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?

 

[cornfed]

Cornfed has become much kinder and gentler since his temporary ban(s).

LOL, who wants to fill Indigo in on the details of my banishment?

 

[LUBOLD8431]

Ok, I think I get it now...

THis is what I think should happen with the banning process...
All Moderators should have the power to IMMEDIATELY suspend someone for five days. However, ONLY the ADMINS (Netdoc and I believe Tech Admin???) should have the power to PERMANENTLY BAN someone...
I also believe that threads are pulled too often by moderators. Maybe a vote should be taken BEFORE a thread is pulled. Individual posts can still be edited by a moderator.

However, this is just my opinion, and you guys dont have to listen to me, it is Pete's board now, and we all have to play by his rules...

I do think the TOS should be a little more clear about things like this...

 

[IndigoBlue]

LOL, who wants to fill Indigo in on the details of my banishment?

I read about it.

 

[ckharlan66]

I would be nice if you could say something other than, "I can't discuss this."

I agree but put yourself in the place of a person that has been banned. You may not really want people talking about you when you don't have the ability to defend yourself. We actually try to treat those that we take action against with dignity.

If we post the reasons, or even answer the questions in PM's our actions still get questioned. If we try to defend them then you have one side of an argument. It simply isn't fair to the affected party. We tell them why. They are free to tell who they please.

Chad

 

[Spectre]

I would be nice if you could say something other than, "I can't discuss this."

Would "I think the e-mail feature on their account may still work. Try it and let me know" suffice?

 

[cornfed]

I read about it.

Infamy is far easier to achieve than fame!

 

[WreckWriter]

Also WW..since you seem to think my being in the travel business influenced anyone, I think I need to address that.
I have never swayed anyone, or said I would leave the board if something wasn't done my way.
Threats do not work.
If I was using threats to KN, or Pete, I would have been gone long ago.
You of all people should know that.

Natasha, I have my suspicions as to why "WreckWench" went out, seeing as I never saw her post much outside of trying to set up singles trips. Actually several of the newly booted are those who were proponents of the "singles forum". Hmmmm...

But no, I never meant to imply that you were the one that "took a vacation". That would have been "Dee".

WW

 

[IndigoBlue]

Natasha, I have my suspicions as to why "WreckWench" went out, seeing as I never saw her post much outside of trying to set up singles trips. Actually several of the newly booted are those who were proponents of the "singles forum". Hmmmm...

But no, I never meant to imply that you were the one that "took a vacation". That would have been "Dee".

WW

I talked to her shortly before she was banned, and she said she was expecting to be banned any time. She really wanted a singles forum. She was willing to risk being banned over the issue.

I miss her now.

I also agree with WW's other observations on this as well.

 

[Warren_L]

I don't know how things are handled here, but I've been a moderator on another non-diving related message board for a while now.....

Welcome, warren_l! Greetings to our newest member, alluma1!
Current Members: 71,067, Threads: 32,660, Posts: 189,227, Online since 22-02-2003

And we see some pretty substantial post volumes, which inevitably results in some inappropriate posting. The mods do not generally delete posts or threads, but instead move the thread to a temporary location where we can trash or re-instate it if it is appropriate. There is always an explanation given to the offending member as to why an action was taken, and usually with the consensus of the moderating team. But we try to avoid deleting threads/posts altogether and especially without explanation to the membership at large. The same concept also applies to banning.

We've also introduced the concept of a "stealth ban" where the user is banned, and any further posting by the user is not seen by anyone else on the board except for the moderators and the user. The banned member does not realize that he is banned but just ends up responding and posting and seemingly everyone is ignoring him. Really quite entertaining, actually.

 

[Spectre]

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.

Uh... Why would Pete having the sole ability be better than a quarum amoung the moderators? I don't follow at all. The -concept- of a banning timeframe is nothing more than that... they are banned, and the ban is lifted after a certain amount of time. There's no special 'permanent ban' feature.... well, I know of one, but I always successfully fought the urge to delete member accounts.

Oh how the torch-laden would bang on the hypocracy door if there was a single point of failure in the system.

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

And that doesn't exist?

"Report this post to a moderator" can be used to report a moderators post. Plus PMs work as well. And yes, moderators have been reported in the past.