[Kevin]

I know the other thread got locked, but I wanted to expand on the post I made. (I don't believe it was locked because of my post..) And since this one doesn't break any rules there really should be no reason it's locked.

Recently there has been an influx of users complaining about either getting banned for inane reasons, or getting multiple "warnings" from two different moderators telling them two different things. All of these are valid complaints I believe. A lot of them send out confusing messages to the user.

Could there be a new system put in place where moderators talk to each other about who was given what warning for what reason and on what date? That way there wont be any redundancy when it comes to handing out the authority to the users, and users wont have two different mods telling them two different things.

Also I realize that mods/admins are human, and thus as humans sometimes make mistakes.

For example the ads I do get proofed by 3 different people before they get sent out. This proofing makes sure that things are right. What someone might not see, another person might.

Being that is the case, I think before any regulars are banned for any specific amount of time, that it is brought up first, and voted on. This should pretty much take care of all the "questionable" bans or mods replying "I have no clue about said situation" when asking about the validity of said ban like we were told to.

All I ask is that people please keep the attacks on users AND moderators/admins in this thread to a negative number. This isn't what this thread is about.

This thread is also not a "blame game" or a "this mod did that to me" thread. So I request none of this be brought up.

Just discuss what YOU think would make MacNN better in an honest and non-condescending way. If you think you can't add anything to this thread without being a jerk, please refrain from adding anything.

All in all this would help the forum to run a bit smoother, make the users over all more happy, and in the long run make MacNN a better place. I can't see why anyone wouldn't want that.

[Rumor]

One thing that could be done (time permitting) since they have their own forum, is make one for infractions/warnings. When one is sent, a thread with the name as the title, and a quick bit of info as a reason. A mod/admin would be able to quickly check that thread to see if it has already been dealt with, if so then great, if not then whip out the ban hammer.

Of course, that would be more time consuming and they may not have time to do so.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I know the other thread got locked, but I wanted to expand on the post I made. (I don't believe it was locked because of my post..) And since this one doesn't break any rules there really should be no reason it's locked.

Isn't it a sad state of affairs that we now have to start our 'NN feedbacks with apologies and pleas, so the gods mods look kindly upon us ?

Oh, wait, sorry for the sarcasm.

I fully agree with Kevin's post though. It would be nice to put a system in place that would yield consistent rulings and application of rules.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

One thing that could be done (time permitting) since they have their own forum, is make one for infractions/warnings.

*Sigh*

If ONLY infractions would be used consistently.

I have been told by an admin that there should always be a warning of some kind (PM, infraction etc.) That's the theory.

I got temp-banned for complete BS reasons, w/o a PM warning or infraction. So go good luck with using infractions to make things more consistent

-t

[scaught]

The GameFaqs.com messageboards allow users to "vote" on moderated messages / moderation decisions to get an objective view as to whether or not they're "fair". I doubt UBB or whatever software this messageboard is has this feature as their messageboard is some kind of "homebrew" app, but I think it's a good idea in the vein of what Kevin is talking about.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

One thing that could be done (time permitting) since they have their own forum, is make one for infractions/warnings. When one is sent, a thread with the name as the title, and a quick bit of info as a reason. A mod/admin would be able to quickly check that thread to see if it has already been dealt with ...

Sounds like a good idea to me. At the moment, we can see if a particular post has already had an Infraction (or Warning) issued, and the system won't allow a 2nd on the same post. But there's no central way (for Mods anyway - not sure about Admins) to see Infractions/Warnings issued lately.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Why don't we turn the forum into something like a democracy, were the users get to vote on what gets changed and what stays the same, who gets banned/unbanned, etc, etc?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

Why don't we turn the forum into something like a democracy, were the users get to vote on what gets changed and what stays the same, who gets banned/unbanned, etc, etc?

That's just mob rule.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's just mob rule.

I'm foolish enough to believe that the outcome would be more predictable and consistent than current rulings / banninations by some of the mods...

-t

[Demonhood]

pretty much all of the systems Kevin mentions are ALREADY in place. this doesn't make it so we don't have any overlap, but i believe it does help reduce it. we try to learn from each other's moderation and notify each other about what we're doing.

[Rumor]

DH, do you think the idea I posted would benefit the staff?

[Demonhood]

well, every Abuse Report automatically generates an email. this is how we track who is taking care of things and how they've been dealt with. we could also do the same for warnings/infractions, but there would be considerable crossover.

[pissofflateralus]

These are excellent ideas.

[MacosNerd]

Too funny, I was going to post a IBB
(In before Baninated) but looks like Ca$h got nailed for a colorful but yet pedestrian Nic before I could finish.

Rob seems to have anger issues, at least tied to an initial banning. From what I gather, he'll create two or three more before giving up for a month or two and then come back for a couple of weeks until the mods tire of his antics.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by scaught 

The GameFaqs.com messageboards allow users to "vote" on moderated messages / moderation decisions

That wouldn't work here. Too many people that would clan together just to get someone banned.

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

pretty much all of the systems Kevin mentions are ALREADY in place. this doesn't make it so we don't have any overlap, but i believe it does help reduce it. we try to learn from each other's moderation and notify each other about what we're doing.

Then why is it whenever another op or mod is asked about a ban they have no clue what it's about? Or that even said ban exists? I've seen bans recently too that a large group of mods really didn't think was legit. But was kept anyhow. So I don't think any mods are voting on bans. Else said mods would know about said bans. And certain bans would have never happened. So while some of what I said might happen. I think they biggest part, mods voting on who gets banned and who doesn't isn't really "In place".

As a matter of fact, I've been told by other mods no such voting goes on.

It used to be only admins could ban users... Why was that changed?

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

well, every Abuse Report automatically generates an email. this is how we track who is taking care of things and how they've been dealt with. we could also do the same for warnings/infractions, but there would be considerable crossover.

Well that's not really what I was talking about. I was once told that if I had a problem with a moderator's decision to msg another mod (Not that you can do that when your banned, so you basically have to take the punishment deserved or not and wait till it's released, which probably needs changed too) Anyhow, I've done this. And the only responses I get are "I don't know about the situation, I can't comment" or the typical apologetic "Ops are human, and we have lives"

So they way things are working now isn't really "working"

Until it does, people are going to complain. I just thought maybe some of you would want the complaining to stop. (And these are valid complaints no matter what mod mocks or belittles them)

I'd also like to know what a mod has to do get an infraction or ban. Is there a guideline that the mods have to go by or be "banned" like the users? If not why? And if there is why isn't it ever put in place? Or used?

I've seen certain mods be just as hateful and trollish as the posters in here and they just get high fived. I though they were supposed to be setting an example. If anything, they should have a more strict set of rules.

When the Police aren't policed. Or when those that are in charge turns a blind eye and does nothing. Corruption will surely prevail. And with corruption comes anarchy.

[OreoCookie]

The reasons for infractions and warnings are accessible to all mods and admins. There is no history for temp-bans, though, so after a ban has expired, we have no means to track temp bans.

As for the other suggestion: forums have their own mods. So if one mod of one forum decides to take a certain action (no perma bans, though), it's primarily his choice and responsibility. There is no meddling by other mods in other mods' forums. Perma bans are discussed beforehand with the other mods and admins.

We have usually have no more than four people in the penalty box at any given time, on average only one or two, though (right now it's only one member). So we don't use the power to ban [sic] excessively nor is there a big disagreement among us.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The reasons for infractions and warnings are accessible to all mods and admins.

Then I guess those I asked about said infractions and they claim to "not know" either aren't paying attention to what is going on, or are simply fibbed to me I guess.

There is no history for temp-bans, though, so after a ban has expired, we have no means to track temp bans.

Well voting on temp bans would solve the problem of needing such a thing. And other mods/admins not having means of tracking or knowing about temp bans isn't that good of a thing IMHO. Maybe better communication/voting would work better in this situation. So everyone knows what is going on. Those mods/admins that consistently do not participate in the process should eventually give up their position. Again IMHO.

As for the other suggestion: forums have their own mods. So if one mod of one forum decides to take a certain action (no perma bans, though), it's primarily his choice and responsibility. There is no meddling by other mods in other mods' forums. Perma bans are discussed beforehand with the other mods and admins.

Why are temp bans treated any differently? I surely HOPE perm bans are a vote based thing. But it seems like we are having problems with temp bans as well. So maybe those too should either be left to an admin like it used to be, or voted on? And when I am referring to bans, I am not referring to spam and the like. I think mods should be able to ban spammers without voting on it. I am not being ridiculous here. There just have been a lot of questionable temp bans made lately. If it was put to a vote, then said user can't say said mod was just singling out said user. The only reasons I can think that a mod wouldn't want such a things voted on are negative ones.

We have usually have no more than four people in the penalty box at any given time, on average only one or two, though (right now it's only one member). So we don't use the power to ban [sic] excessively nor is there a big disagreement among us.

I don't think anyone accused the mods of banning too many people, or constantly doing so.

As far as their being no major disagreements between the mods about this. Are you positive about that?

I mean we've seen mods fighting and disagreeing spilling over into the forum. So I am sure it goes on in the mod lounge.

[OreoCookie]

You have said that MacNN's staff isn't handling temp bans and bans well, that there are `several' `recent' temp bans that `the majority of mods' opposed. So you've claimed that we (= MacNN mods) aren't using the temp ban feature responsibly.

The system as it is works quite well, 95 % of the members never get into any problems. Us mods and admins are individuals, so there can be disagreement on specific decision, but we respect each other and we sometimes respectfully disagree. However, there have never been renegade mods who defy the majority all the time, they won't stay mods for long.

All mods rarely make use of the temp ban feature (right now, only one member of several thousand active users is temp banned!), we use it responsibly (which doesn't mean that we are infallible). I just don't see that we have a problem that `needs to be fixed' -- neither with bans nor temp bans.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Too funny, I was going to post a IBB
(In before Baninated) but looks like Ca$h got nailed for a colorful but yet pedestrian Nic before I could finish.

How do you know it was Rob ?

I know a dozen of people who would have motive and reason to post the same...

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

As for the other suggestion: forums have their own mods. So if one mod of one forum decides to take a certain action (no perma bans, though), it's primarily his choice and responsibility. There is no meddling by other mods in other mods' forums. Perma bans are discussed beforehand with the other mods and admins.

Interesting.

I noticed that some mods handed out temp bans outside their own forums, for reasons that were tied to their own personal involvement in those forums.

I would suggest that ban powers are limited to the mods who are in charge of a forum. If another mod finds something banworthy, he should consult with the forum mod first.
That also frees up mods to be participants in other forums w/o mixing personal and business.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I would suggest that ban powers are limited to the mods who are in charge of a forum. If another mod finds something banworthy, he should consult with the forum mod first.
That also frees up mods to be participants in other forums w/o mixing personal and business.

Even if we wanted to, that wouldn't work for another reason: spam. We need the manpower to combat spam. If only admins had the power to ban (which is what happened accidentally after a major vB update), the admins would be swamped with deletion requests. Ever since the report abuse sub forum, banning spammers works very, very well.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You have said that MacNN's staff isn't handling temp bans and bans well

No, I said that some recent temp bans had been questioned by users and moderators. And they have.

that there are `several' `recent' temp bans that `the majority of mods' opposed.

Where did I say that? I said that majority of the mods acted as if they knew nothing about it, or didn't care.

So you've claimed that we (= MacNN mods) aren't using the temp ban feature responsibly.

No, what I said is what I said above.

The system as it is works quite well, 95 % of the members never get into any problems.

So what's wrong with making the other 5% happy if it does no harm? And you and I both know that probably only 10% of the users on here represent regular posters. So you are basically saying half the regular posters.

Us mods and admins are individuals, so there can be disagreement on specific decision, but we respect each other and we sometimes respectfully disagree. However, there have never been renegade mods who defy the majority all the time, they won't stay mods for long.

I wasn't speaking about renegade mods that defy mods all the time. I think you are taking my post and exaggerating it a bit Oreo.

All mods rarely make use of the temp ban feature (right now, only one member of several thousand active users is temp banned!), we use it responsibly (which doesn't mean that we are infallible). I just don't see that we have a problem that `needs to be fixed' -- neither with bans nor temp bans.

I told you. This would stop the problem of regulars being banned for highly questionable reasons. If it was voted on, more than likely bans that shouldn't have been made wont be. That and users can't say "The mod just doesn't like me" when he or she is banned. It was voted on by all the mods so that's not possible. Why would anyone be against this?

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Interesting.

I noticed that some mods handed out temp bans outside their own forums, for reasons that were tied to their own personal involvement in those forums.

I've seen this too. And voting on said bans would also stop this. As humans he sometimes knee-jerk to react. And sometimes we do it in an improper way. Some of us (including myself) don't think before we react. And in here once the damage is done. So the voting way would put a stop to such things. Make users less hostile, and the moral here would over all improve.

The only reason I can think that someone wouldn't want to have to vote to ban someone is egotistical reasons. Mods don't want their "authority" questioned. There is no other logical reason for not voting. We had to do this in another part of the internet where I'm one of many "admins". There was a few people getting banned for faulty reasons. So we made a new rule that regulars couldn't be banned without voting first. This stopped all bans of the like. And it stopped users complaining that a mod or whatever was singling them out.

I would suggest that ban powers are limited to the mods who are in charge of a forum. If another mod finds something banworthy, he should consult with the forum mod first.
That also frees up mods to be participants in other forums w/o mixing personal and business.

But this doesn't solve the problem of temp bans given out wrongly because said mod isn't informed about a happenstance or simply has no clue what is going on.

For example, and I am not, I repeat NOT attacking Oreo or anything when I speak of this. My last ban would have probably not went through had it been voted on. Why? Another mod would have probably told Oreo that besson was at the time going around offering to poop on people's floors in multiple threads. Therefore when someone asked where he was, and I answered "probably pooping on someone's floor" said reply would not be seen as an attack if one knew what was going on.

I can understand how Oreo could have seen it as an attack if he didn't know what besson was doing. I can clearly see that.

Having a vote before the ban would not only keep mods "honest" it would stop HONEST mistakes like above from happening.

And in the end, make the users, the people that post here, the reason this forum exists, a bit more happier.

So far, I haven't heard a argument as to why it shouldn't be implemented. The current system of doing things has shown to have faults. If we can improve on those faults what is the problem?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Even if we wanted to, that wouldn't work for another reason: spam. We need the manpower to combat spam. If only admins had the power to ban (which is what happened accidentally after a major vB update), the admins would be swamped with deletion requests. Ever since the report abuse sub forum, banning spammers works very, very well.

That is why I said spammers should be exempt from the voting. No vote should be needed if someone is spamming. Spam is spam. And I don't think anyone would have a problem with mods banning spammers.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Even if we wanted to, that wouldn't work for another reason: spam. We need the manpower to combat spam. If only admins had the power to ban (which is what happened accidentally after a major vB update), the admins would be swamped with deletion requests. Ever since the report abuse sub forum, banning spammers works very, very well.

I'm not saying that mods should not have the power to ban, i.e. taking away that power.

I'm talking about a self-commitment of the MacNN mods and admins to have a ban reviewed by a disinterested 3rd party mod / admin.

-t

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm not saying that mods should not have the power to ban, i.e. taking away that power.

Indeed not. Moderators should still be able to ban. I think spammers should be exempt from having to require a vote however. It's best to get rid of those foul creatures ASAP.

I'm talking about a self-commitment of the MacNN mods and admins to have a ban reviewed by a disinterested 3rd party mod / admin.

I would say more than one. Maybe at least 4?

Not that of course we are in any position to be dictating moderation rules. And I am sure we will be reminded of that fact. After all we are just peons. I've been told as much. Even though if it wasn't for the regulars this place wouldn't be much.

I am pretty much convinced that no idea of a non-mod of the like, esp one from me would ever get implemented though. I did get a smiley added to the collection once!

I guess I should start rallying AGAINST things I am FOR in here.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

...
I'm talking about a self-commitment of the MacNN mods and admins to have a ban reviewed by a disinterested 3rd party mod / admin.

To a certain extent, this already happens. Any bans besides spammers get reported in a private thread, which other staff members regularly read. If anyone has objections or questions, the opportunity is there to raise them.

Cash aliases are a special case; there are so many of them that new handles usually don't get mentioned. This has resulted in the occasional error. I once banned a rude-sounding newbie on a rampage about the new iMacs. Turned out it wasn't Rob after all, just an unfortunate time & place for a new name to do that.

ps - the new guy/gal checked with an Admin, apologized, and protested that it was all a mistake. The Admin checked with me. We looked into it, and he/she was reinstated.

[turtle777]

If that's the case, there are only three possible explanations for some of the recent questionable temp bans:

1) Those bans did not get reported in that thread
2) the mods / admins didn't read / take notice of the entries to that thread
3) everyone agreeed that those questionable bans were actually good and justified.



-t

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by reader50 

To a certain extent, this already happens. Any bans besides spammers get reported in a private thread, which other staff members regularly read. If anyone has objections or questions, the opportunity is there to raise them.

Then why do moderators and admins, when questioned about said ban, act as if they don't know about said ban, or "isn't my business" or any other dodging type of answers? For the most part most mods/admins don't step on each others toes so their toes don't get stepped on. Their is a mutual respect among most mods that way. But said respect doesn't seem to carry over to the people who actually make up this forum it seems.

ps - the new guy/gal checked with an Admin, apologized, and protested that it was all a mistake. The Admin checked with me. We looked into it, and he/she was reinstated.

How is one supposed to do this when one's account is banned and you can't talk to anyone cause you are locked out of the entire forum?

You can't. When I was banned there was no way I could msg another op to make a complaint. I took said ban anyhow. I waited till I got unbanned. When I brought up the faulty ban I was basically treated like an idiot for even bringing it up.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

If that's the case, there are only three possible explanations for some of the recent questionable temp bans:

1) Those bans did not get reported in that thread
2) the mods / admins didn't read / take notice of the entries to that thread
3) everyone agreeed that those questionable bans were actually good and justified.

I know it wasn't #3 for a fact.

I've yet heard a argument as to why voting shouldn't be implemented. What can it hurt?

It can only stop people from accusing mods of having a grudge against them etc. If most all agree then one cannot really say it was a bad decision.

You'll find less regulars becoming victims of "questionable" bans.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by reader50 

ps - the new guy/gal checked with an Admin, apologized, and protested that it was all a mistake. The Admin checked with me. We looked into it, and he/she was reinstated.

Yeah HOW exactly are we to check with Admins on that ?

Last time, I sent a PM asking for clarification about the ban.
That PM was sent from an old account that I had registered many years ago, but abandoned about 8 months ago.

Well, two things happened:
1) My old account (from which I sent the clarification PM) was perma banned, I was accused of ban evasion and I was told it's against the rules to have multiple accounts (although I have been told before by another admin that wasn't the case, as long as the accounts are not specifically created for ban evasion purposes).
I was also threatened to be completely perma banned if I continued to seek clarification. Nice.

2) I explicitly asked for communication to be sent to an email account, but I NEVER received any feedback, even after repeatedly asking for it. Nice.

So, I guess I was just SOL.

-t

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

...
[re: contacting staff members while banned]

How is one supposed to do this when one's account is banned and you can't talk to anyone cause you are locked out of the entire forum?
...

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah HOW exactly are we to check with Admins on that ?
...

Contacting staff is a problem while banned. The system won't allow emails to be sent through it. I poked at the problem once for personal curiosity, and was able to solve it. The answer is to check the Staff List page. Pull up the info page for each staff member, by clicking on their names. A number of staff members (myself included) list IM handles, usually on AIM or ICQ. Sometimes on MSN. Look through the list for someone to make your case to.

My own mistakenly banned member "called", which I think meant a real phone call to some MacNN contact number. But it might have meant calling via an IM service. Admittedly, the ways to still contact someone could be more obvious. The Staff List page is supposed to be linked from the root forum page, but that link has vanished somehow. Or I'm just not seeing it.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

...
Last time, I sent a PM asking for clarification about the ban.
That PM was sent from an old account that I had registered many years ago, but abandoned about 8 months ago.

Well, two things happened:
1) My old account (from which I sent the clarification PM) was perma banned, I was accused of ban evasion and I was told it's against the rules to have multiple accounts (although I have been told before by another admin that wasn't the case, as long as the accounts are not specifically created for ban evasion purposes).
I was also threatened to be completely perma banned if I continued to seek clarification. Nice.
...

We've been discussing multiple handles internally, and no consensus has emerged yet. Multiple handles aren't a problem if they're not used for ban evasion or other rule breaking (ie - having conversations with yourself promoting a product or service). However ... how do staff members know that a new handle is the same person? There's presently no way to 'register' an extra name as a valid extra handle, and we're more likely to notice it's a dupe only when a ban happens. Which is of course the worst time to notice the extra handle.

Currently, we're leaning towards not allowing multiple handles, but no final decision has been made. You must have run into a staff member who's presently leaning towards not allowing them. I personally like to let more things fly, and not create lots of new rules. But at the moment, I can't produce a good arguement for multiple handles. Such an arguement would have to involve some way for staff to know who is who, in case of temp bans. Maybe you guys can think of something.

[brassplayersrock²]

one small suggestion.

when a mod or admin PMs a person. be as descriptive as possible as not to cause any confusion for the receiver of the PM.
Can't think of any examples at the moment, but if I do then I'll post it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by reader50 

But at the moment, I can't produce a good arguement for multiple handles. Such an arguement would have to involve some way for staff to know who is who, in case of temp bans. Maybe you guys can think of something.

I can't think of something, but in my case, the accusation of ban evasion was ridiculous:

1) My nick (what_the_heck) was created more than a year ago and had hundreds of posts. I obviously did not just create it for this very moment.
2) I signed all posts with "-t", so yes, most people knew that it was me.
3) It used (AFAIR) the same sig that I use as turtle777
4) I pointed out in the PM that what_the_heck and turtle777 are the same person
5) I pointed out that I was seeking clarification, not ban evasion.

So, overall, I really don't understand why I was accused and punished (banned), especially since the rules are not explicit.

-t

[besson3c]

Why are you guys making these issues so thick and heavy? It's just an internet forum... If you get an infraction, life goes on... If you get banned, you can live without the forums for a while. None of this is worth wringing hands over, I don't think. I don't mean this disrespectfully, I've had my ass infracted before and have tried to comply to the wishes by the mods either by changing my behavior or avoiding these situations as best I can.

Everybody should be like me, although I'm still the best.

[Dakarʒ]

It just wouldn't be a Feedback thread without besson asking why... and me commenting on that

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why are you guys making these issues so thick and heavy? It's just an internet forum... If you get an infraction, life goes on... If you get banned, you can live without the forums for a while. None of this is worth wringing hands over, I don't think. I don't mean this disrespectfully, I've had my ass infracted before and have tried to comply to the wishes by the mods either by changing my behavior or avoiding these situations as best I can.

From someone that makes a lot of inane complaints about the most superfluous of things... come on besson. You of all people shouldn't be saying this.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, two things happened:
1) My old account (from which I sent the clarification PM) was perma banned, I was accused of ban evasion and I was told it's against the rules to have multiple accounts (although I have been told before by another admin that wasn't the case, as long as the accounts are not specifically created for ban evasion purposes).
I was also threatened to be completely perma banned if I continued to seek clarification. Nice.

I have a feeling if it was voted on by the all the mods, and not handled just by one person it wouldn't have went down that way. There would be no complaint. And threads like this would simply not exist. Bans being voted on only makes sense, it will probably stop most if not all "questionable" bannings.

Is there any mod here against doing this? If so please speak your mind and tell us why it shouldn't be implemented.

And if there is no mod against it, there should be no reason why it can't be implemented.

[ghporter]

First, I want to point out that sometimes we on the staff have only a few minutes of time online to look at the forums we're responsible for, so we don't have the time to research what else might be going on and we act in the interests of civility. Our basic rule is not to step into any other mod's forums unless there's something pressing that needs immediate attention. We've had people make realistic personal threats (as in threats of violence that were credible), we've had people post porn, we've had people tie up the whole system with weird code in their spam posts (do NOT even think of asking for HTML code to work in posts!), and a lot of other problems, as well as the constant background noise of spammers that pop up anywhere. So we all have the ability to ban any user. Admins can UNban anyone, and if there's a problem, we can and will fix a ban. We have things set up to not allow anyone-even admins-to make permanent changes without some sort of review, so if someone accidentally bans "Fred User" instead of "fredyuser", then we can fix that without much fuss. As Oreo reader50 noted, many of us have publicly accessible channels posted here to allow anyone to contact us.

I have been guilty of jumping to conclusions about posts, based entirely on my own sensibilities. Now, if I see what looks like bickering, I sit back and wait to see what develops. If it's clear that something bad is happening, I take action. But we ALL have the smooth operation of the forums, and civil discussion instead of wanton chaos as our primary goals, whether we make our actions look like "more in sorrow than in anger" or just plain "stop the stupidity, jerk!"

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why are you guys making these issues so thick and heavy? It's just an internet forum... If you get an infraction, life goes on... If you get banned, you can live without the forums for a while.

I can handle silly infractions w/o good reason, no problem.

I DO have problems with random bans for BS reasons w/o ANY warning at all. Even though it's the internet, I expect some basic fair treatment.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Our basic rule is not to step into any other mod's forums unless there's something pressing that needs immediate attention.

Fair enough, but what about bans in the Lounge by mods of OTHER forums, mods that were participating in Lounge discussions OUTSIDE their function as a mod ?

I think this SHOULD be reviewed by the mods in charge for that forum.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I have a feeling if it was voted on by the all the mods, and not handled just by one person it wouldn't have went down that way. There would be no complaint. And threads like this would simply not exist. Bans being voted on only makes sense, it will probably stop most if not all "questionable" bannings.

Is there any mod here against doing this? If so please speak your mind and tell us why it shouldn't be implemented.

And if there is no mod against it, there should be no reason why it can't be implemented.

Getting a quorum together to vote on any non-spam ban is problematic. In the issue turtle777 is referring to, he apparently failed to read the whole thread, or even much of it before chiming in with what was probably supposed to be a glib comment. Wrong timing, wrong comment, wrong situation. At that point-and completely by coincidence-we were working out a firm policy on multiple nicks. How do we know when someone has set up a second (or third, or...) nick that it wasn't set up entirely to evade a potential ban? We CANNOT know that. So turtle gets on a mod's last nerve and gets a short ban. When he presses that mod using a second nick -without apparently researching that thread to see how badly things were going and how MANY users were actively badgering that mod- the mod implemented our new policy of banning any secondary nick we note.

Oh, and I explained this in multiple PMs back and forth with turtle777...

As it happens, we don't have the final wording of the "no multiple nicks" rule hammered out (many of our beloved members like to find the edges of the envelope so they can press on them, thus a careful attention to wording is a must). But even if it had been, so many members, even very experienced members, have never bothered to read the rules in the General Forum Rules announcement, that we never felt that promptness of posting the wording was essential.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

It just wouldn't be a Feedback thread without besson asking why... and me commenting on that

why?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

why?

Because, that's why!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I can handle silly infractions w/o good reason, no problem.

I DO have problems with random bans for BS reasons w/o ANY warning at all. Even though it's the internet, I expect some basic fair treatment.

-t

Don't hold your breath.

This forum is run by a business that calls the shots. It is not collectively owned, leaders are not voted upon, there is no constitution that rules are beholden to. This is basically run by a dictator, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all, it's just the way it is (and something that Rob seems to have a hard time understanding since he feels literally *entitled* to post here).

It's a business, vote with your choices about whether or not you want to be a part of this place. This sort of pretending this is a quasi-democracy sort of thing just doesn't work, and it never will. About the only other option is to make this place an anarchy like I have done on my own board. This has worked for me, although obviously some people seem to literally *need* order for lounging and very specific rules and regulation for some reason I can't quite understand.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I'm not saying that mods should not have the power to ban, i.e. taking away that power.

I'm talking about a self-commitment of the MacNN mods and admins to have a ban reviewed by a disinterested 3rd party mod / admin.

I still don't see how this is necessary: we already consult each other on more complicated cases and people have the option to appeal decisions/rectify honest mistakes. Judges' decisions (within a session) are also not reviewed by a `3rd party', we are the third party. We have an `appeals process' which is used and works. I'm not saying what we do is perfect, so your suggestion is not bad -- if we could. But I honestly don't think your suggestion is feasible with the manpower we have.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Oh, and I explained this in multiple PMs back and forth with turtle777...

Glenn,

I never received a single PM.

Mind you, all my old nicks (what_the_heck, goturtle) got perm banned. How am I supposed to get those PMs ?
Nobody emailed me to the requested email address. I specifically asked for this.



-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Getting a quorum together to vote on any non-spam ban is problematic. In the issue turtle777 is referring to, he apparently failed to read the whole thread...

My "offense" was failing to understand that the following response to another member (NOT me !!!)
"But if you'd like to persist, feel free to do so via private message."

really meant: "Hey, ANYBODY, one more word and you get banned."

I applaud the clear communication used in this case

Originally Posted by ghporter 

or even much of it before chiming in with what was probably supposed to be a glib comment. Wrong timing, wrong comment, wrong situation.

"glib comment" ?

You gotta be kidding me. A mod calls another member names, and I commented
" Wow, someone must hold a grudge. "

And this was soooo offensive ? Laughable.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

How do we know when someone has set up a second (or third, or...) nick that it wasn't set up entirely to evade a potential ban? We CANNOT know that.

Uhm, I'm baffled. How much clearer could I have been ?

1) My nick (what_the_heck) was created more than a year ago and had hundreds of posts. I obviously did not just create it for this very moment.
2) I signed all posts with "-t", so yes, most people knew that it was me.
3) It used (AFAIR) the same sig that I use as turtle777
4) I pointed out in the PM that what_the_heck and turtle777 are the same person
5) I pointed out that I was seeking clarification, not ban evasion.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

When he presses that mod using a second nick -without apparently researching that thread to see how badly things were going and how MANY users were actively badgering that mod-

Seriously Glenn, this is NOT what happened.

I did NOT press that mod, I sent a PM to you and DH asking for clarification.

Instead, I get a PM from said mod accusing me of ban evasion.
How did the mod even know I emailed you and DH ? I wonder how...

Originally Posted by ghporter 

the mod implemented our new policy of banning any secondary nick we note.

So, where is this new rule published ?
I checked the rules, couldn't find anything.

-t

[Kevin]

Obviously the "forum" isn't ready for, nor does it want to change.

Go ahead and lock the thread. No use discussing it anymore.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Go ahead and lock the thread. No use discussing it anymore.

As you wish.