The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here

[UnbiasedObserver]

If we lift the ban on this poster, how many seconds do you think it will be before they continue the behavior that landed them in the ban zone in the first place?

I don't necessarily disagree with you there.

I'm worried more about: a) the appearance of impropriety; and b) the lack of clear procedures (at least it seems) to deal with banning someone.

I think there should be a clear set guidelines here, in a sticky, that describes what behavior is not acceptable.  I think that in that sticky, there needs to be a certain protocol followed wrt notice, warnings, etc., so the person has fair notice that their next post/action will have consequences if they don't "shape up."  (And honestly, I don't think it would be bad to have first a private warning, then proceed to a public warning in another sticky, and go from there.)

Did that happen in this case?  Did you tell Pilofilo, "One more time and you're done?"  Or was it just a generalized statement?

Also, I would like to mention that when you said, "Cool it" (or something to that effect), that to me is very vague.  I would've never have thought that you might ban someone.  I have been here a long time, and I've had fairly limited contact with you despite my longevity here. 

And I don't think sheltron's viewpoint is "unpopular" as he thinks it is.  In fact, I agree with him.  I just think that banning as-applied in this case may have been done in an improper fashion, either due to letting emotion getting in the way or not having proper procedures in place. 

Anybody who has seen a good-sized amount of my posts knows that I believe in respecting other posters and their viewpoints.  I don't believe in trolling, or any of that nonsense.  I think it's not right, and it detracts from the community.

So for me to stick up for him, when really he was being a bother to many people, is telling (at least I think). 

Speaking of banning folks, Earl Cat and I have talked it over and we agree we need some more mods around here. So I'll start another thread for nominations.

That's a great idea. 

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

If we lift the ban on this poster, how many seconds do you think it will be before they continue the behavior that landed them in the ban zone in the first place?

I don't necessarily disagree with you there.

I'm worried more about: a) the appearance of impropriety; and b) the lack of clear procedures (at least it seems) to deal with banning someone.

I think there should be a clear set guidelines here, in a sticky, that describes what behavior is not acceptable.  I think that in that sticky, there needs to be a certain protocol followed wrt notice, warnings, etc., so the person has fair notice that their next post/action will have consequences if they don't "shape up."  (And honestly, I don't think it would be bad to have first a private warning, then proceed to a public warning in another sticky, and go from there.)

I'll reiterate:

As a general rule, (i) spam, (ii) personal harassment and (iii) blatantly "shock the conscience" posts (ie. Porn, racial junk, etc.) are 3 sure fire ways to get banned.

Since these things (outside of spam) are all subjective, at the end of the day it's going to require a mod to make a judgment call. 

In this case I made one.  You're free to disagree with it. I can respect that. I don't disagree with the one warning prior to ban method, and I usually apply that where appropriate. But to be honest with you, I have to admit that as a practicing attorney I don't have time for multiple warnings.  When I receive a violation report, I come in, deal with it, and get back to billing.   

This leads us back to the need for more mods, as they will, in theory, have more time to issue multiple warnings whereas somebody like myself or Earl Cat who have very limited time, not so much.

[UnbiasedObserver]

I'll reiterate:

As a general rule, (i) spam, (ii) personal harassment and (iii) blatantly "shock the conscience" posts (ie. Porn, racial junk, etc.) are 3 sure fire ways to get banned.

Is that in a sticky?  I think it should be, to make it clear, and I have no objections to those standards, naturally. 

Since these things (outside of spam) are all subjective, at the end of the day it's going to require a mod to make a judgment call. 

Naturally.  I'm not disputing that.  I just think we should have clear notice. 

In this case I made one.  You're free to disagree with it. I can respect that.

I'm just making you aware that a few people found it suspicious.  That's all. 

I don't disagree with the one warning prior to ban method, and I usually apply that where appropriate. But to be honest with you, I have to admit that as a practicing attorney I don't have time for multiple warnings.  When I receive a violation report, I come in, deal with it, and get back to billing.   

Wait, you're a practicing attorney?  That's crazy, dude.  Take a break and let someone else be a moderator! 

This leads us back to the need for more mods, as they will, in theory, have more time to issue multiple warnings whereas somebody like myself or Earl Cat who have very limited time, not so much.

Agreed. 

[Miss P]

If we lift the ban on this poster, how many seconds do you think it will be before they continue the behavior that landed them in the ban zone in the first place?

I don't necessarily disagree with you there.

I'm worried more about: a) the appearance of impropriety; and b) the lack of clear procedures (at least it seems) to deal with banning someone.

I think there should be a clear set guidelines here, in a sticky, that describes what behavior is not acceptable.  I think that in that sticky, there needs to be a certain protocol followed wrt notice, warnings, etc., so the person has fair notice that their next post/action will have consequences if they don't "shape up."  (And honestly, I don't think it would be bad to have first a private warning, then proceed to a public warning in another sticky, and go from there.)

Did that happen in this case?  Did you tell Pilofilo, "One more time and you're done?"  Or was it just a generalized statement?

Also, I would like to mention that when you said, "Cool it" (or something to that effect), that to me is very vague.  I would've never have thought that you might ban someone.  I have been here a long time, and I've had fairly limited contact with you despite my longevity here. 

And I don't think sheltron's viewpoint is "unpopular" as he thinks it is.  In fact, I agree with him.  I just think that banning as-applied in this case may have been done in an improper fashion, either due to letting emotion getting in the way or not having proper procedures in place. 

Anybody who has seen a good-sized amount of my posts knows that I believe in respecting other posters and their viewpoints.  I don't believe in trolling, or any of that nonsense.  I think it's not right, and it detracts from the community.

So for me to stick up for him, when really he was being a bother to many people, is telling (at least I think). 

Speaking of banning folks, Earl Cat and I have talked it over and we agree we need some more mods around here. So I'll start another thread for nominations.

That's a great idea. 

I agree with all of this, especially (1) that there are lots of levels of moderation that should be used before suspending or banning people and (2) that people should almost always get warnings/notice before any permanent action is taken on their accounts.  There are probably some extraordinary situations where immediate banning is the only real option, though I don't think that PILOFOLO's case is one of them.

ETA: I generally trust the mods to make these determinations, but it has been nice to see how open Sands has been to questions and concerns about his handling of this incident.  His forthright, non-defensive, and responsive behavior is really refreshing -- and just the kind of accountability we need from our mods.  (Thanks, Sands!)

I agree.  I suspect that they are all alts of the same person.  They all use caps in their names heavily, and they sound the same (and stick up for each other).  I'm pretty sure PILOFOLO and ISUCKATTHIS are the same poster. 

Yes.  Also, one appears to log into the site immediately after the other logs out and their posting bears several distinctive quirks.  And no, the irony of being accused of running some kind of cybermob by someone who is actually attempting to create a cybermob through various alts is not lost on me.  I hope we're wrong, though.

[UnbiasedObserver]

I agree with all of this, especially (1) that there are lots of levels of moderation that should be used before suspending or banning people and (2) that people should almost always get warnings/notice before any permanent action is taken on their accounts.  There are probably some extraordinary situations where immediate banning is the only real option, though I don't think that PILOFOLO's case is one of them.

I forgot to add what you just mentioned: I think there obviously will be times when a person should be banned immediately.  Of course, we could still have procedures where the moderator (in a special sticky) lists the ban(s) and explains why.  That helps with accountability.

ETA: I generally trust the mods to make these determinations, but it has been nice to see how open Sands has been to questions and concerns about his handling of this incident.  His forthright, non-defensive, and responsive behavior is really refreshing -- and just the kind of accountability we need from our mods.  (Thanks, Sands!)

Agreed. 

By the way, this has bugged me for some time, but what does "ETA" mean?   

[Miss P]

By the way, this has bugged me for some time, but what does "ETA" mean?   

Oh, sorry!  "Edited To Add."

[Naked Promise]

My only input is that I think some kind of uniform warning-before-banning procedure would be a good thing (although for certain types of posts there might need to be exceptions). I also think that different levels of punishment are appropriate (i.e., banning for different durations, not sure if you can limit people to a certain amount of posts in a specified period of time, i.e., 1 post every 5 minutes)).

[Miss P]

My only input is that I think some kind of uniform warning-before-banning procedure would be a good thing (although for certain types of posts there might need to be exceptions). I also think that different levels of punishment are appropriate (i.e., banning for different durations, not sure if you can limit people to a certain amount of posts in a specified period of time, i.e., 1 post every 5 minutes)).

I agree.  There's also a lot of moderation that's not even punishment, e.g., moving threads to the appropriate board, deleting spam, telling posters what they've done wrong (some genuinely may not know), etc.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

I'll reiterate:

As a general rule, (i) spam, (ii) personal harassment and (iii) blatantly "shock the conscience" posts (ie. Porn, racial junk, etc.) are 3 sure fire ways to get banned.

Is that in a sticky?  I think it should be, to make it clear, and I have no objections to those standards, naturally. 

Since these things (outside of spam) are all subjective, at the end of the day it's going to require a mod to make a judgment call. 

Naturally.  I'm not disputing that.  I just think we should have clear notice. 

In this case I made one.  You're free to disagree with it. I can respect that.

I'm just making you aware that a few people found it suspicious.  That's all. 

I don't disagree with the one warning prior to ban method, and I usually apply that where appropriate. But to be honest with you, I have to admit that as a practicing attorney I don't have time for multiple warnings.  When I receive a violation report, I come in, deal with it, and get back to billing.   

Wait, you're a practicing attorney?  That's crazy, dude.  Take a break and let someone else be a moderator! 

This leads us back to the need for more mods, as they will, in theory, have more time to issue multiple warnings whereas somebody like myself or Earl Cat who have very limited time, not so much.

Agreed. 

Fair enough.

I think we often take for granted that everybody knows the rules but so many generations of students have come through here that this institutional knowledge of what flies and what doesn't apparently has been lost.

And yeah I'm a practicing attorney.  In Biglaw at that.  I come back when I can and moderate the board mainly b/c I honestly feel that I'm in this position due to a lot of the advice that I picked up from this site.  So I have no problem giving back whenever/however I can to help others along this path.

[UnbiasedObserver]

Oh, sorry!  "Edited To Add."

Ah, my eyes are finally opened!