Suggestion Finalized Banning Procedure

[The Chairman]

On January 15, 2003, 7 users were banned from Scubaboard. Most of the moderators and a few of our users were not satisfied with the process, and so we began discussing the hows and whys in the moderator’s forum. Subsequently we even opened up a new forum for our users to be able to express their thoughts and ideas.

In formulating the new process, we wanted to ensure to resolve a few issues germane to the larger issue. These would be communication, fairness, consistency and moderator responsibility. To this end we have come up with the following process:

Temp bans (5 days) can be called for by any moderator and are automatic. This can be in response to any violation of the TOS (moderator’s discretion), harassment of others, flaming others, or trolling. The moderator must send a notice (even though an administrator has to flip the switch) to the affected user’s e-mail and detail why the suspension was initiated. These should be rare and can be conditional.

Perm Bans are considered when the user exceeds 2 suspensions in less than 6 months, openly challenges authority (not just asking a question), threatens anyone in any way, or has blatantly violated the TOS. A perm ban requires 8 moderator’s approvals or a 2/3s majority of the mods voting, which ever is more. A temp ban should be called for first and then perm banning should be discussed for at least 5 days. The mod who initiated the temp ban is in charge of the process. They will also set the time for a vote (at least 5 days) and send the appropriate message if so needed. These should be very rare and can be conditional.

Under no circumstances will Scubaboard moderators or administrators disclose reasons or rationale for any disciplinary action to a third party. We view this as a privacy issue and are committed to protect the privacy of the board's users at all times. While we do respect a user's desire to request a review of the status of their account, we specifically forbid the use of sock puppets (multiple user accounts) or another user's account to make your case. All such requests must be sent to scubaboard@moderninsider.com for consideration. At this point of the process, we will not feel obliged to correspond any further unless we change your status. All moderators and administrators will forward any and all such requests sent to them personally as well.

Perm bans can be re-visited by any mod at any time and only need a simple majority of the mods voting to be rescinded.

As with any “invention” you are never sure how it works until tested. So it was suggested and then decided by the mods to subject the January 15 bans to the new process. 4 of the original 7 had perm bannings initiated and those are being discussed. While we hoped to have 3 of those 4 finalized today, server issues have made that impossible. However, we can report that Cobaltbabe, Raven C and 00Scuba have been subsequently restored to full user status. We welcome them back into the Scubaboard fold, and extend our sincerest thanks to those users who gave us input into this issue.

 

[LUBOLD8431]

How about he just bans you, and then everyone is happy???

Hmmm???

Sounds good to me. Im sick of your wining. Its WAY old.

 

[jonnythan]

Yes, how about that.

 

[scubasean]

How about he just bans you, and then everyone is happy???

Somewhere in a thread recently, some *did* suggest that the users be allowed to vote folks off the board...LOL

 

[LUBOLD8431]

Yes, lets implement the democratic ban process. I KNOW who the first and second to go would be...

 

[ianr33]

<<How about he just bans you, and then everyone is happy???>>

works for me

 

[Warren_L]

In this case it was claimed and accepted that the individual had not read the commercial posting TOS and was not aware that their post was considered a commercial enterprise. The post was pulled. It will be re-inserted when payment is made.

Isn't there something about ignorance of the law not being an excuse? Not that the TOS should be held to any law, but are users not required to acknowlege acceptance of the TOS before being allowed access? I dunno .... seems like a clear violation of the TOS to me.

 

[jonnythan]

Isn't there something about ignorance of the law not being an excuse? Not that the TOS should be held to any law, but are users not required to acknowlege acceptance of the TOS before being allowed access? I dunno .... seems like a clear violation of the TOS to me.

They were more or less allowed before, but since SB has begun taking money for ads, I imagine they have to be consistent... no corporate ads without pay. I wasn't really aware of the policy, and can certainly understand that MHK wouldn't have thought twice about doing something he had done many times in the past. He didn't kill anyone, it was an honest mistake, no harm intended, move on.

 

[The Chairman]

Chrpai,

I don't think a TOS is what you are looking for. I hope you find it, whatever it is, but it surely ain't a TOS. Feel free to seek a better board, one that you can appreciate and not waste your time trying to reason with fools such as I.

As moderators we have done our best, and that is obviously not enough for you. It never will be because we don't even try to ascribe to your lofty ideals of justice and honor. I sincerely hope you can find a place where you can be happy. Where moderators are all cheerful and willing to see things just your way. They might even give out free stuff and have a forum just for you.

All I can offer here is the result of a few great mods trying to do their level best with a concept we like to call "reality". If you ever grow tired of that "other place", then feel free to come and slum around with the rest of us. But this time try an open mind and a healthy dose of appreciation. Remember, you get what you pay for. Have a great day!

 

[Warren_L]

They were more or less allowed before, but since SB has begun taking money for ads, I imagine they have to be consistent... no corporate ads without pay. I wasn't really aware of the policy, and can certainly understand that MHK wouldn't have thought twice about doing something he had done many times in the past. He didn't kill anyone, it was an honest mistake, no harm intended, move on.

Heh heh ... I tried that one time when I got a speeding ticket. It was in an area I had driven quite often. The speed limit was reduced due to concerns over vehicle speeds in a school zone. Didn't realize it. Got pulled over. Pleaded ignorance with the cop. I didn't kill anyone, it was an honest mistake, no harm intended. Got a ticket before I got to move on. Ignorance was no excuse, apparently.

 

[jonnythan]

Heh heh ... I tried that one time when I got a speeding ticket. It was in an area I had driven quite often. The speed limit was reduced due to concerns over vehicle speeds in a school zone. Didn't realize it. Got pulled over. Pleaded ignorance with the cop. I didn't kill anyone, it was an honest mistake, no harm intended. Got a ticket before I got to move on. Ignorance was no excuse, apparently.

I don't think MHK could have killed any children by posting an ad.

Maybe that has something to do with it.