Forum permbans points system or something

Corsendonk

strobe wrote: »

What's a 'seagull poster'?

That had me puzzled too, way too much Jargon used on Boards, I asked before about a Jargon Buster but was told Boards didn't have one.

FreudianSlippers

strobe wrote: »

What's a 'seagull poster'?

Corsendonk wrote: »

That had me puzzled too, way too much Jargon used on Boards, I asked before about a Jargon Buster but was told Boards didn't have one.

They just hang around and... defecate all over threads.

The Muppet

Could we please leave the specifics of individual bans aside, This is not the place to discuss them and it could lead to the thread being locked.

Dav

Thread tidied - let's not do that again please folks.

Permanent bans are something I support and I see absolutely no compelling reason to remove them from this site. If mods decide that anyone needs to be permanently banned from a forum then generally speaking it's because they were causing upset and it's for the good of the community on that particular forum that they are no longer a part of it.

Again I state, there is only one person who's probably at fault and that's the person who's been banned.

There's nothing, by the way, stopping you sending a polite PM a year or so after you've been banned and asking for a review. We've never said that things are absolute.

The Muppet

Dav wrote: »

Thread tidied - let's not do that again please folks.

Permanent bans are something I support and I see absolutely no compelling reason to remove them from this site. If mods decide that anyone needs to be permanently banned from a forum then generally speaking it's because they were causing upset and it's for the good of the community on that particular forum that they are no longer a part of it.

Again I state, there is only one person who's probably at fault and that's the person who's been banned.

There's nothing, by the way, stopping you sending a polite PM a year or so after you've been banned and asking for a review. We've never said that things are absolute.

If that's addressed at me I suggest you talk to your mods, you obviously have not had the full story.

Either way I don't ever invisage looking to go back in, I was as tired of what was going on there as everyone else, some of the mods were aware of that months before i was banned.

I think it best for all concerened that things remain as they are, that doesn't mean I agree with the process that has taken us here. I still think that was as descibed by another mod here a "witch hunt".

Dav

It's addressed at everyone, not specifically you.

Thanx 4 The Fish

You (muppet) have already had 2 perm bans lifted and you were allowed back into the forum, so you know that these things are not absolute. However after three perm bans (perm probably should not be used) we are probably moving closer to an absolute.

FreudianSlippers

Dav wrote: »

There's nothing, by the way, stopping you sending a polite PM a year or so after you've been banned and asking for a review. We've never said that things are absolute.

My problem is the review process. It would be nice to have a bit more than something along the lines of "we've discussed it and we've decided that your ban will be forever and that's the end of the story - move on".

Especially when a bona fide attempt to say "look, I know what I did; it won't happen again" was made.
It would be better to have SOME transparency in the system.
"We don't believe you've learned your lesson because..." would even be a start.

FreudianSlippers

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You (muppet) have already had 2 perm bans lifted and you were allowed back into the forum, so you know that these things are not absolute. However after three perm bans (perm probably should not be used) we are probably moving closer to an absolute.

Do 1 year bans not solve that problem? Serious question.

What is the difference between banning someone for a year and allowing themselves to hang themselves as they may when the temporal ban is up, they're banned for another year and you have nothing to worry about.

It seems like more work to perma-ban someone then have to deal with reversing it, just to perma-ban them again.

If you're 1 year banning someone 3 times (that's 3 years!) obviously they haven't learnt their lesson and then maybe consider a perma ban?

Thanx 4 The Fish

The terms were longer than one year in each case and there was a full review of each individual who requested re-admittance when the soccer forum had an amnesty. This however is not an approach that has to be adopted or needs to be in every forum. We just find that it works for us.

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You (muppet) have already had 2 perm bans lifted and you were allowed back into the forum, so you know that these things are not absolute. However after three perm bans (perm probably should not be used) we are probably moving closer to an absolute.

ah yeah but they don't count, they were in the good old days before boards became a civilised community.;)

AH I miss the days when you could get a permban if someone you had nominated for access to soccer stepped out of line, I'd say you miss them too , do you?

The Recliner

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Do 1 year bans not solve that problem? Serious question.

What is the difference between banning someone for a year and allowing themselves to hang themselves as they may when the temporal ban is up, they're banned for another year and you have nothing to worry about.

It seems like more work to perma-ban someone then have to deal with reversing it, just to perma-ban them again.

If you're 1 year banning someone 3 times (that's 3 years!) obviously they haven't learnt their lesson and then maybe consider a perma ban?

I would suggest the reason a Permaban is more effective (even if it causes more work reviewing) it is because given how severe the sanction is it might actually make someone think that they need to learn how to post on the forum

People have come back from 6 month bans and acted the exact same as before the ban, people have been banned in ever increasing increments from 1 week, 2 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and still haven't gotten the message so for some people it can take having their access removed permenantly for the message to hit home that they need to change their behaviour

As was said Permabans can be lifted so I don't see the issue here

Your issue seems to be with how your appeal was handled, if you aren't happy with how the Mods handled it you still have recourse to the CMods/Admins and DRP

Thanx 4 The Fish

The Muppet wrote: »

ah yeah but they don't count, they were in the good old days before boards became a civilised community.;)

AH I miss the days when you could get a permban if someone you had nominated for access to soccer stepped out of line, I'd say you miss them too , do you?

Not at all, and of course nobody could, or did,l get a perm ban for sponsoring someone but you could get temp bans.

That was not what you were twice perm banned for though so not it is not that relevant. As we are not really into specifics here either, this discussion should probably cease. I merely joined in to highlight the fact that you know that perm does not always mean perm.

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Not at all, and of course nobody could, or did,l get a perm ban for sponsoring someone but you could get temp bans.

That was not what you were twice perm banned for though so not it is not that relevant. As we are not really into specifics here either, this discussion should probably cease. I merely joined in to highlight the fact that you know that perm does not always mean perm.

They did. What did you get if you got three temp bans (the equivalent to 3 infractions today) in those days?

You can't remember anyway, you had to ask me how many permbans I have had?

IITYWYBMAD

The Muppet wrote: »

They did. What did you get if you got three temp bans (the equivalent to 3 infractions today) in those days?

You can't remember anyway, you had to ask me how many permbans I have had?

I really don't think that you get it at all, do you?

I know that this "ban crusade" is not about you, and I'd actually imagine that you would have started this thread (and the other posts) had you not been permanently banned from the SF for a second time recently. So what do you think is the issue?

Do you actually believe that the Mods/Admins here think that less = more? i.e. Ban more users equals more popularity of site/boards.ie? Or, perhaps, do you think that they are trying to cut the sh*t away from the various fora, because so much hassle is made by so few users?

I know of many good posters, who no longer post in the SF because of you and others. Do you not think that this message drills down to the Mods/Admins?

Now, I realize that this is not about you, so lets have this hypothetical situation whereby a user gets banned twice from a forum, and has a history of complete muppetry, such as having an Admin nearly restoring a 14GB backup to prove this "user" and their mate were not acting the dick (when they actually were) and this mystery user having to make the most humble and embarrassing apology afterwards when they were found out to be completely lying to the whole community. Lets assume this "user" gets off, and then decides to completely skirt around the rules, and generally being a Muppet (with the memory of that humiliation still fresh in his/her memory) , so do you not think that this mystery user should just say ....well....enough is enough?

Do you think that the site should bend to the user, or the site should just say "f**k this"..bye bye. Justification, me arse...

I'm no fan of the moderation/admin of this site in general;, but in this case, they actually have no need to explain themselves.

OutlawPete

Dav wrote: »

If mods decide that anyone needs to be permanently banned from a forum then generally speaking it's because they were causing upset and it's for the good of the community on that particular forum that they are no longer a part of it.

Again I state, there is only one person who's probably at fault and that's the person who's been banned.

Precisely .. which is why I feel that all permabans should be disputable via the DRP, as mistakes and poor judgement calls can obviously be made. You have mentioned before that you are employed to look out for the Boards community and part of that undoubtedly is to see that members are fairly treated while they are here. Well, like it or not, I too am a member of that community Dav and I take great exception at being treated like a troll by some members of the administration of this forum. I was permabanned from a forum for basically disputing a moderation decision (via the correct channels I might add) and a week later giving Feedback on another members thread, who appeared to have had a similar experience to what I had, on that same forum.

Now, before I am set upon again here, let me make it very clear: I DO NOT in any way wish to dispute my permban here in the Feedback forum (as I already made clear in the thread I started, which was locked). What I do however wish to do is dispute the permaban in the DR forum, just as I feel all users should have the option of doing, when and if they feel that their permaban was unwarranted and unjust. It's not simply a case that I disagree with the reasoning of just why I was permabanned from the forum, it's the fact that the reasons expressed to me via PM are based on falsehoods and untruths.

Allowing myself and other users to dispute bans such as these would go a long way to making sure that there is complete transparency on Boards when it comes to permabanning members from forums and not just partial transparency, which is what I feel it is right now, as long as admin can just permaban members and should that member attempt to appeal/dispute those bans, just be dismissed out of hand with comments such as: "You have been dealt with already by an Admin and that is the end of it.".

The Muppet

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I really don't think that you get it at all, do you?

I know that this "ban crusade" is not about you, and I'd actually imagine that you would have started this thread (and the other posts) had you not been permanently banned from the SF for a second time recently. So what do you think is the issue?

Do you actually believe that the Mods/Admins here think that less = more? i.e. Ban more users equals more popularity of site/boards.ie? Or, perhaps, do you think that they are trying to cut the sh*t away from the various fora, because so much hassle is made by so few users?

I know of many good posters, who no longer post in the SF because of you and others. Do you not think that this message drills down to the Mods/Admins?

Now, I realize that this is not about you, so lets have this hypothetical situation whereby a user gets banned twice from a forum, and has a history of complete muppetry, such as having an Admin nearly restoring a 14GB backup to prove this "user" and their mate were not acting the dick (when they actually were) and this mystery user having to make the most humble and embarrassing apology afterwards when they were found out to be completely lying to the whole community. Lets assume this "user" gets off, and then decides to completely skirt around the rules, and generally being a Muppet (with the memory of that humiliation still fresh in his/her memory) , so do you not think that this mystery user should just say ....well....enough is enough?

Do you think that the site should bend to the user, or the site should just say "f**k this"..bye bye. Justification, me arse...

I'm no fan of the moderation/admin of this site in general;, but in this case, they actually have no need to explain themselves.

You shoudn't "play" if your not able to handle losing.

ISAW

lordgoat wrote: »

It's very easy to spot the trolls tbh.

It's all well and good having a point of view but when you don't try and engage in debate just prattle on about said opinion, then start a blog cos that ain't discussion.

I agree 100%
Some mods don't seem to take this sound advice on board.
In my experience some posters who prattle are retained and others who point out their lack of engagement get banned! Case in point helpdesk thread about Christianity moderation. This isn't about my ban so much as styles of moderation which lead to such bans.

By the way I assume by "you prattle on" you don't mean me but "one" or "when a poster prattles"?

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

You (muppet) have already had 2 perm bans lifted and you were allowed back into the forum, so you know that these things are not absolute. However after three perm bans (perm probably should not be used) we are probably moving closer to an absolute.

I have raised the problems with Res judicata and ne bis in idem elsewhere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_bis_in_idem

If you have served your time retrying the case when raccused of something else comes under ne bis in idem.

OutlawPete wrote: »

, I too am a member of that community Dav and I take great exception at being treated like a troll by some members of the administration of this forum.
...I was permabanned from the forum, it's the fact that the reasons expressed to me via PM are based on falsehoods and untruths.

Allowing myself and other users to dispute bans such as these would go a long way to making sure that there is complete transparency on Boards when it comes to permabanning members from forums and not just partial transparency, which is what I feel it is right now, as long as admin can just permaban members and should that member attempt to appeal/dispute those bans, just be dismissed out of hand with comments such as: "You have been dealt with already by an Admin and that is the end of it.".

Ditto! Like he said. Me too.
The point seems to be that how things look and feel for most is given greater focus than actually allowing freedom of expression. \And Im not talking about spammers asnd trolls. I am talking about something I brought up during a discussion with Salman Rushdie of all people. The point I made was that democracy is built not on what we ban but on what we are prepared to tolerate. For example in hois case people tried to ban a film in which Saliman Rushsie is captured and killed but he himself asked the censor for this offending film to be allowed to be released. I would say the same about Nazi's. Anti Jew rhetoric may be offensive but we should debate it and not ban it. Likewise with anti Catholic posters posting in Christianity. I defend their right to post. But banning people for criticising them for example while allowing them to post is patently wrong!

LoLth

good thing its a privately owned website and not an irish court of law then.

user bans and ban history are kept as a record of that users behaviour on the site. If a user get a permanent ban that is later lifted, then you can be absolutely 100% sure that the original permanent ban, the reson it was given *and* the reason it was lifted as well as any conditions on that lifting, will be taken into account when deciding the length of a ban from the same forum. It isnt punishing a person for the same act twice, its punishing a person because they failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.


As for anti-X rhetoric: discussion, imho , is fine but it *has* to be regulated otherwise a vocal minority will take it as an opportunity to treat the discussion as open season on whatever X is and we run the risk of the forum being used to soapbox propaganda.
Anti-catholics posting in the catholic forum for example: yes, post a polite discussion point on a forum where you know the vast majority are going ot have a view opposing yours and expect others to disagree and defend their view just as strongly as the poster holds theirs. The importnat point is to engage in discussion and not just post an attack on the catholic church and then sit back smugly as the target audience is sufficiently outraged and angered. The forums are for discussion and not just forcing views on others.

Where there is ambiguity, I would much much prefer that the moderators err on the side of caution and discuss with the user afterwards rather than allow abuse to continue to a point where the intent is absolutely certain and then lose the goodwill of a , justifiably, disgruntled majority.I would also hope that a user would understand the mods actions and accept the resoning behind them, even if they prove to be wrong in the end. (this would depend a lot on how the user is treated by the mod. I have no time for users that explode with insults and threats when they have received nothign but polite communications from the mods). If a user has received bans in the past for similar bahaviour and the actions have continued without taking the mod's warnings into account - as in the posting style hasnt changed or the particularly abusive or sensitive content, then this should definitely result in less leeway on future actions and longer/more severe ban terms until the user "gets" it or has no way to come back.

ISAW

LoLth wrote: »

good thing its a privately owned website and not an irish court of law then.

So what? Do you think people should be encouraged to hurt others in private if they are not allowed to do it in public?

You seem to miss the point! The excuse of " boards is a dictatorship" while valid is the last vestige of hypocrisy. I mean either you are advocating fair play and fair procedures or you are saying you could care less about them and are suiting yourself. which is it?
With comments like the above it would seem clearly the latter . In which case why pretend?

user bans and ban history are kept as a record of that users behaviour on the site.

So what? Criminal records are also kept on criminals. But you do not get to bring the past history into a particular case! That is the difference. Innocence is assumed. You do not revisit the prior case and retry it! Yes after a fair trial you can look at prior cases in terms of sentence. A kangaroo court is not a fair hearing especial;ly if to appease a Lynch mob.

If a user get a permanent ban that is later lifted, then you can be absolutely 100% sure that the original permanent ban, the reson it was given *and* the reason it was lifted as well as any conditions on that lifting, will be taken into account when deciding the length of a ban from the same forum.

That is different! You are talking about a perma ban being overturned here.
Maybe that is a confusion we can sort out?
What you refer to is part of is an appeal process.

I am talking about a totally separate independent issue having a prior offence brought into it. In effect retrying the person for something he was already aquitted of or convicted of. Double jeopardy.

It isnt punishing a person for the same act twice, its punishing a person because they failed to learn from the mistakes of the past.

If After the judgement you look at prior convictions!
But you don't base the judgement on retrying or bringing in a prior case.

The sentence may reflect on prior form but the judgment should not!
Do you see what I mean?

As for anti-X rhetoric: discussion, imho , is fine but it *has* to be regulated otherwise a vocal minority will take it as an opportunity to treat the discussion as open season on whatever X is and we run the risk of the forum being used to soapbox propaganda.
Anti-catholics posting in the catholic forum for example: yes, post a polite discussion point on a forum where you know the vast majority are going ot have a view opposing yours and expect others to disagree and defend their view just as strongly as the poster holds theirs.

Aha but that isn't what is happening. Take a look at my Help Desk Thread on that.
Many of the people who might defend a reasoned argument (e.g. me) are banned ( wand whiule they/I were being treated far form "politely") for on the basis that they "disrupt" the forum yet in their absence the forum is full of anti Catholic rhetoric!

The importnat point is to engage in discussion and not just post an attack on the catholic church and then sit back smugly as the target audience is sufficiently outraged and angered.

The target audience was banned! The smug bunch were allowed continue!

Where there is ambiguity, I would much much prefer that the moderators err on the side of caution and discuss with the user afterwards rather than allow abuse to continue to a point where the intent is absolutely certain and then lose the goodwill of a , justifiably, disgruntled majority.I would also hope that a user would understand the mods actions and accept the resoning behind them, even if they prove to be wrong in the end. (this would depend a lot on how the user is treated by the mod. I have no time for users that explode with insults and threats when they have received nothign but polite communications from the mods).

All very wise words which are admirable. But again it seems while you appeal to follow such rules, in practice when this does not happen you always have the "ah well this is a dictatorship anyway" excuse. In which case why pretend to follow the wise course you above advocate?

If a user has received bans in the past for similar bahaviour and the actions have continued without taking the mod's warnings into account - as in the posting style hasnt changed or the particularly abusive or sensitive content, then this should definitely result in less leeway on future actions and longer/more severe ban terms until the user "gets" it or has no way to come back.

Ah but now, having clarified the difference between sentence and judgement you are back to non bis in idem! All I can say for myself is I didn't abuse anyone. If anything I was blamed for my own abuse, and accused of facilitating the abuse of children. If you find reference to that "sensitive" to people feelings just think how I might feel on being accused of that.

Insect Overlord

If you put half the effort into real life that you put into your encyclopaedic posts, you'd probably have the money to buy out Boards and change everything about it just to suit you.

Thanx 4 The Fish

ISAW wrote: »

So what? Criminal records are also kept on criminals. But you do not get to bring the past history into a particular case! That is the difference. Innocence is assumed. You do not revisit the prior case and retry it! Yes after a fair trial you can look at prior cases in terms of sentence. A kangaroo court is not a fair hearing especial;ly if to appease a Lynch mob.

That is different! You are talking about a perma ban being overturned here.
Maybe that is a confusion we can sort out?
What you refer to is part of is an appeal process.

No it is you who are getting it wrong . A perm ban is that, much like a life sentence. A user, if they have shown somewhere that they are deserving of re-admittance to the forum (or society), can have their ban lifted but it is essentially probation. The rules still apply to them the same way but if they continue to breach them then essentially their perm ban is reinstated. A lot like I believe a life sentence can go! (although I am not going to pretend to be any kind of lawyer)

FreudianSlippers

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

No it is you who are getting it wrong . A perm ban is that, much like a life sentence. A user, if they have shown somewhere that they are deserving of re-admittance to the forum (or society), can have their ban lifted but it is essentially probation. The rules still apply to them the same way but if they continue to breach them then essentially their perm ban is reinstated. A lot like I believe a life sentence can go! (although I am not going to pretend to be any kind of lawyer)

Accepting what you've stated, should there not be some level of transparency and/or open conversation regarding the removal of a perma-ban or placing a temporal nature on it?

Or should it be acceptable for a user to request same and be told something along the lines of "we have discussed it and no"?

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

No it is you who are getting it wrong . A perm ban is that, much like a life sentence. A user, if they have shown somewhere that they are deserving of re-admittance to the forum (or society), can have their ban lifted but it is essentially probation. The rules still apply to them the same way but if they continue to breach them then essentially their perm ban is reinstated. A lot like I believe a life sentence can go! (although I am not going to pretend to be any kind of lawyer)

I was never informed of this on readmitance nor in any previous communication with the mods and that includes you . Here are the conditions I was given after my last ban, Notice the bit in bold.

1. Read the access request mechanism thread here. Make sure you read the soccer forum charter carefully while you're doing that.
2. Bear in mind that all of you will have to serve a 6 month probation period, not the 3 months mentioned in that thread. That means if you pick up one red card or three yellows in your first six months then you will be banned again, although in each of your cases that means a permanent ban again, with no review.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=75255705

Are you making up the rules as you go along?

ISAW

Insect Overlord wrote: »

If you put half the effort into real life that you put into your encyclopaedic posts, you'd probably have the money to buy out Boards and change everything about it just to suit you.

Indeed.But because of a psychological disability it is unlikely. Well that coupled with I actually care about what I post and am not driven by owning things. Oh yes and I am an anti authoritarian. Don't take anything on face value to me just because of what I say. Go and check out my supporting evidence and arguments and convince yourself. If I'm wrong show me where and I am happy to correct it.

ISAW

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

No it is you who are getting it wrong . A perm ban is that, much like a life sentence. A user, if they have shown somewhere that they are deserving of re-admittance to the forum (or society), can have their ban lifted but it is essentially probation. The rules still apply to them the same way but if they continue to breach them then essentially their perm ban is reinstated. A lot like I believe a life sentence can go! (although I am not going to pretend to be any kind of lawyer)

I don't want to go into my personal case but I never broke the rules. Mods and pother posters just didn't like my posting style. They found my overuse of information and continual contradiction of double standards every time I witnessed it with annotated reference as detrimental to a forum. Apparently I'm even too "off the wall" even for The Cookoos nestwher I am currently appealing a permaban.

A permaban is forever even after death of the poster- a life sentence isn't even for the life of the defendant.

FlutterinBantam

ISAW wrote: »

I don't want to go into my personal case but I never broke the rules. Mods and pother posters just didn't like my posting style. They found my overuse of information and continual contradiction of double standards every time I witnessed it with annotated reference as detrimental to a forum. Apparently I'm even too "off the wall" even for The Cookoos nestwher I am currently appealing a permaban.

A permaban is forever even after death of the poster- a life sentence isn't even for the life of the defendant.

Cuckoo's Nest perma!!!

Not a chance there poster, those dudes are bitter, like their own little coterie of yes men and yes ladies.

This poster was banned aeons ago for daring to query why certain posters could be immune from the 'Post here and be banned' thread, whilst others would be smacked over the chops with the ban hammer.

Incestuous area ,if I may say so, just move on and say "good riddance" friend.

Thanx 4 The Fish

The Muppet wrote: »

I was never informed of this on readmitance nor in any previous communication with the mods and that includes you . Here are the conditions I was given after my last ban, Notice the bit in bold.



Are you making up the rules as you go along?

Is that the one after your first or second re-admittance after a permanent ban form the soccer forum? I am sure that the strictures placed upon you were a harder back then, of course you could go and lie about receiving pms on the subject if you so choose.

TBH as you have repeatedly said that you have no interest in rejoining the soccer forum, I have no idea why I am even engaging with you.

Nodin

Given the history of some the participants in this and other threads, perhaps we should have feedback renamed to 'The Last Goad Saloon'.

ISAW

Nodin wrote: »

Given the history of some the participants in this and other threads, perhaps we should have feedback renamed to 'The Last Goad Saloon'.

Do you really think some moderators make a habit of goading non mods?
Here is an ongoing one straight out of the "we just don't like you" School of Kafkesque modding. And I hadn't even begun to state my case? Just asking about a ban was enough to warrant a biased judgment.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056442693

Boards.ie... let's stop people we don't like from talking?