Concerning the Disappearence of Some More Prominent Posters

[Jibar]

It's been brought to my attention thanks to Iron Poet that certain posters have, well, disappeared.
I'm not going to ask why exactly they were banned, as I know fully well you can't exactly reveal that, but I would like to ask what general areas were taken into consideration when the decision was made.
I ask, because I can't help but notice that it's some of the longer posters who have gone, likely because of slips in obeying the rules. I've been here a while now, and I'm starting to get quite paranoid about slipping myself. I'm just hoping I can have something of a warning so I can stop before I start.
Of course, it's going to turn out that these question is going to turn out to be against the rules in a way that I missed while perusing them, so, hey, I'll ask anyway and wait for Irony.
Except it isn't ironic.
Like Raaaiiiaaaan.

[Roland St. Jude]

You're right that this topic is probably destined for locking. We don't discuss posters' (or former posters') infractions with other posters, and we definitely don't do so publicly. We also don't permit much talk about banned posters.

That said, there have been a few recent bannings of posters who have been here awhile (as opposed to the instant banning fate that true ad spammers get). Each instance that I am aware of (which is probably all of them), the banning was the result of accrued Infractions. The recent bannings were the result of accrued infractions (at least 3 major infractions and sometimes as many as 6). Often there were zero-point warnings given as well. Really the only ways to get straightaway banned for something in a single post are ad spam, hate speech, engaging in criminal activity, or insulting Rich personally.

Don't worry. If you run afoul of the Forum Rules you'll get a Warning, or if it's blatant enough or you've already been warned, an Infraction. You'll get a PM explaining what you did from the moderator who issued the Warning/Infraction. You'd have to do that a couple more times to be considered for banning. We don't insta-ban people (except in the narrow categories mentioned above) and we don't sneak up on people with a banhammer. I can say with confidence that all the recently banned posters saw, or should have seen, it coming.

If you get a warning or infraction, and have any question about it, please PM the moderator who issued it to you. If you still have a question or issue, PM WampaX, the head admin-type reptomammal. In fact, if you ever have a question about the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) at any time, please PM the moderator of your choice and ask. We're here to help you get the most out of the boards and to do so within the Forum Rules.

From a broader perspective, the moderation here hasn't changed at all. It's just that there's been an uptick in hostility due to the recent D&D 3e/4e edition conflict. For some posters, this was the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of accrued infractions. For others, this was a topic that touched a nerve and earned them a whole slew of infractions.

Again, if you have any questions about Forum Rules, forum operation, or moderation policy, I encourage you to PM me or one of the other moderators.

I'm going to leave this open for now for questions or comments. But please don't use this thread to argue or discuss specific instances of moderation (those should go, via PM, to the moderator who took the action) or specific banned posters (that's plainly against the rules).

[Narthon the Bold]

Thank you for the information and clarification on the status of the rules.
It is good to be reminded what to expect in warnings and what are instant banning offenses.

[Admiral_Kelly]

or insulting Rich personally.This I have a problem with; not that I endorse insulting Burlew. It is just that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime; and the rule is slightly egotistic in my opinion. I am not going to try to push the issue but, in my view, insulting Burlew should be on the same level as flaming another member; his website or not.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

This I have a problem with; not that I endorse insulting Burlew. It is just that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime; and the rule is slightly egotistic in my opinion. I am not going to try to push the issue but, in my view, insulting Burlew should be on the same level as flaming another member; his website or not.

Eh. It makes sense. I mean, even if it is online, it's still his place. It's like a house...only shared with thousands of people. I know I wouldn't invite someone over who is just going to sit there, draw on my walls, and insult me while doing it. I think he's justified.

[The Extinguisher]

Nice metaphor, by the way.

Anyway, since it's the basic idea of the thread, and the question has been stirring in my head, is there a standard length of banning? Like, is it all permabans or is it up to the disgression of the admins. I ask because I've been on forums of both types, and I wonder where this falls.

[Copacetic]

Eh. It makes sense. I mean, even if it is online, it's still his place. It's like a house...only shared with thousands of people. I know I wouldn't invite someone over who is just going to sit there, draw on my walls, and insult me while doing it. I think he's justified.


The thing is, I don't think Insulting Rich is on the same par as engaging in criminal activity. It's one thing to insult the man who owns the house you are in. It's entirely another to start an illegal business from his garage or turn his roof into a bill-board.

[Volug]

This I have a problem with; not that I endorse insulting Burlew. It is just that the punishment is disproportionate to the crime; and the rule is slightly egotistic in my opinion. I am not going to try to push the issue but, in my view, insulting Burlew should be on the same level as flaming another member; his website or not.

The way I look at it, his board, his rules.


Anyway, I'd like to thank the Moderators and Admins here for doing a great job. I post on the gamefaqs site quite a bit, I do reviews, and even a couple sticky topics for questions and answers there.
The mods there... Ugh... I posted an opinion on the SSBB boards there saying... "I'm not a big fan of tier lists, yeah, they exist, but I hate them... I'm sick of tier debates being thrown around like crap, and the fact every tornament I go to ENTIRELY consists of Snake and Meta Knight."

I got that modded for... Flamming... Huh...:smallannoyed:

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The thing is, I don't think Insulting Rich is on the same par as engaging in criminal activity. It's one thing to insult the man who owns the house you are in. It's entirely another to start an illegal business from his garage or turn his roof into a bill-board.

Well, I think it's because there is no more serious punishment available for criminal activity that the moderators can enforce. It's like the death sentence...it applies equally to someone who murders a single person in a swift and painless manner, as well as to someone whose deeds extend to dozens of people and cannot be described within the PG-13 nature of these boards. Both deeds are horrible, but the latter is far worse. Still, both receive the same sentence (death or life in prison) because we aren't capable of a worse punishment within the confines of our laws.

So basically it's a lack of a more serious punishment that merits criminal activity receiving the same results as insulting Rich, not some over-inflated ego on the part of the Giant.

[Rollin]

The thing is, I don't think Insulting Rich is on the same par as engaging in criminal activity. It's one thing to insult the man who owns the house you are in. It's entirely another to start an illegal business from his garage or turn his roof into a bill-board.

It's a pretty serious thing to insult the man who owns the house you are in. IRL, depending on the circumstances, being banned from that house might be the best you could hope for.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Anyway, since it's the basic idea of the thread, and the question has been stirring in my head, is there a standard length of banning? Like, is it all permabans or is it up to the disgression of the admins. I ask because I've been on forums of both types, and I wonder where this falls.
As far as I am aware, only one poster in the history of this forum has ever been banned and allowed to come back, so permabans seem to be the rule.

[Rawhide]

I would also like to clarify something Roland said. We are not out to 'get' anyone, we would all much rather encourage you to fit within the confines of our community than to see you leave. The system is set up to give everyone a chance to correct their mistakes, we issue warnings (which earn no points) a lot of the time to encourage people, infractions where necessary. Again, infractions are set up to allow people the chance to correct their mistakes, you're not instantly banned for one incident and are indeed given several chances. I'm stressing here that we would much prefer to help people fit within our community than to kick them out and will give every chance to make it happen.

As for the few instant banning offences, no one said that they are on the same 'level', as mentioned, there is a ceiling to what we can do, and that ceiling is banning. We are also not a law enforcement agency, so no parallels can be drawn between a here and a country. Using the the house analogy, the host would be allowed to remove anyone from their premises for any reason. Criminal activity and hate speech is completely unwanted here and anyone involved in either will be removed from the premises (and possibly reported to the authorities, depending on the circumstance). Spam is obvious and the only other instant ban is reserved for extremely serious offences, it is rarely, if ever, used. And don't think its egotistical of Rich to have it, as the infraction was not suggested nor implemented by Rich, but by another moderator (though I forget who).

After accruing 300 infraction points, it is not an instant ban. Your entire account history is reviewed and taken into consideration. Again, we are not out to 'get' people and would rather see them improve.

Hopefully you can see that we would like this to be a nice place to hang out with a good community. We want people to enjoy it and give lots of chances to rectify mistakes and for personal improvement, reserving banning only where necessary.

[Stormthorn]

or insulting Rich personally
I suppsoe its his playground but it seems a bit...immature...for so respected an individual to pass such a proclamation.

But does this mean that i can insult a mod personaly? Cuz only insulting non-mods is boring. They usualy dont do anything that i think warrents an insult.

[Roland St. Jude]

Well, I think it's because there is no more serious punishment available for criminal activity that the moderators can enforce.

I think this apt reasoning. Except the metaphor I'd use is not the death penalty. We don't have that ability. (Rawhide is that in the next version?) I'd say, the most we can do to you is throw you out. So whether you insult the host, call another guest a racial epithet, start handing out leaflets for your new Nokia phone business, or try to set up an international drug smuggling outfit here, the most we can do is throw you out. So we do that. Other than those things, we go to great lengths to remind you what the standards of behavior are here. And we take a very long route to eventually showing you the door if you don't meet those standards.

As for the other question, all bans here are permabans and we prohibit banned posters from returning. Once, partly under the old system of Official Warnings, someone was reinstated. I doubt that will ever happen again, though I suppose it's possible. Because the road to banning here is a long one, replete with warnings, infractions, and often a good deal of PM exchanges about the rules, it means that when someone has finally reached their limit, we know they don't intend to follow the rules here.

And, to echo Rawhide's comments, I certainly view individual moderation as part of a larger goal to keep this place the fun, friendly, and relatively light-hearted oasis on the internet that it is. And I think you'll find that we as moderators are involved in a number of other things from simple conversations to PbP games to running or participating in forum contests, all in an attempt to make this a fun place and enjoy it ourselves. I answer PMs about all manner of questions that people have. I'd view moderation of individual posts a small part of what we do here and bannings an exceedingly rare part of that.

[Stormthorn]

And I think you'll find that we as moderators are involved in a number of other things from simple conversations to PbP games to running or participating in forum contests, all in an attempt to make this a fun place and enjoy it ourselves.

And this freaks me out. Everytime i see a mod doing something non-modd-y i am reminded of that line in 1984 "it occured to Winston that, for the first time in his life, he was looking, with knowledge, at a member of the Thought Police."
I know that it doesnt really apply but thats what always pops into my head.
Your not supposed to see mods! They watch over us all and cannot be found or controlled and its very unnerving when one makes itself known to you. I have never been directly addressed by a mod and felt calm or in control.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

And this freaks me out. Everytime i see a mod doing something non-modd-y i am reminded of that line in 1984 "it occured to Winston that, for the first time in his life, he was looking, with knowledge, at a member of the Thought Police."
I know that it doesnt really apply but thats what always pops into my head.
Your not supposed to see mods! They watch over us all and cannot be found or controlled and its very unnerving when one makes itself known to you. I have never been directly addressed by a mod and felt calm or in control.
Boo.Blahblahblah.

[Rogue 7]

Y'know, I've never seen the whole "Advertising" posts anywhere else until I came here. What makes us so attractive?

[Stormthorn]

Boo.Blahblahblah.
HOLY CRAP!
Ok...that was scary. A third mod. I wonder if he knows me by reputation...?

Hey! Mod-boy-person! Am i on some site database of flagged people to watch out for?!

EDIT:Wait...i just checked my user CP. Yea...he knows me. He might not remember (i certainly dont) but it says right here he has had a run-in with me in the past.

[Serpentine]

After accruing 300 infraction points, it is not an instant ban. Your entire account history is reviewed and taken into consideration. Again, we are not out to 'get' people and would rather see them improve.This may be the answer to my question, but I'm gonna ask it anyway.
There seems to be a substantial backlog of complaints resulting in a good deal of lag between doing something wrong and getting an infraction or warning for it, the time of which lag may be taken up with further misdemeaners because the perpetrator hasn't yet been told that they're doing anything wrong. One person has complained that this was the reason for them being banned, so I wanted to check: Is it possible to be banned some months after doing things wrong because you kept doing those things wrong and it all backed up before you were actually told about them, resulting in a sudden rush of infractions you didn't even know you deserved?

[Stormthorn]

This may be the answer to my question, but I'm gonna ask it anyway.
There seems to be a substantial backlog of complaints resulting in a good deal of lag between doing something wrong and getting an infraction or warning for it, the time of which lag may be taken up with further misdemeaners because the perpetrator hasn't yet been told that they're doing anything wrong. One person has complained that this was the reason for them being banned, so I wanted to check: Is it possible to be banned some months after doing things wrong because you kept doing those things wrong and it all backed up before you were actually told about them, resulting in a sudden rush of infractions you didn't even know you deserved?

Yes. Yes it is. But do they deserve it if no one warned them about it? In the eyes of the law they cant use that as an excuse but thnk about it...if they never knew and the intent wasnt to be troublesome....

[RTGoodman]

Is it possible to be banned some months after doing things wrong because you kept doing those things wrong and it all backed up before you were actually told about them, resulting in a sudden rush of infractions you didn't even know you deserved?

I'd say it may be possible, but I really don't know if that excuse holds water in all instances. I mean, most of the time where there's a serious enough violation to warrant an infraction there's going to be some indication of it (scrubbed text, a locked thread with a warning or info about the broken rules, etc.). You're probably going to know you did something wrong, and that should be enough to tell you not to do that thing again.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

This is extremely unlikely. We try to get to any Warnings or Infractions as quickly as possible, for one. For another, we do recognize the concern you mention - we don't have a "statute of limitations" for Infractions or anything like that, mind you, but we also don't go trawling old threads or someone's post list looking for old offenses. Generally speaking, if we find something months old in a thread, we tend to go towards Warnings instead. Otherwise, we may check to see if that sort of thing is still going on and Warn or Infract for a recent offense instead and start from there.

Of course, certain things it won't matter how much time is passed. If an instant ban offense was somehow missed, it doesn't matter when it happened, it's going to result in an instant ban as soon as we see it.

It would be very unlikely that someone could continually act in an Infraction worthy manner for quite some time and not receive a Warning or Infraction before it reached a point where they would be banned.

We try to do our best in every situation, and if there is a reason for concern the situation can be reviewed. That in no way assures the decision will be changed, and it certainly isn't something that can be done immediately. Regardless, that's not something that we can go in detail on in an open thread.

[Roland St. Jude]

...There seems to be a substantial backlog of complaints resulting in a good deal of lag between doing something wrong and getting an infraction or warning for it...

You've been misled. There isn't such a backlog. The current backlog of Reported Posts right now is zero. A small backlog may occur over any given day, but things don't sit around for days or weeks waiting to be dealt with. Some things don't get reported for days or weeks after being posted and then they get acted on. Not too many but it happens. Occasionally something sits for a few or several days while we discuss it or work through a particularly problematic thread. But we're pretty on top of things.

I especially agree with Gorby's point that:


It would be very unlikely that someone could continually act in an Infraction worthy manner for quite some time and not receive a Warning or Infraction before it reached a point where they would be banned.

I just don't see how that could happen. I certainly don't recall seeing any such instances.

[Nerd-o-rama]

And this freaks me out. Everytime i see a mod doing something non-modd-y i am reminded of that line in 1984 "it occured to Winston that, for the first time in his life, he was looking, with knowledge, at a member of the Thought Police."
I know that it doesnt really apply but thats what always pops into my head.
Your not supposed to see mods! They watch over us all and cannot be found or controlled and its very unnerving when one makes itself known to you. I have never been directly addressed by a mod and felt calm or in control.Hey, man, I hope you're kidding. Mods are people too. Their presence may be intimidating, but they aren't some sort of violent supermen to be feared. They're regular posters who happen to be working security, as it were.

Gorbash Kazdar, for example, is a killer fanartist. And years ago, I was in a PbP game of his, which was started, set up, run, and died within two weeks, just like everyone else's PbP games.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Gorbash Kazdar, for example, is a killer fanartist. And years ago, I was in a PbP game of his, which was started, set up, run, and died within two weeks, just like everyone else's PbP games.
I'll have you know I kill PBPs far more thoroughly than everyone else.

[Jibar]

Well, I would have replied to this sooner but I was, ya know, asleep.
Anyway, thank you for replying so thoroughly, indeed, thank you for replying at all. I was worried this would get a short answer and a quick lock. My fears have been appeased for now though, and I think I'll stop worrying for a bit.
Again, thank you.

[Quincunx]

A non-mod's perspective:

When I get curious about someone vanishing, I look up their last known posts. Roland's being accurate when he said that the 3e/4e changeover inflamed people; I can think of only one person out of the recent spate who hadn't been scrubbed in that area just before being asked to leave. (That entire post, second in the thread, was a model of good communication. Thank you for it.)

Stormthorn, I am no respecter of authority, so it's been fascinating to read your posts and get the view from inside a head where authority exists and is set apart from humanity. Disturbing, but fascinating.

[Rawhide]

Once, partly under the old system of Official Warnings, someone was reinstated.

To clarify this: The account was not "banned" but suspended, then, after a full review, reinstated.



And this freaks me out. Everytime i see a mod doing something non-modd-y i am reminded of that line in 1984 "it occured to Winston that, for the first time in his life, he was looking, with knowledge, at a member of the Thought Police."
I know that it doesnt really apply but thats what always pops into my head.
Your not supposed to see mods! They watch over us all and cannot be found or controlled and its very unnerving when one makes itself known to you. I have never been directly addressed by a mod and felt calm or in control.

I am terribly sorry you feel that way and to be honest it is a little saddening that you do. We are not machines or inhuman monsters, we are just people, people with the added responsibility of ensuring that this community runs well.

Perhaps it might help you to remember that there is a person behind our screen names, someone who really cares about this community and the people in it.

[Charity]

Hey, man, I hope you're kidding. Mods are people too. Their presence may be intimidating, but they aren't some sort of violent supermen to be feared. They're regular posters who happen to be working security, as it were.

Ooo yeah that Rawhide fella, he's particularly intimidating, I'd never do nothing to prevoke his wrath, oh no... and as for thet RSJ well he's just terrifying... whut?
I've still not forgiven you two for that April fools prank, you will pay *shakes fist*


Well, I would have replied to this sooner but I was, ya know, asleep.

Wuss. :smalltongue:

I still don't know who we're all not talking about here, lob me a PM Jib it appears that I'm out of the loop again.

Oh and http://www.whats-your-sign.com/images/AlchemyQuincunx.jpghttp://www.poster.net/south-park/south-park-you-will-respect-my-authority-3700212.jpg

[Bayar]

A non-mod's perspective:

When I get curious about someone vanishing, I look up their last known posts. Roland's being accurate when he said that the 3e/4e changeover inflamed people; I can think of only one person out of the recent spate who hadn't been scrubbed in that area just before being asked to leave. (That entire post, second in the thread, was a model of good communication. Thank you for it.)

I tried that. It didnt gave me no clue. Maybe the last 2-3 posts of that person were deleted or something.



and we don't sneak up on people with a banhammer.

If I turn this into a funny banner, would you use it ? :smallbiggrin:

[Zeta Kai]

I was curious to know if other people can see your Infraction Rating. I received a 0-point warning awhiles back (a joke went wrong; no complaints, really), & ever since, I see underneath my avatar an Infraction Rating. Can everyone see this? I've never seen other people with infractions. I was just curious, because that infraction won't expire until 2010, & I don't wanna be known as a troublemaker (at least, not for that reason).

[banjo1985]

Nope, they're only visible to you and the mods, I have one of those nasty little badges too, don't worry, 99% of the playground can't see them :smallsmile:

[Bayar]

Nope, they're only visible to you and the mods, I have one of those nasty little badges too, don't worry, 99% of the playground can't see them :smallsmile:

Think that 99 % of the playground has one :smalltongue:

[RationalGoblin]

Think that 99 % of the playground has one :smalltongue:

I don't. But maybe that's because I find nothing on the forum so deserving of my hatred that I feel the need to flame or spam it.

Still, in case I do eventually get an infraction, I have a question for the mods. Is there any possible way to get rid of it? Through very good behavior or something like that?

Or, as Zeta Kai was saying, do they expire after a period of time?

[NerfTW]

I suppsoe its his playground but it seems a bit...immature...for so respected an individual to pass such a proclamation.

But does this mean that i can insult a mod personaly? Cuz only insulting non-mods is boring. They usualy dont do anything that i think warrents an insult.

personally insult him. That doesn't mean "I think the quality of this strip is terrible and I don't know why anyone would read it". That would just get a "Well, are you going to back that up?"

They mean "Rich is a blah blah blah who blah blahs his blah while blahing illegal blahs."

Frankly, if you can't hold a discussion without personally insulting the host, you might want to consider growing up first.

[Zherog]

I would also like to clarify something Roland said. We are not out to 'get' anyone, ...

Oh, sure. That's what you want us to think. Until it's too late, then BLAM. Banhammer to the back of the head.

I'm on to you, man. I'm on to you.

* looks around shiftily *

I think perhaps my lack of sleep recently is catching up to me...

[Charity]

No Z man, they are just trying to make you think you're paraniod you're spot on mate I've got the proof right h[blue pencil]

and another thing that R[blue pencil]
can you believe it?

[Bayar]

Oh, sure. That's what you want us to think. Until it's too late, then BLAM. Banhammer to the back of the head.



I think that they dont use banhammers at all. Maybe Ban notes.

*shudders at the new prospect*

[puppyavenger]

I think that they dont use banhammers at all. Maybe Ban notes.

*shudders at the new prospect*

The ban band?

[Bayar]

The ban band?

No. It was a failed reference to Death Note. Death Note ~ Ban Note...

[Roland St. Jude]

First, thank you to those of you who expressed appreciation, gratitude, or support. (I especially appreciate Quincunx' parenthetical comment. :smallwink:)

Second, CrazyFatGoblin, Warnings and Infractions expire, and you can look at your own public profile and see when. It's a longish time though, six months to a few years, depending on the type of infraction. If you're uncertain, you can always PM a moderator.

Third, Zeta Kai, no one but you and the mod/admins can see your infraction indicator, if you had one :smallwink::smallwink:.

Fourth, who stole my blue pencil. It was right here a minute ago, I swear. *mutter mutter*.

Fifth, bayar, I probably would, at least for a while. As you can tell from the IA contest, I'm a sucker for funny stick figure art.

[wadledo]

I have a question as well:

Is it all right for those people who have a connection to a banned poster outside the forum to relay last messages?:smallconfused:
Like giving the email address of the baned to another person via PM, posting in random banter to send final farewells and all that yot.
Not constantly, of course, just once, but I know I'd like to say some final words of mild-intelligence to a couple people.

Of course, I don't plan on being baned, but then again, I just got 4e, and now I really have some words to say.

[Roland St. Jude]

I have a question as well:

Is it all right for those people who have a connection to a banned poster outside the forum to relay last messages?:smallconfused:
Like giving the email address of the baned to another person via PM, posting in random banter to send final farewells and all that yot.
Not constantly, of course, just once, but I know I'd like to say some final words of mild-intelligence to a couple people.

Of course, I don't plan on being baned, but then again, I just got 4e, and now I really have some words to say.

Well, I'd suggest (actually I have suggested this) to someone who has accrued enough infractions to be considered for banning, to collect up email addresses/chat names of forumites they'd want to contact later. But if someone hadn't done so...please, don't post their last farewell openly anywhere. You've become a proxy for a banned poster; they're effectively posting through your account. We've said no to that before. If you want to collect information for them, I don't see that that's a problem. PMs fall somewhere in the middle. A single PM to tell folks, X banned poster can now be reached at Y email address is probably okay. Carrying on business for X, probably not okay.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Fifth, bayar, I probably would, at least for a while. As you can tell from the IA contest, I'm a sucker for funny stick figure art.
*takes note*
Just for the case I make to many accidents...

[Stormthorn]

Stormthorn, I am no respecter of authority, so it's been fascinating to read your posts and get the view from inside a head where authority exists and is set apart from humanity. Disturbing, but fascinating.

Ya know, i know a mod on another site. He is a very easygoing guy, more so than the mods here. Easygoing enough that he will let me speak wth his authority to issue warnings. I dont, but i could.
The thing is, he seems like a guy doing his job but if you get past that, he likes it. He enjoys being god. Someone who uses his powers a lot less than the mods on this forum.

It just takes a different type of person to want to be a mod. Its like (apologies to the military) being a volunteer marine scout-sniper. Do you want someone who wants to remove people for the admin watching over you?

I think power will mess you up, that or you have to be messed up to seek power. Not sure which.

Only ever knew one mod that i really liked. She used to mute me to protect me from other mods. "See, look, i already punshed him. Dont worry about it."

Edit: but dont get me wrong. Im not an anarchist. I just support a much greater level of control on moderators. Like having staff memebers whose ONLY powers and duties involve monitering the mods. Mods having to keep their non-mod identities secret to avoid favoritism or blackmail. Mods serving limted terms. Mods being selected by activity VS popularity (mods need to be active and have experiance, but very popular people will enjoy being mods too much because they tend to like attention and be very opinionated) and will be open to critical comments. Those who are shown to dislike past mods are considered first for apointing new mods. Mods can only hand out the more severe punishments with the consent of the forum by means of having the problem-post reported a specific number of times, which varies depending upon the punishment.

[NerfTW]

He enjoys being god.

Stormthorn, I think you're attributing way too much power to the practice of being a mod. They're not gods, they're just there to prevent things from getting out of control.

This is a message board, not a city. If by some extreme instance, all the mods go power hungry and lock down the board, you can just go to another board and continue there. It's not like you're forced to spend time in prison or something.

Furthermore, there is someone who's job is monitoring the mods. His name is Rich Burlew, and he has a definite interest in keeping his boards friendly.

[Stormthorn]

They're not gods
Well, no, but if we say that the average forumgoer is a "Person" then they are "god" by comparison. They can preform miracles and smite people if the board is our reality.

[NerfTW]

Well, no, but if we say that the average forumgoer is a "Person" then they are "god" by comparison. They can preform miracles and smite people if the board is our reality.

No, they're more like the playground superviser or a lifeguard. They can tell people to settle down or go home if they need to.

[Stormthorn]

No, they're more like the playground superviser or a lifeguard. They can tell people to settle down or go home if they need to.
But a real life playground supervisor cant make a problem kid cease to exist with a single finger action. Last i checked not even full-fledged police officers can write humans out of existance or remove their mouths.

[Charity]

And here was i thinking I had issues with authority figures..:smallwink:

Seriously Stormthorn the mods are not power hungry madmen looking for an excuse to ban folk...well appart from Rawhide... damnit I was nearly serious for a while there.

RSJ and Rawhide are both my contemporaries here and I have interacted with the both of them before and since they were mods/admin, they are still the same silly sods that they always were.

They have less free time now but they still interact on an entirely equal footing with the rest of us. Roland still pbp's, Rawhide still finds time to sell tourists to white slavers, though none of us hit the SMBGs like we used to
*goes all misty eyed*

oh yeah this is much more like one of my posts... utter gibberish.

My point is that there is no conspiracy here the mods are all accountable to one another and ultimately to Rich, none of them earn a bean for all the work they put into making this place a pleasent place to be and some of them have been at it for donkeys years, these are good folk like you or I, no different and certainly not drunk on the power of notice board moddom although it is an hilarious idea, so I will be forced to accuse Rawhide of it whenever possible... he loves me really, you know Raw i have come to realise that all this accusing Raw of random stuff all originated on that dreadful get a mod to post thread that there was a spate of a while back and has kind of stuck with me ever since, who'd have thought that thread would have had such enduring consequences... I'm getting a bit too navel gazey here I figure i ought to go to sleep.

[Stormthorn]

I don't. But maybe that's because I find nothing on the forum so deserving of my hatred that I feel the need to flame or spam it.

I dont think any of the times the mods came after me it was for spaming or flaming. Well, once for spamming on another board. With me its always my problem with authority.

I got in trouble once somewhere else RPing. Considering how often people murdered each others characters i was suprised by the reaction to a single *implied* incident involving another major crime. I even had the go ahead from the other player whose character was involved.

Ok, i talked in PMs to a mod several times today. He did come across as at least being *capable* of sympathy. I think.

In my mind Mods are twenty feet tall and carved from living white marble and they have wings made of blades coming out of their backs. No joke. Overactive imagination.

[phoenixineohp]

Ok, i talked in PMs to a mod several times today. He did come across as at least being *capable* of sympathy. I think.


Nope. They are all Turing machines. Shoot! I wasn't supposed to let that secret out! Dang.

But really, I'd like to point out that the people who are mods are also people who are our friends. We support, appreciate and care for them. Insulting or demeaning them is not... supported, appreciated or cared for. :smallannoyed:

[Pyro]

I used to get a little nervous when I saw a mod active in the same thread as me, but that was before I really settled in. Now I regard them as any other poster.

Speaking of mods, is Baron still active. I don't think I've ever seen him, but we could just browse different places.

[Renegade Paladin]

It's been brought to my attention thanks to Iron Poet that certain posters have, well, disappeared.
I'm not going to ask why exactly they were banned, as I know fully well you can't exactly reveal that, but I would like to ask what general areas were taken into consideration when the decision was made.
I ask, because I can't help but notice that it's some of the longer posters who have gone, likely because of slips in obeying the rules. I've been here a while now, and I'm starting to get quite paranoid about slipping myself.
Of course you're paranoid. Secrecy about the circumstances of bannings breeds paranoia; that's what makes it such a bad idea.

[Skippy]

But really, I'd like to point out that the people who are mods are also people who are our friends. We support, appreciate and care for them.

As a matter of fact, one of our mods gets married this Saturday. Ask Zeb, he will tell you that mods are, indeed, only persons, like you and me. But with more awesomesauce.

[Stormthorn]

Of course you're paranoid. Secrecy about the circumstances of bannings breeds paranoia; that's what makes it such a bad idea.

That is a huge chunk of my point, although i think i might have only gone over that bit with the mod in a PM. I would rather be made example of than simply dissapear, when...well...lets be optimistic and say "if" i get banned.

[Arameus]

Man, Stormthorn. I don't know if that's fear or contempt or what.

I really like the mods, at least I like what I've seen of them; it always seemed odd to me that they post as seldom as they do sometimes. Or maybe it just seems that way since the board is so crowded. But even if that bright-blue Moderator badge might seem like a passive finger-wagging to some, believe it or not, they are actually pretty nice.

And that's coming form someone who... well, 'someone who should keep out of trouble,' is how I'll phrase it. :smalltongue:

[Renegade Paladin]

Let's be clear, here. The mods are good people so far as I know; I've met a couple of them in person and there's nothing wrong with them. I simply think that this particular policy is a bad one.

On the board I consider my "home" on the Internet, so to speak (mainly because I spend most of my time there), bannings are public affairs; the punishment is voted upon by the Senate (a group of senior posters) and if the result is a ban, the posts containing the offense and any necessary to establish the context are split and moved to a forum called Parting Shots, and an administrator will post in it with a link to the Senate vote and a post explaining exactly why the banning took place. It's all transparent from start to finish, and as a result there are no questions about the limitations of the rules and next to no discontent among the board members about it. It's all the difference between an open and fair trial and being taken out back and shot after a kangaroo court.

And politics is discussed quite freely without problems, I might add, but that one's a losing battle and I know it. :smalltongue:

[Quincunx]

Star chamber is secret and closed proceedings, not kangaroo court. Keep your perjoratives straight. :P So far as this board goes, while the bannings aren't public, there's almost always enough posts/threads remaining to give the reader an idea what offense the banned person kept committing, even if the reader doesn't feel it's offensive. Once I post this, Renegade Paladin, I'll check your board profile for a link over to your home board; I'm interested in looking at the system and especially how people get promoted into the highest positions and how often. Static vs. dynamic pools of power. . .*goes thoroughly off-topic*

[EDIT: Thanks for the link. I've been missing reading a forum with that mentality. Might even turn into a *gulp* productive member of it.]

. . .*back on topic* I am glad Stormthorn spoke up despite feeling intimidated.

[EDIT to the EDIT: It is vexing to run into that "server is not responding" screen when making a stream-of-consciousness post.]

[Renegade Paladin]

The board linked in my profile actually isn't it; that's an attempt I made to run a board that sort of died. The board in question is http://bbs.stardestroyer.net

[Rawhide]

Unfortunately, what you recommend is against the entire spirit of this community and is not workable in a commercial environment. We have several ideals here, and one of them is a respect for posters and a respect for their privacy. We have no intent of publicly humiliating people, to air their dirty laundry in public for all to see. To make publicly available someone's infractions or reason for banning (which is almost always accrual of infractions) would be disrespectful and inflammatory to the person.

In addition, you end up with a popularity contest, where the senate gets elected on board politics and not on merits and the senate will often vote based on a personal bias. We're not running a kangaroo court (definition: An irregular unauthorised court) nor are we interested in instigating witch hunts with public burnings. All moderators have been personally selected by Rich and have undergone a rigorous screening process to ensure that they will be fair, honest, without personal bias and uphold the spirit and ideals of the community. There are several checks in place to ensure that this remains so, believe me when I say that if someone were to start abusing their power they would be out of here in a flash.

We don't work in secrecy, we work with respect for a person's privacy and respect for a person as a whole in mind. We offer everyone who has been banned the same courtesy.

[Renegade Paladin]

With all due respect, you show no respect at all for us. You treat us like children, patronizing us with "You don't need to know," when every human instinct there is screams to know what's eliminating people from among our ranks so we can avoid that fate. It's the same reason a sniper is bad for morale; people are being picked off and no one can see what's doing it.

Frankly, if someone's going to post on a public forum, he's already surrendered a good chunk of his reasonable expectation of privacy, since everything he's posted is available for all to see, at least until you get to it. As you can see, I have warnings on my account. Frankly, I don't care who knows it; when I post openly on the Internet, I expect that people will read what I say. If I didn't want it seen then I wouldn't have posted it. To complain about privacy when everything you're complaining about people seeing was put there on a public board by you personally strikes me as more than a little silly. What's even sillier is that you value the banned members' privacy so highly that you apparently maintain their privacy even from themselves, if the ones I've talked to afterwards can be believed; I've been told by three separate bannees I have contact with elsewhere that they don't know why they got the boot and that the staff won't tell them when they ask.

The Senate in question was initially appointed by the staff, and from then on self-selects its members; popular election by the board population at large is not part of the equation, and in fact if someone from the general population nominates someone for the Senate, it is an excellent way to ensure that he never gets in. I assure you, popularity contests are not an issue. The solution probably wouldn't work as well for GitP, I grant, because unlike here, the board standards there value reason and logical ability as criteria for seniority, rather than simple popularity, which makes the concept of consulting the senior members a better idea there than it probably would be here.

I believe what you say when you say that a moderator abusing his power would be gone on an intellectual level, but frankly, when dealing with non-transparent processes, it's hard to actually thoroughly believe it, because it's hard to fully trust someone who has something to hide and doesn't care if you know that he's hiding it, which is exactly what you're doing. I know you think you're fostering good community spirit, but try to look at it from an outside perspective for a moment. We can't see the mod forum, we have no idea what goes into your evaluation process, and all we have is your word that it's all fair behind the curtain; the only part of the process we see is people disappearing without explanation or apparent reason. From an outside perspective, it's practically specifically designed to make people suspicious.

I know you don't agree with my concerns, but can you at least understand why I have them?

[Lord Iames Osari]

We don't work in secrecy, we work with respect for a person's privacy and respect for a person as a whole in mind. We offer everyone who has been banned the same courtesy.

I understand where you're coming from on this, but as this thread (and similar threads in the past) have hopefully made clear, the distinction is almost impossible to discern from the outside looking in, and consequentially the results are very similar - increased paranoia in particular, as several posts in this thread have demonstrated.

Perhaps a compromise would be best? I know that on the RPGnet forum, the actual process of banning takes place very much as it does here, with one important difference. They make a thread in their equivalent of Board Issues that explains exactly why a given poster was banned.

[Emperor Tippy]

Perhaps a compromise would be best? I know that on the RPGnet forum, the actual process of banning takes place very much as it does here, with one important difference. They make a thread in their equivalent of Board Issues that explains exactly why a given poster was banned.

The explanation for why most every banned person is banned (excluding spammers) is "accrual of infractions". I would be willing to bet that 90% of the infractions issued on these boards are for flaming. It's not like the thread would do anything.


---
As someone who disagrees with many of the policies on these boards, starting with Rich's refusal to take donations, one of the few that I don't have a real problem with is who ends up banned. I've modded other forums with both stricter and looser rules than these boards and I would have banned most of them. Solo and I are friends but his banning wasn't exactly a surprise, I had been expecting it for months.

There are some posters who haven't been banned that surprise me though.

[Behold_the_Void]

Honestly, I mod on another forum and if anything I'd say the moderators here are fairly accommodating and lenient, all things considered. I've seen all kinds of posters stick around way longer than we'd have tolerated where I'm from.

From what I'm seeing in here, some of you seem to see this as far more serious of a deal than it really is. Most forums don't discuss why people were banned (you usually can figure out why), it creates unnecessary drama and it's nigh impossible to give the full story on any given member. It might be better if the moderators would say a vague "flaming" or whatnot if someone did get banned and people were asking, but really, there's no reason to. It's just an internet forum, if you nominally respect people and play relatively nicely, you should be fine.

[Serpentine]

Like having staff memebers whose ONLY powers and duties involve monitering the mods.I guess that could help, but I think that's pretty much The Giant and Wampa (he still around or what?).

Mods having to keep their non-mod identities secret to avoid favoritism or blackmail.Favouritism and blackmail of or by mods? I'm pretty sure that anyone who tried to blackmail a mod would be just about insta-banned, and if a mod tried to blackmail a poster they could just go to a different mod and let them know. If you've seen an example of either of these I'd like to see them, because I seriously doubt they happen here.

Mods serving limted terms.It's a hard job, and I doubt many people here are really qualified or able to do it. I guess I see the point, but while it has its pros it also has its cons, as with the current permanent system.

Mods being selected by activity VS popularity (mods need to be active and have experiance, but very popular people will enjoy being mods too much because they tend to like attention and be very opinionated)
The solution probably wouldn't work as well for GitP, I grant, because unlike here, the board standards there value reason and logical ability as criteria for seniority, rather than simple popularity, which makes the concept of consulting the senior members a better idea there than it probably would be here. I don't know about anyone else but I am sick and tired of this argument - in this context and others. As Rawhide said, they were selected by The Giant. If the selection was based on popularity it was their popularity with him alone. I kinda resent on their behalf the implication that they do not have the reason and logical ability to run this place. These two statements are complete loads of bollocks - insulting, simplistic and purile loads of bollocks at that.

and will be open to critical comments.It does always seem to be a bit risky expressing any discontent or dissent in public, and they don't exactly encourage it... But on the other hand, they do encourge PMs. It does kinda feel as though all we ever get is a feeling that the mods think we're just whinging and need to be placated, scolded or explained-to rather than that we have legitimate concerns that need to be aired and discussed... But that could just be me being over-sensitive.

Those who are shown to dislike past mods are considered first for apointing new mods.Why? :smallconfused:

Mods can only hand out the more severe punishments with the consent of the forum by means of having the problem-post reported a specific number of times, which varies depending upon the punishment.The intent isn't bad, though I don't think too much of the execution. How big is that forum, though, in comparison to this one? And how does it work in a situation such as they've described repeatedly here and which is explained in detail in the forum rules, in which a banning is a result of the accumulation of very many minor punishments rather than one severe one?
I don't think I've ever been surprised by a banning (that I've noticed). Occasionally I'm just surprised at its timing or the particular straw that broke the back.

[Talic]

I know, from personal experience, that warnings come to a message in my inbox on GitP. I appreciate this courtesy, as it creates accountability (a record of the offense, disclosed, in full view of all affected parties). I also like that it gives me an opportunity, in PM, to bring the issue up with the mod that issued it. There are two sides to every story, and mods are people too. Nobody's immune to human error, and the system in place accounts for that.

On a side note: Public knowledge of mods creates accountability. You know who's issuing infractions, and why. You can appeal to someone if you have a problem with it, and you know who did it and why. That's a good thing. It could be done without that knowledge, albeit at extra work, you'd still have to know at least one or two mod identities, and it would have to involve software modification, none of which is easy, or free.

I've personally PM'd a couple mods with questions as to the why's and why nots of certain things, and found them to me, on the whole, very reasonable, in explaining issues.

That said... Do people who are banned get something mailed to them, explaining the why, and allowing them to explain the banning offense, when its not one of the "instant-ban" offenses (ad spam, criminal activity, hate speech, disrespecting Rich, who happens to be paying for this place for me to come and pass the wee hours of the morning)? I'd say that an e-mail, with correspondance allowed, would help.

Also, do bans have a time limit? Are banned users back after a year? two? I know people can grow and mature over time, and I'd personally hate to be held accountable for the person I was 4 years ago now (hint: I'd probably have been banned from here in a week. Yay maturing!).

[Quincunx]

Serpentine/Stormthorn:

A limited term mod cycle would work here because of the vast posting base providing a variety of candidates, yet would not work because there are still echoes of Rich's top-down control guiding the place and prohibiting a large enough pool of candidates; how many people would make worthy mods that have joined since he was last an active participant? (Background, to spare the server: not too long before I joined, the last batch of 'new' moderators were appointed. No motion in the mod pool since then.)

Stormthorn's comments on mod structure, in general, assume that people will be flawed and can't put aside their biases; instead, the system takes the stress of separating the moderator-powers and the people. It's self-consistent and I like that. However, another board that assumes people can restrain their base impulses (like this one, Renegade Paladin's home board, and my home board) can't adopt specific rules from it; cherry-picking such rules would be seen as insults to the posters' intelligence, mental or emotional.

To answer Serpentine's specific "why?", in the system that assumes a moderator won't be able to put aside its biases, the system demands that they find someone with different biases in order to balance the moderator pool.

Lord Iames Osari:

While a public ban list runs counter to the 'respect of privacy' ideal of this board, I like the idea. At the least, it could be combined with a 'point of contact' for unfinished business with poster X, which would be more generous than the board currently allows, but would prevent any friendly posters from getting a warning (and that, according to this thread, might be a changing policy anyway) over forwarding contact info themselves. Questions: first, can the banned posters read this, and second, does anyone ever read a sticky in this forum? :P

Renegade Paladin:

I do believe that the people who "don't know why they got the boot" still don't comprehend that what they were doing was flaming. My home board's members--and by extension, I--are willing to expend more effort than is healthy in trying to teach those distinctions between polite disagreement, sniping, and outright flaming (we don't teach logic as your home board does). This is time-intensive, inflames passions, and is only practical in a board with a small quantity of posters. I don't think it would be in the spirit of this board for the moderators to sort people into "redeemable, with work" and "not redeemable", and then impose different policies for the groups.

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t291/smbrinich/Erfworld/LOLErfs/LOLErf_SelfAwareness.png
It takes some time to get people to this level of self-awareness, and much more time to get them to stop taking pride in it. (SteveMB made the image above (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2935130&postcount=192), and very many other hilarious motivators/demotivators. Check the Erfworld forum.)

Your post is confusing the need (desire, want) to know with the right and the ability to know, and a group vouched for by many people with a group vouched for by one person. I can't disagree with your closing paragraph although I could have wished that you used fewer adverbs; prolific "-ly" suffixes are a stylistic choice, but it's also a sign of someone younger than I know you are, and it is undermining your maturity.

Moderators and the Moderated:

It's currently against board policy to give out more detail than is necessary, to respect privacy and quiet the temptation to continue discussing infraction-worthy topics. We readers are glad that each moderator leaves a mark of which one of you scrubbed a particular post. Would it be worthwhile to leave the note of why it was scrubbed as well? Is there an improvement when going from *Scrubbed* to *Scrubbed - Personal Attack* or is that a matter which only the person who got scrubbed has the right and the ability to know?

P.S. My location change has to do with an ill-advised PM and not this thread. I'll take it down once the honey returns.

[Charity]

You know i have yet to be suprised by somebody getting banned.
I have occasionally disagreed with it as I feel it is possible to bait people into infractions, but in the end it comes down to a question of self control, and they all broke the rules big time.
I don't know wether it's comming from the gaming boards where folk seem to exist on a heady mix of logic and opinion which seems to breed intractabilty and passion, but there has not been one ban I haven't have seen lumbering over the horizon some days ahead of the event.

If folk genuinely don't know why they were banned, they either have serious reading comprehension issues regarding the rules of this place, or they are incapable of viewing their own words objectively because no one else is ever remotely suprised.


Tippy are you talking about me again... I keep telling you, I have no idea where that rolling pin came from.

[Fri]

You know, everything boils down to two thing.

In this forum, Gaming is Serious Business (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness), and Anyone Can Die (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnyoneCanDie). Not even your status as the Ensemble Darkhorse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnsembleDarkhorse) can guarantee your survival.

[Jimorian]

I guess I just want to say that I find GITP one of the best moderated boards I've ever been on. I used to participate on AOL back when it was a closed system, so I definitely have experienced BAD moderation in all its confusing glory.

The other message board I like, which despite being just about polar opposite in a lot of ways -- it's home to a lot of professional writers, so no restrictions on topic, just the basic rules of "no flaming" and "no spam" -- has I think one important thing in common. There is a single person who owns it and he has a very clear vision of the community he wants, and anybody working for him has clear authority to make judgments to support that vision.

Just about any board has its crop of "rules lawyers" who try to poke and prod at the limits as a game unto itself (as any of us who game have experienced all too often then as well :smallwink: ). What I appreciate about how GITP works is that not only are the rules very well spelled out and explained (and the Mods are more than willing to further explain in threads like this or in private), but that a very important part of those rules is that pushing those limits on purpose won't be tolerated.

I'm sure a lot of us have gotten away with very "clever" flames on other boards just by being careful with our wording, but when a moderator is empowered to stop it right there and then, you don't end up with somebody else seeing that otherwise obvious insult going unnoticed/unpunished and feeling they need to reply in kind, etc...

I've been on usenet, where there's no moderation, and I can hold my own in any flame war around, but you know, after a while, it really does grow old, and to be able to come to a place where nearly every post expresses an idea, that I can then agree or disagree with my own ideas, is a very refreshing thing in this day and age.

[Matthew]

...one of the few that I don't have a real problem with is who ends up banned.



You know i have yet to be suprised by somebody getting banned.

Same here. In most cases it has simply been a matter of when.

[Arameus]

Is there some sort of rare misconception that the moderators on forums are relentless sadists, waiting for the flimsiest, most debatable justification to ransack someone's house and knock them out, so that they can hang them by chains and cackle 'You THOUGHT you could really get away with it!' unless held constant check by the righteous, persecuted proletariat posters?

Probably no coincidence that the people that wield this frankly insane theory generally consider themselves one of the few most capable of maintaining such a sacred defense, making me tremble at the notion of what such a person might become as a moderator themselves.

Please, please, please stop busting the balls of the people that, at the most bitter protestations of their own patience and out of their precious spare time, keep mouthy little malcontents like me in their proper places. They have demonstrated, time and time again, their responsibility, accountability, and, thankfully, just being down-to-earth folks, and treating them like Orwellian inquisitors is offensive to conscious posters and probably saddens the staff when they see such shoddy opinions of there labor of love.

[Quincunx]

Arameus:

Nah. I think the folk are generalizing experience with shoddy and temperamental moderators onto all boards with moderators. It's wrong but it's not necessarily malicious. Consistency feels oppressive if one's not used to it; it's like the complaints of folk new to antidepressants.

Jimor:

I cannot think of a counterexample to 'one person, one vision, one nice clean message board' that is not the web presence of a business. Even when a handful of people appeared to have equal power, there was always a person of last resort in the case of deadlocked issues. This bothers me. I'll think about it some more.

[skywalker]

Same here. In most cases it has simply been a matter of when.

Fourth-ed.

I will say, I used to want to know all of this stuff. Why did so-and-so get banned, what exactly did he say, etc. Then I realized, I wasn't part of the discussion. If I had been, I would know exactly what the person said to get them banned. I may have been part of that discussion one time, and that time, I knew exactly what was said before it was scrubbed. I'm sure, in a hypothetically perfect board, I would never have known what was said.

To start with, there's a big question of "why?" "Why shouldn't I know these things?" The simple answer is: They don't want you knowing these things. Really, RP, by saying "I deserve to know these things," aren't you just saying "I'm important enough to know these things."? When the simple fact is, it isn't a question of importance. The mods have a special function here that gives them authority. But authority does not equal importance. The sooner you can realize that how much you know is not a measure of your importance, the better off(IMO) you can be.

There has been one time when someone is banned and I really, actually thought it was my right to know. That was when Roland and Gorby and maybe Baron(?) were banned for April Fool's. I thought we deserved an explanation at the time, and I still think it was poorly handled that no-one eventually said "April fool's!" A lot of people were very worried that day. But otherwise, I realize that I wasn't involved, which means I don't need to know. There's really no reason to be paranoid. You know the rules, and you know when you're breaking them.

It's a little sad when longtime posters who we're fond of get banned, but I have to say again that I expected it in all but one case. I think the reason why long-time, respected members of the community are banned is because they've been around long enough to accrue enough infractions.

But that's just my two cents.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Same here. In most cases it has simply been a matter of when.

I can think of two cases that surprised me, but some topic must have got them off guard on a bad day or something. (I know that is what happened for one of them at least and the other case i have not investigated.)

However, in most cases I would agree. The tone of their posts is often enough to tell that they will slip at some point.

[Renegade Paladin]

To start with, there's a big question of "why?" "Why shouldn't I know these things?" The simple answer is: They don't want you knowing these things. Really, RP, by saying "I deserve to know these things," aren't you just saying "I'm important enough to know these things."?
Not at all. I'm saying that keeping the proceedings secret implies that there's something to hide, and implying that there's something to hide breeds paranoia, justified or not. This isn't about me, you, or any other individual poster; it's about what I know, from nearly six years' experience moderating and administering boards, does and does not work in maintaining a community online. I freely admit that all my experience has been in boards smaller than this one, but I don't know of any dynamic that would make things substantially different apart from having a larger pool of people to worry.

Now of course you will say that this community is flourishing under it's rules, and you'd be right, but I believe that it is in spite of them. The board flourishes based on the popularity of the webcomic and the strength of the community itself. I came for OotS and I stay for the gaming discussion; "This is a well-moderated board" never entered into the equation for why I'm here. I suspect my case is not exactly unique; I've hardly ever known anyone who goes around picking which boards to post on based on the rules they have.

And Arameus, that misconception must be very rare indeed, because I fail to see anyone actually saying what you say they said, in this thread anyway. :smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

As you can see, there are two sides to every argument, no system is perfect nor can it be. We have policies and procedures in place to give everyone the fairest treatment possible and we strive to ensure that everyone is treated in a respectful manner (this includes the general posters, moderators and administration staff) by everyone (again, this includes the general posters, moderators and administration staff).

Just because someone is in a public place, does not mean that they give up a reasonable expectation to privacy, and we like to do everything we can to respect that and uphold those ideals. The most common question we get following a Warning is is something to the effect of "can other people see this on my profile?".

While some may not mind their history of infractions on public display, many others do. Some are upset at first because they think everyone can see it, while others are simply relieved when we inform them that they can't. We don't feel that one mistake a person makes should be held over them for the rest of their stay, highlighted for everyone to see, we would much rather work with the person and encourage them to become a quality contributor with no further problems then introduce things that humiliate them or will create prejudice against them by other posters.

In other words, the inquisitive mind, wanting to know, does not overturn our concern for the poster's privacy.

I would think twice before taking any claims by people who have been banned that they did not know why at face value. While it is theoretically possible for people who have received well over 300 infraction points to not know the final infraction that tipped the scales (and in this instance the person will have already received a detailed explanation for each warning and infraction by PM), all warnings and infractions are delivered to the person in with a detailed PM explaining the reasons and what it was for. When someone is banned, WampaX will send an email explaining the situation and reason.

[Emperor Tippy]

Same here. In most cases it has simply been a matter of when.

Yeah, I've had some questions about specific warnings and infractions that people have gotten and about where exactly the line on flaming is but I can't really think of any banning that wasn't reasonable. I know I have come close to the line for flaming before but I've never gotten a warning or an infraction so I guess I know where the line is, even though I have made a few posts that I would have given myself a warning over in hindsight.

[kpenguin]

Fifth, bayar, I probably would, at least for a while. As you can tell from the IA contest, I'm a sucker for funny stick figure art.

I just... couldn't resist

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/banhammer-banner.gif

[Bayar]

I just... couldn't resist

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/banhammer-banner.gif

Yeah, idea theft....if you werent using one of my banners, I would have gotten the idea theft police after you :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

I just... couldn't resist

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/banhammer-banner.gif

Hmm, good, but I'd suggest a few changes...

Leave the "Bad" side alone (except maybe to put a red X through it?), but make these changes to the "Good" side:


Change the guy's hair and shirt colours to demonstrate that its a different person.
Change the shirt to say something like "Generic Flamer" or some such.
Change the smile on Roland's face to something less happy, as having to ban someone isn't exactly fun.

[Dallas-Dakota]

It's just something I'd like to point out and I'm carefull now so I'm also including that this is purely my oppinion but : There are just generic posters who are banned, like Brickwall. I would most definetly not see him as a flamer.:smallannoyed:

[Bayar]

It's just something I'd like to point out and I'm carefull now so I'm also including that this is purely my oppinion but : There are just generic posters who are banned, like Brickwall. I would most definetly not see him as a flamer.:smallannoyed:

Brickwall got banned ? :jawdrop:

Ok, now I am paranoid about being banned...:eek:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Sometimes there is a fine line between being a flamer and just being honest and direct.

If the hypothetical Mr. Idiot (I hope that screen name is not taken :smalltongue:) walks into a thread and starts acting like an idiot and Mr. Honest and Direct describes Mr. Idiot's idiocy in direct and honest terms then Mr. Honest and Direct may be violating forum policy and run into trouble.

Now imagine that Mr. Honest and Direct meets Mr. Biggot, Mr. Donkey, Mr. Flamer and Mr. Troll etc. and reacts in the exact same manner even though he should know better after the first warning.

Eventually even Mr. Honest and Direct, who may have been of great value to the community, gets the boot and everyone else wishes that Mr. Honest and Direct had just walked away.

Note that Mr. Honest and Direct often share some traits with Mr. Insensitive and Mr. Rude and works for Antagonism Inc., so very few, if any, martyrs are shown the door here.

[Gygaxphobia]

Note that Mr. Honest and Direct often share some traits with Mr. Insensitive and Mr. Rude and works for Antagonism Inc., so very few, if any, martyrs are shown the door here.

Too true, that people who "just speak their mind" often simply don't have the consideration to be careful about what they say.
Rules apply to all regardless though, we don't have freedom of speech on this forum, you surrender that when you sign up.

[Serpentine]

Brickwall got banned ? :jawdrop:Oh come on, I saw Brick's banning coming a mile away. What surprised me was that he cleaned up his act enough to stave it off for so long. What disappoints me is that apparently he failed :smallsigh:

[Bryn]

Wasn't Brickwall female? Or was that a joke that I missed, or a rather bizarre confabulation (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=confabulation) on my part?

Apart from that, can banned posters still read the forums? This isn't because I have a message for a banned poster - it's just curiosity, really.

[Jibar]

Wasn't Brickwall female? Or was that a joke that I missed, or a rather bizarre confabulation (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=confabulation) on my part?

Gender Bender Week.

...just... keep that in mind in future.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Apart from that, can banned posters still read the forums? This isn't because I have a message for a banned poster - it's just curiosity, really.

Certainly, as you do not need to log in to view them and I do not believe there is any IP-ban as long as we are talking standard transgressions.

[EvilElitest]

A banned poster can read this threads fine, just can't comment
from
EE

[Bryn]

Gender Bender Week.

...just... keep that in mind in future.

Tempest Fennac says (16:27):
Brickwall was male, but he randomly decided to change his gender icon to female.
Z-Axis says (16:27): [some stuff, truncated for length]
Tempest Fennac says (16:28):
It seems ironic considering a comment he made on my anti-GB week based newbie confuision thread about other people causing more confusion and devaluing the week by swapping early.
Z-Axis says (16:29):
So it wasn't just for the Week then?
Tempest Fennac says (16:30):
No. He swapped a while after GB week finished.
Z-Axis says (16:30):
Ah, OK, I wasn't remembering wrong
Thanks for the info :)
Thanks for correcting me, both of you. I guess I just missed The Reveal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheReveal).

Certainly, as you do not need to log in to view them and I do not believe there is any IP-ban as long as we are talking standard transgressions.
Ah, also thanks for the info... I can't really come up with any comment, but it's good to know.
Edit: Also extending those thanks to EvilElitest.


For what it's worth regarding the debate at hand, although I miss some of the posters who were banned, I think the moderators here do a fantastic job and I'm certain that they acted correctly. Three cheers for the moderators, I say!

[EvilElitest]

glad to help. I know that logic ninja still reads these forums according to Tippy, through i don't want to discuss banned people too much
from
EE

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I know that logic ninja still reads these forums...

I wonder if Bears With Laser are still reading too....

[SalSar_Thiran]

Weren't they the same person?

[skywalker]

Weren't they the same person?

I think that was Silvanos' point... Which is why Bears got banned...

As for this:

Gender Bender Week.

...just... keep that in mind in future.
Spoken like a true gender bender :smallbiggrin:

I'm with Serpentine on this one. Flaming a flamer is still flaming. The real question was how long he could last. Silvanos, that was one of the best allegories(I think that's the word) I've ever seen on a forum.

[Lord_Asmodeus]

Just a couple things that annoy me are as such:

1. The length of infractions. They are years long, and this just gets to me, it seems like they should be at most a year long, making them years long seems a tad excessive to me, and this ties into my next point

2. As someone else put it, with certain people its just a matter of time until they "slip up" and the reason this ties into point 1. is that, some people may be generally pleasant posters, who have an odd tendency to become impassioned on certain subjects, but for the most part (I.E. 95% of the time) they are nice, normal, and contributive members of these forums, and since the infractions last so long, it really is just a matter of "walking a fine line"

3. Permabans annoy me, for the obvious reasons. For one, permanently banning someone permanently who isn't the type of person who does illegal things on the site or flames excessively, or is just a bad forumite in general, it seems to deprive the forum of good members who may have just made some unfortunate mistakes, and seems a tad harsh for people like aforementioned nice guy who gets passionate about very remote subjects. I can totally understand bannings, they happen, and they are most often justified, however banning someone with no hope of coming back? for any and all bannable offenses? I realize its an "over time" sort of thing but still, someone who truly loves these forums should have an opportunity, at some point having "learned their lesson" to return. Permabans for people who aren't serious violates of the rules is something that, in my opinion, should be reserved for repeat offenders.

For example, say a normal forumite messes up a bit, is stressed out or something, and slips up. This poster had some old (like, from last year) offenses, but hasn't done anything up until now. Now, in total he has over 300 points, and after careful consideration he is banned. Now, this poster gets what he did wrong, and is sorry for it, it seems a tad unfair that he will never have the opportunity to return.

Now say we have "probational" bannings, and he likes these forums a lot, so in say, 4 months or more he comes back. This time he is more careful, and stays out of trouble as much as possible.

OR comes back, and for whatever reasons continually messes up every couple of months, this time he's banned for a longer period (stretching into a year/years) if he comes back and messes up again he will be gone for good, but this way he has opportunities to amend his ways and return to the forum community as a productive member of forumite society.

[Chronicled]

I agree with Lord_Asmodeus. One thing that I've seen work rather well is a warning for the first offense, followed by a few days to a few months of banning per offense (depending on the severity). People seemed to only need banning once before they realized "yes, this can happen to me." The amount of time banned was usually enough for people to shape up, without being so long that they either left or made a new user name.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Also, I have a question for Our Beloved Moderators:


Solo was being discussed in another thread.


Indeed, many his posts were truly great. Shame on him that he's got himself banned in another pointless monk thread :smallyuk:

Hell, by rules, we should talk about him no longer.


Disagreed. Just because someone got banned we're supposed to pretend he never existed?


A quote from the Forum Rules:


Protesting Bannings/Glorifying or Discussing Banned Posters: We value our posters, and take care only to ban posters who commit egregious or repeated violations of our Rules. Once that action is taken, though, it is an Inappropriate topic to discuss, glorify, or memorialize banned posters or their rules violations. We have found in the past that such displays are disruptive to the community. If you have a concern regarding a banned poster, we ask that you send a PM to WampaX, the board guru for these forums.

So the question is what counts as glorifying, discussing and memoralizing.

Y'see, I've seen, scattered here and there (in many, many, sigs, in fact) quotes from Solo. Should I report everyone bearing such quotes for their Inappropriate-ness? What exactly counts as 'glorifying'?

Furthermore, by 'discussing' this topic at all, am I breaking the rules? Is there any facility for meta-discussion without infringing them?

[Quincunx]

Lord_Asmodeus:

Resetting the length of warnings and infractions, which would resolve your later complaint about offenses spaced out in time, would probably wander into discussions of how long it takes brains and personalities to progress physically and psychologically. The trouble there is that I can't recall any studies above the age of 13, the legal age for independent forum usage, which measure that development in months. Years are the base units.

Illiterate Scribe:

We still refer back to 'Being Batman' and, if we use any invective about it at all, curse about how it was efficient enough to ruin the game for other playstyles of 3.5 players. Using someone's works seems to be OK. I would, if I were a moderator, let the signature quotes remain; they are glorifying a witty comment and the poster who made it, but while the poster was still an active board member. Signature quotes which popped up after a banning would be suspect.

As for the general question of discussing the forbidden topic, this thread seems to be a good spot for examining the rules while living within them. I wouldn't do it anywhere else on this forum.

Chronicled:

PM. CCs available upon request.

[Robin_Sure]

I find the thing that amuses me the most, is that the more infantile the subject of a board is, the most strict the mods get. Mods get incredibly petty when the subject is something of a cult popularity, whereas on much bigger boards, it's a lot more relaxed. I think smaller boards just allow more room for the crazed hegemony to arise.

[Illiterate Scribe]

We still refer back to 'Being Batman' and, if we use any invective about it at all, curse about how it was efficient enough to ruin the game for other playstyles of 3.5 players. Using someone's works seems to be OK. I would, if I were a moderator, let the signature quotes remain; they are glorifying a witty comment and the poster who made it, but while the poster was still an active board member. Signature quotes which popped up after a banning would be suspect.

Seems a little like a compromise - an example of moderator discretion trumping the forum rules in a positive way.


As for the general question of discussing the forbidden topic, this thread seems to be a good spot for examining the rules while living within them. I wouldn't do it anywhere else on this forum.

Hmm ... for any mods reading, I'd like some sort of confirmation of this. Some people's idea of 'sneaking up behind' might not be another's.

[Bayar]

I find the thing that amuses me the most, is that the more infantile the subject of a board is, the most strict the mods get. Mods get incredibly petty when the subject is something of a cult popularity, whereas on much bigger boards, it's a lot more relaxed. I think smaller boards just allow more room for the crazed hegemony to arise.

Because smaller forums cant afford to ban alot of members. They would lose toomuch of their limited comunity. Larger forums are like MMORPG's. The bigger you are, the more bans you can give without losing popularity.

Take World of Warcraft for example. They ban more users in a week than alot of other online games have players.

[DeathQuaker]

I think that the fact that this conversation continues on, even when some have questioned the mods' use of their power--shows that the mods are NOT power-hungry. They could've locked this discussion from the start for fear of some of the very questions that've come up. Thankfully, so far people, mods and non-mods alike, have handled the discussion reasonably and cordially.

So yay for that. :smallsmile:

My thoughts on some stuff discussed here:

1. Permabanning vs. brief suspensions

I think on the message boards where there are temporary "bans" (I'd call this a suspension, more than a "ban"), these essentially serve as warnings. After users receive a number of these suspensions/warnings, they're banned permanently.

Here, it works the same way, only the warnings are merely verbal and don't come with actual suspensions. I'd like to think is for a good reason--that the site admins and mods are giving the poster the benefit of the doubt that all they need is the warning, without suspension, that they've crossed a line.

I'm actually saddened by the idea that posters need MORE discipline than what is provided by the multiple warnings=ban system this site uses. Maybe it's true--I'm not the best judge--but I still find it unfortunate.

2. "Tell us why someone was banned."

My vote is no. Why someone was banned may involve personal issues, and I personally appreciate that those personal issues are kept from the public view of the community.

Also, I don't need to know why a given poster was banned, because I already essentially know already--it's because they broke the rules, probably on many, many different occasions. The rules of this forum are pretty explicit and as far as I've seen, pretty consistently enforced, so I know they did at least one of those things listed in the rules multiple times.

"But I never knew thus-and-such-username was considered a multi-infraction meanie." Remember that this is a HUGE forum, and I've noticed that some people will only regularly read certain subforums while avoiding others. In the handful of subforums I read, I have noticed that some posters who do post in multiple subforums may be totally friendly in one forum while causing nothing but trouble in another. For a hypothetical example, thus-and-such-username might offer valued dating advice in "Friendly Banter," but is constantly starting 4e vs 3.5 flamewars in "Gaming (d20 and general RPGs)." If you're a poster who mostly sticks around in "Friendly Banter" and never read the RPG forum, you might not be aware of the trouble thus-and-such-username was stirring up in that forum. As I've been able to observe, none of the bans I'm aware of have ever come out of nowhere--it just may look like that if you're not reading the right conversations.

[Roland St. Jude]

Also, I have a question for Our Beloved Moderators:

Solo was being discussed in another thread.

Y'see, I've seen, scattered here and there (in many, many, sigs, in fact) quotes from Solo. Should I report everyone bearing such quotes for their Inappropriate-ness? What exactly counts as 'glorifying'?

Furthermore, by 'discussing' this topic at all, am I breaking the rules? Is there any facility for meta-discussion without infringing them?

The quoted discussion about the banned poster should not continue, clearly. Quotes in sigs of past things said aren't really a problem. Comments about the poster themselves, good or bad, aren't appropriate though, in posts or sigs.

As for the meta-discussion question, there is some leeway here for discussing the rules. But we still wouldn't allow the discussion of a specific banned poster any more than we'd allow flaming here just because we're talking about what is flaming.

As always, if your question or comment is about a specific instance of moderation, contact a moderator by PM.

[EvilElitest]

on a note about ban length time, i understand why people feel frustrated with it. I mean, mr. X most likely said something nasty and got himself banned, but he wouldn't be considered a menace to the community who only would cause trouble, we've seen plenty of cool funny posts by him (and by Mr. X, i mean some hypothetical figure). I understand your filled with a sense of "Wow, really, i liked this guy, and he got himself banned, how silly). But remember, uncool as it may seem, it isn't like they didn't have appeal warning. I mean, they may have made only one slip up, and it doesn't seem fair, but they were warned, it isn't like it is unexpected. So while it does annoy me, i understand why it makes sense, and the Mods do actually put a lot of consideration into their work.

My only complaint with the banning system is that length of infraction time. I understand it, but it can seems excessive, through the playground has always been pretty honest about being a tight ship
from
EE

[skywalker]

[b]*snipped for length* I concur with everything you said. I just realized, in the course of reading this thread (thanks EE) that all banned posters can still read this thread. But, we can say things about them to which they have no recourse for defense. Just because someone is banned doesn't mean they stop being a person. Ordinarily, when I say something like "Man, Lord Silvanos really doesn't know what he's talking about. That guy knows nothing about 3.5 rules," Silvanos comes along and absolutely proves me wrong, or at least he could. But a banned poster cannot, and in a way, this prevention disallows us an opportunity to bash banned people. Too many forums allow bashing of banned members because they ran afoul of the mods. In fact, it's probably a pretty good way of getting in with the mods on a lot of forums, to brown nose, if you will. Our system allows neither the glorification nor the dehumanization of banned posters, and I really like that. Banned posters shouldn't have to be subjected to their names being sullied anymore than active posters.

And now, a tangent: Roland, I notice a "Super Moderator" under your user name. Did I miss an announcement? What's the difference between a normal and super moderator?

[Deepblue706]

While I think it's sad to see some people go, I can't be too frustrated with the way things work here. This site obviously has some standards, and too many immature and insulting comments degrades things.

Although, having been given an infraction in the past (which I disagree with being appropriate) I can't help but wonder if mods sometimes make the wrong decision. I don't mean to say that any particular admin is unqualified, although I'm sure they're human, and can sometimes make mistakes (which I'm sure is why we can appeal to Wampa). So, I have to ask (if it's not too probing), if anyone can confirm if whether or not, prior to delivering infractions or a full-blown ban, mods are encouraged to collaborate with one-another to get a second opinion, in regards to proper procedure. I haven't seen anyone discuss it, ever.

I mean, it's definitely not the end-of-the-world to be banned from posting here - but I'm sure, it does kinda suck. And, I would like to be reassured that I never have to worry about being banned because I happen to love making non-sequiturs that are sometimes (somehow) interpretted as utterly pathetic insults. Or something equally ridiculous.

[Lord Herman]

And now, a tangent: Roland, I notice a "Super Moderator" under your user name. Did I miss an announcement? What's the difference between a normal and super moderator?

He gets to wear a cape and a tight spandex suit.

[EvilElitest]

A super mod can ban a normal mod. Roland is becoming more powerful, and as he picks off the other mods, soon, there will only be one ok really, i think it is just a cool title
from
EE

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

And now, a tangent: Roland, I notice a "Super Moderator" under your user name. Did I miss an announcement? What's the difference between a normal and super moderator?

Twice the work, half the appreciation. :smallamused:

EDIT:
Ohh, and thank you for believing in my ability to show that I at least know more than nothing about an outdated rules set. :smallwink:

[kpenguin]

Hmm, good, but I'd suggest a few changes...

Leave the "Bad" side alone (except maybe to put a red X through it?), but make these changes to the "Good" side:


Change the guy's hair and shirt colours to demonstrate that its a different person.
Change the shirt to say something like "Generic Flamer" or some such.
Change the smile on Roland's face to something less happy, as having to ban someone isn't exactly fun.


But then it isn't as funny. The joke is that you guys don't sneak up on people with the bannhammer... you whack them with it head-on!:smalltongue:

Here's the less funny but more more accurate banner:

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/banhammer-banner1.gif

[Lord_Asmodeus]

on a note about ban length time, i understand why people feel frustrated with it. I mean, mr. X most likely said something nasty and got himself banned, but he wouldn't be considered a menace to the community who only would cause trouble, we've seen plenty of cool funny posts by him (and by Mr. X, i mean some hypothetical figure). I understand your filled with a sense of "Wow, really, i liked this guy, and he got himself banned, how silly). But remember, uncool as it may seem, it isn't like they didn't have appeal warning. I mean, they may have made only one slip up, and it doesn't seem fair, but they were warned, it isn't like it is unexpected. So while it does annoy me, i understand why it makes sense, and the Mods do actually put a lot of consideration into their work.

My only complaint with the banning system is that length of infraction time. I understand it, but it can seems excessive, through the playground has always been pretty honest about being a tight ship
from
EE

Well, IMO either infractions should be shorter, or permabans should only be for extreme cases, because otherwise it just seems like you can slip up here or there over the course of YEARS, and get banned as a result, which seems to me silly, and extreme.

[Rawhide]

So, I have to ask (if it's not too probing), if anyone can confirm if whether or not, prior to delivering infractions or a full-blown ban, mods are encouraged to collaborate with one-another to get a second opinion, in regards to proper procedure.

Infractions and warnings are recorded and a discussion thread created for all infractions with the original post, infraction/warning and other details included. In there every mod and admin can see and discuss infractions and warnings that have been issued. Additionally, we will often discuss an issue before issuing an infraction or warning if the moderator is uncertain, if the issue is borderline, or for a multitude of other reasons.

I'd also like to alleviate your, and previous poster's, concerns that one mistake made two years ago could result in an accidental 'slip up' resulting in a ban. The forum software does not instantly ban you at 300 infraction points, at that point your infractions and history are reviewed by WampaX and a decision is made.


---



And now, a tangent: Roland, I notice a "Super Moderator" under your user name. Did I miss an announcement? What's the difference between a normal and super moderator?


He gets to wear a cape and a tight spandex suit.

And is able to leap tall forums in a single bound!

The only real difference between a moderator and a super moderator is that a super moderator has a greater responsibility outside their designated forums. On message boards where moderators can only moderate their designated forums, super moderators can moderate any forum. Here, the difference is mostly just a name, designating the greater responsibility, as all moderators can moderate any forum, and will on occasion.

[Robin_Sure]

2. "Tell us why someone was banned."

My vote is no. Why someone was banned may involve personal issues, and I personally appreciate that those personal issues are kept from the public view of the community.


Banning should not occur on a personal issue. If a mod is banning for that reason, they should not be a mod.

[Rawhide]

2. "Tell us why someone was banned."

My vote is no. Why someone was banned may involve personal issues, and I personally appreciate that those personal issues are kept from the public view of the community.
Banning should not occur on a personal issue. If a mod is banning for that reason, they should not be a mod.

She means that the banned poster may have personal issues which they would not want made public, not that the moderation staff had personal bias.

[skywalker]

Here, the difference is mostly just a name, designating the greater responsibility, as all moderators can moderate any forum, and will on occasion. I was aware of this, which is what made me wonder.

Robin, I'm quite sure that's not what he meant. He meant it's personal to the posters, not over personal grudges or the like.

EDIT: She, she. My bad on the original post. Not what she meant, as Rawhide(Ninjadmin) already pointed out.

[kpenguin]

He gets to wear a cape and a tight spandex suit.

It's official: I'm really bored.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/SuperModerator.gif

I think I'll go do some avatar requests now.

[EvilElitest]

Well, IMO either infractions should be shorter, or permabans should only be for extreme cases, because otherwise it just seems like you can slip up here or there over the course of YEARS, and get banned as a result, which seems to me silly, and extreme.

on the bann issue, you don't get instantly banned for getitng 300 points, the mods review your account, so a ban is a pretty well thought out deal. I would say however, that the infraction timing seems a little excessive, but that is my only real complaint with the system
from
EE

[BRC]

It's official: I'm really bored.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/SuperModerator.gif

I think I'll go do some avatar requests now.

Okay, I see a flamer and a troll, religion and politics, but who are the MB's?

[Lord_Asmodeus]

Okay, I see a flamer and a troll, religion and politics, but who are the MB's?

mod bashers maybe?

[EvilElitest]

mod bashers maybe?

major banworthypeople?
from
EE

[Gygaxphobia]

marketing bots?

[Deepblue706]

Marlon Brando clones?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I think we are moving off-topic, which reminds me that Charity... Ehh I mean off-topic posters should also be included on the poster.

This post reminds me that vigilante modders should also be included on the poster. :smalltongue:

So, Mod-Bashers, Spammers, Charity and Pitchfork Wielding Kangaroos.

[Admiral_Kelly]

This post reminds me that vigilante modders should also be included on the poster. :smalltongue:Nah, if moderators are superheros, then vigilante moderators should be anti-heroes. :smalltongue:

[Charity]

I think we are moving off-topic, which reminds me that Charity... Ehh I mean off-topic posters should also be included on the poster.

This post reminds me that vigilante modders should also be included on the poster. :smalltongue:

So, Mod-Bashers, Spammers, Charity and Pitchfork Wielding Kangaroos.

I like to think of myself as a Serious business diffuser, it's a dirty job...
Anyhow arn't you still hiding from the mods after that optrex hijacking last month?

[kpenguin]

MB stands for Multiple Poster. That's why there are three of them.

Anyway, back on topic:

Look, I've never personally been unjustly harmed at the hands of the mods on this board. I've never seen anyone been unjustly harmed at the hands of the mods on this board. I've never seen any sort of malicious intent at the hands of the mods on this board.

Until I do, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[EvilElitest]

oh ok then.


I"m really tempted to simply repeat that sentence three times as a joke, but i don't want to get in trouble
from
EE

[kpenguin]

Added some new villians. Every great superhero needs a great rogues gallery.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/SuperModerator1.gif

[Lord_Asmodeus]

The only one I don't get is the guy with the cardboard head that says EB.

[BRC]

The only one I don't get is the guy with the cardboard head that says EB.

Maybe it's Evil Briefcase.

Also, shouldn't they be MP instead of MB?

[EvilElitest]

Added some new villians. Every great superhero needs a great rogues gallery.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/SuperModerator1.gif

that image isn't working for me sadly
from
EE

[kpenguin]

Try refreshing.

[EvilElitest]

no luck, odd. I'll try on another computor tommorow and just take your word for it that it is well done and funny. I mean you did my avatar
from
EE

[Raging Gene Ray]

The only one I don't get is the guy with the cardboard head that says EB.

Emotional Baggage, probably.

[Arameus]

Change the smile on Roland's face to something less happy, as having to ban someone isn't exactly fun.
[/LIST]

Well, that's all a matter of who's being banned, I guess.:smallwink:

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Well, that's all a matter of who's being banned, I guess.:smallwink:
Besides spammers, banning anyone is not an enjoyable task. And even with the spammers its usually pure aggravation. :smallyuk:

[Nibleswick]

Added some new villians. Every great superhero needs a great rogues gallery.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/SuperModerator1.gif

Fastest Lazer eyes in the west.

[kpenguin]

Besides spammers, banning anyone is not an enjoyable task. And even with the spammers its usually pure aggravation. :smallyuk:

What if you were banning Hitler?

(Yes, I know, Godwin's Law)

[Bayar]

What if you were banning Hitler?

(Yes, I know, Godwin's Law)

Well...he still was a human being...

(wait, is this political discussion ?)

[BRC]

Added some new villians. Every great superhero needs a great rogues gallery.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/SuperModerator1.gif
Edition One, ATTACK OF THE SPAM BOTS

Narrator: It was a normal day in the playground and mild mannered moderator Roland St. Jude was taking a stroll, when suddenly.
Panel shows Roland walking through a tan colored city.

panel 2
Spambot: NOKIA CELL PHONES ONLY 29.99!
Panel shows spambots erupting from the sewers.
Roland: Spambots? Not on my watch, this is a job for SUPER MOD!

[Zar Peter]

First: A big "Thank you" to the mods, without them I don't think this would be the forum I like to lurk around and even post sometimes (even if Supermod threatens to ban me if I and others post in a certain thread again... thanks for the fun Roland!)

Second: I love the way some threads get derailed sometimes... Supermod is great (And maybe we see the whole story in the Arts & Craft section, this would be fun :smallbiggrin:)

[Winterwind]

This seems like as good a place to ask this as any...

I have contact with a banned poster who says that, ever since he got banned, he is not able to even view the forums anymore. I was wondering what the purpose of such a punishment might be, especially if, as I get from this thread, this is not standard procedure?

[Emperor Tippy]

Or he has been IP banned. They have been known to be done on occasion.

[Winterwind]

Or he has been IP banned. They have been known to be done on occasion.That's what he says happened to him, anyway.

[Bayar]

Or he has been IP banned. They have been known to be done on occasion.

Isnt IP banning unnecesary overkill ?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I like to think of myself as a Serious business diffuser, it's a dirty job...

You are good at it. :smallwink:


Anyhow arn't you still hiding from the mods after that optrex hijacking last month?

LOL, I think you should have some more olives...



Isnt IP banning unnecesary overkill ?

Depends on the violation.

[NerfTW]

Isnt IP banning unnecesary overkill ?

You have no idea what the circumstances were. Possible reasons would be continually making new accounts, a DOS attack on the forum, or something extremely serious like trying to spread a virus.

[Emperor Tippy]

Isnt IP banning unnecesary overkill ?

It's generally done to people who have been banned and make a new account.

[Renegade Paladin]

Besides spammers, banning anyone is not an enjoyable task. And even with the spammers its usually pure aggravation. :smallyuk:
I don't know; I've had fun with it. Of course, that was in the case of an invasion from Troll Kingdom, so it's a little different from run-of-the-mill banning. :smallamused: It also helps when you only ban people who truly deserve it; if they do, there's no niggling guilt about it. :smalltongue:

[Meat Shield]

I hate to be unoriginal, but I need to jump in here and give kudos to the mods for the work they do here. Like Matthew and the others, any bans I know about have caught me completely unsurprised. Many times, it was more of a feeling of "it was about time!"

In the spirit of disclosure, I have never run afoul of a mod warning, so I am not the target audience for the forum rules I think. Also, I don't think I have ever posted to Friendly Banter, so I have not made any extensive, non-gaming related relationships with anyone here.

I am, however, the beneficiary of the forum rules in this way. I am older than most of you whippersnappers out there ("Move over, Matthew - lemme sit down. Matlock's comin' on!"), so I am a little more resistant to the antagonistic spirit that some bring to online boards. Snippy responses, snarky attitude, unwillingness to have a balanced and mature discussion - I saw all of these as common traits for those that have gotten banned. No matter how cagey the posts from these people, they will cross the line at some point. Eventually, they do it several times. Points accumulate, they get warnings, do not learn, continue, and eventually get banned. They leave, and my forum experience improves because I don't have to consciously ignore their posts anymore like I used to. Yes, I had to consciously ignore some posters because I did not want to read their drivel.

The mods work very hard and patiently to give me a place to relax and post and discuss items of interest to me. For this I thank them.

[Pinnacle]

They leave, and my forum experience improves because I don't have to consciously ignore their posts anymore like I used to. Yes, I had to consciously ignore some posters because I did not want to read their drivel.

I've never used it, but this forum does have an ignore list function. Go to the user's profile and you'll see a link that says something like "Add this poster to your ignore list."

EDIT: *Tries it out.*
I see a square that tells me that you posted there, but that's it.

[Meat Shield]

Yeah, I tried that. The very next thread had a post by one of them that I actually needed to read to understand everything that came after. Blocking posters is the greater of two evils in my opinion, because I would rather ignore a post based on someones avatar (best way to pick them out easily) and skip ahead than have it blocked. That way if I need to read the post for some reason, I just do so. No extra physical effort required as there would be for blocking someone - makes for faster reading of the forums.

EDIT:
And I hope I'm not on your ignore list! I take it back whatever it was! :smalltongue:

[Pinnacle]

Yeah, I tried that. The very next thread had a post by one of them that I actually needed to read to understand everything that came after.
Yeah, tried it once on another forum and had that same problem. 'Swhy I never used it here.


And I hope I'm not on your ignore list! I take it back whatever it was! :smalltongue:
Just to see exactly what it did, since there was a post from you right there I could check. I took you back off.

[skywalker]

("Move over, Matthew - lemme sit down. Matlock's comin' on!")

I sat down with my mom to watch Matlock today. It was a lot crappier than I remembered it being.

I also really like supermod. I'm glad I was somewhat involved in the germination of the idea :smallcool:

[kpenguin]

I sat down with my mom to watch Matlock today. It was a lot crappier than I remembered it being.

I also really like supermod. I'm glad I was somewhat involved in the germination of the idea :smallcool:

I actually had the idea a long time ago. It was back when there was the Moderator IA contest and I decided to make Roland a superhero fighting various offenses. Here was my entry:

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/Rolandvs.png

Yeah, my art's come a long way since then.

[skywalker]

Here was my entry:

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/Rolandvs.png

Yeah, my art's come a long way since then.

That's still pretty BA :smallsmile: What about all the other Mods, tho? I think we need a mod-justice-league.

[Matthew]

I am, however, the beneficiary of the forum rules in this way. I am older than most of you whippersnappers out there ("Move over, Matthew - lemme sit down. Matlock's comin' on!"), so I am a little more resistant to the antagonistic spirit that some bring to online boards.

I was going to say, "Hey I am only 29", but the truth is, most people on this forum probably are younger than that... As for Matlock, I don't think I have ever seen an episode; now, McGuyver I would probably watch. Actually I was watching Robin of Sherwood this evening and thinking how much better it is than any other recent offering, pseudo Celtic/Saxon/Pagan tropes and all

[Renegade Paladin]

I also really like supermod. I'm glad I was somewhat involved in the germination of the idea :smallcool:
Hate to break it to you, kid, but supermod has been a fairly standard term for a moderator with authority in all forums on a board for a long time. You hardly made it up. :smalltongue:

[Meat Shield]

"Hey I am only 29"

Mein gott I am old.

<shakes his wizened little fist at those darned kids on my lawn>

[Charity]

I was going to say, "Hey I am only 29", but the truth is, most people on this forum probably are younger than that... As for Matlock, I don't think I have ever seen an episode; now, McGuyver I would probably watch. Actually I was watching Robin of Sherwood this evening and thinking how much better it is than any other recent offering, pseudo Celtic/Saxon/Pagan tropes and all


Ah but you have the heart and soul of an octagenarian Matt... and you really should think about giving that back to the poor old duffer.

I'm with you on the Robin of Sherwood issue, and none of that nancy blond haired Jason Connery malarky, Michael Praed is the Robin of choice.

And Meat, I dunno if it helps but I have a few years on Matt too. *crumbles softly to dust*

[Meat Shield]

Thanks Charity. What really helps is that you are older than me. :smallbiggrin: Don't worry, plenty of room for you at the old folks home with me.

[Matthew]

Jason Connery... he has his moments, but compared to Michael Praed he is the definition of 'wooden'. Yeah, I am old by association it seems.

[wxdruid]

And I'm older than all three of you...

So, get off my lawn and go find El J...

[Rawhide]

Alright... The question has been asked and answered as well as a few other questions asked and answered. This thread has now gone wildly off-topic and is being closed.