Question 4: Warnings About Behaviour

[barjon]

Should we notify members that someone has been warned about their behaviour?

To expand on this question. We do not, normally, ban before a warning has been given and some members feel that they should be aware that such warning action has been taken. This is particularly pertinent where people see unacceptable - and potentially bannable - behaviour which appears to have escaped notice.

Some people have already commented in the main thread about Site Guidelines and Moderating Standards and in other threads where this has been discussed and suggestions made about a "yellow card" system. Note has already been taken of those and there's no need to repeat your comments here unless you want to do so. I would be grateful if you'd cast a vote though. Thanks.

jon

 

[Mr. Charts]

I think "yes".
However, the mods are surely aware that whatever they do will always be criticized by certain members who are bound to argue that whatever the post said was acceptable and that the mod(s) are pursuing some hidden agenda.
All the more reason to depersonalize the whole moderating activity and not to get involved in what used to be a closed loop and is now a complete tangle - there is no way out of it apart from cutting the Gordian Knot and creating an impersonal environment.
If I thought moderator behaviour became unreasonable I would simply leave. No big deal.
There are plenty of other BBs.
You can even start your own very easily. Of course it wouldn't be free...
Richard

PS This might be the wrong place, but can I please make a suggestion.
The mods should ban any nick which they think is someone already banned.
Yes, just on suspicion.
No proof required.
A judgement call.
A majority vote of mods should do it - just like a civil court case - balance of probabilities.
I read some posts which are clearly written by serial multi-nicks who have already been banned repeatedly.....
(I was going to say serial multi-knickers but that sounds too much fun for these threads)

 

[Stockjunkie]

>>If I thought moderator behaviour became unreasonable I would simply leave. No big deal

Really ? I find that quite amusing , your type rarely disagrees with mods let alone think them unreasonable .

 

[bracke]

barjon alias Pandora

I am surprised to see you as the poser of questions that will undoubtedly generate an amount of flak some of it directed at the author. Are these series of numbered questions all your own work or is somebody else making the bullets for you to fire?

If you are going to be democratic in applying changes as a result of the replies then it should be on the basis of those who vote - a good chance here for the mal contents to move matters their way.

Inviting comment is a risky business, you may end up with more than you bargained for.

Hope the foregoing stirs the pot a little

Regards

bracke the mischevious

 

[MasoMinos]

Before I address the mr. charts comments I'll state I'm not voting either way on this as unless you believe the moderators are acting fairly and consistently, why would their opinion of another member's behaviour be of interest? They could be as wrong about that as anything else.

I think "yes".
However, the mods are surely aware that whatever they do will always be criticized by certain members who are bound to argue that whatever the post said was acceptable and that the mod(s) are pursuing some hidden agenda.
All the more reason to depersonalize the whole moderating activity and not to get involved in what used to be a closed loop and is now a complete tangle - there is no way out of it apart from cutting the Gordian Knot and creating an impersonal environment.
If I thought moderator behaviour became unreasonable I would simply leave. No big deal.
There are plenty of other BBs.
You can even start your own very easily. Of course it wouldn't be free...
Richard

Last comment. Spot on. If members were paying for this service, they would be less likely to fall foul of any rules, implicit or explicit, and less likely to indulge in spats with other members. I have nothing to base that on other than gut feel. The additional benefit to the site, apart from the extra income, would be a means to reduce the incidence of what seems to be an obsession with multi-nicks. If members had to pay electronically through credit card or debit card, the ability to tie-in a nick to a real name would be a boon. Obviously you'd need to weigh the potential slow-down in membership registrations in that event, but what do you want - more members - more arguments, or fewer members, more income, less argument?

PS This might be the wrong place, but can I please make a suggestion.
The mods should ban any nick which they think is someone already banned.
Yes, just on suspicion.
No proof required.
A judgement call.
A majority vote of mods should do it - just like a civil court case - balance of probabilities.
I read some posts which are clearly written by serial multi-nicks who have already been banned repeatedly.....
(I was going to say serial multi-knickers but that sounds too much fun for these threads)

Totally disagree. It goes against the grain of just about every fair legal or otherwise based system anywhere in what we laughingly call the free world. What next - snatch squads of mods taking down posters whose avatars remind them of a hated school teacher from their formative years? Balance of probabilities still requires other then circumstantial evidence, hearsay or instinct. Demonstrable proof is a prerequisite if fairness is at all an issue here. And you also seem to have the rare gift of such finely tuned abilities to 'recognise' other posters that have been and gone before. Unlikely, for the simple reason that they would in some form or manner disguise their posting style to prevent such amateur sleuthing from doing them in. I'm sure that would occur to you as a multiple identity would it not?

 

[Stockjunkie]

Good grief .

Censored for asking a question albeit without the accord unjustifiably expected from the recipient, who no doubt thinks he is someone special here due to his clever words in the right directions .

More " fairness and consistency " I guess .

 

[fudgestain]

Should we notify members that someone has been warned about their behaviour?

To expand on this question. We do not, normally, ban before a warning has been given and some members feel that they should be aware that such warning action has been taken. This is particularly pertinent where people see unacceptable - and potentially bannable - behaviour which appears to have escaped notice.

Some people have already commented in the main thread about Site Guidelines and Moderating Standards and in other threads where this has been discussed and suggestions made about a "yellow card" system. Note has already been taken of those and there's no need to repeat your comments here unless you want to do so. I would be grateful if you'd cast a vote though. Thanks.

jon

No, do not ban before warning.
No, do not publicise to others a warning given to a member.
Moderators should be sufficiently civilised not to ban without warning and not to publicise a warning given to a member.
If it is a felt a warning needs to be given, simply put it in the thread as warning against a particular alleged breach of the rules.
Bear in the mind, again, the last disciplinary system using black points was withdrawn

 

[purplekiwi]

Good grief .

Censored for asking a question albeit without the accord unjustifiably expected from the recipient, who no doubt thinks he is someone special here due to his clever words in the right directions .

More " fairness and consistency " I guess

Stockjunkie

I don't believe the moderators are perfect, but in this case I believe they were perfectly justified in pulling your post. Your attack on Mr Charts was totally uncalled for, show a bit of respect for fellow members and you may get the same in return!

 

[dbphoenix]

Stockjunkie

I don't believe the moderators are perfect, but in this case I believe they were perfectly justified in pulling your post. Your attack on Mr Charts was totally uncalled for, show a bit of respect for fellow members and you may get the same in return!

I agree that they may have been justified, though perhaps they were not. But that's not the point.

While this may seem not to have anything to do with the subject of the thread, I for one am rattled by the sudden disappearance of posts which seem to me to be no worse than others which are allowed to stand. Yes, this touches on issues raised in other questions, but these questions are after all interrelated. For example, the post that was pulled seems no worse than the snotty replies which fudgestain makes to my posts. I don't complain about the latter because who cares? But there they remain.

So what's the standard?

 

[nine]

The standard is simple - someone must complain for all but the most obvious infringements.

So if you don't like them then press the complain button. If you don't press it then why be surprised if it doesn't disappear. An intelligent ex ET'r like you should get that without it having to be pointed out surely?

Fudgestain, despite his name, seems to stay just on the edge of the urge to press the complain button.

 

[nine]

12:2 votes say that other members should be notified when someone has been warned of their behaviour. What a sad bunch of voters we have here - and completely against modern and even early management methods, even against child rearing methods. Are we heading back to the middle ages? Lets get the stocks out?

Barjon, just because people feel the right to know whats happening in their self created soap operas doesnt mean you have to tell them.

 

[dbphoenix]

The standard is simple - someone must complain for all but the most obvious infringements.

So if you don't like them then press the complain button. If you don't press it then why be surprised if it doesn't disappear. An intelligent ex ET'r like you should get that without it having to be pointed out surely?

Fudgestain, despite his name, seems to stay just on the edge of the urge to press the complain button.

You miss the point. Fudgestain is irrelevant, in more ways than one. No one complained about the pulled posts, or at least not about all of them, though perhaps about any of them.

It's good to know, however, that for you, at least, the tree doesn't make a sound if it falls and no one is around to hear it . . .

 

[nine]

lol. db, you haven't changed your nature since your ET days. Still adding a little self righteous comedy to everyones world.