PDA

View Full Version : Banned Users



cyswxman
2005-Sep-05, 02:31 PM
Just curious. Are those which were banned on the BABB still banned on this board, or can they return?

Fraser
2005-Sep-05, 02:34 PM
We have only banned one person, so far. Right now we're giving a temporary amnesty.

Fram
2005-Sep-05, 03:04 PM
Will we use this thread as a new start for the 'Banned users' thread we had on BABB? In that case, ProjectOrion is the first one of the new list!

Kesh
2005-Sep-05, 04:25 PM
I think it's a good idea. Start from scratch and get a list for the new board.

Could we get this thread (or a new one) stickied for that purpose?

Fraser
2005-Sep-05, 04:30 PM
I feel really uncomfortable about putting emphasis on all the banned folks and talking behind their backs. I'd rather they just disappeared, no fuss no muss. It's probably unrealistic, but I don't even want to spare extra brain power on it at all. The only value I see is for people to learn from others' mistakes. But then, how hard is it to understand the concept, "be nice"?

Tranquility
2005-Sep-05, 04:35 PM
The only value I see is for people to learn from others' mistakes. But then, how hard is it to understand the concept, "be nice"?

Then again if it was so easy to implement "being nice" nobody would get banned ;)

Moose
2005-Sep-05, 07:15 PM
I feel really uncomfortable about putting emphasis on all the banned folks and talking behind their backs.

To be honest, I agree with you. Without specifying which, I'd left several boards because of a history of back-biting and gossip.

But that's why the banned persons thread is so useful. The reason for a banning is documented, no big fuss to be made, and we move on. Otherwise, the subject keeps coming back over and over again: "Why did so-and-so get banned?", "Was it fair?", etc.

And Sleepy made an excellent point on the other thread.


Also, they may have made excellant posts in the past answering questions etc. If suddenly all there posts vanish the board wll lose that resource.

To amplify, we occasionally get hopeless trolls creating woo-threads, with masterful debunkings (often, coincidentally enough, by JayUtah). If all of their posts and threads are deleted, the replies go too. Including the posts that happen to be worth preserving intact, and in context.

On a visceral level, I had a post in one of projectorion's threads. It wasn't much of a post, nothing I can't reproduce at will given similar circumstances, but I find myself resenting (more than it's worth, but there it is) that it was removed essentially to try out a new feature.


Anyway, it gives me a chance to test out some forum functionality.

For what it's worth, and while I realize some things are necessarily going to change, I think this is important enough to request that there be a clear consensus between the admin on this matter.

Gillianren
2005-Sep-05, 07:17 PM
I don't so much care about making it sticky, but I think there's a valid point to be served in having a Banned Users thread. there have been times when someone disappears from one thread for having gotten banned over behavior in another, and it's good to have one concrete place to find out why. what I found interesting--and this may have been due to the excellent values Phil's instilled in us--was that we were still way more interested in where the person's ideas were wrong than where the person was wrong.

Nereid
2005-Sep-06, 12:34 AM
So, a question if I may: in my experience, on several fora as a mod, there are folk who register and whose first post pretty much makes it clear what their intention is.

I'm talking of spam advertising of the most blatant kind (blatant, given the forum's stated rules, reasons for existance, etc). Examples include porn (it can be mildly amusing to see how many English phrases can be used to convey the message 'we have lots and lots of porn on our site'), 'cheap software', cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, gambling, 'prescription' medicines, and 'misplaced Nigerian millions'.

I put it to all readers of this thread that there is so little benefit available, in the best of all possible worlds, from including folk who engage in this kind of activity in a 'banned posters' thread that the 'default mode' for mods is by far the best - delete on sight, permanently ban the 'member'.

Regarding folk who were previously banned - either in BA, or UT, or both - if despite an amnesty, their behaviour is egregiously 'not nice', what is to be gained by advertising (and discussing) the fact(s)? If there is a very strong case to be made that they were trolling, surely the existance of such discussions counts as a success for their efforts?

Curious Nereid

Josh
2005-Sep-06, 12:48 AM
To be honest, I agree with you. Without specifying which, I'd left several boards because of a history of back-biting and gossip.

But that's why the banned persons thread is so useful. The reason for a banning is documented, no big fuss to be made, and we move on. Otherwise, the subject keeps coming back over and over again: "Why did so-and-so get banned?", "Was it fair?", etc.

And Sleepy made an excellent point on the other thread.


Also, they may have made excellant posts in the past answering questions etc. If suddenly all there posts vanish the board wll lose that resource.

To amplify, we occasionally get hopeless trolls creating woo-threads, with masterful debunkings (often, coincidentally enough, by JayUtah). If all of their posts and threads are deleted, the replies go too. Including the posts that happen to be worth preserving intact, and in context.

For what it's worth, and while I realize some things are necessarily going to change, I think this is important enough to request that there be a clear consensus between the admin on this matter.

We don't expect bannings to be a staple event. If the moderators/admin as a group (and It'll always be as a group) decide to ban someone it'll be for a very good reason and always as a last resort. I guess it comes down to whether or not you trust us - the mods along with Fraser and Phil - to make the right decision that's best for the board?

XENON_PLASMA
2005-Sep-06, 01:06 AM
Exactly if you can't trust the mods/admins then who can you trust? ;) it all basically comes down to common sense and nettiquette. If you can't abide by the rules given out by the admins/mods or you flaunt the rules constantly despite warnings to the contrary then you don't belong here or on any other forum online. Simple as that.

Moose
2005-Sep-06, 01:07 AM
It's not as bad as you might think, Nereid. Hit-and-run trolls never draw much comment, if any at all. What little attention projectorion's banning drew was unusually high, and pretty much only because we're still sorting out a common procedure.

You typically only see a significant amount of conversation when there's something unusual about the banning, especially when a popular regular gets banned.

It's a pity you didn't have a chance to browse the old banned posters thread for a few pages to see what was involved. It was pretty terse. The extent of conversation about the vast majority of the bannings, trolls included, was "SoAndSo, banned for offense." And that's it.

If trolls somehow get their jollies from that, then I suppose I won't lose sleep over it. They're gone in any case.

Moose
2005-Sep-06, 01:26 AM
Josh, no offense, but I don't know you. (Yet.) Trust takes time and effort to build.

Actually, there was a case not that long ago where Phil had to reverse a pair of bannings. Because Phil is transparent about his reasoning, because we knew why Phil had banned these two posters, the membership pretty much as a whole had been able to determine that Phil had misread the situation. The resulting protest (which was epic) caused Phil to review the situation and correct the mistake. (It is definitely a mark in Phil's favor that he is willing to do so, rather than bury his mistakes.)

Now, I suppose its ultimately up to the modship how transparent you intend to be, but you need to understand that (speaking for myself only) the reason I trust Phil's modship implicitly is because he explains his official actions, and as such gives us an opportunity to appeal when it is warranted.

Josh
2005-Sep-06, 01:38 AM
None taken ... I'm not saying we aren't going to be open about it. I'm just wondering if there's as much a need for it as some others do. i don't mind either way. In the past Phil was the lone wolf handling everything. Bannings and the the like will now be debated and deliberated on by 15 of us.

Regardless of the level of transparency, if anyone has any concerns about any moderation actions they can message us directly - that's what we're here for. If anyone is having a problem with a moderator they can message Fraser and Phil. Not that that'll be happening ... we're a lovely bunch of coconuts.

Fraser
2005-Sep-06, 01:42 AM
Both Phil and I are totally dedicated to transparency; however, there's a certain level of material that's just SPAM, and that's where you need to have faith that we're just ganking that stuff. Banning is actually a marginally effective deterrent. Any reasonably technical person can easily circumvent the ban and start posting again. At some point you just add that person to a delete on sight list and make posting on the forum as unpleasant as possible. So, the situation leading up to the ban will be transparent, but the following battle will probably happen behind the scenes.

It was a little harder on UT because I had several sections that allowed guests to post. I think I ended up banning 5 people in more than 2 years. I think I'm the pushover parent compared to Phil. :-)

Moose
2005-Sep-06, 01:49 AM
Right, actually, I have no real concerns on that score. I trust Phil, ToSeek and Wolverine having had plenty of time to get their measure over the past few years. I have no doubt the rest of you will earn my trust before long.

The banned posters thread really doesn't have all that much to do with trust on its face. It's just a user-maintained log so we don't have to pester you guys with questions whenever someone disappears. It's not like you guys actually have to post in it. Phil never did. His ban notices were posted in the offending thread (which is where the transparency comes in). Absolutely anybody can add to the log when something comes up.

It's proven to be a benefit in the past, and I suspect the BABBers will ultimately maintain it regardless, if only out of habit.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Sep-06, 01:52 AM
Josh, no offense, but I don't know you. (Yet.) Trust takes time and effort to build.

Actually, there was a case not that long ago where Phil had to reverse a pair of bannings. Because Phil is transparent about his reasoning, because we knew why Phil had banned these two posters, the membership pretty much as a whole had been able to determine that Phil had misread the situation. The resulting protest (which was epic) caused Phil to review the situation and correct the mistake. (It is definitely a mark in Phil's favor that he is willing to do so, rather than bury his mistakes.)

Now, I suppose its ultimately up to the modship how transparent you intend to be, but you need to understand that (speaking for myself only) the reason I trust Phil's modship implicitly is because he explains his official actions, and as such gives us an opportunity to appeal when it is warranted.
That, and Phil's Just A NICE Guy ...

The Same Goes for ToSeek and Wolverine!!!

The Little I've Seen of Fraser, so far, Seems to Suggest he's Cut, from The Same Cloth.

And, as for you, Josh, Well, It's Hard, Not to Like, A Fellow Trekkie ...

Lance
2005-Sep-06, 02:03 AM
Bannings and the the like will now be debated and deliberated on by 15 of us.Emphasis added.

Oh, just watch... Now all the mods will get into fights over particular bannings and they'll end up having to ban each other.

Josh
2005-Sep-06, 02:05 AM
Nah .. we just go in and edit eachother's posts to make us sound dumb.

antoniseb
2005-Sep-06, 02:08 AM
Oh, just watch... Now all the mods will get into fights over particular bannings and they'll end up having to ban each other.
I know this was said in a light spirit, but just to reassure you, most of the mods have been working together on the UT forum, including ToSeek, and Wolverine. I haven't yet seen a disagreement about a banning. Discussion yes, and some variation as to how many more chances to give someone, but it never was something that any of us could take personally. It is a good team made of agreeable people (except maybe me).

Josh
2005-Sep-06, 02:09 AM
I agree.


...see?

Lance
2005-Sep-06, 02:17 AM
...see?

Yes. I feel much better now.

Thanks!

Zarkov
2005-Sep-08, 12:26 AM
>> We have only banned one person, so far. Right now we're giving a temporary amnesty.


as maybe the only banned poster, I would like a "Bill of Rights" drawn up

where

(a) If a poster is taunted by others for their understanding, then the taunters AND NOT the poster should be moderated.

(b) If a poster finds they disagree with a mod on matters technical, then the mod must not use their greater power to moderate the poster... equal rights

I would also like to see the reasons for banning discussed in an open and fair manner.

From my extensive experience, posters get banned upon a whim
and whims are not documented before hand.... quite unfair, IMO.

But this is your forum, I just wish you would control the loons [by deleting their off topic and personal remarks]

Serious discussion on some subjects is very instructive to all concerned.

Thanks

antoniseb
2005-Sep-08, 12:41 AM
as maybe the only banned poster, I would like a "Bill of Rights" drawn up

Hi Zarkov, you've been talked to, and two of your alternate personnas were asaked to not show up anymore, but you are not the banned member.

Concerning your proposed Bill of Rights, it comes at a good time. We are now working on the specifics of how to moderate the board and your concern about taunting banned people is something that IS important, and hasn't really been discussed by the team yet. Thanks.

I can tell you that one of our goals is to keep the forum pleasant and organized enough that it is reasonable for middle-school libraries to have it as a reference. We would also like it to be informational enough that you don't have to look hard within a topic to find the content you want. Both of these goals require both moderation, and friendly cooperation from the members.

The general drift of things concerning our standards and procedures (which are still not defined) look as though they will be mostly open to the degree that we will not hide why we've done things.

Zarkov
2005-Sep-08, 01:20 AM
Thanks, that sounds both positive and considered.

If you succeed, it will be a first for a net forum.

There are a LOT of cross-forum stalkers who set a negative mood, and the drones buzz in.

Thanks for listening.

Maksutov
2005-Sep-08, 04:31 AM
>> We have only banned one person, so far. Right now we're giving a temporary amnesty.


as maybe the only banned poster, I would like a "Bill of Rights" drawn up

where

(a) If a poster is taunted by others for their understanding, then the taunters AND NOT the poster should be moderated.

(b) If a poster finds they disagree with a mod on matters technical, then the mod must not use their greater power to moderate the poster... equal rights

I would also like to see the reasons for banning discussed in an open and fair manner.

From my extensive experience, posters get banned upon a whim
and whims are not documented before hand.... quite unfair, IMO.

But this is your forum, I just wish you would control the loons [by deleting their off topic and personal remarks]

Serious discussion on some subjects is very instructive to all concerned.

Thanks
This post requires some history to put its various claims and misinformation into perspective.

It's best if Zarkov speaks for himself. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=426238&postcount=127)

A taunter complaining about being taunted. Now, there's a first.

Concerning the so-called "taunting" of Zarkov, Phil summed it up best. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=426572&postcount=140)

'nuff said.

Josh
2005-Sep-08, 04:35 AM
This post requires some history to put its various claims and misinformation into perspective.

It's best if Zarkov speaks for himself. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=426238&postcount=127)

A taunter complaining about being taunted. Now, there's a first.

Concerning the so-called "taunting" of Zarkov, Phil summed it up best. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=426572&postcount=140)

'nuff said.

Well then, it seems (read "we hope") that there are people out there who can see the errors of their ways and come back refreshed and play nice with everyone. It's a good thing and shouldn't be knocked. Nor should the past be dredged up again to use against them if they aren't getting out of line.

Duane
2005-Sep-08, 04:37 AM
(except maybe me).

Bahh hah hah!!! And that dang Tiina. And Galaxy Girl, watch out for her!!!

:) ;) :p :) :D

Maksutov
2005-Sep-08, 04:50 AM
Well then, it seems (read "we hope") that there are people out there who can see the errors of their ways and come back refreshed and play nice with everyone. It's a good thing and shouldn't be knocked. Nor should the past be dredged up again to use against them if they aren't getting out of line. The two past posts were referenced to correct the non-factual claims and misinformation in Zarkov's post earlier in this thread. His methods continue. Perhaps seeing proof of this will help him correct the errors in his post and the error of his ways.

Zarkov
2005-Sep-08, 05:05 AM
>> Well, it appears that when backed into a corner by people who actually know what they're talking about, Zarkov cut and ran.


as if, edited

no use talking to a dragon breathing fire on you, the noise level becomes so loud that communication fails completely.

As for "misinformation"

well that is YOUR subjective opinion.....

LOL

You guys are just soooooooooooooooooo funny in your tainted knowledge...

It is not even YOURS, you plagiarise it from other sources and yet you defend it to the hilt ?

suggestion,,,,,,, Listen closely to other people's opinions, ask questions, respect that their opinion might be THEIR OWN, and at the least respect that.


Most people are good natured enough to explain, [as much as THEY are willing to] and if they do not wish to open out completely.... jump into their head and try to figure out what they may be thinking.

Science is a never ending story.... for you guys it ended yesterday.....

LOL

Josh
2005-Sep-08, 05:15 AM
Zarkov, we're working on one rule at the moment, "be nice" .. so .. be nice.

Zarkov
2005-Sep-08, 05:21 AM
Hi Mod Josh, nice to meet you

mmmh, never though that questioning the absolute truth of present knowledge was not being nice. I am trying very hard to remain objective AND polite.

This is the first rule of science..... **question**, and if you think you know, question again.

Arrogant knowledge is the curse of science.

see all the "put down and destroyed scientists" in history.

If you are going to stand on the platform that you et al KNOWS ALL

then I will not last many more posts.

LOL

But YOU et al have the power.... but do you have the wisdom to have the mind of a "scientist".

Josh
2005-Sep-08, 05:23 AM
You (and everyone else) can question ideas but don't attack the person. That was what i edited. Thanks

Zarkov
2005-Sep-08, 05:26 AM
>> don't attack the person

good rule..... your forum may succeed yet...

intensive monitoring though.......

But great effort.

mmmh nice to see

bye

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Sep-08, 05:31 AM
You seem to be mistaken opinions with facts, and ideas with truth.

The function if this board is not just the exchange of ideas,
but the unveiling of truth and the unmasking of falsehoods.


If you bring before us an idea that clashes with how the universe is thought
to work, we all will be intrigued. But don't expect us to except it at face value.
You will have to produce evidence, and lots of it, before you will be taken seriously.


This is the process by which human knowledge and understanding is
expanded. And slowly but surely we will get closer to the truth.

Zarkov
2005-Sep-08, 05:34 AM
>> A taunter complaining about being taunted. Now, there's a first.

Concerning the so-called "taunting" of Zarkov, >>

>> For those who aren't familiar with him, Zarkov presented an argument on the BABB that comets were made of hydrogen peroxide and the Deep Impact mission would be catastrophic. He didn't respond to evidence or argument and eventually edited/deleted most of his posts in the discussion thread. He was banned after that. AFAIK, he still believes that comets are made of hydrogen peroxide, and probably has other ... interesting ... ideas as well.
Reply With Quote >>

>> Bob, quick prediction: Zarkov won't provide a straight answer, will probably ignore most of the questions, and will ignore any references provided.

I'm hoping he'll prove me wrong, but frankly, I think it is futile to ask him questions. >>

<< Don't anyone try to convince Zarkov.In fact,don't even argue with him.He is not worth it.Hey Zarkov,if you have all that,show us..After that,leave us alone. >>

>> In Zarkov's world, Japan & France are the same place, and he has the website & calculations to prove it, but doesn't want to let us know as the derivations are beyond our restricted four-dimensional understanding. >>.

Nah I won't go on with this.... but you may get some understanding of the trashing of topics I wish to persue.

Good luck guys, but the battle is all uphill.