Discussion of banned/suspended members

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Utoo

Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
8,343
Location
Lovetown
Half of the problems of yesterday arose because of the constant threat of the rule prohibiting discussion of banned/suspended members. The issues brought up by this rule and similar extensions of it are what turned what would have been dozens of posts into hundreds of posts.

Discussion of a suspended member can help others understand what he/she did wrong, hopefully preventing similar actions in the future. It can, perhaps, also take the "ooh! ahh!" factor away from the suspension, making it less of a hot topic in a few days; the current rule of 'no discussion' does the opposite----the mention of jick or Fake Edge brings on laughs and a string of posts still to this day.

I don't know if this rule was enacted because of Fake Edge, jick, or whomever. But I think that we should really take a look at what the purpose of the rule is and if it really accomplishes that goal. I doubt it does. Much of the mods' warnings yesterday were merely to enforce this rule simply because it's a rule, but not necessarily with some higher purpose in mind.
 
This is my personal opinion. This isn't an official Interference opinion or anything, just what I think.

I think discussion of banned members should be allowed...in one, informative thread. I don't think there should be talk and references scattered all over though. It makes things cluttered, especially when such talk derails an existing topic. If people really just want some information and a place to voice opinions and concerns, one thread should be all that is necessary.

Currently, I do my best to squash conversation that pops up, because that is the rule, and I'm just doing my job by enforcing said rule. I'm personally not opposed to changing that though.
 
I can understand why the bannings shouldn't be discussed, for a couple of different reasons.

First, I see it as talking about someone behind their back. Which, on some level everyone does, but that doesn't make it fair. In fact, I've always assumed the no discussion of banned members rule was for this very reason. Allowing it would be like the mods saying it is okay to talk shit about someone, as long as they aren't around to see it.

Secondly, as is the most recent case, talking about it tends to start arguments. Most people who have posted here for a while or just have a lot of posts have both people who like them and people who hate them. Consequently, those who are friends will defend the one being banned and those who aren't will back it up.

I think most of the time, it is obvious why someone has been banned, as was the case with jick. I can't imagine someone on this board not understanding why and needing clarification so as to not make the same mistake. And if you don't, my personal opinion is that you should bring that up privately with the mods, which, as I understand it, they are open to.

However, I don't see the harm in talking about it, as long as it is under control (which I've already said tends to be a problem). I don't think people should be allowed to go around saying "I'm so glad suchandsuch is gone. What a jerk s/he was". And if it is starts any kind of argument, it should be closed immediately.
 
ylimeU2 said:
I can understand why the bannings shouldn't be discussed, for a couple of different reasons.

First, I see it as talking about someone behind their back. Which, on some level everyone does, but that doesn't make it fair. In fact, I've always assumed the no discussion of banned members rule was for this very reason. Allowing it would be like the mods saying it is okay to talk shit about someone, as long as they aren't around to see it.

Secondly, as is the most recent case, talking about it tends to start arguments. Most people who have posted here for a while or just have a lot of posts have both people who like them and people who hate them. Consequently, those who are friends will defend the one being banned and those who aren't will back it up.

I think most of the time, it is obvious why someone has been banned, as was the case with jick. I can't imagine someone on this board not understanding why and needing clarification so as to not make the same mistake. And if you don't, my personal opinion is that you should bring that up privately with the mods, which, as I understand it, they are open to.

However, I don't see the harm in talking about it, as long as it is under control (which I've already said tends to be a problem). I don't think people should be allowed to go around saying "I'm so glad suchandsuch is gone. What a jerk s/he was". And if it is starts any kind of argument, it should be closed immediately.

Everything about this post is spot on. I agree with all points.
 
I think one thing that really bothers me is that when some people are suspended or banned is that there are people who seem to honestly not realize why it's happening...they think the member has done no wrong. Would it be helpful to link to some of the offending posts when the banning or suspension is posted about in Inside Broadcast? I guess the main reason I'm finding myself leaning more towards allowing discussion is because I want people to be aware of why this action was taken. I've always felt that as a mod we shouldn't have to defend our decisions, since we truly make decisions for the right reasons, not just personal agendas or something of that nature, which I think some people seem to think. However, if having some solid proof like that would be more helpful to people, perhaps that is an option to consider.
 
I agree with that, but the only problem if you quote one post as an example for a suspension/banning, it could be taken completely out-of-context in the first place. I don't see that any different than someone quoting a line of someone's post and spinning it into their own agenda. I'm not saying that you would do that, but I think it would achieve the same effect.
 
I just wanted to say I'm happy to see this very topic being discussed, and that the mods are open to discussion. It makes me feel better about Interference as a community. :)
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
I agree with that, but the only problem if you quote one post as an example for a suspension/banning, it could be taken completely out-of-context in the first place. I don't see that any different than someone quoting a line of someone's post and spinning it into their own agenda. I'm not saying that you would do that, but I think it would achieve the same effect.

I did consider that, I have the same concern. People may want to challenge individual posts...linking to posts made by other members that they think are worse, things like that. It could potentially just make things worse.
 
I think I have a compromise. After someone is banned or suspended for something other than spamming, a thread can be started here where it can be discussed. After a week it gets closed and the matter is never spoke of again. That would give bannings and suspensions a little more transparency which it seems most people want. Would the mods consider something like that?
 
Bonochick said:
This is my personal opinion. This isn't an official Interference opinion or anything, just what I think.

I think discussion of banned members should be allowed...in one, informative thread. I don't think there should be talk and references scattered all over though. It makes things cluttered, especially when such talk derails an existing topic. If people really just want some information and a place to voice opinions and concerns, one thread should be all that is necessary.

Currently, I do my best to squash conversation that pops up, because that is the rule, and I'm just doing my job by enforcing said rule. I'm personally not opposed to changing that though.
i agree with everything bonochick said. as long as the discussion was limited to one thread i think it'd be great, but since the rule is right now to not allow it, i've been enforcing it. like everyone's said, it'd help clear up any questions anyone had and help solve disputes for anyone who disagreed with the actions taken.

everyone has to be held accountable for their actions and although i know we don't just ban/suspend people for the fun of it, it might not always look that way to everyone else. i don't even remember when the "don't talk about banned people" rule came about, part of me is wanting to think it's been a rule for at least a few years now.
 
I believe it started 3 years ago per Elvis' request.

http://forum.interference.com/t123956.html

I dont mind bending the rules at this point and letting some discussion about banned members continue in the Inside Broadcast thread in Zoo Confessionals, but I'm not fond of the idea of starting a new thread for every banned member.
 
PS. All the doggy avatars are cute!!

Somehow, I feel that if we started threads for every banned member, it would only be asking for trouble. And it would often be completely unnecessary.

What Sicy said is probably best, keeping any and all (mature) discussion contained within the ZC thread.

Also, as for posting examples of theards/posts of the offenders misbehavior, it would likely only lead to complaints of things being skewed out of context and misrepresented. If someone is really curious to discover why someone has been banned/suspened, it's quite easy to do a search for their posts and/or ask a mod.


I'd also just like to second what Corianderstem has said. :)
 
Last edited:
I don't think that a thread for each banned person is a solution either. Perhaps one thread for discussion of all bannings----i.e., the IB thread in ZC, but not quite. However, I also don't think that quashing any discussion of a banning that isn't in that single thread is a right way to go. It really isn't like the discussion will take over every section of the forum. It did with U2Man's banning because of 1) the nature of U2Man and those of us who 'know' him, and 2) to spite what many of us felt was an over-the-top response to our immediate reactions. I agree 100% that it would be disruptive and pretty crappy if discussion of banned members "took over" Interference. But, even if discussion of a banning does "take over," it won't last for more than but a few days. Just because there are posts in multiple threads--as long as the threads stay on topic for the most part (almost no thread here is 100% on topic)---then those posts aren't "clutter." Honestly, how can we call that clutter and accept all the crap "clutter" threads of links, videos, pictures, and articles that have been posted in the last few months in Lemonade Stand?

When I was in high school, a teacher was arrested for reportedly having sex with a student. Within an hour, the principal stated over the intercom that any students caught discussing the arrest would be given detention or suspended. How do you think that made us feel? It did nothing to stop us from talking about it and it killed our good impression of our principal. He did it as an attempt to stem what he feared would become chaos. What would have happened is that we all would have talked about it for a week and then it would have died out. What happened instead is that we talked about it until the end of the school year & after & we hated our principal. If, instead, they had put us all in a room to discuss it, it would have been so much better--kind of like a single thread for discussion. Still, though, we would have occasionally talked about residual feelings, etc., in the hallways. It would have been stupid for them to punish us for each small hallway or back-of-class discussion, just as it would be silly to punish every single few-post discussion outside of the main thread. But the classroom discussion, or the single thread for banning discussion, would likely decrease the discussions elsewhere.

Take Fake Edge. He's the worst blunder Interference has encountered, right? People still talk about it (technically, we shouldn't be allowed to, huh..). Does it destroy Interference? Do we run amok derailing threads daily with Fake Edge jokes? No. There was a shitload of trouble at the time, it died out, and now we get a Fake Edge joke every three months in a thread that usually stays on topic. Allowing discussion of U2Man or any other banned member can do nothing compared to that.
 
Last edited:
:applaud: Mods in all this mess.

I think the things are basically fine the way they are now: if you have issues about a banning (in particular if this was your Interference pal - these debates only ever come up when a well known member is gone), email mods and deal with this in private. We get an explanation for bannings each and every time. And when it comes down to it, the real debate is between the banned person and mods. No member post can change that, be it banned member defense (including the avatar protest) or gloating about the ban. I don't think anyone will change anyone's opinion on any given ban.

YlimeU2's post :up:
 
Copy said:


Quite frankly, they brought themselves in this mess.

Quite frankly, I think you need to refrain from insulting the mods. We can't control how members behave, and if they choose to break the rules that have been set, action has to be taken. People have nobody to blame but themselves.
 
Copy said:


Quite frankly, they brought themselves in this mess.

The members did it to themselves by not listening to the mods and instead of suggesting a discussion in this forum, posting all over the place.

The controversy is over the top and unnecessary.
 
So, I realize that I am about 6 days and $113 short on this argument, but why is it that this forum is so heavily moderated?

I'm always shocked at how much the mods here get involved with petty things? Has it always been that way or did it arise out of actual incidents?

thanks,
 
Well, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. Personally though, I just want this to be a friendly, welcoming environment. I sometimes think it's sad that we have to step in so much, that people can't just be nice and civil to each other. Ideally, the mods should just have to do things like close threads once they reach 1,000 posts, move threads if they get posted in the wrong forum, help members if they have a question about the forum...things like that. I don't understand why some people feel the need to start trouble and be disrespectful towards others.
 
Thanks for the response BC.

I've seen a number of incidents (and I realize that it is patently unfair for me to make that comment without giving concrete examples, but I'm heading out so I can't) in which it seemed that mods jumped into situations that were not rude or disrespectful, but heated 'disagreements'. When the members involved responded they were told to 'not talk back to mods'. Is that not a bit heavy handed?

Now, I am not against mods. I really appreciate the mods we have on the board. You guys are doing a thankless job - its a job that I would certainly never sign up for! :wink: But, I wonder if the rules on the forum aren't a little tight.

Of course, I haven't been posting here for as long as many of you, so these rules might have arisen as reactions to situations that got out of control. Thats why I ask.

Well, I'm heading out for about a week, so I'll read your response when I get back! Stay cool (and I mean that both literally and figuratively - it's f-ing hot out there!).
 
I admit, there have been instances where I have already told a member to drop discussion and/or not contact me about it. However, this usually only happens when:

1. I feel that conversation has already been exhausted, and we'd just be repeating ourselves, so there's no need to just continue in circles.

2. The member and/or problem has been an ongoing thing where I know people know better. Therefore, I'd consider any further discussion to be pointless.

Basically, it's not that I'm trying to slam down an iron fist or refuse to communicate with people...it's just so that we don't continue the same argument back and forth. I don't see a point to it.

In general, I have no problem discussing things with members, on or off the board, depending on which is more ideal. But there are some instances where I know that continuing a discussion is going to result in going nowhere, as we just keep rehashing the same thing.
 
Bonochick said:
I don't understand why some people feel the need to start trouble and be disrespectful towards others.

Some people think the internet gives them the freedom and/or right to be assholes, because they can hide behind their own screen name and not think of the other screen names as just names on a screen and not actual people.

And some people are just immature assholes.
 
Back
Top Bottom