brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:58 pm wrote:
I respectfully disagree with this as well. One of the "theories" that CW and her band of sycophantic cohorts allude to all the time is some back channel conspiracy by a cabal of evil freedom haters secretly working their plans to squelch dissent and creative thought on the board. The thought police! C'mon.
No need to give them any grist for that mill. Let the discussion be as public as possible.
Would you like to name the members here that you are calling her band of sycophantic cohorts?
Because if you can't or won't then maybe you should shut up...sounds like a pretty personal attack...but with a bit of oh I won't name names cause that against the rules...I can go around the rules this way...would it be some of the 21 people that voted for that thread to be shut down??
Who is "them"?
That was really helpful and sincerely said, bph
Thank you for such a snark free constructive comment.
SLAD, My conception of Them isnt the same as Dr B P Hackenbush upthread , more
V-A-N M-O-R-R-I-S-O-N
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.
But then there's precedent...like when you don't like a mods ban decision...
- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.
But then there's precedent...like when you don't like a mods ban decision...
brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:58 pm wrote:
I respectfully disagree with this as well. One of the "theories" that CW and her band of sycophantic cohorts allude to all the time is some back channel conspiracy by a cabal of evil freedom haters secretly working their plans to squelch dissent and creative thought on the board. The thought police! C'mon.
No need to give them any grist for that mill. Let the discussion be as public as possible.
Would you like to name the members here that you are calling her band of sycophantic cohorts?
Because if you can't or won't then maybe you should shut up...sounds like a pretty personal attack...but with a bit of oh I won't name names cause that against the rules...I can go around the rules this way...would it be some of the 21 people that voted for that thread to be shut down??
Who is "them"?
If that's an issue for one...
stevie ray » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:52 pm wrote:More disruptive than instigating hatred? I see a lot of hate here and not only a lot of hate but the celebration of it, and as far as I can tell that is very well tolerated by the moderation team if there really is a team because I don't see anyone but you piping up Wombaticus.
SLAD wrote:There is plenty of blame to go around for this one..... CW shouldn't be the one carrying all of it
Col Quisp » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:32 am wrote:Perma-banning should be meted out evenly. That is, do not let some get away with bad behavior while others get banned for the same offenses. Not naming names. Long time members should get more chances to redeem their bad behavior. I understand keeping out the riffraff (can't remember their names), but getting rid of people who have contributed a lot to our collective knowledge seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. You can always put people on ignore.
Was the banning because of the rant against Brekin? I admit, that was pretty reckless and stupid. But if we have to fear a humorless Big Brother to that extent, then we are in pretty deep doo doo.
stevie ray » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:51 am wrote:I think that I, as a very hesitant poster, would appreciate a little clarification of "harmful to others" as it pertains to this message board. This is in reference to worldsastage's comment right above mine but also sort of alluded to by others as well.
I would also wonder about number of suspensions leading up to a banning as I have to ask myself whether or not those suspensions were reasonable in the first place.
Finally, as other people have commented already so sorry to repeat, why is the same behavior punished when some do it but not when others do it?
...why not for all?
I mean, I don't think it necessarily is, myself. But that's partial, not comprehensive. I just figured I had enough to make the point.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Is Jeff ok with allowing her back if the poll suggests such and what this the threshold? On the other forum I suggested, you need at least 68% in favor of ban for there to be an actual banishment of a member, I dont know where they got that number but that is the one we use.
I like Hunter's suggestion: A set time for an open poll with two simple questions:
Should C_W remain banned?
Should we allow C_W to return?
We go with the one with 68% of the votes.
In fairness going forward I think offering such a poll option for repeated violations of the forum guidelines would be ideal. I would like to see her back even if at times I don't particularly like something she says. It's about reasonable adult discourse.
I've moderated much larger forums than this and there are always problems. On one in particular, after a series of issues the administrator decided to take a rigid and authoritarian stance regardless of what everyone else thought. It quickly devolved into a place where little disagreement but also little learning and discourse occurred. Suffice to say I left along with a number of long-term members. Those remaining ended up behaving as if they had a monopoly on "truth" and activities that questioned the leader no matter how polite, was not allowed at all. It's now has levels, some closed and some open but all must toe the line or get booted. Thank goddess this place isn't like that. The firepit usually but not always suffices. The latest flap is just one of a few, very few cases that I've seen (I miss Hugh) of repeated offenses by an individual and something has to give. A poll before banning outright is fair in my view. As for adding on other previously banned members or those who choose to leave to this poll, I don't agree. C_W and should remain the focus for this particular poll. Those who choose to leave did that on their own and can always return if they wish.
My dos pesos.
Thank you for that - I changed the Poll based on feedback from Hunter - (and from Cuda, who then boycotted it, which cracked me up )
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
non CW cohorts - No The permanent ban should stay
7
28%
band of CW's sycophantic cohorts - Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
18
72%
Great. And when that's done, I guess we can started on the others who are plenty to blame, whoever they are.
It wasn't a nice thing for him to have said. But is it really that impossible to see that almost EVERYBODY vents without naming names sometimes for very understandable reasons -- some good, some bad, but usually including not wanting to pick fights with them -- ALL THE TIME?
....
I don't know. Asking who's being spoken of once is always totally justified, imo. But obviously you should suit yourself and not me.
____________________
ON EDIT: It's been brought to my attention that it might not be clear that every post I quoted in my previous response asserts that posters here are doing some culpably bad and objectionable thing without naming them.
I have no problem with any of them. My point was that if it was wrong for bph, it should be just as wrong for everyone. But if it's not, everyone should have the same right to say something's bothering them without either throwing down about it themselves or being attacked ad infinitum.
Just my opinion.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:24 pm
by seemslikeadream
Did anyone here call the 7 members of RI that voted for CW to be permanently banned names like a little child?
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
I wouldn't have said so. But I'll admit it's close to the boundary. The thing is, though, SLAD....You express yourself in equally strong terms when you don't care for how other people are behaving. And you don't always name names. In fact, usually you don't.
I've always thought your reasons for doing that were more good than bad.
But if you have a serious problem and you're sure it's what you think it is and not what I think it is, stick to your guns.
The truth is that people say things that are just as bad or worse about me without naming names on a pretty regular basis sometimes. And maybe I'm wrong not to make a bigger deal of it than I do. But who cares? My point is that I'm not an impartial judge.
Anyway. I wasn't trying to boss you. If I made the conflict more and not less heated, I apologize. That's the opposite of what I intended.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
non CW cohorts - No The permanent ban should stay
7
28%
band of CW's sycophantic cohorts - Yes The permanent ban should be lifted
18
72%
Great. And when that's done, I guess we can started on the others who are plenty to blame, whoever they are.
It wasn't a nice thing for him to have said. But is it really that impossible to see that almost EVERYBODY vents without naming names sometimes for very understandable reasons -- some good, some bad, but usually including not wanting to pick fights with them -- ALL THE TIME?
....
I don't know. Asking who's being spoken of once is always totally justified, imo. But obviously you should suit yourself and not me.
I appreciate what your saying, the problem with it from my PoV is that it always creates more problems than it's worth. People can be left wondering "where they talking about me?". It can be very destructive. When I look back on many of the interactions in various Icke threads they have that flavour. There is a cumulative effect that kind of lowers the tone. So that gets said, I then refer to bph as Dr B P Hackenbush etc etc
On what might seem like a tangent, but it isnt, one of the posters I have come to value enormously here is 8bit. Whatever the word for "being able to interact in a way whereby the stories and values that weave our lives get shared without it being a big deal".
Perhaps it is just a learning styles thing... Mindmappers and Harvard Referencers trying to get along <wistful pondering...>
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.
But then there's precedent...like when you don't like a mods ban decision...
How very middle school. LOL away, by all means, but my post linked by Ben D is exactly what I stated in my list, a personal appeal. I didn't set a precedent. That avenue has always been available when member have a disagreement with the mods. Why is that so? Because it's a discussion forum, hello.
Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.
)