Suggestion Bannings...

[The Chairman]

OK gang... give me some input.

What should (if anything) warrant a temp ban (5 day suspension)?

What should (if anything) warrant a perm ban?

 

[Ted S]

Being publicly called out to explain their actions to the general public, a public that is traditionally of the torch bearing variety, long before they have finished discussing it themselves.

Take a look at this thread. What started out as a [surprising in my eyes] request from the powers that be to get feedback from the user base as to what would you consider fair, became a thread accusing the mod squad of being a good 'ol boys club hypocritically covering up injustices on their part.

!

 

[Spectre]

Organizing trips conflicts with the occupation of one of the moderators. That's a sure loser.

Tom. Given that this has been in undertones for a _long_ time now from many members on this board, I want to address it.

No. Natasha's business has _nothing_ to do with any decisions that have ever been made by the moderators. There have been plenty of accusations in the past to her getting a scubaboard exclusive... which is completely false. She got permission, and _payed_ to post her commercial ventures. Those that make the claims that her mod duties get her extra privs are those that wanted to be able to _freely_ advertise their commercial ventures.

 

[cornfed]

Using your hypothetical. The problem with this (and I am speaking for myself here and not necessarly for any other Mod or for the Board as a whole) is that at this point Cornfed is already been banned for allegedly having the kernels between his teeth. He no longer has the ablity to defend himself to the members of the board.

I viewed it as more of a way for someone like Boogie or Spectre to learn from my mistakes. After talking with Jeff I'm starting to think it might not be such a good idea. The concept of focused panic he talked about has merit.

Making public allegations can cause problems, especially if they are not allowed the opportunity to defend themselves.

As it is, an announcement of sorts is made in that the title under the members name changes. No allegations as to the details are provided since no defense can be mounted.

True, but I still think it would be reasonable to answer questions when asked. If I get banned, Boogie notices there is an "NA" under my name and sends you a PM . I would be nice if you could say something other than, "I can't discuss this."

 

[fgray1]

Moderators have come and gone over the years. Some for personal choices, some because they crossed the line. Those who have stayed on and the new ones are a geat group but that does not mean they can not error. There are two admins on this board, NetDoc and myself. I get all the email forms sent by the board and you know, if you logoout, the email forum becomes nameless for those of you who want to report anything without being linked to it.

Help me out.
I contacted Pete and got no response. I tried to get into the email section and couldn't.
Go figure
Fred

 

[DFC5343]

I'm not sure I see why this matters.

It matters for diversity sake. Some old timers don't need another "Diving Mom". There should be all walks and facets in the moderation core. Like a jury. That way the concept of "good ole boyism" is defeated. I was just trying to explore what the background of the staff is and how they work. As for panic...this is the internet. I only panic when I don't get my beer before the CO2 off gasses!

 

[IndigoBlue]

...feedback from the user base as to what would you consider fair, became a thread accusing the mod squad of being a good 'ol boys club hypocritically covering up injustices on their part.

Now that we have at least made some progress as to identifying a major flaw in the current system of "moderation," a good way to deal with this problem would be solely for Pete to have the ability to permanently ban.

An additional solution would be a "report this moderator to the owner" button on each moderator's posts.

An appeals process is critical in any adjudication process.

 

[fgray1]

Members on the board can survive without this board but can the board survive without it's members?????
Fred

 

[IndigoBlue]

I viewed it as more of a way for someone like Boogie or Spectre to learn from my mistakes. After talking with Jeff I'm starting to think it might not be such a good idea. The concept of focused panic he talked about has merit.

True, but I still think it would be reasonable to answer questions when asked. If I get banned, Boogie notices there is an "NA" under my name and sends you a PM . I would be nice if you could say something other than, "I can't discuss this."

Cornfed has become much kinder and gentler since his temporary ban(s). Even Boogie has become much kinder and gentler as well, since Cornfed's temporary ban(s). I do not see a problem with temporary bans.

But even so, an appeals procedure, probably to Pete himself, would be useful.

 

[cornfed]

It matters for diversity sake. Some old timers don't need another "Diving Mom". There should be all walks and facets in the moderation core. Like a jury. That way the concept of "good ole boyism" is defeated. I was just trying to explore what the background of the staff is and how they work.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting instructors would make better moderators. My mistake.

As for panic...this is the internet. I only panic when I don't get my beer before the CO2 off gasses!

Have you meet Big-T?

 

[Boogie711]

Using your hypothetical. The problem with this (and I am speaking for myself here and not necessarly for any other Mod or for the Board as a whole) is that at this point Cornfed is already been banned for allegedly having the kernels between his teeth. He no longer has the ablity to defend himself to the members of the board. Making public allegations can cause problems, especially if they are not allowed the opportunity to defend themselves.

As it is, an announcement of sorts is made in that the title under the members name changes. No allegations as to the details are provided since no defense can be mounted.

I'm sorry - I can't accept hiding behind the lack of a defense opportunity as reason to avoid giving an honest and straightforward answer.

The sentence has already been passed. There is no reason to mount a defense. All we want to know is what happened. At this stage of the game, just about anything beats the crap out of the existing "It's private and we won't tell you."