Ban Kyle Permanently

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Apr 2009 19:44

Nobody has claimed that it's a human rights issue. That's a bit of a silly exaggeration.

In the past people have definitely be unfairly banned. Dan Feary was banned for threatening to "kick your ass" (which resulted in me resigning as an admin). If such events are going to be avoided in the future there needs to be a set of procedures that are followed. This means people know what to expect from the moderators and can hold them to account when they make decisions not based on the rules.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 01 May 2009 08:29

Jeremy wrote:Nobody has claimed that it's a human rights issue. That's a bit of a silly exaggeration.

In the past people have definitely be unfairly banned. Dan Feary was banned for threatening to "kick your ass" (which resulted in me resigning as an admin). If such events are going to be avoided in the future there needs to be a set of procedures that are followed. This means people know what to expect from the moderators and can hold them to account when they make decisions not based on the rules.

Emphasis mine.

I think we'd be better served with a set of simple guidelines. I can think of a few threads that turned into long, drawn out conversations about the exact wording of some rule. Most people don't have the patience to read through 10000 words of semantic bickering so the input comes down to one or two lawyery types with far too much faith in the possibility of perfection of a system of rules, and at the end of the whole exchange modified isn't any better off.

Here's just a simple batch of guidelines off the top of my head:

No threats
No defamatory (e.g. racist) comments
No posting PMs w/o permission
Mods/admins will be given room to make a judgement call if someone is repeatedly posting with malicious intent
Mods/admins will warn users for doing any of the above
If multiple warnings don't have a corrective effect, the user will be banned
Spam users will be banned immediately

Might have missed a couple things, but it really is that simple.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 02 May 2009 09:57

Basically all of those are existing rules, except we dont ban people for spamming and are supposed to act only when it is determined it can definitely be classed as spam, and we dont give the mods the power to just make 'judgement calls' on anything more complex than a post being put in the wrong forum. Theres a reason we have rules.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 02 May 2009 11:11

King Monkey wrote:Theres a reason we have rules.

Lamest explanation ever.

Obviously, I'm not talking about what we've already got in place, I'm talking about what would work better than what we've got.

But at least you've got your precious rules.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 02 May 2009 17:25

If you cant understand why we have rules for this forum, then you really shouldnt bother being involved in this conversation, for all our sakes.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 02 May 2009 20:12

I'm not sure I really follow. I agree that keeping the forum rules simple is a good thing. I don't see any conflict between having a set of guidelines and also procedures. The procedures don't need to be 10,000 words long - they could merely be;

*When a moderator locks a topic, they will make a post explaining why they locked the topic.

- That's a procedure, and it's very simple and easy to follow.

I think you're grossly exaggerating about the level of debate about the rules, but in any event if you, or anybody else, finds those discussions uninteresting and useless, feel free to not read or participate in them. I think in reality there is almost certainly less than 0.1% of forum content discussing the rules and it's an exceptionally easy issue to ignore unless you care about it.

I would also argue that the discussions that have occurred about the rules over the years have been very useful and have had a significant impact on how the forum is run. I also think the forum is managed a lot better now than it was 6 years ago, and has largely improved every year since then, and I attribute this continued improvement over time with the continued, largely civil, discourse between the people who are interested in the management of the forum.

Saying that most people don't have the patience to read the discussion is meaningless. Just because there are impatient people, it doesn't mean we should dumb down discussion so that everybody can be engaged. Governance is always a complicated issue and if it's going to be taken seriously it needs to be discussed seriously and in details.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 02 May 2009 21:47

You two are the problem.

You two care soooo much about the exactitude of the rules that nothing ever gets done.

King Monkey wrote:If you cant understand why we have rules for this forum, then you really shouldnt bother being involved in this conversation, for all our sakes.

Either back up your point of view or stfu.

You shouldn't be a mod. You lack the basic judgement to know when something needs to be done, you just want a set of perfect rules to plug yourself into and never make a decision.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 02 May 2009 23:29

lol.

Do you want me to give you a break down of things that I've done on modified?

What have you done for modified, or for that matter, for footbag? Why don't you set the example of how you'd like us to behave?

edit;

The really funny thing about Nathan's post is how he singled out Ian and I as actually being the problem of the mods not doing anything. If that really is a problem (and I'm not sure that it is) - what about the other mods - who not only also aren't (presumably) doing anything, but also aren't even talking about? Somehow it's better to do nothing and stay silent then to do nothing but talk about ways of getting things done? I'm not even a mod, but I must bamboozle all the other faultless mods with my devious lawyer talk. The reason Colin, Dyalan, Ian Brill and Professor do nothing (according to Nathan) is because I manipulate them into doing nothing. IT'S ALL MY FAULT - oh and Ian's too. We're actually members of a grand conspiracy to not allow modified to change at all, and we've tricked the other innocent mods with our seductive words, and we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you damn kids.

Of course the alternative, which is that all the mods do a good job, and Ian especially does a good job in communicating what's going on with the rest of the forum, and because I'm engaged in the forum and concerned about it's governance, comment with my opinions on how things should happen, just as Nathan does and everybody else could, is perhaps slightly more believable than the Scooby Doo conspiracy theory.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 03 May 2009 07:29

Jeremy wrote:I'm not even a mod, but I must bamboozle all the other faultless mods with my devious lawyer talk. The reason Colin, Dyalan, Ian Brill and Professor do nothing (according to Nathan) is because I manipulate them into doing nothing.

Some days I lie in bed unable to commit to any particular breakfast for fear of your sharp tongue. Oh Jeremy! Are eggs good or bad now!?

Seriously though, when the most heated talk on the forum is a nerdy back and forth on forum governance, we're doing OK.

While I don't think there's anyone particular to blame, I do think the *point* that Nathan was on about is valid. Discussion amongst the mods has become pretty stagnant, and we're slow-if-at-all to act on those rare occasions when someone or something is a problem.

I've said this in other recent posts, but I think the reason behind the lull in moderator conversation is that there isn't a clear path from discussion to the action switch - which has resulted in a number of discussions that led nowhere - which has damped enthusiasm for discussion. I've made a couple of posts in the moderator forum detailing what I think are some sensible adjustments to the rules, which make a clear and simple path between discussion and necessary actions. Hopefully something will come of that and we'll have something to say in this forum sometime this week.

IN THE MEANTIME, please be nicer? Everyone? I don't mean rainbows n lollipops, but just stay on topic and off each other. Call-outs are not policy discussion.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 May 2009 15:33

You might be right, but I'm not privy to the mod forum, so it's hard to comment. What you've said seems vaguely related to Nathan's point, but I don't think it's what he was actually saying at all. If there is a problem, then it sounds like that problem is just a lack of leadership, rather than overly verbose pontification, as Nathan is probably trying to claim. If this is the case then it's great that you're taking on the role of admin, as that seems to address it.

However how bad is this "problem?" The only issues I see are a topic getting locked by somebody who is no longer a mod without explanation, but given both the flaming and the serious conversation almost immediately continued elsewhere, this was a trivial inconvenience. Then there's the issue of people wanting Kyle getting banned - he hasn't been banned but his behaviour since that topic started has improved dramatically, so this problem appears to have been solved (at least for the moment) without the need to actually ban him. Finally there's the issue of some flaming. While it would be nice if mods or admins could punish these people so that they learn how to behave in a public forum, it's hardly difficult to skip over those posts and their childish behaviour is more amusing and quaint than insulting or offensive. Yeah, I don't have a problem discussing these issues and working out some better resolutions, but if Nathan's problem continues, and Ian and I write a thesis about these issues, confusing everybody else so nothing happens - they aren't serious issues anyway. The forum won't fall apart, it's running as well now as it ever has in the past.

Frank_Sinatra · Post by **Frank_Sinatra** » 03 May 2009 18:40

I've thought about some different ways of responding, but first, I've pretty much already said my peace, and second, I don't owe Jeremy any sort of defense of my contribution to modified/footbag/anything. I only want to add this: Ian does a good job of moving topics, removing a comment here or there, and leaving a note. Props on that, at least he does that much.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 May 2009 19:00

Of course you don't owe me any kind of defence, or anything else for that matter. It's just that if you state that I am "the problem" and that because I talk too much no actions occurs, and yet can't provide any example of you taking action instead of talking then people will think you're a hypocrite. You can choose to address that impression by describing the actions you've taken, or you can choose to continue to look like a hypocrite.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 04 May 2009 00:30

I am the one who worded most of the rules as they are now. They were a response to people being unfairly banned and the fact that users had no way to know what could and couldn't be posted, and how mods would behave in given situations. I think they have gone a long way to fixing that situation.

I think most of the rules that relate to the simple phrases you posted above are not all that complicated. This isn't to say that there is room for improvement but I think it'd be far more productive to speak to the existing rules and their specific shortcoming rather than start from scratch.

Mods/admins will be given room to make a judgement call if someone is repeatedly posting with malicious intent

if users are going to 'give us room' then why don't they just give us the room and not worry about putting it in writing?

I am also weary of allowing 'judgement calls' on 'intent'. I think specific things need to be outlawed and beyond that its up to users to be resonsible and civil to one another.

I also think the problem is not the rules but simply the lack of activity of mods. I am no exception to this. I think we're slow to react at times.

Back to the question at hand, should Kyle be banned, if he's broken the rules then sure, but if not, and its just a matter of intent and tone then no, he shouldn't.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 13 May 2009 19:53

some people think it is following the intent of the law that makes a good citizen, others think it is the letter of the law that needs to be followed.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 May 2009 21:14

One of the main jobs of politicians and law societies is to fix laws so that the letter of the law reflects the intent of the law.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 14 May 2009 11:28

Which leads to situations, like the United States, where it is impossible for people to get a copy of the laws.

Serious.

Our laws are so verbose, scattered over so many levels of government, and so letter of the law oriented that no citizen is able to receive a copy of the laws, let alone understand them for their intent.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 14 May 2009 15:31

That sounds terrible. You guys should fix that. In Australia we certainly don't have that problem.

Kyle Hewitt · Post by **Kyle Hewitt** » 17 May 2009 19:42

wait wait wait

dan got banned for saying he was going to kick jeremys ass

but when milan says he wants to break my fucking face

nothing happens?

bullshit imo

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 17 May 2009 21:19

It wasn't my ass that he said he was going to kick - I can't remember who it was but another American I think. I agree it was bullshit.

Sporatical_Distractions · Post by **Sporatical_Distractions** » 18 May 2009 22:15

I enjoy Kyle's posts. They bring character to this forum.

This is just an example, and not my view of Kyle: It's like banning the crazy man from your town, just because people get annoyed. That makes no sense.

and I said I was going to hit a forum member in the face with a shovel for making comments about my bed-ridden mom, and was serious about that statement, but I never got banned. This site is pretty topsy-turvy.

Ban Kyle Permanently

ban?