The Fundamental Problem with Permanent Bans

[Woodruff]

I'm talking freedom of speech............not death

What really IS freedom of speech? Freedom of speech actually comes with consequences tied to that freedom, after all.

[redhawk92]

I'm talking freedom of speech............not death

What really IS freedom of speech? Freedom of speech actually comes with consequences tied to that freedom, after all.

that is true sadly

[Woodruff]

I'm talking freedom of speech............not death

What really IS freedom of speech? Freedom of speech actually comes with consequences tied to that freedom, after all.

that is true sadly

I don't think it's sad, particularly. After all, being allowed to freely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater would not be a good thing. Almost all freedoms come with situational consequences.

[4myGod]

I am sorry but mods are members before mods! We very much enjoy playing this game just the same as YOU and others. I rather take offense to that statement. We as moderators are members to just like you are. And what? because we are moderators our opinions do not count? This is becoming a vicious circle of just wanting someone to blame, who cares if the moderators and admin are players as well right?

Who am I blaming? And what am I blaming them for?

You are 2 people, a moderator and a user. They cannot be combined, if someone offends you as a user then you need to let it go. If you bring your feelings and annoyances into moderation then you are a bad moderator and should be stripped of power. If not, then no worries, why do you take offense?

who cares if the moderators and admin are players as well right?

Come on now clapper. Don't take this so personal. You guys can suggest things as well, but when your suggestions to ban a user get put into action without any reasonable reason from the viewpoint of the community, your opinions and suggestions will be in question.

How many moderators do we have? no more than 50 I would say. How many active users? No more than 5,000? but I heard somewhere 20,000, I don't know, whatever. So if 50/5000 people are annoyed by a single person's post, that person will be banned? No... but that just happened. This is why you feel like we are attacking you, because you are part of the team who does what they want without explaining themselves to the 5,000 people.

Our opinion didn't matter concerning DM, so why should yours?

[hwhrhett]

So if 50/5000 people are annoyed by a single person's post, that person will be banned? No... but that just happened.

your posts annoy me, is that good for anything? maybe a warning, or a minor forum ban?

[Mr Changsha]

Now this is a real problem. "Skirting the rules" as Andy mentioned in the "ban PM" and this "pushing the boundaries" are NOT crossing the boundaries. Perhaps the actions warrant a reaction from the moderators...I can see that might be legitimate, but if that's the case then the reaction should be to CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES, not to punish someone for...not...crossing them.

I haven't read through the whole thread yet, and will go back and do so (I was away this weekend). However, I believe that constantly pushing the rules is well within the current Community Guidelines. It's in giant letters right at the beginning before the guidelines go into specifics...Don't be intentionally annoying. Now I can't speak for other mods, or for the admins, but personally I think that someone that continually is pushing the boundaries is doing so on purpose (or intentionally); and to me that is very annoying. Although they may be playing around to see what they can and can't get away with, eventually it becomes a tiresome game of cat and mouse, get's annoying and tedious to deal with, and like I said...could easily be seen as intentionally annoying.

Back to starting off with the first page; not really sure why I started reading the last post first...

Well I have read through all these threads and I can barely find a member who found DM to be annoying, intentionally or not. Yet I can find lot's of moderators and admins who found DM to be very annoying indeed. Perhaps the guidelines should be changed to Don't be intentionally annoying to the moderators as I think that would more accurately reflect the truth of the situation.

[Woodruff]

Now this is a real problem. "Skirting the rules" as Andy mentioned in the "ban PM" and this "pushing the boundaries" are NOT crossing the boundaries. Perhaps the actions warrant a reaction from the moderators...I can see that might be legitimate, but if that's the case then the reaction should be to CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES, not to punish someone for...not...crossing them.

I haven't read through the whole thread yet, and will go back and do so (I was away this weekend). However, I believe that constantly pushing the rules is well within the current Community Guidelines. It's in giant letters right at the beginning before the guidelines go into specifics...Don't be intentionally annoying. Now I can't speak for other mods, or for the admins, but personally I think that someone that continually is pushing the boundaries is doing so on purpose (or intentionally); and to me that is very annoying. Although they may be playing around to see what they can and can't get away with, eventually it becomes a tiresome game of cat and mouse, get's annoying and tedious to deal with, and like I said...could easily be seen as intentionally annoying.

Back to starting off with the first page; not really sure why I started reading the last post first...

Well I have read through all these threads and I can barely find a member who found DM to be annoying, intentionally or not.

I did, for what it's worth. Or maybe not annoying so much as...not enjoyable? I guess that's a better way to put how I viewed his posts.

[Mr Changsha]

Now this is a real problem. "Skirting the rules" as Andy mentioned in the "ban PM" and this "pushing the boundaries" are NOT crossing the boundaries. Perhaps the actions warrant a reaction from the moderators...I can see that might be legitimate, but if that's the case then the reaction should be to CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES, not to punish someone for...not...crossing them.

I haven't read through the whole thread yet, and will go back and do so (I was away this weekend). However, I believe that constantly pushing the rules is well within the current Community Guidelines. It's in giant letters right at the beginning before the guidelines go into specifics...Don't be intentionally annoying. Now I can't speak for other mods, or for the admins, but personally I think that someone that continually is pushing the boundaries is doing so on purpose (or intentionally); and to me that is very annoying. Although they may be playing around to see what they can and can't get away with, eventually it becomes a tiresome game of cat and mouse, get's annoying and tedious to deal with, and like I said...could easily be seen as intentionally annoying.

Back to starting off with the first page; not really sure why I started reading the last post first...

Well I have read through all these threads and I can barely find a member who found DM to be annoying, intentionally or not.

I did, for what it's worth. Or maybe not annoying so much as...not enjoyable? I guess that's a better way to put how I viewed his posts.

Yes, but do you accept my point? It seems even his enemies couldn't bring themselves to support the ban or declare DM to have 'intentionally annoyed them'. Even prowler made the considerable effort (as it was a very well-written piece) to argue for his return. There was barely a poster who openly argued for his ban, and even you came at it more from the angle of enforcing rules, than actually wanting to see him banned.

The moderator quoted says that 'Don't be intentionally annoying' is clearly flagged up in the community guidelines. Indeed it is. However, I always assumed that meant intentionally annoying to the community, or at least part of the community, rather than just for the moderators.

Could someone who was annoyed with DM please stand up? Someone other than a moderator/admin? It seems to me the community guidelines should read 'Don't intentionally annoy the moderators.'

[4myGod]

So if 50/5000 people are annoyed by a single person's post, that person will be banned? No... but that just happened.

your posts annoy me, is that good for anything? maybe a warning, or a minor forum ban?

If you were a mod you can claim that I was intentionally annoying you and ban me because I have already received a warning for necro bumping. Since you aren't you just have to suck it up and just not read my posts.

[jiminski]

Somehow a new fixed, accumulated system of bannings came in on the back of the Bigotry thread.

I don't believe that's true, jiminski. The accumulated system was already in place. The Bigotry thread merely added a more severe "set" of accumulations in place for bigotry offenses.

this may be correct.. to be honest i don't care enough to check it (that may sound flippant and it is).
in the main, my sentence was in response to A mod citing the Racism thread (It began specifically as a thread on Racism and Andy changed the title to Bigotry.. likely to safeguard Religion in one hit) as the place that the structure for punishment emanated... you were there so you should remember it Wood
(taken from within a quote, within a quote, within a quote of yours) :-

The very valid point was completely ignored: why are the same people who praised the major/minor infractions scales the same people who are now saying they shouldn't be followed? The community helped decide those scales.

I am a little pissed-off with that particular Thread (it was you Wood, who clarified the link between the thread and the Mods' reference) being used as justification of this kind when it had the chance to be more and work as a blueprint of cooperation. And not, as it was being used there, to silence those talking about 2 completely separated issues by implying a mandate. That undermines trust as it implies a certain opportunism in the first instance to solidify a structure on the back of a specific and passionate issue. ... "Ooooh result, we can kill all these birds with one stone and they will think they are getting what they want!"

That may or may not be cynical but again, all we have is what we infer from the written words and i am not predisposed to trust the sites motives in the least at present.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

blah,blah,blah,blah

keep them banned !

[jiminski]

blah,blah,blah,blah

keep them banned !

ban rocket for spamming

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to ask this question again, because I'm not sure if I got a satisfactory answer.

Player A posts bigotry seven times and gets banned.

Player B trolls seven times and gets banned.

Is there not a problem with this?

As another example:

Criminal A kills 1 person and gets life in prison.

Criminal B robs 1 person and gets life in prison.

[clapper011]

I am sorry but mods are members before mods! We very much enjoy playing this game just the same as YOU and others. I rather take offense to that statement. We as moderators are members to just like you are. And what? because we are moderators our opinions do not count? This is becoming a vicious circle of just wanting someone to blame, who cares if the moderators and admin are players as well right?

Who am I blaming? And what am I blaming them for?

You are 2 people, a moderator and a user. They cannot be combined, if someone offends you as a user then you need to let it go. If you bring your feelings and annoyances into moderation then you are a bad moderator and should be stripped of power. If not, then no worries, why do you take offense?

who cares if the moderators and admin are players as well right?

Come on now clapper. Don't take this so personal. You guys can suggest things as well, but when your suggestions to ban a user get put into action without any reasonable reason from the viewpoint of the community, your opinions and suggestions will be in question.

How many moderators do we have? no more than 50 I would say. How many active users? No more than 5,000? but I heard somewhere 20,000, I don't know, whatever. So if 50/5000 people are annoyed by a single person's post, that person will be banned? No... but that just happened. This is why you feel like we are attacking you, because you are part of the team who does what they want without explaining themselves to the 5,000 people.

Our opinion didn't matter concerning DM, so why should yours?

you are so wrong 4mygod, I am a member before a moderator. And I AM NOT 2 people...LOL no one person can be 2 people as you stated

You are 2 people, a moderator and a user.

Come on now clapper. Don't take this so personal. You guys can suggest things as well, but when your suggestions to ban a user get put into action without any reasonable reason from the viewpoint of the community, your opinions and suggestions will be in question.

I beg to differ, if I didn't be somewhat emotional in my moderating, for
1) it wouldn't be me.
2) I would be cold and uncaring
3) I would be like a robot........ and I very much doubt users on this site would want to be moderated by a robot that would read EVERYTHING that possibly could be taken as wrong (be it a topic that looked like spam etc) closely related to the guidelines as against them.......
so excuse me for taking your bitter words as a personal attack on all moderators, even if we had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with dm's ban!

[clapper011]

blah,blah,blah,blah

keep them banned !

Johnny if you have nothing to add to this conversation besides spam then don't post.

[Night Strike]

I'm going to ask this question again, because I'm not sure if I got a satisfactory answer.

Player A posts bigotry seven times and gets banned.

Player B trolls seven times and gets banned.

Is there not a problem with this?

As another example:

Criminal A kills 1 person and gets life in prison.

Criminal B robs 1 person and gets life in prison.

You get a permanent forum ban after 3 times of bigotry, so there are different weights.

[AndyDufresne]

I'd like to encourage thoes of you visiting this topic to check out the Suggestions Topic "For Minor Infractions, 6 Months Max Vacation instead Perma"

I'll keep watching this topic, but I'd like to focus the suggestion discussion in that topic.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

I'm going to ask this question again, because I'm not sure if I got a satisfactory answer.

Player A posts bigotry seven times and gets banned.

Player B trolls seven times and gets banned.

Is there not a problem with this?

As another example:

Criminal A kills 1 person and gets life in prison.

Criminal B robs 1 person and gets life in prison.

You get a permanent forum ban after 3 times of bigotry, so there are different weights.

I might be wrong, but I think a few people have gotten bans for first, but very serious offenses? (like the one who posted pornographic pictures in the main forum, another person who made real threats against others).

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to ask this question again, because I'm not sure if I got a satisfactory answer.

Player A posts bigotry seven times and gets banned.

Player B trolls seven times and gets banned.

Is there not a problem with this?

As another example:

Criminal A kills 1 person and gets life in prison.

Criminal B robs 1 person and gets life in prison.

You get a permanent forum ban after 3 times of bigotry, so there are different weights.

Ah... I see. That makes more sense.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm going to ask this question again, because I'm not sure if I got a satisfactory answer.

Player A posts bigotry seven times and gets banned.

Player B trolls seven times and gets banned.

Is there not a problem with this?

As another example:

Criminal A kills 1 person and gets life in prison.

Criminal B robs 1 person and gets life in prison.

You get a permanent forum ban after 3 times of bigotry, so there are different weights.

I might be wrong, but I think a few people have gotten bans for first, but very serious offenses? (like the one who posted pornographic pictures in the main forum, another person who made real threats against others).

In all standard cases we come across, for Major/Severe Infractions, it will always go "Warning, 1 Month, Permanent." (Ongoing Point Dumping aside, as it is more of a special case).

However, in the event of utterly extreme cases, such as in the event of a sudden and complete impact on either the integrity of the Game for all our users, the website, or the Forums, or there is an extreme harassment of specifically targetted users, discrection is at the Global Mod/Admin choice to apply a Vacation first before a Warning.

Does that make sense?


--Andy

[Snorri1234]

you are so wrong 4mygod, I am a member before a moderator. And I AM NOT 2 people...LOL no one person can be 2 people as you stated

His point is that you shouldn't let your moderating be influenced by the fact that you're a person.

I beg to differ, if I didn't be somewhat emotional in my moderating, for
1) it wouldn't be me.
2) I would be cold and uncaring
3) I would be like a robot........ and I very much doubt users on this site would want to be moderated by a robot that would read EVERYTHING that possibly could be taken as wrong (be it a topic that looked like spam etc) closely related to the guidelines as against them.......
so excuse me for taking your bitter words as a personal attack on all moderators, even if we had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with dm's ban!

1.) Well that sure is a good argument. If you derive your personality from being emotional in moderating then there might be something wrong.
2.) No, you would be rational and just.
3.) What? Why would that be? not letting your emotions influence things does not mean you can't make rational decisions.

[clapper011]

what I meant by this is that simply, I do not generally let my emotions interfere with moderating, but I am not a cold hearted person in that my emotions are who I am. As most people are.

[Woodruff]

The very valid point was completely ignored: why are the same people who praised the major/minor infractions scales the same people who are now saying they shouldn't be followed? The community helped decide those scales.

I am a little pissed-off with that particular Thread (it was you Wood, who clarified the link between the thread and the Mods' reference) being used as justification of this kind when it had the chance to be more and work as a blueprint of cooperation. And not, as it was being used there, to silence those talking about 2 completely separated issues by implying a mandate. That undermines trust as it implies a certain opportunism in the first instance to solidify a structure on the back of a specific and passionate issue. ... "Ooooh result, we can kill all these birds with one stone and they will think they are getting what they want!"

That may or may not be cynical but again, all we have is what we infer from the written words and i am not predisposed to trust the sites motives in the least at present.

I'm not really in disagreement with you on this. In fact, I would suggest that (to quote the mod) the fact that the same people who praised the scales are the people now saying they shouldn't be followed...well, that should be an indication that what at least THOSE PARTICULAR people are upset with here AREN'T necessarily the scales themselves.

[PLAYER57832]

Does that make sense?


--Andy

Yes. Thank you.

[PLAYER57832]

I posted this on the suggestion thread, but maybe that was not the appropriate place.

I think a lot of us are hung up on this "permanent" bit, given that people change/grow up in time. I think a lot of us would be more comfortable if there were a mechanism to erase or slide back the scale for good behavior over an extended period. I also think that would do more for promoting the site than just a sliding scale alone.

Of course, as above, there should be some absolutes, but I don't think anyone questions those. Its not the "this is truly harmful" stuff, its the "pushing the boundaries" or "borderline" stuff.