Setting the Record Straight

Nah, I'm not gonna do that.

But I will say this:

We have to deal with a lot on this site as moderators. We make calls day and night from reports made to us, or when we notice violations ourselves. How we respond to them depends on who the moderator is. What one moderator may find offensive, another won't. That's human. However, we all operate under the same understanding - what's good for the Org.

Recently a certain orger was permanently banned for a violation to the rules that dictate such action be taken.

The question came up over and again on another thread whether a permanent ban should have been used, or even exist for that matter. The fact of the matter is, it has to exist... it's a necessary evil.

Unfortunately there are those that will test us daily with violations, or a blatant disregard of the rules... some are given "time-outs", strikes, temp bans, etc... and then there are those who had to be permabanned. But, how much is too much? When do we go from consistantly moderating a certain orger to finally throwing your hands in the air and saying... "this guy/girl just doesn't get it, doesn't want to get it, or will never get it!" and you take them out of the equation. Obviously, this can happen in baby steps after repeated mini-bans and warnings to a permaban, or it can happen abruptly after a very abusive/illegal or serious violation of the rules.

Some people will say, "I was never warned, this is sooo out of the blue" etc. But the truth is, it's never out of the blue. Remember that.

Was it fair? My action... again, according to the rules... yes. You may not think so, but it was. Many people also think that Ben (org founder) is not in touch with the site. Also wrong. He is very much aware of what's going on in the site and we stay in contact with him continuously. (We have another site that we go to to stay connected.)

Cut to now: I approached all mods on this next decision and I offered my reevaluation of the circumstances. If in agreement - I offered to lessen the permaban to a two-week ban. Ben put in his perspective on the matter, and when I heard from the majority of the moderators I acted on my offer.

I have kept in contact with the orger in question as well... he will be returning in two weeks.

Our goal here is NOT to divide or separate. We strive to have a website that offers safe, yet exciting conversation. We want a website that makes you want to come back, that allows you to make "friends". We want a website that is like no other. I think we've found it here. But, sometimes difficult situations come up and have to be addressed.

I don't make it a habit of posting the reasons for my decisions publicly... in fact I rarely if ever do (It's usually best to talk one on one to the orger in question, never publicly). I do want to say this, though. The decision I made was the correct one, according to the rules. Was it too harsh? Looking back, yes, I guess it was. We are not perfect (God, I've said that many, many times) and we are willing to work on things that, when we're perceived as being unfair, we will listen and take action to improve our relationships with you.

I'm shutting down the other thread that I allowed to continue in favor of this one. Many people said many things there that I agree with and disagree with. But it's healthy dialogue like that that allows me to look at myself and know that I too am a flawed human being. It's healthy dialogue like that that allows me to look at myself and know that I truly care for the Org and do what I think is right to keep it going forward.

Peace + b wild - June7

June7 said:

Ben's coming back.

Stymie said:

Ben's coming back.

Martina, now orgs official resident fairy/pixie

Well I am glad that something was done and in the end a resolution. I am not real sure how banning is done, or how many warnings a person gets before it happens. I just hope we all learn from this experience and go forward.

I am very relieved and happy that Ben will be coming back, he adds so much to this site, and he would have been greatly missed.

Mickey & Mallory

I do appreciate you doing this, June, and for realizing that it was too harsh considering the particular offense and Ben's history of being moderated (which is one strike for advertising and two mini-bans for the same british slang swear used against another orger).

But where do you draw the line at permabans?

I've always have regarded permabans, and I think many mods too, as the ultimate punishment. Think of what you're implying: that this person is such a menace to everyone on the site that he needs to be removed from the site forever. Was Ben really that bad? Was he permanently aggressive? Did he consistently spam? Yes, Ben broke the rules and will happily admit that, but was it such a horrific infringement that it needed a permanent ban, apparent "regularity" of these offenses, or not?

The fact is that that issue would never have come under discussion, and would never have been rescinded if we orgers hadn't moaned about it. It's for this reason that I feel we need to discuss the open-nature and accountability of moderating, or rather, the lack thereof:

IMO, Moderators should reflect the views the people of the site, not control them. Permabans should be something other Orgers want to happen, not something a moderator just decides to do, without anyone's knowledge (not even the banned individual's, in this case).

I think, alongside the recruitment of new moderators to this site that is going on, a serious discussion thread should be created regarding moderation and orgers' views of it, with a view to permanently changing moderation of this site for the better. I think communication is a key issue here. Allowing orgers to be vocal about their desire to have Ben unbanned was a nightmare, because of the secretive manner with which moderation is conducted. People should be able to give their view as to why moderation decisions were wrong, in their opinion. After all, the people make this website, not the moderators. I think this episode was a prime example of this. We were never able to confront the issue directly, and that was that we all believed that Ben was perma-banned unjustly. We had to tip toe around, implying X and Y with a view towards Ben. It is absurd.

evenstar said:

I do appreciate you doing this, June, and for realizing that it was too harsh considering the particular offense and Ben's history of being moderated (which is one strike for advertising and two mini-bans for the same british slang swear used against another orger).

But where do you draw the line at permabans?

I've always have regarded permabans, and I think many mods too, as the ultimate punishment. Think of what you're implying: that this person is such a menace to everyone on the site that he needs to be removed from the site forever. Was Ben really that bad? Was he permanently aggressive? Did he consistently spam? Yes, Ben broke the rules and will happily admit that, but was it such a horrific infringement that it needed a permanent ban, apparent "regularity" of these offenses, or not?

The fact is that that issue would never have come under discussion, and would never have been rescinded if we orgers hadn't moaned about it. It's for this reason that I feel we need to discuss the open-nature and accountability of moderating, or rather, the lack thereof:

IMO, Moderators should reflect the views the people of the site, not control them. Permabans should be something other Orgers want to happen, not something a moderator just decides to do, without anyone's knowledge (not even the banned individual's, in this case).

I think, alongside the recruitment of new moderators to this site that is going on, a serious discussion thread should be created regarding moderation and orgers' views of it, with a view to permanently changing moderation of this site for the better. I think communication is a key issue here. Allowing orgers to be vocal about their desire to have Ben unbanned was a nightmare, because of the secretive manner with which moderation is conducted. People should be able to give their view as to why moderation decisions were wrong, in their opinion. After all, the people make this website, not the moderators. I think this episode was a prime example of this. We were never able to confront the issue directly, and that was that we all believed that Ben was perma-banned unjustly. We had to tip toe around, implying X and Y with a view towards Ben. It is absurd.

I appreciate the opportunity given to the org as whole to voice our respective views on this matter. It was not about eliminating the permabans or because it was someone many of us liked. There was nothing amusing about this but I'm glad the decision was re-examined.

Stymie said:

evenstar said:

I do appreciate you doing this, June, and for realizing that it was too harsh considering the particular offense and Ben's history of being moderated (which is one strike for advertising and two mini-bans for the same british slang swear used against another orger).

But where do you draw the line at permabans?

I've always have regarded permabans, and I think many mods too, as the ultimate punishment. Think of what you're implying: that this person is such a menace to everyone on the site that he needs to be removed from the site forever. Was Ben really that bad? Was he permanently aggressive? Did he consistently spam? Yes, Ben broke the rules and will happily admit that, but was it such a horrific infringement that it needed a permanent ban, apparent "regularity" of these offenses, or not?

The fact is that that issue would never have come under discussion, and would never have been rescinded if we orgers hadn't moaned about it. It's for this reason that I feel we need to discuss the open-nature and accountability of moderating, or rather, the lack thereof:

IMO, Moderators should reflect the views the people of the site, not control them. Permabans should be something other Orgers want to happen, not something a moderator just decides to do, without anyone's knowledge (not even the banned individual's, in this case).

I think, alongside the recruitment of new moderators to this site that is going on, a serious discussion thread should be created regarding moderation and orgers' views of it, with a view to permanently changing moderation of this site for the better. I think communication is a key issue here. Allowing orgers to be vocal about their desire to have Ben unbanned was a nightmare, because of the secretive manner with which moderation is conducted. People should be able to give their view as to why moderation decisions were wrong, in their opinion. After all, the people make this website, not the moderators. I think this episode was a prime example of this. We were never able to confront the issue directly, and that was that we all believed that Ben was perma-banned unjustly. We had to tip toe around, implying X and Y with a view towards Ben. It is absurd.

I would like to add, that even asking mods IN PRIVATE, why a certain decision is made, the mods (some of you) do not feel you owe us an explanation.

I agree that dialogue should come from everyone as regards to policy. Doesn't mean we will always agree, but I take everyone's opinion seriously.

I don't agree with out and out war on the forums over one moderation decision and when threads are started in retaliation to a particular incident, it's a slippery slope... Which is why, in general, I agree with our "tradition" of not allowing threads to remain to rehash one particular incident. Address the moderator(s) involved, address Ben (site owner) if you feel you're not getting what you need from them back.

I do think it's OK to use an example to discuss overall mod policies and I think that's what has transpired here. I don't think it's absurd to have to dance around one incident, but rather use it as a springboard to bring up broader concerns.

Benyamin is a popular and well-liked member of the community, so I can understand that the interest is up for everyone. I know it is/was frustrating for all. And I'm glad we were able to use the opportunity to look at how we mods mod and hopefully, come to some more consistencies.

Also like to point out, as June stated, while you guys may not see all Ben is doing for the org lately, he IS very much involved in what's going on here. Another thing you don't see, as June stated, is that we do discuss these matters together as well. It is in our best interest to have each other's back publicly, even if we may disagree privately. Pitting us against each other on the forums doesn't do anyone any good. And it's out of respect for each other that we prefer not to hash out any of our own disagreements in a public forum. Which is why we have another place to discuss matters together and come to an understanding, if not overall agreement. So... it's a weird catch22 sort of. We can't hash it out in public together, but when we're not, you guys don't really know if anyone's paying attention. All I can say is that I know I do my best to respond to any concerns brought to me privately and keep people in the loop with what's going on with respect to their own mod concerns.

Thank you June.

evenstar said:

Stymie said:

I would like to add, that even asking mods IN PRIVATE, why a certain decision is made, the mods (some of you) do not feel you owe us an explanation.

the third-party rule makes sense to a certain extent, i guess, but if the orgers involved don't mind it being discussed publicly i don't see why it can't happen. if the decisions made are the correct ones they should be able to stand up to public scrutiny.

Stymie said:

evenstar said:

the third-party rule makes sense to a certain extent, i guess, but if the orgers involved don't mind it being discussed publicly i don't see why it can't happen. if the decisions made are the correct ones they should be able to stand up to public scrutiny.

I'm speaking specifically about myself.

CarrieMpls said:

Could this work here? All the companies I've worked for have/had this procedure.

1. Suspected infringement.
2. Suspend.
3. Investigation by uninvolved parties.
4. Hearing.
5. Decision.
6. Appeal to higher authority if so desired.

If that had been in place here this brouhaha wouldn't have happened. Could it work?

But what's most important in all this is I got to use the term brouhaha.

(Apologies if I've misread this whole situation and this is what already happens )

mcmeekle said:

Could this work here? All the companies I've worked for have/had this procedure.

1. Suspected infringement.
2. Suspend.
3. Investigation by uninvolved parties.
4. Hearing.
5. Decision.
6. Appeal to higher authority if so desired.

If that had been in place here this brouhaha wouldn't have happened. Could it work?

But what's most important in all this is I got to use the term brouhaha.

(Apologies if I've misread this whole situation and this is what already happens )

mdiver said:

mcmeekle said:

Could this work here? All the companies I've worked for have/had this procedure.

1. Suspected infringement.
2. Suspend.
3. Investigation by uninvolved parties.
4. Hearing.
5. Decision.
6. Appeal to higher authority if so desired.

If that had been in place here this brouhaha wouldn't have happened. Could it work?

But what's most important in all this is I got to use the term brouhaha.

(Apologies if I've misread this whole situation and this is what already happens )

I think the fact that you used brouhaha should mean this is made policy NOW

mcmeekle said:

mdiver said:

I think the fact that you used brouhaha should mean this is made policy NOW

We can call it The Brouhaha Act 2008.

June7, thanks for accommodating the discussion on the previous thread, and for being so open in your thoughts on this one (and, yeah, in reducing Ben's punishment, too).

And, I can see how the permanent ban is a necessary evil. Feel free to employ it with 2the9s. He is, as we all know, a major git.

Stymie said:

Unlock my beer enema thread!

I love Milty and so should you!

PRINCE DOES NOT EAT EGGS!!! : http://prince.org/msg/7/288549

will he be in time for the mod elections 2008 ?

Gotta agree with Stymie and teacher as well.

I've had posts and threads removed, and was even banned for 2 weeks, without any explanation from Ben or anyone else. Rules are rules. Fine. But when I see other orgers getting away with so much more then "it's not out of the blue" may as well be replaced with the catch phrase "if you don't like it then leave."

Imago said:

Thank you for changing your mind June.