whatever reason will remain banned. Again, we are interested in the future, not in wallowing in the past.

 

[SithLord]

Ah...I was thinking that you were mainly focused on conduct on other boards and such. I completely overlooked the legal aspect of things.

I had a second look at that line myself wondering about it, mainly because it could cover anything at all outside of the forum. Certainly criminal activity or misrepresentation of one's background are grounds for an automatic ban. I could be wrong, but perhaps such a clause relates also to the fact that the admin and mods, being responsible for a private forum, reserve the right to grant or rescind membership status for any reason they believe goes contrary to the intent of the forum, Member Guidelines notwithstanding, since one simply could not have every possible misdoing covered on such a list.

 

[Darbycrash]

Interesting POV, sl.
I find it interesting that the same people who argue that we have too much policing and too much hand holding are the same people who advocate reversible self-bans... which is basically the staff having to take action on behalf of a member who is incapable of controlling themselves, which is the same kind of hand-holding those individuals otherwise argue against.

Just to go on record I think reversing self-bans is a bad idea. Self imposed banning is something I never understood. I think it's more of a dramatic designed to attract attention.

Now as far as too much policing and hand holding. Here is my comment about that. My job is creating policies and enforcing compliance for my company. Which is a large global organization. Policies are excellent tool when used correctly and even handedly

I know of the original intention of the CoC was to insure consistant moderation in. However and this is no criticism of the current mod staff. I am sure everyone will agree that there were cases over the years where it definitely wasn't or even confusion about how a certain rule was to be interpreted. And then lastly personal differences

So bans in those cases are definitely not the same as self-imposed. And are the ones that at least should be looked at. But as I said let them come to you and make their case. I seriously think you would not have the names in the hat everyone is expecting.

i can say I never had an infraction point or if I did I sure don't remember getting one. I will be honest and admit I do miss the more open RPF of old. But those are really 2 different boards. It's like going to a bar you used to hang out that was a Punk Club back in the day. Then going back and finding working toilets and bathrooms that actually stay clean. But not the old bands and music.

 

[SithLord]

I know of the original intention of the CoC was to insure consistant moderation in. However and this is no criticism of the current mod staff. I am sure everyone will agree that there were cases over the years where it definitely wasn't or even confusion about how a certain rule was to be interpreted. And then lastly personal differences

So bans in those cases are definitely not the same as self-imposed. And are the ones that at least should be looked at. But as I said let them come to you and make their case. I seriously think you would not have the names in the hat everyone is expecting.

Personally I think if you have been involved in policy-making for a large company, would you hold yourself responsible for decisions made by your predecessors and take steps to rectify them if you think they may not have been made to your own standards? Would you bring back a co-worker who was fired and you thought the reasons were not in line with your own policy revisions? I don't think so.

Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems like you are asking the present mods to revisit old decisions. I think the priority for them should be making sure the new system works and that it continues to work for the future. Also, I am sure that for those who have been banned and have since that time wanted to return, they'll follow these recent changes and contact the board admin directly for a second chance. So it seems that sort of mechanism is already in place, although the policy for permanent bans hasn't changed.

 

[Art Andrews]

Not sure it could have been said better than what SL just stated.

DC, as I have already plainly stated, we will not review past banned members, regardless of the circumstances under which they were banned and regardless of whether they were banned for misconduct or by their own request. While we generally are very interested in member's input, this is one of the few issues we are not interested in debating or having debated on this site because our stance will not waiver. If you have other constructive suggestions, not related to restoring the accounts of banned members, we look forward to hearing them.

Personally I think if you have been involved in policy-making for a large company, would you hold yourself responsible for decisions made by your predecessors and take steps to rectify them if you think they may not have been made to your own standards? Would you bring back a co-worker who was fired and you thought the reasons were not in line with your own policy revisions? I don't think so.

Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems like you are asking the present mods to revisit old decisions. I think the priority for them should be making sure the new system works and that it continues to work for the future. Also, I am sure that for those who have been banned and have since that time wanted to return, they'll follow these recent changes and contact the board admin directly for a second chance. So it seems that sort of mechanism is already in place, although the policy for permanent bans hasn't changed.

 

[Darbycrash]

Personally I think if you have been involved in policy-making for a large company, would you hold yourself responsible for decisions made by your predecessors and take steps to rectify them if you think they may not have been made to your own standards? Would you bring back a co-worker who was fired and you thought the reasons were not in line with your own policy revisions? I don't think so.

Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems like you are asking the present mods to revisit old decisions. I think the priority for them should be making sure the new system works and that it continues to work for the future. Also, I am sure that for those who have been banned and have since that time wanted to return, they'll follow these recent changes and contact the board admin directly for a second chance. So it seems that sort of mechanism is already in place, although the policy for permanent bans hasn't changed.

Actually you did misunderstand. To your point about holding myself responsible for my predecessors not properly executing a policy. If the proper controls and process were missing I would definitely make the proper revisions going forward. As well as put controls in place to insure consistency.

I think you guys misunderstood what I was saying about the banned members as well. My recommendations were for if you were going to review them again. Not that you should which is a big difference. My point was if you went to the trouble to review all the bans. The amount of time and resources to dig up all that would be ridiculous. And once again falling into that trap of overcomplication. I was just recommending a more realistic process.