The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here

[Jamie Stringer]

That isn't how I see it at all. ISUCKATTHIS is pursuing Miss P from thread to thread, derailing constructive conversation for the sake of continuing a debate that should never have even begun, and making accusations of personal attacks that even he can't/won't substantiate when challenged. It's harassment, pure and simple, and it should stop by whatever means are required.

Now, back on-topic, I think the ban process should be:

1. First warning--sent via PM. Correction is best issued in private to avoid arguments and mod sass on the board, and embarrassment shouldn't be used as a punitive measure when other options exist. Of course, this is best used when there is a single offender.
2. Second warning--posted on the board. If the first warning didn't work, being polite obviously isn't going to have an effect and the poster and board should be made aware of exactly what policy is being violated, and what steps need to be taken to avoid further mod action. This can also be used to break up arguments instead of sending PMs, to discourage others from joining in.
3. Third warning--posted on the board and probation of a period to be determined by the mod based on the severity of the infraction.
4. Last straw--further probation or ban, as the mod sees fit.

Of course, the mod should feel free to skip steps if immediate action is necessary based on time restrictions or severity. These are merely guidelines, and I'm sure this sounds pretty familiar, since it's the way things appear to be run here already. But the key is to be specific in warnings/corrections, in private and on the board.

I'm wholly unhelpful in this thread as I'm adding nothing new, but I agree with the above.

[Miss P]

I think post-deletion, moving/combining threads, and moving to the Haterade should also appear somewhere on that list or another list.  I know they are and will remain options, but it's probably a good idea to have some guidelines for their use as well.  I don't have the energy to come up with detailed proposed guidelines right now, but maybe someone else will take a stab.

FWIW, I didn't interact with cliff007 a lot or see the pattern of ongoing harassment Scentless Apprentice describes (though I remember not liking what I did see of him because he was definitely obnoxious).  He is still active under another name and doesn't seem to be harassing anyone now, so maybe whatever moderation EarlCat and Sands did, short of banning him, helped.  I think I can add, without revealing too much personal information, that he is both a longtime (and helpful) poster on this board (under a different account) and a buddy of EarlCat's; I don't know if either of these things influenced how the moderator or moderators handled complaints about him.   In any case, it might be useful to look back on whether he received any warnings and what form they took. 

[Jamie Stringer]

I guess that this is a good time to mention that I definitely don't see the point of the Haterade board.  I mean, a post either does or does not violate board rules.  If it doesn't, it should stay where it was originally posted.  If it does, it shouldn't be on the board (and should be edited or deleted where appropriate).  Perhaps I'm too new, but I just don't see the need for Haterade and if a post really does break board rules, it shouldn't be in any of the forums IMO.

[Scentless Apprentice]

I just think they're arguing. She responds to his posts, so it's not necessarily pursuing.

It seems like I'm siding with ISUCKATTHIS. I'm not, rather just the idea that the discussion in this thread shouldnt have caused a user to be banned.

I agree with the steps.  

[Miss P]

I guess that this is a good time to mention that I definitely don't see the point of the Haterade board.  I mean, a post either does or does not violate board rules.  If it doesn't, it should stay where it was originally posted.  If it does, it shouldn't be on the board (and should be edited or deleted where appropriate).  Perhaps I'm too new, but I just don't see the need for Haterade and if a post really does break board rules, it shouldn't be in any of the forums IMO.

The Haterade served a much larger function when the search function was enabled.  Haterade posts were unsearchable.  Also, you have to be a member to read Haterade posts, which may cut down on some trolling.  I don't know.  It's not my favorite option, but I think it might be appropriate on occasion.  It has certainly been overused in the past.

I don't really like action against threads as a whole, unless the thread as a whole is just a shitfest or flame war. Though, I guess it's likely possible to move individual posts to a new thread in Haterade, it seems like more trouble than it's worth, since the offenders will likely return to the original thread to continue whatever got the posts moved in the first place.

I was also talking about non-punitive moves, e.g., combining threads when a user posts multiple threads on the same topic or moving threads when a user posts something to the wrong board.  Sands does this on BLSD sometimes, and I think it makes the board work better.  I'd like to see the moderators take this kind of constructive action more often.

[Scentless Apprentice]

I just think they're arguing. She responds to his posts, so it's not necessarily pursuing.

It seems like I'm siding with ISUCKATTHIS. I'm not, rather just the idea that the discussion in this thread shouldnt have caused a user to be banned.

I agree with the steps. 

No, it isn't just arguing. She shows up in here to contribute, and he comes in to continue the debate form another thread that she has tried to let go several times after stating her case. But I'm really, really tired of rehashing all of this. Can we just, please, focus on where we're going to go instead of going around and around about a ban that, even if lifted, likely wouldn't bring PILO back?

Everyone has great ideas about when it's apropriate to ban, and what steps should be taken. The point is, nothing even close to that happened in this case.

[Miss P]

Everyone has great ideas about when it's apropriate to ban, and what steps should be taken. The point is, nothing even close to that happened in this case.

I think we all (except, perhaps, Sands) agree about this.  Still, we don't know how many and what kinds of complaints Sands received and whether PILOFOLO was aware of any of them.  A lot of the initial concern about this incident stemmed from the fact that Sands' post made it look as if Sands banned PILOFOLO for sassing him.  Now, we know more about what happened, so this is less of a concern.  Nonetheless, as I said before, from what I know about PILOFOLO, I certainly don't think he needed to be banned (though I don't know the nature of people's complaints about him and I generally trust Sands' judgment about these things).

[Scentless Apprentice]

FWIW, I didn't interact with cliff007 a lot or see the pattern of ongoing harassment Scentless Apprentice describes (though I remember not liking what I did see of him because he was definitely obnoxious).  He is still active under another name and doesn't seem to be harassing anyone now, so maybe whatever moderation EarlCat and Sands did, short of banning him, helped.  I think I can add, without revealing too much personal information, that he is both a longtime (and helpful) poster on this board (under a different account) and a buddy of EarlCat's; I don't know if either of these things influenced how the moderator or moderators handled complaints about him.   In any case, it might be useful to look back on whether he received any warnings and what form they took. 

Oh, he's a longtime helpful poster under a differnt name? Nevermind.

If there is one user's posts that I think would warrant a ban, in all of the posts I've ever read on LSD - it would be cliff007. So..I just don't get it.

I would love to know who it is, but I doubt you would tell me. You are in the inner circle of LSDD!

[Miss P]

FWIW, I didn't interact with cliff007 a lot or see the pattern of ongoing harassment Scentless Apprentice describes (though I remember not liking what I did see of him because he was definitely obnoxious).  He is still active under another name and doesn't seem to be harassing anyone now, so maybe whatever moderation EarlCat and Sands did, short of banning him, helped.  I think I can add, without revealing too much personal information, that he is both a longtime (and helpful) poster on this board (under a different account) and a buddy of EarlCat's; I don't know if either of these things influenced how the moderator or moderators handled complaints about him.   In any case, it might be useful to look back on whether he received any warnings and what form they took. 

Oh, he's a longtime helpful poster under a differnt name? Nevermind.

If there is one user's posts that I think would warrant a ban, in all of the posts I've ever read on LSD - it would be cliff007. So..I just don't get it.

I would love to know who it is, but I doubt you would tell me. You are in the inner circle of LSDD!

I did not mean to suggest (at all!) that action shouldn't have been taken against him because he has (a) gotten his act together or (b) posted more constructively under a different account.  I was just offering one possible explanation (but not justification) as to why he might not have been banned or suspended despite multiple complaints -- assuming (as I do) that there were multiple complaints.  He might just be a special case, particularly given his relationship to EarlCat.  In any event, it would probably be helpful for EarlCat to let us know if he did ever give cliff007 warnings, etc.; maybe whatever EarlCat did worked and could serve as a model for other users who exhibit a pattern of harassment (i.e., whose posts, taken individually, are not really actionable).

[Scentless Apprentice]

Miss P, I agree with everything you said above (both posts).