rustydrifter10 said:Look, just to get things rolling, I don't have any intention of getting bogged down here in some massive, endless debate over everyone else's sanctions or the various decisions being made about them—especially when it comes to those folks who've been banned. I’d rather just keep it brief, if we can all just agree to wrap that part up quickly.
Look, just because someone puts a complaint in a polite little package doesn't mean it’s going to be granted. If that were the case, everyone would just act however they wanted and then play the humble victim, asking nicely for their posts to be wiped clean. That’s just not how this forum works. Within a matter of minutes, the moderators identified several of her requests for permanent bans, and let me be clear: a permaban isn't some toy or a tool you use just to prove a point. The definition of that word is pretty damn unambiguous. Besides, Hunter isn't exactly the first person to have a request denied to return to the forum after being banned at their own request—just look at the history here. Here’s another one for you!I didn't even notice she had started opening a whole string of threads, and honestly, I didn't see anyone else on the forum making a huge stink about it either. Now that I've taken a closer look, I see her clone hasn't actually been banned yet, but since she hasn't really used that account to post anything else after the initial wave, it doesn't feel like much of an issue in the grand scheme of things.
Look, Schmokljan has just been relentlessly attacking people. I’ve got nothing against someone having a big personality or being a bit eccentric—honestly, that’s what makes things interesting—but we really shouldn't be mixing apples and oranges here. He was given a formal warning, he explicitly agreed to the terms, and then he went right ahead and broke them over and over again. If she ends up getting banned, she only has herself to blame.
But we certainly didn't see that play out the way we expected later on.
Well, you knew perfectly well that was against the rules. You aren't supposed to leak info from the private sections of the forum intended for staff eyes only; you were fully aware of the consequences and chose to go ahead with it anyway. That was your call.
Honestly, a six-month suspension for following the basic community guidelines shouldn't be an issue for anyone. We don't even necessarily need to jump straight to a permanent ban for a first offense—it doesn't even have to be the very first ban. Our goal is simply to ensure the person stops doing the exact thing that got them flagged in the first place, which usually has nothing to do with their personality.
It just isn't true that we punish people simply for disagreeing. Maybe we penalize the *way* that disagreement is expressed, but never the disagreement itself. The FBI is full of people who disagree with the administration and haven't faced any sanctions at all, so saying this is a pattern of targeting dissenters is neither accurate nor fair.
Of course it means something, though at the very least it warrants a decent response... What it certainly doesn't deserve, however, is a threat of partial payment.
In just a few minutes, the moderators identified several of her requests for a permanent ban, but a permaban isn't some toy or a tool to be used just to prove a point... The definition of that word is quite unmistakable. Besides, Hunter isn't the first person to have their request to return to the forum denied after being banned at their own request, so here is the proof... Just another example...I hadn't even noticed she was starting multiple threads, nor did I see anyone else on the forum making a massive scene about it. Now that I see her clone hasn't been banned, it doesn't seem to matter much since she stopped posting under that account anyway...
We could easily identify several other usernames that have been banned using this exact same logic. Honestly, hunting down bans only to have them overturned has always been a common occurrence here, and Hunter isn't some unique outlier in that regard... though, regarding the claim that she repeatedly requested to be banned and then unbanned—well, I suppose it’s just your word against hers. It's hard to say how many times that actually happened, considering she served as a moderator for a while, then posted consistently, and certainly wasn't banned recently since she was active right before her current suspension. All of this has unfolded within the roughly eighteen months you've been running the show. Even if we assume she did request multiple bans and unbans, does that really warrant a six-month lockout? And more importantly, does it justify saying it's "better" that she's gone?
If we really want to take this to the level of total absurdity—we’re talking about a medium that thrives entirely on addiction. Perhaps she tried to detox from the internet a few times... but it just didn't stick... 😬
It stands to reason she could have been given a fair warning to stop hunting for bans if that was truly her motive... which is what any editorial team actually invested in the community would have done. So, we're back to the same question: is this disciplinary action meant to be educational? Or is it just a case of the administration losing their patience? Because those two things aren't exactly the same thing as acting in the best interest of the site or its users. And finally, and this is a significant point: why wasn't the user who claims to have intel on that whole Cut-and-Paste situation banned—or at least granted access to PMs if they aren't ready to go public with what they know? I mean, if Hunter has to serve his six months to learn how to play by the rules, it really doesn't make much difference whether he starts today or tomorrow, does it...?
Schmokljan has been on a continuous streak of insults. I have absolutely nothing against having a strong personality or being unique—in fact, I appreciate it—but let’s not confuse eccentricity with outright disrespect... He was warned about his behavior and explicitly agreed to the terms, yet he proceeded to violate them time and time again. As far as her permanent ban goes, she really only has herself to blame.
The real question is whether he would have actually earned a moderator status if he had directed a post like that toward me instead of you... If he’d gone, "Zoe, are you thick or just slow?", nothing would happen; he’d just get flagged for trolling or being abusive. And that’s assuming any of the mods even bothered to step in, whereas I certainly wouldn't have reported him since he was polite enough to suggest I was merely being a bit slow... 😬
It didn't turn out that way for us later on.
Well, sooner or later, it makes little difference. Regardless of when it becomes apparent, you haven't admitted to the mistake, or rather, you haven't provided any evidence. I reserve the right to believe the whole thing was just a standard setup and a fabrication, especially considering how people were trying to figure out who was sabotaging the Cut-and-Paste operation earlier...
And then there's this recent example of how mistakes happen:
http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=776501 http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=776016You knew it was forbidden. You aren't supposed to leak information from private sections of the forum, you were aware of the consequences, and yet you did it anyway. That was your choice.
My choice, yes. A conscious and deliberate one. However, what wasn't my choice was having my ban extended by another month and a half. Nor was it my choice to have that entire situation discussed later involving the admin himself, while my posts on the community board—which contained my rebuttals and denials—were being systematically deleted...
Six months shouldn't be an issue for anyone following the basic rules of the forum. It isn't even about reinstating moderator privileges after the first infraction, let alone the first ban. We simply ask that the individual stops doing the very thing that caused them to lose their status in the first place, which usually isn't just a matter of personality.
Well, perhaps one option could be to simply warn someone that new rules are in effect and that bans upon request are no longer a thing...
It isn't true that we punish people for disagreeing. We might penalize the manner in which they express disagreement, but not the disagreement itself. The FBI is full of people who aren't sanctioned despite disagreeing with administration; that claim isn't even accurate or fair.
And I never said you punish people for disagreeing. I said that the common denominator in all these cases is a disagreement with administration, though the bans themselves are triggered by other things. I still consider you far more intelligent than you let on; you're far too wise to be punishing people the way the old administration used to... You do it differently—setting a precedent, implementing a new rule, staying silent, ignoring the issue, and then repeating a claim a hundred times until it becomes "truth"...
Ultimately, this is a conversation about your general strategy and practice regarding the use of long-term punishments for infractions that are, at most, minor disruptions to the content...
