The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here

[Julie Fern]

julie want make clear julie believe torture be absolutely unacceptable.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

At what point does the ban process start though? 

It's more an issue of which behaviors are sufficient to warrant banning a poster rather than determining which steps should be taken after a poster's behaviors meet whatever criteria. 

It seems unreasonable to expect moderators to follow a complicated process that would require tracking reported/violating posters across any number of threads over indefinite periods of time.  Given that we only hope moderators will respond to reported content (and no expectation of anything at all, let alone active monitoring of the entire content of the site) we have to depend on user-reporting.  It's impractical to implement a process that asks moderators to do anything more than assess reported content (according to a set of standards) and then issue some sort of warning (re the thread generally or specific posts when those standards are violated) before having the option of banning the poster.  We are in the process of nominating potential moderators based at least in part on our trust in their ability to fairly assess content.  This means we should rely on their judgment to ban posters after a poster is reported and certain standards are violated and some sort of warning has been issued and then only if the moderator makes the determination based on a subsequent violation or violations. 

/edit missing word

TITCR!!!

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Yeah, that's about as straightforward as moderation gets. I don't know about SMF, but I know PHP and PunBB can do a timed ban. If the board software won't, you can always set an Outlook reminder to lift a ban on a certain day.

Yes SMF allows a temp ban for however many days you want to set it at.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Say what you want so long as you don't run afoul of Miss P and her ilk.  Then you're banned, even if all you did was disagree with them about, say, whether or not a faulty test at Drake university should be re-administered or something.

I can't speak for Miss P or any of the other posters, but it is notable to observe that since I've become aware of this user account I disagree with about 99% of what you say - yet you are still here posting freely.  [rhetorical] That fact tends to disprove your content-agreement theory wouldn't you say? [/rhetorical]

[goaliechica]

I have no doubt that you and the others know it when you see it.  I just think you should be a bit more honest about what it is that you're seeing.

JofA is a personal hero, even though Besson's movie sucked.

When you say peace out, you leave.

 

[Julie Fern]

Say what you want so long as you don't run afoul of Miss P and her ilk. Then you're banned, even if all you did was disagree with them about, say, whether or not a faulty test at Drake university should be re-administered or something.

I can't speak for Miss P or any of the other posters, but it is notable to observe that since I've become aware of this user account I disagree with about 99% of what you say - yet you are still here posting freely. [rhetorical] That fact tends to disprove your content-agreement theory wouldn't you say? [/rhetorical]

anything in particular you want mention?

[Miss P]

Say what you want so long as you don't run afoul of Miss P and her ilk.  Then you're banned, even if all you did was disagree with them about, say, whether or not a faulty test at Drake university should be re-administered or something.

I can't speak for Miss P or any of the other posters, but it is notable to observe that since I've become aware of this user account I disagree with about 99% of what you say - yet you are still here posting freely.  [rhetorical] That fact tends to disprove your content-agreement theory wouldn't you say? [/rhetorical]

Yeah, for what it's worth, Sands and EarlCat can confirm that I've never complained about ISUCKATTHIS or Jake_MONDATTA, despite obviously disagreeing with both of them and, indeed, feeling as if they are harassing me. This whole thing is absurd.

[Scentless Apprentice]

I also find it hilarious that it's been virtually admitted that there is no objective standard for "ban-worthy behavior."  The poster mentioned by Scentless  escaped banning because no regulars complained about him/her.  Say what you want so long as you don't run afoul of Miss P and her ilk.  Then you're banned, even if all you did was disagree with them about, say, whether or not a faulty test at Drake university should be re-administered or something.

Peace out, people.  I want to hang with you about as much as you want to hang with me.

I really like many of the regulars on LSD - Exilers, Miss P, Goalie, Matthies, nealric, vap, etc. Though they may not like me that much, ha. But, I'm really disappointed in some of the comments in this thread.

It's funny that one of the jobs an attorney may do in their career is fight for free speech, and here is a board full of future/current lawyers coming up with all kinds of conditions and scenarios to protect this little island from what they don't agree with or may consider annoying. It's such an interesting comment to me..on something..I dont know what exactly.

Sorry to bring up Cliff again, but it's a great example. This poster terrorized the board for months, and I know for a fact that users complained about his/her behavior. It's right there in some of the threads. Nothing was ever done in that extreme situation. When I brought it up as an example of a poster who may have exhibited ban worthy behavior, Miss P responded with a pargraph about how this person has been helpful under another identity, and is a friend of Earlcat's.

So, maybe there is some truth to what ISUCKATTHIS says in the above quote, you know, about running afoul of a certain ilk.

It's pretty easy to see some regulars jumping in on this thread, without their objectivity, and just sticking up for another regular.
 

[Miss P]

These are the kinds of threads that should be deleted or consolidated -- not to be punitive, but to clean up the board:

GET OUT OF WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW ASAP       General Board
DO NOT ATTEND WESTERN STATE COLLEGE OF LAW    Where should I go next fall?
GET OUT OF WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW ASAP    Western State College of Law
GET OUT OF WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW ASAP    3L job search
GET OUT OF WESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW ASAP    2L job search
AVOID ATTENDING WESTERN STATE COLLEGE OF LAW    1L job search
AVOID ATTENDING WESTERN STATE COLLEGE OF LAW - EVEN IF THEY OFFER A SCHOLARSHIPS    General board for soon-to-be 1Ls
AVOID ATTENDING WESTERN STATE COLLEGE OF LAW    Wait List

[Miss P]

I really like many of the regulars on LSD - Exilers, Miss P, Goalie, Matthies, nealric, vap, etc. Though they may not like me that much, ha. But, I'm really disappointed in some of the comments in this thread.

It's funny that one of the jobs an attorney may do in their career is fight for free speech, and here is a board full of future/current lawyers coming up with all kinds of conditions and scenarios to protect this little island from what they don't agree with or may consider annoying. It's such an interesting comment to me..on something..I dont know what exactly.

Sorry to bring up Cliff again, but it's a great example. This poster terrorized the board for months, and I know for a fact that users complained about his/her behavior. It's right there in some of the threads. Nothing was ever done in that extreme situation. When I brought it up as an example of a poster who may have exhibited ban worthy behavior, Miss P responded with a pargraph about how this person has been helpful under another identity, and is a friend of Earlcat's.

So, maybe there is some truth to what ISUCKATTHIS says in the above quote, you know, about running afoul of a certain ilk.

It's pretty easy to see some regulars jumping in on this thread, without their objectivity, and just sticking up for another regular.
 

I am afraid I disagree.  Where is the evidence that people complain about -- that is, report to moderators, not simply gripe about -- people with whom they disagree or whom they find annoying?  As I said upthread, I think this is a canard.  The people in this thread seem to be posting out of a desire to prevent arbitrary bans, such as PILOFOLO's appeared to be, and are seeking additional warnings and notice for posters before their accounts are suspended, and temporary suspensions before posters are banned.  This is a sign of tolerance and concern for fellow posters, even ones they may not like, isn't it?

Cliff007 is probably not a great example of anything except, perhaps, EarlCat's favoritism or lack of objectivity.  (I certainly know that lots of "regulars" hated him or felt tormented by him.)  I wasn't hanging out in a lot of the threads where he posted, but the few times I saw him post, I thought he was terribly obnoxious (and I knew who his other identity was when I thought this).  I may have even complained about him myself.  In any case, I know that in at least one thread [it was less explicit than I remembered it, but you can find it here, quoted in Matthies' post: "Apparently, I have been annoying to some people."], cliff007 acknowledged that people had complained about him and that a moderator had contacted him about it.  That's really all we know for sure about what happened until EarlCat comments himself.

I don't know what your last sentence means, exactly, but if it has something to do with me, please be more straightforward: what things are people saying that seem unfair to you?

EDIT to clarify some things.