What other mainstream site has a banned tab?
Think of it as a relic from a former period.
Also: What does a "mainstream site" have to do with Sciforums?
I'm not trying to be difficult with that, but I already told you, the rest looks nearly default. Ban lists on old PHP discussion boards weren't unheard of; I think it was actually a feature of the old Jelsoft package, and like I said, we haven't tinkered much with the basic format.
In my time here, your inquiry is the first occasion I can recall to wonder if there's a switch for that, or if someone needs to edit the style sheet.
The focus on most sites isn't on banning members. There are only about 10 real members here. Why the constant threat of banning?
Focus? That's your own reading of the circumstance. The idea of a "constant threat of banning" strikes me as nearly hilarious, so I will leave that one for an Administrator to field.
Meanwhile, the listing of temporary bans (suspensions) tells me, at the moment, "There are no banned users";
i.e., nobody is suspended right now. Even I'm surprised, but I can't promise the sorting criteria have ever changed or not; I do have a fragment of memory that once upon a time the main list was organized by Ban Time Remaining. And, no, I'm not going to suspend you for kicks in order to double-check.
I'm not someone that should even be in the discussion of being banned on any other site. Nor am I someone who has ever been called a racist (or any of the other pejoratives used ) by a moderator on any other site
To the one: Says you. To the other, remember that your excuse, here, declared by an Adminsitrator, is
ignorance↗.
Tiassa, I think, if left to his own devices, would ban most everyone one, including James and therefore this site would turn into an annotated blog devoid of all reality. I could be wrong but that's my impression.
Actually, there is plenty of room between where we are and banning. Don't worry about being wrong; even James has trouble understanding that part. For instance:
I'd like to see this site become more of a friendly, general discussion forum with little moderation other than for hate speech or just generally uncivil behavior.
That's actually kind of funny, coming from you. Did you ever figure out what was wrong with your bit about
"baby daddy"↗?
The crazies come here because there is the fringe subforum and because that sort of thing is encouraged.
That's an interesting thesis; my thoughts on the Fringe subforum are a little different. But it does originate as a way of trying to keep those threads out of Science subfora.
Most other sites don't have this kind of attraction for crazies.
What does that even mean?
I'm guessing that if you started a new forum (any forum) and didn't encourage crazies and didn't have heavy-handed moderators with constant talk of banning and disparagement of most of the members...you would have a lot more traffic than this site (even without any effort).
But what traffic?
Remember, this place started out as a site for rational discourse, with the motto, "Intelligent Community". Also remember: You can justify anything by abandoning the principle to which it is compared. Here, the abandonment of rational discourse has resulted in a lot of unintelligent noise.
It's hard to have a discussion forum on the interest with this limited traffic.
Observing your use of words like "mainstream" and "most other sites", it occurs to wonder at your expectation. For instance, the first counterpoint to mind is, no, it's not so hard to have a discussion forum with this limited traffic. However, as you're also discussing increased traffic, you clearly mean something else. But that is a broad range.
I'm assuming it's lack of interest. After all what are they getting out of this site...nothing?
A test bed for software solutions is the first thing to mind.
A proving ground for behavioral solutions is another.
I'm just surprised that they don't turn over more maintenance control to those who do come to this site.
Well, if anyone can author solid CSS, maybe they can change the layout some.
Beyond that, well, maybe that is its own discussion. The Company has its own priorities, and has never been inclined to share. I actually used to ask explicitly what the staff needed to do in order to be helpful, but do not recall any substantial answer.
I don't consider discussing something to be "disrupting" the discussion. I would like to see a friendlier discussion site more welcoming of more people
Again, that's kind of funny, coming from you.
Then why have the system at all? It seems it's just due to a need for excessive control?
If I return to the question of your expectations, it is because the narrative leading to that question is your own. Having staff running around issuing infractions and suspensions according to their own prerogative, without reference to any common standard, would be an even bigger mess than leaving it to James to do that. No, really, there is much to discuss about the infraction system, but, "a need for excessive control", makes precisely no sense compared to history.
This is kind of a catch 22. You say that the site is what the members want it to be. There are very few members since most have been driven off ....
.... That's what happens when you drive off everyone else isn't it?
So, one time I might have driven someone away by accidentally including them on a distribution list for a staff memo about that individual. To the one, sure, it was a stupid error; to the other, though, I could have said a lot worse. Another time, long ago, I might have driven off a right-winger by telling him, at a time when things like this ostensibly still mattered, that he couldn't misrepresent sources and needed better sources than someone else misrepresenting sources, though I wasn't the last to flag him for an infraction.
If I count up the anecdotal bits, let's see, I chase people out by using too many syllables, writing long posts, or being too mean, and I'm sure there are lots of stories about that last, but inasmuch as nothing ever begins and thus our starting point becomes arbitrary, anyone else is welcome to sift through whatever; I'm of the opinion that history generally bears out, and for you, much like the complaint about cancel culture, the question becomes whether one can behave in certain ways and expect nobody should object.
(e.g., If you don't want people thinking you're racist, don't make a point of pushing white supremacist tropes about baby daddies, scary black people, and redlining. If you think your conduct is above certain reproach, don't go asking a moderator why she is such a bitch. Or maybe we should have cut you a break for being ignorant and having no clue what you are saying.)
Other aspects of this have come up, recently, though it's a bit obscure. But please consider that, compared to a pretense of "Intelligent Community", we can only wonder how many would stick around to put such effort into being so directly disrespected. Looking forward, we might wonder how many would come here looking to put any effort into it. The question of what drives people away has diverse answers. Bringing more traffic is an intriguing question, but for all the time we could have been Facetwit or Instasnap or even Reddigg, that's not quite how it would have gone. Nonetheless, "a friendly, general discussion forum with little moderation other than for hate speech or just generally uncivil behavior", is a bit vague; we could have had that, here, without much change, but for particular reasons did not. One of those reasons is our membership. Ask yourself what you would do when members don't want to be friendly with each other, or when facing bad faith; consider your boundaries of civility, and hate speech. We know how that road goes, because it is part of how we got here.
why are the vast majority of them not allowed?
