[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[Nikolai]

Different treatment of Ben, as usual. He is not a polite poster, but he is still not deserving to be treated worse than the rest of the gang here. Btw, I expect that KH is banned already for this post? And the numberous posters who have tried to chase Ben off the site for ages? Or the trolls this site has been plagued with for years? AAHZ is finally out I guess?

[MikeH]

Also:

I don't care how Ming or any other moderator did things.

If other posters have a different view of events to me they can come to this thread and post their view. I think Slowwhand has made some very good points in this thread. The ban length might seem excessive compared to previous regimes, but as nye said I always said that I thought the idea of short term bannings was counterproductive and seen as a reward for bad behaviour. I'm not getting into that game playing.

And JM has said exactly the same thing, we have got better things to do with our time.

I think I've always been very clear this is how I'd do things. And as always if this isn't what people want out of the moderation here, that's fine, everyone can let me know and I'll quit.

[MikeH]

It's been pointed out I did actually mention the homophibic posting as one of the reasons. Sorry.

[MikeH]

Ben asked for clarification on PM. I will post my reply to him here for transparency.

I don't agree that you should expect me to respond once you have been banned. Just this once I will clarify.

I have said countless times in various threads that Apolyton rules are clear that we don't tolerate homophobia, or racism or sexism or any other form of discrimination. These are in the core rules. Aside from myself a large number of our gay posters have made clear that your views and the way you express them are highly offensive to them. And they've made clear to us that they are highly offensive. And we've made clear to you that it's unacceptable.

I did not mention that specifically in any of my posts about the banning, but the fact you mentioned it shows that you are fully aware that's one of the reasons.

That said, in this case I think the threats alone were enough for a banning.

In the following thread you indicate that yes, you did threaten loin with violence. You say he "took the bait" which I understand to mean, you threatened him as a 'trick' but you understand that he took you seriously. For me the important part is that it could be perceived as a threat, and that he took you seriously.

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/196181-Why-do-90-of-black-people-vote-for-Democrats?p=6040608&viewfull=1#post6040608

I'm not aware of Slowwhand's case. I will not be banning anyone for less than 6 months for any offence. It's petty, allows game playing and allows people to triumphantly return a short time later and continue with the same behaviour.

I do not expect you to agree with this message. I will also post this in the OT Moderation thread, to keep things transparent. I won't post your message contents just my response.

[MikeH]

I think celebrating someone getting banned is inappropriate.

Ok some feedback:

1. Since I've been moderator I have had huge numbers of complaints about Ben. I don't respond to all of them but I probably get at least 3 a week about him. I'm not sure how many Jon has had. This ban is for persistent rule breaking.

2. I feel like I've made it clear on numerous occasions that his behaviour in many, many threads is not acceptable. So has Jon. This is not a ban based on one incident, but on persistent bad behaviour (see Jon's post) Although that said, this incident would have been enough on its own, we're just really lenient normally.

3. I'm not going to get into a PM conversation about bannings. And I'm not going to PM someone before they get banned.

4. nye is right. I really don't want to ban people. I did say I'd only consider permabans, but 6 months or a year are probably other usable options. This was the shortest punishment of the options we considered. My only other ban was when I banned loinburger for 6 months for posting dickgirls.

Also, FYI Docfeelgood is also treading a very fine line with his behaviour, if I have do delete another racist video thread from him I'll ban him at the same time.

[Dinner]

I'm going to attack JM until I drive him from the site.

Maybe just attack him until he resigns his mod powers in disgust. That doesn't seem to be against the rules.

[DaShi]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[SlowwHand]

Which is another point. The intent was conveyed many times in blatant terms. If it was me, I'd turn around and piss on you, too. I'd argue just for the sake of arguing.
Sounds a little familiar, doesn't it?
A banning may or may not be warranted. A 6 month banning is stupid. It's a stupid decision, because now people can bait all that they want.

[Elok]

How does one prove intent to drive a specific poster from the site (in the absence of confessions like HC's) ? If it were just unrelenting hostility, some of us would have been banned ten times over by now.

[Tupac Shakur]

I'm going to attack JM until I drive him from the site.

[Jon Miller]

And you deserve to be banned for that.

JM

The only time I've attacked someone with the aim of driving them away was with Ben. Or spammers ;P

(just to spell it out, you are warned)

[Hauldren Collider]

Also it's hilarious that Ben is sending you PMs.

[Hauldren Collider]

attacks that are deemed to be aimed at driving other users from the site... will not be tolerated

The only time I've attacked someone with the aim of driving them away was with Ben. Or spammers ;P

[Jon Miller]

We tolerate lots of things we shouldn't according to the rules.

I am not interested in playing rules lawyer.

If a poster repeatedly goes over the line and causes trouble then they will at some point be banned.

If you don't want to be banned, don't act against the rules.

JM

[notyoueither]

attacks that are deemed to be aimed at driving other users from the site... will not be tolerated