Is ACOLKitty's current 41 day ban too harsh?

[Ecthy]

Slow down the horses, fella... I have indeed been banned for a week for each DL that was discovered by a mod... Strategist, Diplodocus... that's about it... Leprechaun doesn't count, only 2 posts ...neither does Horned Reaper, made 0 posts with him beforeit was shut down... but that is the **** about it!

[Gibsie]

That's the point Ecth... Kitty's DL's weren't discovered, she just claimed to have three, so, after originally saying he didn't care, MtG gave her another three weeks.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: That Dog Don't Hunt

Originally posted by AnnC


There are none to be found, I'm sure, since no doubt they get deleted almost as soon as they are posted.

Hardly, but if it really makes you feel better. Whenever someone has asked about ACOL or ACOLytes (from seeing the name or reference in posts involving ACOLytes, Ming or I or someone have given a link to ACOL. People here rarely start threads about the place, I've never deleted one, and I can't recall Ming or Mark deleting one, either, that wasn't "hey, look at what we're saying about the polytubbies." ACOL related threads here? There probably haven't been ten in the last year, and only one or two of those have been wiped that I can recall. Now, bottoming from lack of interest is another story.

We get occasional threads about CivFanatics and other sites, mostly due to crossover posters, and I don't remember more than a tiny minority of them being deleted either, and then only for the same reasons as any other thread.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by AnnC
connor, many threads have disappeared from these forums minutes after they were posted because your moderators (by their own admission) are in the habit of deleting threads that they consider silly or useless. So you probably wouldn't know if an ACOL thread had been posted and then deleted.

Well, I'd say I'm in more of a position to notice than most.

The deletion or closure rate in the OT averages about 1.5 to 3 percent a week of all threads created, since the eight hour rule (now twice a day) was instituted.

That doesn't count threads we used to routinely close at 150 posts, so they'd be continued in a new thread. With vBulletin, we don't have the indexing and load time problems we had with UBB.

When the OT is at its absolute spammiest, the deletion or closure rate is barely over 10 percent. Other times, it's about 1 percent. So hardly a crisis, nor an explanation for the lack of interest in ACOL related threads here.

BTW - the reason I added onto the ban for Kitty's professed DL's is simple. She said she doesn't care if she's banned under that name, she'll still post here when she wants. Since she doesn't care, I don't care either.

And Gibsie - what I said is if someone creates a DL, that isn't blatant (i.e. flaming, trolling, etc.) I can't be arsed to hunt them down, I've got better things to do. When someone says they don't care about a ban, because they've got DL's and can post whenever they want, that does not meet my criteria of not being blatant.

[Urban Ranger]

I think it's too harsh.

I don't know ACOLKitty and I don't go to ACOL, but isn't a person presumed innocent until proven guilty?

It seems that the 10 days for spamming is fine, but the rest is just too subjective if you ask me. Of course, MtG may have more evidence of what's going on.

[AnnC]

MtG, 1.5 to 3 percent is an appallingly high rate.

In the entire history of ACOL, only 6 threads have been deleted. Five were vandalized by a smilie-bomber and I couldn't repair them, and the sixth was a porn thread that the originator refused to edit.

I am embarassed that you were ever a Cleaner (moderator) at ACOL.

[Sprayber]

ACOL--the red headed step child

I think it's funny. ACOL has a bad case of site envy. They talk about poly all the time. Funny thing is though people do ask about what is so special about ACOL. They find a link and maybe go there once or twice and find out that nothing goes on there. It also has a bad case of the cult of personality. You think poly has a problem with cliques, go to ACOL

[MichaeltheGreat]

(edit - reply is to AnnC's post two posts above.)

When several threads duplicate the same subject at the same time, or when we have the 50th incarnation of "Poll: what's your favorite color" or when people request their own threads be closed, or when someone starts a thread with racist or similar hate language (I guess you missed the three "******" threads Ming and I closed - they had such <i>special</i> sentiments expressed in them, for full view of the many new registrants we get every week.) Yes, by all means, people's perceived rights to post in violation of our rules must be preserved. How dare we?

You have a different site, with a much smaller, more close knit community, with relatively few new people coming in. ACOL's situation as a site is not comparable Apolyton's. It's not a knock on you, your efforts to support ACOL, or ACOL itself. It's two different sites, with two different orientations.

I am embarassed that you were ever a Cleaner (moderator) at ACOL.

And thanks for the personal endorsement Ann. Just remember, (you weren't registered there yet, so maybe you don't know), I'm the poster who talked Justin into creating a Random Chat forum in the first place, so ACOL could accomodate the community that was departing alpha.owo

I would have expected you, as a site owner and as a mature adult and a professional, to separate my enforcing the policies of this site (albeit strictly), from that sort of petty, purely personal commentary. Obviously my expectations were higher than was warranted.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think MTG has shown himself unsuitable to be a mod - his approach seems to have more to do with his own internal dramas than fairness.

Ming is always moderate in his punishments - and he gives warnings. He's much more likely to just close or delete a thread than ban someone.

MLeonard is the best - he's active but almost invisible.

[Sprayber]

Why am I not surprised at the horses response to this thread?

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

Is there some sort of unsanctioned "war" going on among some ACOL and Apolyton posters?

CYBERAmazon

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DaShi
MtG, I see about 10 days for a valid ban. The rest was outside the forum. I thought the purpose of Apolyton's rules was to promote fairness and thoughtful discussion. How has that been accomplished here?

Good question.

First, the purpose of Apolyton's rules is to prevent abuse and disruption of the site.

If the ban <i>really</i> affected Kitty's ability to post, that would be one thing. She has repeatedly pointed out it does not.

My normal practice on banning someone is to talk to the party afterwards - usually, they want to talk to me. For some posts, particularly those that are hate oriented, or offensive in the extreme (like a recently deleted remark about raping a coed), I don't shorten the ban.

If I talk to someone, and we can talk reasonably, I'll shorten the ban to half, sometimes less. I've done that for almost every ban of longer than a day. In Kitty's case, she made it clear she wanted the ban, expected it, was trying to get it with her posts, and that it was virtually meaningless except for fun. I don't dislike Kitty personally, and our ICQ talk was low key and perfectly civil (minus a couple of expletives she called me all in good fun. ) But she made it plain that the ban was meaningless and she'd post whenever she felt like it, under one name or another.

So if I reduce a ban because I'm reasonably able to discuss the situation with the poster, and reach an agreement to reduce the ban, in return for the poster's behaving within the rules, what should I do with someone I know very well (almost two years now), who totally blows the ban off as inconsequential?

41 days might actually represent a tiny inconvenience to Kitty. It might not. If it does, she can talk to me about it. I don't even really care if she fesses up her two remaining DL's (one got nailed by Ming), if she agrees not to pull the same kind of crap, where she was deliberately provoking a ban. If she can't agree to that, then she doesn't need to post here, and the rest of us don't need the disruption. It's that simple.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I think MTG has shown himself unsuitable to be a mod - his approach seems to have more to do with his own internal dramas than fairness.

Always good to hear from you Horsie. If my approach was based on my "internal dramas" you'd never see or hear from me. I have better things to do in real life.

When is the foal due, anyway? Monday's a half year already for Ian

Cyber - not that I'm aware of.

[Ecthy]

The ban is totally incorrect.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I have better things to do in real life.

Following the logic of that thought I'm pleased to learn you'll be announcing your resignation shortly.