who should be banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
3:57 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
lots of comments, open & honest and snide ones as well recently about good members being banned.
i ask you...who should be banned?

we have had folks that blatantly did not follow the rules set forth by the forum owner (both old & new)...BUT they were funny...or very knowledeable...or did a kindness here & there for a few other members.

and we have had fairly nondescript members that were banned and no one blinked an eye.

and we have had rude, racist, sexist members that were banned and there were cheers from the membership.

it's not so easy turning away folks we like even when they break the rules...it's also not very popular!

i spend alot of time on this forum and i have a pretty fair idea of who is doing what and how they are doing it...but even with all that time there are so many things that i miss and need to have pointed out to me...thanks, btw, to those who point those things out...
and yet i hear from folks who drop by once or twice a day (some even less) who are outraged that someone they like has been banned or just plain left on their own, and they have not a clue as to what brought it about...doesn't stop them from going on about it though.
there are a few who have had the decency to at least ask what happened...

there are always 2 sides to a story but so often no one is interested in the mods version...or even worse...it is assumed that the staffer is just wrong or not as important as the 'celebrity' who left.

i'm not looking for an argument here...but i am looking to shed some light on how things happen around here from my point of view.
 
I must have missed the whole kerfuffle. Joe, you have a thankless task... so thanks for doing it!
 
I've always had the impression that there was a self-selection policy: candidates identify themselves, and work hard to qualify! :)
 
Ideally nobody. I prefer temporary bans to permanent bans, but I have been in the situation where people just don't get the message and have had to leave permanently. It sucks, but sometimes it it is the only practical resolution. However the only people I would permanently ban without first giving a temporary ban are spammers and bots, who have no interest or ability to positively contribute to a forum. Just my 2 cents.
 
tunalegs said:
Ideally nobody. I prefer temporary bans to permanent bans, but I have been in the situation where people just don't get the message and have had to leave permanently. It sucks, but sometimes it it is the only practical resolution. However the only people I would permanently ban without first giving a temporary ban are spammers and bots, who have no interest or ability to positively contribute to a forum. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

unless it's an extreme behaviour most bans are temporary at first.
 
The people we've been talking about lately, Roger and Dave, left on their own, not banned, right? I wasn't around for either of the fights that led to them leaving, and I think that is why people get upset if someone leaves or gets banned. If they didn't see the person's bad behaviour, they don't understand why the person was banned or chose to leave.

As for who to ban, there aren't many, but there are a few people here I think are basically dishonest people who contribute nothing to the forum or its good members.
 
peanuts-rain-on-just-and-unjust.gif
 
There were a lot of real jerks who somehow reminded me very much of myself who have been banned. I found them to be a repulsive, unpleasant bunch. Good riddance to them.
 
I always appreciate the job mods do in any forum, even if at times it must be a very thankless task. I can't answer the question of who should be banned or not, or in what circumstances, but do know one thing, the best mods in any forum are like the best referees in any sporting contest.

In my mind, the best refs are not rigid rules lawyers, but rather almost father like figures who monitor the ebb and flow of the game, knowing when a quiet word in the ear is needed to pre-empt anything later, or when a stern warning, or even a card is necessary. Such refs exercise excellent judgement, and do their best to enable the best possible game to be played out, doing their best to keep the best players on the pitch if at all possible, while maintaining the delicate balance of control over the game and its participants. Sometimes players need to go too, and the best refs don't hesitate for a moment when that time comes too.

So, for me, its quite a delicate balance, and if anyone watched international soccer in the past, Pierluigi Collina, would have been the embodiment of all I prized in a referee in any sport, before he retired some years ago.

I generally try to avoid commenting on moderation policy here, but if brought up, as it has been in this thread, my thoughts would be that mods here can be a bit abrasive sometimes, and while I personally have a thick skin for these things, that bit of abrasiveness may sometimes be the litmus paper for inflaming something rather than cooling it.

In any event, one of the the acid tests for me when it comes to referees in sport, is whether most of the best players have ended up on the pitch, or off it, at the end of a game. If the latter, I would tend to ask myself, did the ref do the best job they could have, and sometimes here when I see the forum haemhorrage some good posters, I tend to ask myself could the moderation here be a little better sometimes.

Thats my opinion, straight from the gut, with no desire to antagonise or belittle the moderators or moderation here in any way, but rather provide feedback as solicited.
 
FWIW there are over 27,000 registered members who have not logged in since 1/1/12. So perhaps its best not to get too worked up over who hasn't been here lately. :)
 
As someone who copped a brief ban a while ago I feel qualified to add to this discussion:

It actually made me see the forum in a slightly different light and made me realise how important the conduct of established members is in keeping things calm around here. I was a little miffed at the time but looking back I did cross a line and was given a fair explanation of why my behaviour was not acceptable. Whether I agreed with that reasoning or not isn't all that important because the rules aren't made with my approval in mind and when a line is drawn in the sand I need to be aware of that and accept that crossing it has certain risks.

I'm quite happy here at RFF now, it's a brilliant place with some amazing people on board. Generally the moderation is astute and fair and over all we are very lucky to have such a resource at our fingertips. A short ban is actually quite educational because it makes you spend time in other parts of the internet and you soon realise that RFF is a pretty good spot to settle.

Let's just appreciate what we have here and not get too angsty about it all ... and let's not forget that it is only the internet. There's a real world only a few steps away from the computer. :)
 
There are rules here?

Jokes of course...
nine times out of 10 people (including management) take things far too seriously. Yes, of course there are rules but the problem with this form of communication is you are missing a couple important features in communicating:
1) Inflection in the voice - thereby you impart your own inflection (and emotion for that matter) to plain text. This is not the fault of the poster and not necessarily the fault of the reader - this is just how the system operates.
2) Facial expressions or gesticulations of the limbs - hand gestures, facial expressions all can add to communication. Without them though, we're left to impart what we THINK is going on behind the keyboard. The smileys help but they are no replacement for the real thing

Without these - text can be as cold or heated as you the reader make it out to be. Keep that in mind the next time some sort of argument flares up.

Peace out,
Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom