Inconsistent ban policy?
- Thread starter funkstar
- Start date
That's nice...
But if you were paying attention to this thread:
You'd see that the ban extension had nothing to do with his creation of the Jack T sockpuppet, but the creation of a second sockpuppet after having been explicitly and specifically warned of the consequences of doing so:
The Irony is that at that time he had less than 24 hours remaining on his ban.
Except that didn't happen until after he had been banned for rather innocuous reasons.
I went and looked at everywhere he posted it (his two threads on LENR, one on the reality of it and one on the impacts that LENR would have, and once in a NASA Developments thread and in the long standing Electric Car thread) it was a reasonable place to bring it up.
So in a sense, I think he was pushed into this.
Ok, so it wasn't a big push, but the reality is, until the somewhat undeserved Ban you gave him he had been a reasonable poster.
I think you were way too harsh.
Just sayin.
I went and looked at everywhere he posted it (his two threads on LENR, one on the reality of it and one on the impacts that LENR would have, and once in a NASA Developments thread and in the long standing Electric Car thread) it was a reasonable place to bring it up.
So in a sense, I think he was pushed into this.
Ok, so it wasn't a big push, but the reality is, until the somewhat undeserved Ban you gave him he had been a reasonable poster.
I think you were way too harsh.
Just sayin.
Sure, it was reasonable to bring it up, but he didn't just bring it up, his behaviour, even if you give him credit for being excited was bordering on trolling.
Posting the same link repeatedly within posts, posting it within the same thread multiple times, and repeating the same assertions each time, without stopping to address objections...
I treated it the same way I would treat anyone else doing the same thing regardless of the topic.
He made the choice.
He chose to create a bogus email account.
He chose to use that email account to create a sockpuppet, after having been informed of the consequences.
He chose to make the posts he did using the sockpuppet.
The extension of his ban was a consequence of those actionms.
I gave him a 3 day ban at a time he was eligible for a 7 day ban, and at the time his ban was extended by two weeks, he had less than 24hours of that ban remaining.
I understand your point, part of what I am trying to communicate to you is that the factors that form the grounds upon which you are objecting, formed part of what I considered when I decided upon 3 days (versus longer).
Where he posted the link multiple times, he said that they were the same link, because it was so important.
He was just excited.
And I think you are very wrong about him not addressing objections, I went back and he clearly does.
Regardless, his excitement was palpable, but his posting euphoria was tame by any forum standards.
Hard to see why any of this justified the original ban.
And you have to look at in respect to being 40 pages into a thread where everyone was tellling him he was wrong, and it appeared to him that NASA was saying he was right all along.
Just sayin, I think you could have cut him some slack about being excited about this, because you were pretty sure it wasn't going to last.
And I've gone back and reviewed those threads and IMHO nothing he was doing was ban worthy.
Indeed it would really appear that he really thought that the world as we knew it was going to change.
I understand when people post BS theories of their own and don't have a clue about the actual science or math.
I understand when people get personal or troll and bait and insult.
I understand when people try to use the forum for personal gain.
But
Being excited about a potential scientific break through is hardly a reason for banning someone.
No need to reply.
And I'm just sayin that I did cut him some slack, for all of those reasons and more. I even considered a 1 or 2 day ban, but I did not believe that they would have been effective.
I understand that that's you're opinion, and as I have said a couple of times now, I endeavoured to give those factors some weight.
There is an irony in this - I have been... Critiscized is perhaps to strong a word, for being to lenient in this instance (the comment was made in private, and I have no desire to discuss it further), because the behaviour in question was so close to trolling.
Eitherway, I appreciate the feedback in both instances.
And when you're a moderator or administrator, you can make the decisions.
James R: In response to the "topic" of this thread . . .
You sent me a warning (for trolling) for my 'humorously' responding to another member's sarcasitc and denigrating post on my thread *EEMU Hypothesis" (see my PMs to you). Then, upon receiving this first warning, I 'reported' the other member's original post. After my 'report, I then I received another warning for 'wasting the moderators' time' in submitting my 'report' . . . so what gives? It is NOT my intention to "become a problem" for the moderators . . . but, "fair play" by moderators is, I'm certain, appreciated by all Sciform members. Perhaps this post might also be classified by mods as 'trolling' - but it is NOT (IMO . . if that counts)!
You sent me a warning (for trolling) for my 'humorously' responding to another member's sarcasitc and denigrating post on my thread *EEMU Hypothesis" (see my PMs to you). Then, upon receiving this first warning, I 'reported' the other member's original post. After my 'report, I then I received another warning for 'wasting the moderators' time' in submitting my 'report' . . . so what gives? It is NOT my intention to "become a problem" for the moderators . . . but, "fair play" by moderators is, I'm certain, appreciated by all Sciform members. Perhaps this post might also be classified by mods as 'trolling' - but it is NOT (IMO . . if that counts)!
Last edited:
I haven't ever applied to be a moderator.
I'm not even sure I could moderate impartially.
Still I would think that the current moderators would be interested in the members opinions of their actions.
Trippy indicated he was.
I'm not at all surprised by your response though.
Last edited:
Most like to put the spotlight on me, or lynch me sometimes, but alex how long did you think your behaviour would go unnoticed?
James did the right thing with you. You would actually spam the thread attacking the poster rather than attack the theory.
Calling someone a crank is one thing but not even participating a real arguement falls to spam! :bugeye:
Do note - at this time, we (the moderation staff) are considering changes to the site policy to help prevent and remedy issues that often appear as inconsistent moderation. Also, please do understand that each moderator controls their own areas as well as the public ones... a lot IS left open to interpretation and that's why the official channels are there for dispute resolution (which, sadly, get left unused while people tend to just rant about their infractions)
A lot of it may reduce down to inconsistency in moderation. I could argue a lot of it for myself and others. There are serious lacks at this site concerning issues of bullying among many other things. If I had my way, and I have suggested this before, there should be three mods situated to deal with these things, maybe more, who can remain unbiased. I dare say, if such a program went ahead, the site should choose who those three (or maybe more) behavioural mods should be.
It's clear the current moderation, as good as they are, will not be enough to deal correctly with these issues. For instance, the worst part is, is that any mod here usually has the last say and whilst this might be appealing, may be a faulty process of upkeep. The site will fail in the long-run if this continues, moreso because I can predict easily these discussions will continue for many months maybe years to come if something is not done about it now.
Well one of the problems with the "official channels" is that people get banned and thus can't defend themselves without creating a sockpuppet which can get you permabanned.
Maybe when someone is up for being banned they should be restricted to posting in only Open Government until the issue is resolved.
At which point, once a chance to defend/explain/apologise has occured, and other moderators who may be less personally involved have weighed in, then they can be banned, warned or re-instated as appropriate.
Posting in the other forums until this has happened would result in an immediate ban.
?
In a way, this is already in place - there is a verbal/written warning and card system in place that is (usually) utilized before even a temporary ban is.
@ Reiku - as for impartial moderators... the only way to get a TRULY impartial moderator (impartial no matter the topic/discussion) would be to get a robot
I'm not saying that the people being banned haven't been warned, but reading the posts of people who were recently banned, there appears to be no final warning given, which is why they show back up using sock puppets to argue about why they were banned.
Again, it seems like a much fairer approach that if a moderator wants to ban someone, then ban them for say 24 hours to just Open Govt where they can argue their side and the issue can be resolved with both sides stating their case and outside the heat of the moment.
Posting outside of the Open Govt forum until the issue is resolved would result in an immediate ban.
I suspect this cooling off period and discussion might result in fewer actual bans being needed and IMHO bans are pretty harsh and don't happen that often that this would be an issue.
(note, there are a lot of administrative bans for reasons, like spamming, that don't need this of course)
Last edited:
How seriously would you like us to take you?
One thing members tend to overlook when they complain about the suspension and banning policies is that the individuals committing alleged offenses also affect how the staff perceives the degree of offense.
For instance, if a member comes to a moderator's attention by making tinfoil complaints that don't make sense to anyone else, that will almost inevitably affect perceptions in later issues. If a member accrues a string of warning flags for small offenses over time, moderators are less sympathetic to subsequent offenses. If a member posts general crackpottery, or only manages to contribute juvenilia, moderators are less sympathetic to apparent breaches of site rules.
The broader analogy is similar to the idea that a judge will give a lesser sentence to a first-time offender compared to what a career criminal with a long rap sheet can expect. There are, in fact, all manner of judicial and law-enforcement analogies we might imagine and reasonably apply, which is one of the reasons tinfoil complaints don't impress us.
And yet you've gone out of your way to get the staff's attention, including juvenile machismo and tinfoil whatchamacallit.
The problem with that, of course, is that if we take you seriously, then yes, you're becoming a problem.
wlminex said:
One thing members tend to overlook when they complain about the suspension and banning policies is that the individuals committing alleged offenses also affect how the staff perceives the degree of offense.
For instance, if a member comes to a moderator's attention by making tinfoil complaints that don't make sense to anyone else, that will almost inevitably affect perceptions in later issues. If a member accrues a string of warning flags for small offenses over time, moderators are less sympathetic to subsequent offenses. If a member posts general crackpottery, or only manages to contribute juvenilia, moderators are less sympathetic to apparent breaches of site rules.
The broader analogy is similar to the idea that a judge will give a lesser sentence to a first-time offender compared to what a career criminal with a long rap sheet can expect. There are, in fact, all manner of judicial and law-enforcement analogies we might imagine and reasonably apply, which is one of the reasons tinfoil complaints don't impress us.
And yet you've gone out of your way to get the staff's attention, including juvenile machismo and tinfoil whatchamacallit.
The problem with that, of course, is that if we take you seriously, then yes, you're becoming a problem.