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

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.

Which girls and what statements are you talking about ?

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.

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.

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

They shouldn't be trying to change anyone's behavior.

Anecdotal? This discussion is about bans by mods. My example, is how some here, respond to something they disagree with. Consistant personal attacks to deal with a conflict is unacceptable. The orger is always going to have the mods busy.
I prefer to give specific examples, which have occurred, rather than generalized
"theory".
I don't expect mods to respond to site personal affairs.

Regarding this perspective:
"They shouldn't be trying to change anyone's behavior".

There are warnings given, regarding an orger doing something they shouldn't.
If the individual wants to stay a member, YEAH! the bad behavior needs to change. There's an opportunity to do that. If not, "take the nonsense, and go elsewhere". ie banned.
I guess you're right. The only change, is the individual is elsewhere.

Oh hush.

Cousens is awesome and we all know that.

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.

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.

I think for the most part that's right and that moderation on this site is damned good. Even working with such a flawed policy.

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.

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.

I find it hard to accept the perma-banning of someone that's very young if they show signs of adapting. Of course, I don't want to open up a whole can of worms with the age-vs-maturity thing, but permanently banning someone based on something they did when they were 18 years old assumes they don't grow, etc. etc.
Of course, being everyone's friend is not a viable option when dealing with a place with as much traffic as the org.

It's a damned good thing I's so fucking popular and stuff--the mods wouldn't dare ban me.

I'm not just speaking of 18 year olds Dan. Immaturity knowa no age.

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.

Is this about my boolationship with rushing07?

Cause I will fight to keep him girl!

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.

That's what he told me when Ian banned me for discussing something with him. I didn't break a single Org rule (even though Ian made it look that way, he ain't dumb) and he banned me. I emailed Ben and he said that I was a troublemaker and that my list of offenses was mile long (something that was news to me since I'd never so much as recieved a warning) and that he totally agreed with Ian, but that he'd reverse my ban anyway. As we all know Ian was booted later for making many dubious mod calls.

You know what? I broke an Org rule, I discussed mod decisions. Sue me.

This stuff makes my head spin.