next »

[tenured_feminist]

My apologies if this has already been well covered, but if so I don't see the thread on a quick look.

What's the deal with banning on the fora?  What are the ban-worthy infractions? Do the mods tend to impose term bans before the death penalty? And is there notice and opportunity to be heard before sanctioning, or is it the sense that the public posts and/or any forwarded PMs provide all of the evidence anyone might need or want before imposing sanctions?

Beyond that, how do we as a community feel about the lines, wherever they are, and the procedures through which lines are drawn and enforced? As for me, I do like moderation, as the old unmoderated fora convinced me of the need for some basic policing on civility. But I'm a little unsure of what the sanctionable lines are and how they are enforced, which seems like an unnecessary lack of transparency.

[larryc]

Moderation is good. Transparency is good, but so is privacy. Maybe we don't all need to know why a user is banned, but the user should be told, in an email rather than a PM (since once they are banned they can't get their PMs).

The standards for banning should be clear, but actual implementation of those standards is always going to be somewhat subjective. It is a common complaint on internet fora that the moderators are inconsistent. People are always going to be inconsistent, we have to live with that.

I would also like to see a clarification between temporary and permanent bans.

We can all help to reduce bannings and moderation by moderating our own behaviour. If a thread is becoming heated in a personal way, just abandon it. If someone makes what seems to you a personal attack, let it slide. If you see someone ramping up for a flame out, send them a PM to calm them down. Remember that this is just an internet discussion board. The stakes here are literally nothing, there is no reason to get excited.

Unless someone fails to use proper grammar and capitalization of course.  Those malodorous halfwits must be hunted down and forced to conform or Western Civilization will collapse and barbarism will triumph.

[anthroid]

Unless someone fails to use proper grammar and capitalization of course.  Those malodorous halfwits must be hunted down and forced to conform or Western Civilization will collapse and barbarism will triumph.

Well, duh.

[prytania3]

Larry, I don't understand how you get away with berating people who don't use caps or proper punctuation. You are acting like a pedant and pedantry is against the rules.

[larryc]

Pry, I can do it because I am a secret, undercover mod.  Don't tell anyone.

[moderator]

The Chronicle's forum posting rules spell out what will get you in trouble. We rarely ban anyone (except for spammers who we ban immediately and permanently) so it's difficult to say what's "typical."

But "typically," we send posters multiple warnings for rules violations, even before instituting a 10-day cooling-off period. Only the most egregious or repeat offenders get permanently banned (for ex., posting personal information that outs another poster will get you an immediate and permanent ban.) That said, these situations vary considerably and we decide them on a case by case basis using the rules as our guide.

Anyone with questions about their forum account can email us at forums@chronicle.com

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

Pry, I can do it because I am a secret, undercover mod.  Don't tell anyone.

OK, but seriously, have you ever been warned for it? It is against the rules, after all.

I have to say, as annoying as I find moderation, the mods are pretty consistent about toeing the line between warning for name-calling vs. warning for criticisms of an idea. People can really get vicious toward an "idea" here without seeming to call the attention of the mods, but the second "poopy-head" comes to play, it's all over.

I do think it's important to note that distinction when it comes to policing ones own posts. I have yet to determine whether or not one can say, "That idea reads as though it would belong to a poopy-head" though. I'll wait on that one until I receive word that I'm not in danger of being banned any second.

Oh, Mods? Um... Haven't I been good lately? I even stopped posting on the adjunct thread because it made me pissy.

[infopri]

Pry, I can do it because I am a secret, undercover mod.  Don't tell anyone.

OK, but seriously, have you ever been warned for it? It is against the rules, after all.

I dunno.  After all, he's just enforcing repeating the rules that the moderators set up.  Which reminds me:  Thank you, larryc, and thank you moderators.

I appreciate having the rules we have here and the moderators' enforcement of them.  I think some of those rules are the only thing keeping certain threads from becoming all-out brawls, with name calling and broken bottles and all sorts of trouble.  The poster whose plight indirectly led to the creation of this thread says she doesn't know why she was banned, but perhaps she didn't see the PM from the moderators.  I do hope it's just a 10-day cooling-off period.  I miss her voice on the threads.

In any case, thanks for the reply, moderator.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

Pry, I can do it because I am a secret, undercover mod.  Don't tell anyone.

OK, but seriously, have you ever been warned for it? It is against the rules, after all.

I dunno.  After all, he's just enforcing repeating the rules that the moderators set up.  Which reminds me:  Thank you, larryc, and thank you moderators.

I appreciate having the rules we have here and the moderators' enforcement of them.  I think some of those rules are the only thing keeping certain threads from becoming all-out brawls, with name calling and broken bottles and all sorts of trouble.  The poster whose plight indirectly led to the creation of this thread says she doesn't know why she was banned, but perhaps she didn't see the PM from the moderators.  I do hope it's just a 10-day cooling-off period.  I miss her voice on the threads.

In any case, thanks for the reply, moderator.

No. I was referring to the rule that LarryC breaks, which is that it's not O.K. to hijack a thread in order to correct grammar or spelling. (Read the rules.)

Still wondering!

[prytania3]

Pry, I can do it because I am a secret, undercover mod.  Don't tell anyone.

OK, but seriously, have you ever been warned for it? It is against the rules, after all.

I dunno.  After all, he's just enforcing repeating the rules that the moderators set up.  Which reminds me:  Thank you, larryc, and thank you moderators.

I appreciate having the rules we have here and the moderators' enforcement of them.  I think some of those rules are the only thing keeping certain threads from becoming all-out brawls, with name calling and broken bottles and all sorts of trouble.  The poster whose plight indirectly led to the creation of this thread says she doesn't know why she was banned, but perhaps she didn't see the PM from the moderators.  I do hope it's just a 10-day cooling-off period.  I miss her voice on the threads.

In any case, thanks for the reply, moderator.

No. I was referring to the rule that LarryC breaks, which is that it's not O.K. to hijack a thread in order to correct grammar or spelling. (Read the rules.)

Still wondering!

Touched is correct, and Larry never gets in trouble for it. He is obviously "special."

[larryc]

As in Special Olympics.

[infopri]

I dunno.  After all, he's just enforcing repeating the rules that the moderators set up.

Damn.  That was supposed to read:

I dunno.  After all, he's just enforcing repeating the rules that the moderators set up.


As for hijacking, well....  That's one rule that doesn't seem to be enforced much by anybody.  And sometimes that's a good thing.  A good hijack can make a thread so much more interesting, sometimes.

[pedant]

Larry, I don't understand how you get away with berating people who don't use caps or proper punctuation. You are acting like a pedant and pedantry is against the rules.

All and sundry should know that LarryC is a certified and honorable representative of universal Pedantry. He has a life term.

I am Pedant, and I have approved his coronation.

It is never against the rules to be Pedant.

[tenured_feminist]

OK, but one thing is still unclear to me. What warrants the death penalty? And what should? My nominations are the following:

Spam

Outing a member

Repeated vicious personal attacks (think WOW, for those who remember)

A continued, persistent disrespect for the rules even after at least some number of warnings and suspensions

And on that last, it should be relatively generous; I don't think someone should be banned for a third use of foreign language or for a fifth thread hijack. For me, actually, the only offenses I really care about are outing and personal attacks done in such a way as to drive a member away from the fora. In other words, it's got to be something more than disagreement and something even more than some mild name calling.

What do others think?

[crazybatlady]

[I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about this; despite having been a regular poster here, I'm still unclear about the rules for things like discussing the content of a PM. Some of these messages were exchanged between me and the Mods in PMs. Mods, I am good intentioned here, if that matters any, trying to help clarify the process from the other perspective.]


I was threatened with banishment, TF, and I got a warning on a Tuesday and another warning later in the week that all of my warnings were used up and the next time I crossed the line I was banished without notice.

So, in my case, two warnings. I received the second warning after discovering the symptoms that added up to *!* disease, which at that point had a name, and suggesting that I was seeing the symptoms on the boards (without specifically naming anyone, but you'd have to be an idiot to not know).

That was "namecalling." I did not directly namecall (as in, "You are a f***ing idiot"), but there you have it. I clearly crossed the line in the moderators' view.

My experience with the banishment threats were frustrating because it wasn't clear to me how long I had to be a very very good girl before my warnings were reinstated, and I cut way back on postings for fear that my standard snark would be under more scrutiny than usual.

I hope that cronopio comes back.

cbl