On permanent banning
-
- Posts: 4308
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
On permanent banning
Firstly, I do not think that the moderators should be involved in the composition of the Forum Policy; their job is to enforce it. Forum Policy should be in the hands of an administrator. If you look at the Forum Policy you will see that it was published by counting_pine. My understanding is that counting_pine can moderate. He has indicated that he dislikes getting involved in disputes. I respect that.
So we have four moderators:
coderJeff
fxm
Imortis
paul doe
I think that most of us do not agree that a single moderator should be allowed to issue a permanent ban.
If we have a unanimous decision protocol then if one moderator was vehemently against a permanent ban then we would never see one. I believe that under exceptional circumstances, a permanent ban would be the best course of action. With the current team I doubt that two or more are against a permanent ban; if any are.
So, I propose a permanent ban should be issued only if at least three moderators agree.
I think the number agreeing to a ban should be published; without naming them. With the above protocol, that would be three or four. With four, I believe that the membership should accept that. With three, then the membership should be allowed to question the decision. If one or more of the three changed their mind, then the ban should be lifted.
With the recent jj2007 saga, we know that one moderator was for a permanent ban. I have a feeling that one other would have agreed. As for three or more, I am not so sure. I am not a betting man, but if I had to make a bet, then I would reckon that we would probably have seen three for a permanent ban. In any event, the outcome would cause less of an issue than the one we saw with jj2007 where it was felt that one moderator had gone it alone; although it seems that was not the case and some discussion did occur.
Notice that with the above protocol, a moderator-in-chief is not a requirement – with permanent banning, all moderators would have an equal ranking. To my mind, resting on one moderator's shoulders is too much of a burden.
In a nutshell, then, I propose that at least three moderators should agree to a permanent ban before one can be issued.
So we have four moderators:
coderJeff
fxm
Imortis
paul doe
I think that most of us do not agree that a single moderator should be allowed to issue a permanent ban.
If we have a unanimous decision protocol then if one moderator was vehemently against a permanent ban then we would never see one. I believe that under exceptional circumstances, a permanent ban would be the best course of action. With the current team I doubt that two or more are against a permanent ban; if any are.
So, I propose a permanent ban should be issued only if at least three moderators agree.
I think the number agreeing to a ban should be published; without naming them. With the above protocol, that would be three or four. With four, I believe that the membership should accept that. With three, then the membership should be allowed to question the decision. If one or more of the three changed their mind, then the ban should be lifted.
With the recent jj2007 saga, we know that one moderator was for a permanent ban. I have a feeling that one other would have agreed. As for three or more, I am not so sure. I am not a betting man, but if I had to make a bet, then I would reckon that we would probably have seen three for a permanent ban. In any event, the outcome would cause less of an issue than the one we saw with jj2007 where it was felt that one moderator had gone it alone; although it seems that was not the case and some discussion did occur.
Notice that with the above protocol, a moderator-in-chief is not a requirement – with permanent banning, all moderators would have an equal ranking. To my mind, resting on one moderator's shoulders is too much of a burden.
In a nutshell, then, I propose that at least three moderators should agree to a permanent ban before one can be issued.
-
- Posts: 4308
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: On permanent banning
With regard MrSwiss because 'civil and polite' was not in his vocabulary and probably would never be then a three out of four for a permanent ban in my view would have been a strong possibility. With four out of four the 'Observations' thread should not have started. Well, it might have been with the same author, but it would most likely not run as long as it did.
Re: On permanent banning
This is a good idea. But it needs one alteration.
If they say three, then you just accept that they didn't all agree and don't take it as a green light to go bully one of them into doing what you want because this time it was your mate instead of someone you wanted gone.
You should submit some code then you wouldn't need this loophole, you'd already have a direct line to management! I've got one, it's great. You should see the fantastic shirts Imortis wears.
If they say three, then you just accept that they didn't all agree and don't take it as a green light to go bully one of them into doing what you want because this time it was your mate instead of someone you wanted gone.
You should submit some code then you wouldn't need this loophole, you'd already have a direct line to management! I've got one, it's great. You should see the fantastic shirts Imortis wears.
-
- Posts: 4308
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: On permanent banning
@adeyblue
I don't understand your second paragraph. Can you come at me from a different angle? I don't understand the third paragraph either, but it is the second one that I am interested in.
I don't understand your second paragraph. Can you come at me from a different angle? I don't understand the third paragraph either, but it is the second one that I am interested in.
-
- Posts: 4308
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: On permanent banning
A clarification:
When Albert and MrSwiss were banned, my understanding was that coderJeff consulted the other moderators. However, when only coderJeff's name is on the banning order any resulting flack would be aimed at him, and we would not know if any moderator disagreed.
With 4/0 we know that all moderators agreed. With 3/1 and the names not published, we don't know who agreed. In either case, the resulting flack, if any, could not be aimed at just one moderator.
When Albert and MrSwiss were banned, my understanding was that coderJeff consulted the other moderators. However, when only coderJeff's name is on the banning order any resulting flack would be aimed at him, and we would not know if any moderator disagreed.
With 4/0 we know that all moderators agreed. With 3/1 and the names not published, we don't know who agreed. In either case, the resulting flack, if any, could not be aimed at just one moderator.
Re: On permanent banning
I accepted wearing the target well before now. It would be unfair to blame those helping the project or me directly. Knowledge of who agreed or not is irrelevant. And in the end, if they no longer have interest or can't help for some reason, I'll be left to answer for it all anyway, lest I find myself replaced.deltarho[1859] wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2022 7:50 When Albert and MrSwiss were banned, my understanding was that coderJeff consulted the other moderators. However, when only coderJeff's name is on the banning order any resulting flack would be aimed at him, and we would not know if any moderator disagreed.
There have been and still are some members that make this forum an unhappy place. The moderators have done the best they can with the tools I've been able to provide. You may remember Richard's view on this: viewtopic.php?t=27366
Last 2 months I spend all my time upgrading and learning the forum software to learn what is actually possible so we can have different options; ideally better options. And unfortunately I have spent zero time on the compiler.
-
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Jan 01, 2009 7:03
- Location: Australia
Re: On permanent banning
@coderJeff
And thank you coderJeff for all the time you have put into the forum upgrade and the FreeBASIC language.
I am sorry to read that. I have always been happy on the forum oblivious no doubt to all the issues others have had. No other member has made me feel unhappy to have been here.There have been and still are some members that make this forum an unhappy place.
And thank you coderJeff for all the time you have put into the forum upgrade and the FreeBASIC language.
-
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Nov 28, 2012 1:27
- Location: CA, USA moving to WA, USA
- Contact:
Re: On permanent banning
Yes, happy and appreciate all the time any of the moderators have spent on the forums, even when I might disagree.
Managing the forums is not why they arrived at FB.
Folks: this isn't a democracy.
The moderators and admins 'floated' to the top because they were willing to commit.
The rest of us were not. We can all express our opinions, but they are doing the work.
If you are not happy - step up, express, or get out.
Too many rules and THEY will leave, as one other premier admin/developer did recently.
Advice has been given; time to quit this topic and leave them alone.
david
Managing the forums is not why they arrived at FB.
Folks: this isn't a democracy.
The moderators and admins 'floated' to the top because they were willing to commit.
The rest of us were not. We can all express our opinions, but they are doing the work.
If you are not happy - step up, express, or get out.
Too many rules and THEY will leave, as one other premier admin/developer did recently.
Advice has been given; time to quit this topic and leave them alone.
david
Re: On permanent banning
@speedfixer
I agree with you wholeheartedly
I agree with you wholeheartedly
-
- Posts: 4308
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: On permanent banning
@ coderJeffcoderJeff wrote:I accepted wearing the target well before now.
Ok, but one of these days it may get a bit much and one or more events may see you think something like "make me not want to be involved in the forum". This will not be good for you and not good for the forum.
With that in mind, I came up with the above idea. Its primary function is to reduce the burden on you, Jeff.
There is a secondary function. To my mind, it is obvious from the recent jj2007 saga that the current system has weaknesses. I believe that the above goes some way to reduce some weaknesses.
I don't.srvaldez wrote:@speedfixer
I agree with you wholeheartedly
How many times have we all heard: “Wow that was close” and then somebody chips in with: “Yes, but we survived”.
Instead of leaving things as they are, I take the view that changes should be made to reduce the likelihood of ever saying again: “Wow that was close”. The secondary function of the above is designed to do just that.
No, it is time to consider changes now whilst the jj2007 saga is still fresh in our minds.speedfixer wrote:Advice has been given; time to quit this topic and leave them alone.
With regard jj2007 I have advised him that the verdict stands and there is nothing more that I can do. Wouldn't it be nice to ban someone without any regrets? With jj2007 going, we do gain something, but we also lose something as well. The same goes for Albert and MrSwiss. With both of them, we gain something with their departure, but we also lose something as well. This is why a permanent ban is a serious issue.
My idea is not rocket science and can be implemented easily.
I rest my case.
Re: On permanent banning
He came up with another idea, called 'additional moderators'.deltarho[1859] wrote: ↑Feb 26, 2022 22:25 ...
With that in mind, I came up with the above idea. Its primary function is to reduce the burden on you, Jeff.
...
The 'current system', which is used in about every other forum on the planet, has the obnoxious weakness that it doesn't allow us to force moderators to bend to our every whim. That's basically what adeyblue said to you in the above post....
There is a secondary function. To my mind, it is obvious from the recent jj2007 saga that the current system has weaknesses. I believe that the above goes some way to reduce some weaknesses.
...
The implications of this can be concerning, if not for the fact that most other members really have nothing to worry about, because they conduct themselves properly (they don't give us any trouble) and exercise a bit of common sense....I don't.srvaldez wrote:@speedfixer
I agree with you wholeheartedly
How many times have we all heard: “Wow that was close” and then somebody chips in with: “Yes, but we survived”.
Do realize that the only one really concerned with that so far is you....
Instead of leaving things as they are, I take the view that changes should be made to reduce the likelihood of ever saying again: “Wow that was close”. The secondary function of the above is designed to do just that.
...
It all boils down to this: moderation is about cooperation, both between mods, and between members and mods. If members aren't willing to cooperate with us when asked for whatever reason (ie 'call them out'), they give us very little choice. And then, they have no one to blame but themselves.
-
- Posts: 4308
- Joined: Jan 02, 2017 0:34
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: On permanent banning
So, he did, but there is no difference between four moderators and 100 moderators if only two of them can get together and issue someone with a permanent ban.paul doe wrote:He came up with another idea, called 'additional moderators'.
Homosexuality used to be a criminal offence in most countries. That is no longer the case.The 'current system', which is used in about every other forum on the planet
Granted. My concern is the small number who can do a lot of damage.most other members really have nothing to worry about
I may be the only one who has expressed a concern, but that does not mean that I am the only one concerned. I believe that many members have concerns, but wild horses would not be able to drag them here to express them.Do realize that the only one really concerned with that so far is you.
I won't argue with that, and my idea above does not conflict with that.It all boils down to this: moderation is about cooperation, both between mods, and between members and mods. If members aren't willing to cooperate with us when asked for whatever reason (ie 'call them out'), they give us very little choice. And then, they have no one to blame but themselves.
All that I am doing here is to propose an idea which I believe improves upon what we currently have.
At PowerBASIC they have a poll facility built into the forum software. I do not know whether we have that or not.
If we had and these two questions were put down.
Tick one of the following boxes:
1) I am happy with the current system.
2) I think deltarho's idea has merit.
I reckon that more than half of the respondents would tick box two.
Could I be wrong? Of course, I could, but I don't think so.
Re: On permanent banning
I also had an impression: that none of the people who got a permanent ban, here, was banned for something specific they did: they were banned for reiterating a certain unwanted behavior hundreds of times, even after the moderators asked them politely to stop.
So, there is no real risk to ban someone by mistake, for an involuntary slip: people who got banned were fully aware they were doing something wrong, and yet decided to do it.
Also, it didn't really matter about which moderator did the ban, and when: those users would have likely been banned anyway at the next violation
So, there is no real risk to ban someone by mistake, for an involuntary slip: people who got banned were fully aware they were doing something wrong, and yet decided to do it.
Also, it didn't really matter about which moderator did the ban, and when: those users would have likely been banned anyway at the next violation
-
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Dec 02, 2011 22:51
- Location: France
Re: On permanent banning
What should interest us, users, are ethic, ideas and methods rather than put the blame on the decision process.