It seems at this point we're talking to a .....

PEJ said:

Reincarnate said:

Trying to enjoy the four-day holiday weekend. (For those of you outside the U.S., this past Thursday was Thanksgiving.) But in light of this thread, I'd like to address some issues raised by .orgers:

• 2the9s has been "permanently banned" in the sense that his account has been deactivated, and there is no date upon which the deactivation will automatically expire. However, that doesn't necessarily mean he'll never be allowed back on the site. The ban has gone up to Ben for review, and if Ben decides that 2the9s should be allowed to return, then we'll restore his access.
  
  
• AsylumUtopia wrote, "I believe it was because [2the9s] wished to discuss forum/org rules and regulations relating to his behaviour, on a thread rather than following the suggested route of discussing with the mod via orgnote."
  
  Privately discussing moderation decisions isn't "suggested"--it's required by the forum rules. Specifically: "If you don't agree with a decision, you may discuss it with the moderator who made the judgment in private. If you cannot reach resolution with the Moderator in private, contact the site administrator via e-mail (ben@prince.org), explaining the entire situation, with all relevant links/excerpts/emails, etc. Under no circumstance attempt to start a 'debate' about specific moderation decisions in a public forum."
  
  (Indeed, this very thread runs counter to the above-quoted rule. But I think removing it would do more harm than good.)
  
  
• AsylumUtopia also commented, "It hardly even needs to be mentioned that other 'permanently banned' orgers have subsequently been allowed back, and have been allowed to do so hiding behind a different name so nobody would recognise them."
  
  If a banned user returns in such a way that he/she can't be recognized, there's no way for us mods to identify him/her. Now, if we can identify user Y as an alias account for banned user X (and we've got some tools to help us with this), then we'll deactivate user Y on sight. We don't knowingly allow users to circumvent a ban by creating a new account--if we did, a ban would be essentially meaningless.
  
  
• AzureStarr posted, "Moderators aren't supposed to talk about any of this in public, or so it's been said, yet, many of us, myself included, have heard of 9s and his bannishment from the org (that's silly), from YOU ALL. You're giving us bits and pieces and here we all are trying to put the puzzle together."
  
  There's no rule that mods can't talk about moderation decisions. To be sure, if we do so, we do it with discretion. But public statements on moderation decisions serve two important purposes: 1) stopping (or at least slowing) the rumor mill; and 2) having prominent users suddenly disappear without explanation is a bad idea (and encourages the abovementioned rumor mill).
  
  I previously posted an explanation of why 2the9s was banned. If, after reading it, folks still have questions, I'll answer those questions where doing so is appropriate.
  
  
• AzureStarr also asked, "I guess, and I know this is posted on the wrong thead... it should be posted on the thread regarding moderation, but, how many strikes are we allowed against us until we are banned for good? Does the severity of the act to 'gain' a strike count as something or is it strictly 'three strikes and your out' game?"
  
  When we launched version 3.0 of the site, we introduced a set of new moderation tools and revamped the "strike system." Previously, we did have a "three strikes and you're out" policy--the site software would automatically ban a user when a third strike was issued against his/her account. To reverse the ban, a strike had to be removed.
  
  That's no longer the case. Now, strikes are entirely separate from bans. Strikes are nothing more than an internal indicator of how much trouble a user has been causing. To issue a ban, a mod needs to perform a procedure entirely separate from issuing a strike. There's no rule about X number of strikes resulting in a ban. Also, a mod can choose to issue a ban for a fixed period of time (after which the ban is automatically lifted) or one that lasts indefinitely (the so-called "permanent" ban). Under the old strike system, all bans were indefinite.
  
  
• emm asked, "are heels firmly dug in? i don't imagine anyone wants to look like they will back down now..."
  
  That's a fair question. This may sound like a cop-out, but the matter is now out of my hands, as it's already gone up to Ben for an "appeal"/review. If, for the sake of argument, I decided that 2the9s deserved to be reactivated, I'd be stepping on Ben's toes if I reactivated 2the9s without Ben's consent.
  

I hope this helps to clear things up, even if folks disagree with what I've posted or my original decision to ban 2the9s.

can a user find out how many strikes are on his/her record? i think that would be interesting and helpful.

JasmineFire said:

Good question!

I'd love to know.

I've just sent this to Ben.



And with that, I shall call it a day.





-edit
[Edited 11/28/04 16:24pm]

JasmineFire said:

Check your orgnotes, since each time a strike is issued, an orgnote is sent. If you want to look back further than that, you could prob just orgnote a mod and ask for the number of strikes.

Tom said:

Is a orgnote about a flame post a strike then? Do they expire?

Faux said:

The simplest way to look at it is, we keep notes on each orger when an issue arises. Thats whats really taken into consideration, not strikes. My impression is that some of us still issue strikes for more serious problems, just to make those notes stand out from the rest. So as we're skimming over a long list of notes on someone, the ones that mention a strike will catch our eye a bit faster.

I'm not sure if Ben has the site set up to delete comments on a user after a certain amount of time, but Ive seen comments go back a couple of years on some users.
[Edited 11/28/04 20:30pm]

Tom said:

JoweeCoco said:

Scared now aren't you?

AndGodCreatedMe said:

I do find it rather disturbing and borderline obsessive.

JoweeCoco said:

That's because you recognise the symptomes

AndGodCreatedMe said:

Don't mess with someone who is living in the same town.

JoweeCoco said:

I´m not scared

it's good to see that, on the whole, people are being reasonable on this thread and just trying to work out exactly how the process of banning / reinstatement works.

fingers crossed, the Loser formerly known as 2the9s will be back soon. A lot of people (and you may call us losers too) miss his irritating and nauseous posts very much.

Cloudbuster said:

:royorbison:

Cloudbuster said:

Faux said:

Often yes. When a strike is issued, the moderation software requires that an orgNote be sent to the user. The software includes several "form letter" orgNotes (which may be modified), and one is for flame posts.

OTOH, a mod might simply choose to send an orgNote to the offending user without issuing a strike. As Tom mentioned, the mod might also make a note in the user's account history about the offense.



Yes and no. The software requires that an explanation be entered for any strike, and this comment (along with a notation that a strike was issued) is permanent. However, strikes do "expire" in the sense that after a certain number of days, they are no longer counted when a user's "strike total" is displayed.

(Actually, I think there's a bug in the system... it may be that strikes issued prior to the current mod software don't expire. This isn't as big of a problem as it sounds, though, because a user's strike total doesn't trigger anything by itself, and all strikes include the date issued, so it's clear when a strike is for something that happened two years ago.)

Tom said:

Correct: ban notifications are sent via email, not orgNote (due to the obvious problem PEJ mentioned). That's one reason why it's important to keep your email address up-to-date under "My Org"... there have been a few situations where ban notifications went to an outdated email address and were never read by the user, leaving him/her in the dark.

Bring 9s back.

seriously though

this is the org

not LA law




you would think 9s committed some henous act or something


lets get a grip


bring tractor boy back

All we are saying, is give 9s a chance.

sag10 said:

You know, I orgnoted somebody about this today and I asked in that orgnote whether somebody just came out and asked nicely to please reconsider, and so you did

Please give him another chance Spirit of the holidays and all?

shausler said:

He committed the most heneous act of all. The one that is not mentioned in the rules but is the number 1 rule around here.....

Now I know what happened I want 9sey back too. Pleeeeease? I've always been a good orger, don't I deserve something?

You have to give me either 9sey or EWM.

YES! BRING BACK 2the9s - WE MISS HIM!!!!


He added fun and humor to the Org for most of us!

In the spirit of the holidays...bring the tractor boy back!