I never seen Ben say anything odd or threatening. Just nice stuff.
Online really. He seems rather British and proper. tisk tisk <--tea..

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."

And, honestly people, what would be the harm in just admitting that at times mods' decisions are personal? Wo/man up, and quit hiding behind your interpretation of the rules when you know you just have it in for certain orgers or made an emotional decision.

I have to agree with Stymie on this, and add from June's original post:


Actually, the truth is that it HAS been out of the blue too many times in the past, and as Stymie says too many times people have been getting the runaround from the mods and Ben. Example:
- You get banned without so much as a warning, which can be proven by way of no orgnotes being received on the topic, alternately you've been sent a note and then been banned before you can even read the damn thing and NO, in these cases no emails have been sent. The reason this happens is that the mods are also people, no matter how much they want to they WILL form opinions on people that has little to do with the person's actual behaviour on the forums. There is no way of proving that this is the case of course but any remotely intelligent person will acknowledge this.
- You ask your friends on the site to politely inquire since you can't ask yourself, and they of course (rightfully, as far as it goes) get the third-party speech.
- You manage to get the email address of the mod in question and ask, but you get the "mods decisions are final and if you don't like it take it up with Ben".
- You try to ask another mods opinion and you get the "I won't discuss another mods decisions".
- You email Ben and he says "I have full confidence in the mods and will not change their decision".
- You're stuck with begging the mods forgiveness for something you didn't do in the first place.

These are FACTS and they suck ass, but just like Stymie I've resigned myself to the way things are. If I could make just one little wish concerning mods it would be that all mods in the Orgs past, present and future would be as great as Carrie, Mach and Luv. I'm sorry to single people out like this but you three ladies always handle yourselves with integrity, kindness and as far as it's possible, full disclosure.

Edit: Firstly, having SpookyBen gone from the site would be HORRIBLE, he's a great person(ality). Yeah he's provocative and crazy but he's a damn good kid. Now for the part his very good friends might not like: He should have, provided that he'd recieved proper warnings, understood when it was time to hold back and "get with the programme". There is only so much tugging on the leash you can do before you get yanked back. He's not stupid and if he had been warned he should've known better. Nobody's Superman, not even Ben.
Damn glad to have you back here soon though, sorry you had to crawl through the mud to do it.
[Edited 2/2/08 14:49pm]

Teacher said:

Ben have never responded to a signle email I sent. He actually says that? Then what is the point of mods telling us if we don't like something, to take it up with him? Essentially this means, there is NO grievance process. That's good to know.

Stymie said:

yeah, that is a little confusing...I emailed ben when prompted to but he never responded. i understand that he's in contact with the moderators more, but it's odd to be told to contact him if he's only going to contact you guys in return. also (and i know this is probably a site glitch more than anything else) the links in mod's profiles to 'email through the org' don't work, so it's hard to email the mods.

july said:

please, he's the naughtiest boy, but in the most clever ways.

evenstar said:

I just woke up. I see how bad my spelling is.

Anywho, I've said about all I can say about this subject and it's only because this place has meant a lot to me over the last seven years. Maybe by bringing things to light, things will get better.

horatio said:

Please, what? I think he's nice.

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.

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.

Thanks for the response June and for the consideration given to the matter by all the mods.

I do want to address one point in what you said regarding permament bans, since I'm one of the ones who brought up the issue of their use and questioned their need and effectiveness.

June7 said:

I still think perma-bans shouldn't be a part of the mod tool box. In other words, I don't think they should be the final step of the "one strike, two strike, three strike, ban" situation that exists (or whatever the actual progress is). Just remove it from that equation. That's what I mean.

Of course it will happen that there will be people who need to be banned from the site for legitimate reasons (threats, other legal issues that would have consequences for the site owner etc.), but when you make the ban a part of the way that the mods interact with users on a daily basis (as they review accounts, issue warnings, strikes etc.) then it becomes a problem, as ....

I'll say! I posted a photo of myself with a dove I shot during dove season, and someone suggested I get lead poisoning. That deserved "full court press"!!!
[Edited 2/2/08 22:49pm]

I'll say! I posted a photo of myself with a dove I shot during dove season, and someone suggested I get lead poisoning. That deserved "full court press"!!!
[Edited 2/2/08 22:49pm]

Cousens is awesome and we all know that.

xplnyrslf said:

While I don't agree with that poisining statement I find a picture of an orger with a dead animal he/she killed offensive and disrespectful towards others who don't believe in killing animals for entertainment and being proud of it. So to everyone here different things are offensive.

xplnyrslf said:

As hateful as that kind of statement is, I don't think that should be a permabannable offense.

Or rather, policy shouldn't be framed around that kind of idiotic statement.

2the9s said:

The comment, (along with other bizarre statements) was snipped at the time. If consistant personal attacks by the same orger were made, towards myself or others, absolutely a ban is called for. It's a steady source of conflict.

How much effort should mods exert, to change someone's behavior?

xplnyrslf said:

While I don't agree with that poisining statement I find a picture of an orger with a dead animal he/she killed offensive and disrespectful towards others who don't believe in killing animals for entertainment and being proud of it. So to everyone here different things are offensive.

Thanks for the response June and for the consideration given to the matter by all the mods.

I do want to address one point in what you said regarding permament bans, since I'm one of the ones who brought up the issue of their use and questioned their need and effectiveness.

June7 said:

I still think perma-bans shouldn't be a part of the mod tool box. In other words, I don't think they should be the final step of the "one strike, two strike, three strike, ban" situation that exists (or whatever the actual progress is). Just remove it from that equation. That's what I mean.

Of course it will happen that there will be people who need to be banned from the site for legitimate reasons (threats, other legal issues that would have consequences for the site owner etc.), but when you make the ban a part of the way that the mods interact with users on a daily basis (as they review accounts, issue warnings, strikes etc.) then it becomes a problem, as we see again and again.

Perma-bans should be an extraordinary act, not something built in to the regular system.

2the9s said:

I agree that permabans should be a decision made for extraordinary situations, but I disagree with the idea that mods should not have this resource readily available.

Unfortunately, this site has attracted a slight but steady amount of users who have behaved in a threatening and harrassing manner toward other users, not only on the org/online, but spilling out into offline "IRL" incidents as well. We've also had people hack into and exploit other users' accounts on the Org.

In my opinion, these are the kinds of people who need to be permabanned ASAP, as soon as we identify the behavior and determine it to be a serious threat.

And unfortunately, once we permaban these users, they have a tendency to come back. They'll create new accounts and come back to raise the same ol' hell. Most of the time we know how to identify these people when they come back, and we are able to permaban them again, before they have another chance to bother anyone.

In my experience the whole mod squad is informed of such "dangerous" users when they're permabanned, as well as when we notice them returning under some other username. I don't think we carry this process through recklessly or capriciously.

I think Ben trusts us to know when to use these functions, even if there are situations where we have erred on one side of the moderation fence or the other.

Serious said:

I gotta agree with the girls on this one...

Anxiety said:

What about cases where the mods know certain permabanned people are back who have done some of the egregious things you mentioned and they don't take action because it's someone they like?

Wait a minute: I keep talking about fairness. Silly me.