|
|
|
-
In general we don't discuss individual moderation decisions in the public forums, because it's not really fair to the person who has been banned and can't respond. This new capability is less severe than a total ban or restricted access, and I don't suspect that it will be needed that often. Aside from drive-by spammers, relatively few people have been banned from the site--maybe 10-20 individuals total out of 16,530 registered users over the last four years.
-
 Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
In general we don't discuss individual moderation decisions in the public forums, because it's not really fair to the person who has been banned and can't respond.
A convenient side effect of this policy is that your judgement is never scrutinized by ordinary users of the site.
If you're not taking your camera...there's no reason to travel. --APUG member bgilwee
-
Your use of the term 'convenient' here implies the moderators naturally have some bias or malicious intent. Personally I've never seen evidence of this in the time I've been here. It is only 'convenient' in the sense that protracted discussion and resulting embarrassment for the banned user can be avoided when a decision has been made in accordance with the process. The reasons for implimenting the feature and motivation for its' use were outlined clearly.
-
Can I post to this thread?
I thought I did...
-
Originally Posted by copake_ham
Can I post to this thread?
I thought I did...
I saw that post, and I think you posted to a similar, related thread. Check your own recent posts, and you should find it.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by Petzi
A convenient side effect of this policy is that your judgement is never scrutinized by ordinary users of the site.
This is true, but it is also true that ordinary users of the site usually have less information about these situations than the moderators do, and they may involve things like harrassment that happens outside the forums, and some of the parties involved may not wish for such things to appear in public.
Internet forums are not democracies, but as far as they go, APUG is pretty well behaved and as such doesn't require too much intervention on the part of the moderators. If Sean thinks what we're doing is working, then he'll probably stick with it. If not, it's his site, and it's up to him to decide what to change.
-
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
I saw that post, and I think you posted to a similar, related thread. Check your own recent posts, and you should find it.
Thanks, David.
The old "multiple thread" thing.
No need to repeat except to say - please, dear Mods, use this tool very lightly and endeavor to resist the natural human temptation of permitting personal biases to influence your decisions to employ it.
-
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
This is true, but it is also true that ordinary users of the site usually have less information about these situations than the moderators do, and they may involve things like harrassment that happens outside the forums, and some of the parties involved may not wish for such things to appear in public.
Internet forums are not democracies, but as far as they go, APUG is pretty well behaved and as such doesn't require too much intervention on the part of the moderators. If Sean thinks what we're doing is working, then he'll probably stick with it. If not, it's his site, and it's up to him to decide what to change.
The process almost always works like this:- The same user has multiple posts reported.
- We send a polite note
- they ignore it and more posts are reported
- or they attack us for being nazis or worse
- and or they start a new profile
- more posts are reported
- We discover the multiple id's
- more notes
- often more attacks (via pm as well as post in threads)
- more reported posts
- a vote to ban or restrict
- a banned or restricted user
More often than not the community might never see the offensive posts (we may have deleted them, closed the thread or the thread went unnoticed by the majority) or never see the threatening PM's.
-
Myself personally have no problems with any of the policies that Sean or the moderators have implimented, and this comes from one, who has been at odds with both parties at times, for the most part, with a few exceptions, they do a pretty good job and have for several years now.
Dave
-
It might be a good idea for the mods to consider posting something when they decide to ban someone from a thread.
A sort of "we have decided that "Matt King" needs a time out from this thread", post would be both transparent to the community, and educative.
This is assuming, of course, that at least some of the posts that led up to the banning remain for viewing.
Matt
P.S. not that you'd ever want to ban me!, of course
|
|
Adv Reply
