[Doofy]

...the the moderation team around here isn't such a bunch of pussies that you had to permaban Railroader for his discussing your actions with you?

[turtle777]

I wish I could answer that with a "no, they're not", but alas, this is not all too surprising.

I though the only way to get a temp-ban turned into a perma-ban is to ban-evade.

Seems like "questioning the authorities" is now added to the list.

This is f*cked up.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Our decision to permaban Railroader is not based on any isolated incident. It is not based on him `questioning authority'. We felt that his conduct (and not just recent conduct) in the forums towards both, other members and staff was disruptive and hostile.

A permaban of a long-term member is something exceedingly rare and the decision is based on long-term issues rather than anything that has happened in the last few weeks. We only issue permabans if we feel that other measures have been exhausted and have been found to be ineffective.

Lastly, let me emphasize that this is not a decision made by a staffer who has had a bone to pick with Railroader. Instead, we (= the staff) have discussed and we have reached the decision to permaban him together.

[turtle777]

I feel that the staff around here is increasingly getting a thinner skin.

Let's look back and consider how much it took for Kevin or Rob to get to a point of permaban.
Compared to them, Railroader was an (opinionated) saint.

Yes, RR got into fights, but often enough only after he was baited.

I completely disagree that this warranted a permaban. And I doubt that he was given a fair warning about that, but I'm going to find out from him before I go down that road.

The direction this board is taking is more and more authoritarian and control-freakish.

Let's not be deceived: the increasingly harder and more controlling line has curiously enough happened at the same time that this board became less and less frequented. I know, nobody would admit that these two things are connected. But many around here have that gut feeling. I am one of them.

-t

[subego]

Wow... That's pretty hardcore.

There wasn't any option short of termination?

[brassplayersrock²]

Subego, he was given a timeout for a while (in your words, option short of termination) , I guess when he came back, he messed up somehow, and he was banned.

*I didn't see the thread mentioned above.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

Subego, he was given a timeout for a while (in your words, option short of termination) , I guess when he came back, he messed up somehow, and he was banned.

Yes, he sent ONE PM to the mod that banned him. No posts, no other fights, no more infractions.

A few days later, he got permanent-banned.

According to RR, there was never a single serious warning to knock it off or face the consequence of a permanent-ban.

It's pretty much what I expected, and seen happening more and more. I'm pretty disappointed in the mods and admins. and I don't buy this "he had it coming" shit.
If he had it coming, he should have been given a much more clear warnings. And possibly more temp-bans.
To now argue that all the infractions show how "bad" of a member he was is bullshit.
We're always told infractions expire. To suddenly tally years of them up and come to a perm-ban decision is crap.

-t

[besson3c]

turtle: why don't you find out the other side of the story before getting all emotional and taking what RR said at face value?

[imitchellg5]

Agreed. We don't know the full picture here.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

turtle: why don't you find out the other side of the story before getting all emotional and taking what RR said at face value?

Because I don't deem RR as someone who'd lie to my face.
He did admit that he was confrontational and had heated discussions.

Plus, I have been carefully watching this place. What he said was in no ways inconsistent with my own experience and observations.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Because I don't deem RR as someone who'd lie to my face.
He did admit that he was confrontational and had heated discussions.

Plus, I have been carefully watching this place. What he said was in no ways inconsistent with my own experience and observations.

-t

That is your confirmation bias.

If RR has no intention to change his behavior with people like myself and others, I see no positive outcome from letting him stay. I'm the last person to be advocating rules and structure and stuff like that, but I really cannot come up with any other solution particularly given that he has been unwilling to compromise or work towards any sort of solution, at least in my case, and evidently with the mods as well.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is your confirmation bias.

If RR has no intention to change his behavior with people like myself and others, I see no positive outcome from letting him stay.

I actually agree. I'm not saying RR behaved like a model citizen. Far from it.

But he has never been told: knock it off or you're out (like Rob or Kevin have). That (to me) would be fair treatment; What's not fair is tolerating his behavior, and then perma-banning him over a debate with a mod.

Those non-Lounge mods posting in the Lounge need to leave their mod hats outside, and not mix personal opinion with business.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But he has never been told: knock it off or you're out (like Rob or Kevin have). That (to me) would be fair treatment; What's not fair is tolerating his behavior, and then perma-banning him over a debate with a mod.

And this belief is based on what?

He has been asked several times by mods to ignore me, this was basically asking him to knock it off, and AFAIK he openly refused to do so. Again, what other solutions are there if he is not willing to abide by the requests of the mods interested in not seeing these ugly, regular confrontations, be it with me or anybody else?

We all have our warts, I know I can get carried away and be very annoying and there are probably other things that could be piled onto this list, but if you aren't willing to either move on or work towards some sort of solution, avoidance is about the only option, right?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And this belief is based on what?

He has been asked several times by mods to ignore me, this was basically asking him to knock it off, and AFAIK he openly refused to do so. Again, what other solutions are there if he is not willing to abide by the requests of the mods interested in not seeing these ugly, regular confrontations, be it with me or anybody else?

We all have our warts, I know I can get carried away and be very annoying and there are probably other things that could be piled onto this list, but if you aren't willing to either move on or work towards some sort of solution, avoidance is about the only option, right?

Based on his statement (which I believe), he has gotten several infractions over time for arguing with you.

That's fair enough.

He has never been told AT ANY TIME that future infractions would result in a perma-ban, or that all those infractions would count (and not expire) towards a future perma-ban.

I don't know if he would have changed (that's speculation), but a LAST CHANCE warning would have been the RIGHT thing to do.

Look, besson, you get infractions all the time for your crap.
What if suddenly, out of the blue, some mod would decide that enough is enough, and w/o giving you a last warning shot, would perma-ban you because you one more time went too far ? Would that be fair ? I say it wouldn't.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Based on his statement (which I believe), he has gotten several infractions over time for arguing with you.

That's fair enough.

He has never been told AT ANY TIME that future infractions would result in a perma-ban, or that all those infractions would count (and not expire) towards a future perma-ban.

I don't know if he would have changed (that's speculation), but a LAST CHANCE warning would have been the RIGHT thing to do.

Look, besson, you get infractions all the time for your crap.
What if suddenly, out of the blue, some mod would decide that enough is enough, and w/o giving you a last warning shot, would perma-ban you because you one more time went too far ? Would that be fair ? I say it wouldn't.

-t

That's kind of irrelevant though no matter what the story was as far as his final warning or lack thereof.

The bottom line is that he was unwilling to work with the mods to prevent future confrontations. Once this became clear, if this was indeed the case, there would have been no future path with him, and therefore no ultimatum or final warning that would have mattered. Infractions at this point would be irrelevant too.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The bottom line is that he was unwilling to work with the mods to prevent future confrontations. Once this became clear, if this was indeed the case, there would have been no future path with him, and therefore no ultimatum or final warning that would have mattered. Infractions at this point would be irrelevant too.

Again, to spell it out:

What would YOU say if all YOUR infractions were suddenly deemed as "unwilling to work with the mods to prevent future _______" ?

What if they suddenly decide that there is no future path with YOU, and therefore no ultimatum or final warning that would have mattered, and BOOM, you're perm-banned ?

Would YOU think that's fair ?

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And this belief is based on what?

He has been asked several times by mods to ignore me, this was basically asking him to knock it off, and AFAIK he openly refused to do so.

Ignore besson is different than ignore besson or we'll ban you. Honestly, one would actually provoke me not to ignore you.

As to whether he got a final warning, there's no conjecture needed. The people in charge of that can tell us.

[subego]

Has there ever been a "put a member on ignore, don't respond if that member is quoted, if you do you will be permabanned" directive?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Again, to spell it out:

What would YOU say if all YOUR infractions were suddenly deemed as "unwilling to work with the mods to prevent future _______" ?

I would say that I'd like to hear that argument, and if they were unwilling to make it I guess I'd find another website to rack up my posts at.

What if they suddenly decide that there is no future path with YOU, and therefore no ultimatum or final warning that would have mattered, and BOOM, you're perm-banned ?

Would YOU think that's fair ?

-t

No, but this is a strange hypothetical. I'm not him.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Has there ever been a "put a member on ignore, don't respond if that member is quoted, if you do you will be permabanned" directive?

No, but not to speak for the mods, but there is far more to it than this. I'm only speaking to my personal experiences.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, but this is a strange hypothetical. I'm not him.

Wow, what a bullshit answer.

Do you have an EQ of 0 ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Has there ever been a "put a member on ignore, don't respond if that member is quoted, if you do you will be permabanned" directive?

I doubt it.

Heck, there are only a very select few members that were perm-banned:

Rob - after repeated ban evasion.
Kevin - after being temp-banned he flipped and pulled some shenanigans on 'NN
Cuboid - after pulling the nasty prank on wdlove
(Dunno if I forgot someone else that wasn't a spammer.)

That's it. Railroader really doesn't fit the previous perma-ban scheme at all.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wow, what a bullshit answer.

Do you have an EQ of 0 ?

-t

I think you mean IQ. The personal attacks are not necessary, control your emotions.

Whatever dude, if you want to piss on me, so be it. I'm just trying to offer you some perspective which is what you were trying to gain from this thread, so I thought.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Cuboid - after pulling the nasty prank on wdlove

I don't think this is correct...

That's it. Railroader really doesn't fit the previous perma-ban scheme at all.

Years and years of harassing members doesn't account for much, I guess?


You can tell I'm not terribly upset he is gone, he pretty much sucked. I guess I see your point about the whole warning though though, I just don't see how it is terribly compelling. It reminds me of that little kid that keeps on doing something he is not supposed to do, his parents give him some harsh punishment, and then he complains about his parents didn't give him fair warning that they were going to punish him that way. The better solution is not to do that thing you were doing which got you into trouble in the first place, and in RR's case, I think there has been ample request/demand that he not do what got him into trouble.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you mean IQ. The personal attacks are not necessary, control your emotions.

Emotional Quotient

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you mean IQ. The personal attacks are not necessary, control your emotions.

This wasn't an attack. It was an observation of your low level of empathy.
From all I can observe, your are quite an intelligent person, but your EQ side is lacking.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't think this is correct...

Yes, it is. I dug up some old threads to confirm it.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Could you pm me a link or two - just out of interest?

[OreoCookie]

@turtle
I'm only going to address some of the broader issues here.

Regarding infractions, you can expect us to take them into account when contemplating a permaban (we can view the history of infractions). We use them also to keep track of the history of more problematic members (you tend to forget a lot of these details). If someone racks up a sizable amount and they tend to be in the >1 categories, they tell us a lot about that member. They're also used to give some people an automatic vacation if they rack up enough points to trigger a temp ban (which is what you're thinking of). But I'm surprised you think our use of infractions is limited to that.

Secondly, regarding why Railroader wasn't given 100 chances before a permaban was issued. We have internally analyzed our history with Kevin and Cash very thoroughly and learnt from the mistakes we have made (e. g. not issuing bans earlier). Railroader was not banned, because he did not want to comply with our request to leave besson alone. He was banned, because he sent a threatening pm to a staffer. After he was asked nicely to tone it down (which he refused). This was the trigger, not the cause! We have no inclination letting someone stick around who doesn't reciprocate a certain minimal amount of respect. It is our job to ensure an atmosphere of civility here in the forums and I don't see why we are obliged to keep people around who are not willing to do their share.

We're just a bunch of volunteers who have better things to do with their time than pursue pointless arguments over the internet.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This wasn't an attack. It was an observation of your low level of empathy.
From all I can observe, your are quite an intelligent person, but your EQ side is lacking.

-t

I have empathy towards Rob, Cubeoid, kittens stuck in trees, old people, and most of all Martha Stewart. It's hard to drudge up a whole lot of empathy for somebody that has been stalking me, harassing me, trolling me, and striving towards confrontation with me for so many years. I'm not angry either, I just think that he should live up to these decisions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, it is. I dug up some old threads to confirm it.

-t

I remember that incident quite well, it might have been part of the overall decision, but I don't think it was the deciding factor. He was here for quite some time after that went down.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

He was banned, because he sent a threatening pm to a staffer.

This is a pretty significant detail.

I'm not sure how we're expected to react to it having been omitted until a day later.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is a pretty significant detail.

I'm not sure how we're expected to react to it having been omitted until a day later.

I don't see how it's any of our business, no matter how much the contributors of this thread are trying to make it so.


Honestly, these kinds of threads have been going on at least as long as I've been a member here, and beyond the "hey — can you give us a quick insight into what happened here" aspect, I find them pretty worthless and increasingly annoying.

If you're fed up with the moderators, leave.

From what I've been reading, we hit rock bottom about six years ago, so anybody claiming that mods have become more "heavy-handed" since then are imagining things.

As this thread has shown, QED.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

From what I've been reading, we hit rock bottom about six years ago, so anybody claiming that mods have become more "heavy-handed" since then are imagining things.

I agree.

I also disagree with the notion that the behavior of the mods has resulted in some mass exodus (that evidently took place six years ago), there is no real relationship between our size and alleged mod heavy-handedness.

Moderation here is fine. I used to think that it was too particular in stuff like signature sizes, infractions, defining what good content is, etc. but I've since recognized that a sizable population likes this sort of structure and that many of these rules serve a productive purpose. I find it amusing that more often than not when people complain about moderation being heavy handed, it seems like it is short form for "don't be heavy handed with some stuff, but be heavy handed or at least handed with this other stuff".

Mods just can't win I say moderation will never be tweaking, but enough fussing and tweaking, it is fine the way it is.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

He was banned, because he sent a threatening pm to a staffer. After he was asked nicely to tone it down (which he refused). This was the trigger, not the cause!

Really ? A threat ?

That would be unacceptable.
Was it credible though ? Did the mod really feel threatened ?
If so, you must have reported it to the authorities. You did that, right ?

If it wasn't credible, then it was nothing more than a rant or venting.
Happens all the time on the intarwebs. If venting via PM was the trigger, then my theory about thin-skinned mods was about right.

From what I gather, he sent a PM that pissed someone off. Can we agree on that w/o calling it by sensationalist terms like "threats" ?

( And yes, we all know what the gold standard of 'NN threats is. It is followed up by a visit of the FBI )

-t

[brassplayersrock²]

Okay,then why not ask to see the PM in question? Then judge for yourself.

[imitchellg5]

This really isn't any of our business, you all realize that, right? There is a reason it's called private message.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

This really isn't any of our business, you all realize that, right? There is a reason it's called private message.

I agree. It's private business.

Therefore, it shouldn't trigger a ban.

-t

[brassplayersrock²]

There would always be that, "what if he carried out the threat" thought in the back of the mods ects heads. This just helps to alleviate any possible harm. I see why they permabanned him. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to threaten another due to an online quibble.

[turtle777]

Like I said: if it was serious and credible, call the police. If it wasn't, then it was just a rant.
And seriously: does anybody really think that RR is a psychopath ? I haven't seen anything pointing towards it.
He's just a hot-headed guy with a short internet-fuse.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Like I said: if it was serious and credible, call the police. If it wasn't, then it was just a rant.
And seriously: does anybody really think that RR is a psychopath ? I haven't seen anything pointing towards it.
He's just a hot-headed guy with a short internet-fuse.

-t

Oreo didn't say it was a physical threat that would interest the cops, there are other kinds of threats... Just saying, I have no idea what transpired.

[Spheric Harlot]

Drop the bullshit, guys.

If somebody threatens somebody else in a personal setting, then that setting remains personal even if that action carries consequences.

This is not investigative journalism, and the mods aren't working for a government agency.

A guy on an Internet forum acted like a jerk repeatedly, got called on it, blew his handle and crossed a line by threatening somebody, and rather than drag things out, the mods decided that a new approach was in order. End of story.

If you think that's heavy-handed, fine. But we now know how it happened, and beyond personal details that are of no concern to us publicly, that should be enough to go on. I don't need to know the nature of the threat.




I'm also quite happy that I don't read the pile of shit that is the Political Lounge. It brings out total assholes in people who are otherwise fair and pleasant. I had no beef with Railroader, and his departure saddens me.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Was it credible though ? Did the mod really feel threatened ?
If so, you must have reported it to the authorities. You did that, right ?

We have had no intention of waiting that long. We're not bound by any law to wait until the situation has escalated to the level where we are threatened with a crime in the real-world sense. It is our prerogative to ban members when we sit fit -- it is our house, our rules.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Happens all the time on the intarwebs. If venting via PM was the trigger, then my theory about thin-skinned mods was about right.

There is a difference between trigger and cause. The decision to permaban someone is based on the cause and not the trigger, so your line of argumentation does not make sense. If we were that thin-skinned, we would not have waited for some time until internal discussion came to a close. And if we were to ban members who tick one of us mods or admins off, I think we'd have more than the very, very few permabans in place than we have now.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I agree. It's private business.

Therefore, it shouldn't trigger a ban.

That's non-sense: we're in charge of the forums as a whole which includes pms. We've already had problems when one member harassed another via pm in the past. Damn straight we take a member's behavior over pm into account. (But before you guys get the wrong idea: we're not reading anyone's pms, we're not the GMail man, we have better things to do with our spare time )

Originally Posted by subego 

This is a pretty significant detail.

I'm not sure how we're expected to react to it having been omitted until a day later.

I thought it's pretty obvious that what you hear is rarely the full story. Just because we have no intention to lay everything out in the open, doesn't mean there isn't more to the issue than meets the eye.

If it weren't for this thread, we wouldn't have made a special announcement or so. Doofy started this thread (which is fine) and I presume he has been in touch with Railroader (no problem either).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It is our prerogative to ban members when we sit fit -- it is our house, our rules.

Not bad, but it would have made me exceedingly happy if you'd just posted the "STFU noob" or "Cup of STFU" pics instead.

Oh, the good old days. When men were men, Kilby was Kilby and the Political Lounge, wasn't. Time marches on...

[The Final Dakar]

Without weighing in on the fairness of this banning, it was clear to me that Railroader did not enjoy his time here from his postings the last few years.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Without weighing in on the fairness of this banning, it was clear to me that Railroader did not enjoy his time here from his postings the last few years.

Fixed?

[Doofy]

Might I suggest that if you did actually receive a threat from RR (instead of being delusional and power-hungry, as you've been looking lately), that you print it out, mount it in a gold frame and sell it on eBay? You should get a few hundred thousand for that, I'm sure, because it'll be the only instance I can remember of RR making a threat no matter how hard he's provoked.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I thought it's pretty obvious that what you hear is rarely the full story. Just because we have no intention to lay everything out in the open, doesn't mean there isn't more to the issue than meets the eye.

I agree 100%.

All of this talk about his bad attitude is subsumed by threatening a mod. This is universal grounds for banning. The thread could have been, for all intents and purposes, over in two sentences.

Since this simple, obvious route wasn't followed, it's a natural thought process to wonder why, especially since I'm having difficulty coming up with charitable explanations on my own.

[Jawbone54]

I haven't slipped into the Political/War Lounge but once or twice the past few months, but I usually saw a lot of hostility coming from folks that was just as strong, if not stronger, than anything I saw Railroader posting.

I'm not buying the "threatening" PMs, either, although that's obviously speculative on my part. Angry, sure. Legitimately threatening? Nah.