banning alters

[digsy]

to avoid running the risk of getting a therad in Zoo Confessionals closed i'm gonna continue this here:

if someones alter gets banned for breaking the rules, why doesn't the user get banned under all names and not just the one?
if we don't let banned members post under alters, why do we let banned alters post under their normal user names?

surely breaking the rules is breaking the rules and is we're going to start judging differently according to standard user names and alters, who's to decide then which name is the real one and which the alter so that these varying standards of modding can be applied.

in fact i think its worse when people break rules under an alter because its quite obviously pre-planned - the person knows what they're going to say won't be allowed or is wrong, so they pruposefully take cover under a different name. its premeditated.

at this standard can i go make an alter now and stir shit up knowing full well that the name digsy will be safe to continue posting under?

it seems a bit of a double standard don't you think?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I agree with you, and because Sicy asked that it not be discussed in the other thread-I kept wondering why that person was allowed to post under alters in FYM when they had been banned from that forum. I had figured out the alters on my own (and I believe there has been more than one, might be wrong about that), but I just assumed they had been allowed back into FYM so I never said anything. Still not completely sure if that is the case, but I assume not if I read what was said in ZC correctly.

And I agree with Lies- if you feel the need to create multiple alters over and over again because of issues under your original user name, then you need to take responsibility for yourself and take an honest look at why that is. And not be allowed to just continue creating alters. I just do my best to ignore, but I have observed. It seems like a double standard to me. I thought the FAQ says that if you create even one alter for the purposes of posting in a forum that you have been banned from, that is cause for a possible permanent ban under all names. Of course I could be wrong about that and probably am, I don't know.

 

[Bonochick]

My personal opinion:

If a person violates rules under an alter, that person should be banned or suspended, depending on the severity of the violation. The fact that the offending posts occur under an alter is a minor detail...it is the same person, and that person should be dealt with, not just his or her alter.

 

[Bonochick]

I thought the FAQ says that if you create even one alter for the purposes of posting in a forum that you have been banned from, that is cause for a possible permanent ban under all names.

http://forum.interference.com/misc.php?s=&action=faq&page=5#30

In general, using alters to violate Forum Rules/FAQs, voting multiple times in polls, as well as other common sense 'no-nos' will result in the banning of the alters and possibly the banning of the original username. Remember that alters are a priviledge.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Ok, thanks Bonochick

 

[the rockin edge]

My personal opinion:

If a person violates rules under an alter, that person should be banned or suspended, depending on the severity of the violation. The fact that the offending posts occur under an alter is a minor detail...it is the same person, and that person should be dealt with, not just his or her alter.

i agree with that.

 

[digsy]

http://forum.interference.com/misc.php?s=&action=faq&page=5#30

i see the word "possibly" was the one used in this case then

 

[digsy]

My personal opinion:

If a person violates rules under an alter, that person should be banned or suspended, depending on the severity of the violation. The fact that the offending posts occur under an alter is a minor detail...it is the same person, and that person should be dealt with, not just his or her alter.

so seeing you're a mod would you not be able to exert that power or does sicy handle bannings exclusively/

 

[Sicy]

In general, using alters to violate Forum Rules/FAQs, voting multiple times in polls, as well as other common sense 'no-nos' will result in the banning of the alters and possibly the banning of the original username. Remember that alters are a priviledge.

Honestly, its kind of tiresome to feel like I am always questioned on everything I do around here. I dont know what else to say except sometimes I just simply have a heart. To give someone extra chances that's been here for over 5 years and for the most part, has not caused major problems. The majority of this person's posts under the alters have not violated any rules, until recently. I've now banned every single alter this person has and yet you people still arent happy. I've already stated in the past that sometimes bannings and suspensions may be handled slightly differently on a member to member basis. It doesnt mean that certain people dont have to follow the rules, and it doesnt mean there is favortism, but I really dont think there is anything wrong with giving someone that has been here for 5 years, paid premium, etc more than one chance. And again, as I've already stated, there are no more chances left for this person.

 

[Bonochick]

so seeing you're a mod would you not be able to exert that power or does sicy handle bannings exclusively/

Moderators aren't able to ban or suspend members. Only admins can do that. Admins do consult with mods before acting though, so we are able to voice our opinions on each matter that arises. We have a lot of communication with each other.

 

[Elvis]

I support sicy in having a 'heart'. Every case is handled uniquely as each case and person is unique. We have rules so that people know what they are up against and what is expected... so that when they are enforced, they've got nothing to bitch about.

Trust me when I say this, it's better to have Sicy incharge of the bannings than to have me doing it. I've got a heart.... but when it comes to some of the crap around here, I dont have much patience... and yes, this is why we (Sicy and I) decided a long time ago it was best for me not to do the bannings.

Joel

P.s. in response to BC's comments.... I rarely consulted with other admins or mods.... unlike how things are done now.

 

[digsy]

Moderators aren't able to ban or suspend members. Only admins can do that. Admins do consult with mods before acting though, so we are able to voice our opinions on each matter that arises. We have a lot of communication with each other.

ah sorry i wasn't certain of the difference, now i know thanks.


and sicy, i'm not really referring specifically to this individual - i coudln't care less whather you ban them in particular or not - this recent case seems to have bought the issue to the forefront and this really is a general enquiry as to what would happen overall.
i appreciate that certain cases are handled differently than others and that this member is now on a last warning - fair enough and thanks for explaining.

while i don't necessarily agree with the policy (that "possibly" word is what gets me and not just in this case but overall) i'm not having a go at you and i don't think its unreasonable to query the topic and the way its handled to get a better understanding of it - we should be able to do that without fear of sending the mods/admins/rulers on the defensive

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

There are members here now who have had their alters banned in the past. It's not as if this is the only person to get another chance.

Some people abuse their alters more than others and they should be treated accordingly. I don't have a problem with the word "possibly."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

while i don't necessarily agree with the policy (that "possibly" word is what gets me and not just in this case but overall) i'm not having a go at you and i don't think its unreasonable to query the topic and the way its handled to get a better understanding of it - we should be able to do that without fear of sending the mods/admins/rulers on the defensive

Same here, and I wasn't having a go at you or anyone else either Sicy. I can understand why you would feel that way given other situations that have happened, but rest assured I wasn't . I rarely if ever even comment on a situation like this, it just made me have questions. And honestly I had run out of patience with that one in particular, but still had never really done much of anything but ignore and say nothing. I never even contacted a mod even though I think I had more than just cause to (the main one being the FYM issue). I have to agree with digsy, I think people should be able to voice legitimate concerns without people getting defensive.

 

[Blue Room]

Seems like alot of potential for double standards to me. Basically, its at the whim of the powers that be here, bottom line. Regardless of how long you have been here or if you have even caused any problems before.

 

[Liesje]

Same here, and I wasn't having a go at you or anyone else either Sicy. I can understand why you would feel that way given other situations that have happened, but rest assured I wasn't . I rarely if ever even comment on a situation like this, it just made me have questions. And honestly I had run out of patience with that one in particular, but still had never really done much of anything but ignore and say nothing. I never even contacted a mod even though I think I had more than just cause to (the main one being the FYM issue). I have to agree with digsy, I think people should be able to voice legitimate concerns without people getting defensive.

I agree as well. I appreciate Sicy and have no problems with how she's handled bannings and even this one in particular, I just don't like the idea of alters in the first place, especially when things like this happen. Besides the few alters that everyone knows about and knows that they are just for fun, there's always a reason why a person feels like he or she would have to create an alter to say something. Interestingly enough, it's still quite obvious who the alter belongs to. I just see no point in trying to hide behind and alter because of what you think other people think. I guess it would make more sense if a person really was "starting from scratch" and trying to change, but in this case, all of the posts by the alters were no different than the original, both in content and tone.

But, like Sicy said, she banned them all so I guess it's not a big deal.

 

[Elvis]

Seems like alot of potential for double standards to me. Basically, its at the whim of the powers that be here, bottom line. Regardless of how long you have been here or if you have even caused any problems before.

How do you figure?

Varying levels of abuse require various levels of attention... and recourse. Not every infraction of the rules are equal, nor do we have anything specifying that infraction A will result in punishment B, and so forth.

The way in which we handle 'infractions' of the rules is done so in a very personal way... not robotically, or automated.

I'm curious, how would you expect it to be done if not by 'the powers that be'?

Someone will always be in a position of authority.

 

[Blue Room]

How do you figure?

Varying levels of abuse require various levels of attention... and recourse. Not every infraction of the rules are equal, nor do we have anything specifying that infraction A will result in punishment B, and so forth.

The way in which we handle 'infractions' of the rules is done so in a very personal way... not robotically, or automated.

I'm curious, how would you expect it to be done if not by 'the powers that be'?

Someone will always be in a position of authority.

But you have a rules section that says certain things will result in banishment. So certain infractions you do state exactly what will happen. My point is that if something is done, intentional or not, and is not listed in the rules (or even some that are), you as the powers that be, can be as arbitrary as you want regardless of the intent and/or overall effect the activity even has on anyone or the board in general. You own the board, its your perogative. I'm just saying that ultimately you can do whatever you please to anyone here.

 

[Elvis]

I'm just saying that ultimately you can do whatever you please to anyone here.

Ultimately, of course we have the power to do what we want... so does anyone that runs or owns a web site.

We just don't go and ban people randomly, or on a whim.

In most cases we give people several chances and communicate with them about the 'infractions'. This is really a benefit to all members here.... and I dont see a downside with it. We try to be fair, even if someone on the staff personally doesn't like the person in question.

Do you see a problem or downside with this?

If so, I'm curious to know if you have any suggestions to better the 'system'.

Joel

 

[digsy]

my one issue with this case in particular is how i cannot see how having 44 alters is NOT abusing the system... not all have them may have misbehaved but some obviously did.
there are instances of more than one alter entering a thread to try give an argument thats otherwise failing support... thats bending the privilege if you ask me and constitutes a form of ganging up/bullying or abusing the fairness of a debate - like voting multiple times which i quite clearly stated as being against the rules.

my other point i'm struggling to find a way to explain, but i'm gonna try:

if a person with multiple alters is misbehaving then they should, like people with a single name, be warned however many times admin and mods feel necessary and if they still can't behave after that than all names should be banned in one go (temporarily or permanent, whatever)
it should be warnings and then a full banning, not a half hearted somewhere inbetween.

if someone has been warned to behave let them do so with the full resources at their disposal, if they're not responsible enough to behave with their alters available to them and can't resist the temptation, then after warnings just outright ban/suspend the lot.


basically these aren't children and we shouldn't have to take away their toys to expect them to obey the rules.

 

[digsy]

also, a general question - how do mods/admin decide whether to ban completely or just suspend a member.

i only ask because i think suspension is maybe a good way of letting members who have been here a while or who don't normaly cause trouble and aren't "worthy" of an outright ban a chance to learn their lesson without losing too much.

sicy has said all cases get judges individually and i would have thought in a case like this where she's obviously gone in with a bit of heart (and i'm in agremeent that an all out ban would have been unneccesary) a small suspension would be fitting.
its not a ban but its enough of a wake up call.

so under what circumstances would you normally just suspend a member?

 

[Elvis]

I believe that Sicy has already addressed this banning specifically, as well we have addressed our general method/process of how someone gets banned/suspended. I really don't think it's proper to tell the general forum membership the conversations that go on between the mods/admins of this site in regards to forum members, bannings, suspensions, and other operations.


We have a set of rules within the FAQ and that is what should be abided by. period.


If you get lucky and dont get banned for violating those rules, count that as a blessing, however keep in mind that we have the right at any time to ban/suspend anyone for any reason --- which will more than likely always fall under a rule being violated. Please refer to my earlier comments on this.

How we operate the site/forum behind the scenes is private.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Actually, digs, every time an alter had issues arising from that name on the board, it was discussed in length (great length at times lol) both among the mod team and with the member. Rarely are decisions made lightly. Mod threads on issues can be as long or longer than many on the main forum. Or at least that's how it used to be. It's incredibly difficult to convey all this, due to mods wishing to respect everyone's desire to keep things out of any tabloid-esque spotlight. This board has enough drama without things going entirely public. Which, as we can see, has it's drawbacks as well such as a need for legitimately asking questions like this in threads.

 

[Elvis]

Myself, the admin/mod team, and the content team really are trying to be as transparent as possible in regards to the operations of Interference.com, and the forum, as of late. We must balance this with also maintaining our individual privacy and that of the site's privacy.

I do think it's important that everyone understands that those running the site are people with lives, and that we try to do things as fairly as possible, and with the site and community in mind. There are no evil plots, conspiracies, or campaigns against individuals or groups. I personally applaud our team for doing such an incredible job of maintaining this site with as much diplomacy and heart as has been done.

To add to what Angela Harlem said, the mods/admins actually have ongoing threads in the mod forum about specific members if/when they "break the rules". It seems to be a very efftective way of keeping track of these folks and their infractions as well promoting engaging discussion in regards to what should be done, communication that's taken place, etc.

Joel

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think it's fair to suggest that anyone and everyone who has legitimate questions is implying that there are evil plots or that people here don't have lives and aren't just human or whatever. I have seen people constantly complain and question motives and actions of moderators right here on the site, not even in private. And I avoid participating in that. As I have stated here before, I think Sicy does a good job and I wouldn't want to have to do it.

I have developed quite an ability to ignore certain things, honestly if I didn't things could get so annoying that I wouldn't even want to come here anymore. The few times that I have taken up anything privately with a mod ( literally less than a handful in the time I've been here) I have been treated with respect and my concerns treated in the same way-by people who are no longer here and still here.

So whether it's intended or not, the impression I might be left with by actually voicing one concern that I feel is legit is that basically I am accusing people or whatever or questioning the private matters and actions that go on, and that is far from the case.

I do my level best to conduct myself in a certain way here (and paid or not, I would never feel that paying gave me any more "leeway", that is another issue and maybe sometimes it can feel as if some members might feel that way, whether it's true or not), sometimes it becomes very difficult under certain circumstances in which human emotions come into play. So I certainly understand the whole situation from that point of view.

 

[Elvis]

I don't think it's fair to suggest that anyone and everyone who has legitimate questions is implying that there are evil plots or that people here don't have lives and aren't just human or whatever. I have seen people constantly complain and question motives and actions of moderators right here on the site, not even in private. And I avoid participating in that. As I have stated here before, I think Sicy does a good job and I wouldn't want to have to do it.

I don't think I suggested that at all, my apologies if that's the message you took from it.

My statements were made generally, as in the past certain members have made accusations or implied that there are plots and conspiracies, on the side of the Interference staff. In the same regard, sometimes people take simple, and fair, questions to a level that is demanding, as well... frequently the mods/admins are treated with extreme disrespect as if they are functional machines serving only the Interference community.

Does that clarify what I said a little better?

Joel

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I guess it does and I understand that, but if you don't say that from the outset and say things like "you people still aren't happy and are questioning everything that I do ", then I think you can see how I could be confused and feel lumped in with those other types of questions, people, demands, whatever. Asking a question without demanding is not the same thing and should be treated and recognized as such. Otherwise I think you can understand how it could make people "afraid" to even ask a question.

That's all, I just wanted to clarify that and my original question has been answered and I understand better now

 

[Sicy]

I really don't think it's proper to tell the general forum membership the conversations that go on between the mods/admins of this site in regards to forum members, bannings, suspensions, and other operations.

I'd like to second this, I think we've been more open than we have had to be in this thread about this subject and I think all the questions/concerns have been addressed and answered. I dont really feel it needs to be discussed in public any longer. Any other other issues anyone may have about how things are run/handled are more than welcome to contact the staff in private.