next »

[malcha]

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?

When Deathly Hallows comes out, I think we will need to add Harry Potter spoilers (unless signposted with big, unmissable warnings) to the list of capital crimes. 

[larryc]

Oh, I think just reading Harry Pottter books should be enough.

*hides from CBL*

[fiona]

I got a PM scolding for being harsh and rude, but I don't think it constituted a warning. That was probably a year ago.

I don't know if I was ruder than anyone else. Maybe I was, having recently come off the chronic fights with Mr. Anti-AA.

There's one poster who seems to be banned who used to attack people and rant on and on about diets and eating disorders. Also another one about abortion.

There are people whose postings I don't read, because I know they'll just annoy and frustrate me, but that goes with freedom of the press, and I think the Mods do a very good job of balancing freedom with cutting out spam, not allowing members to be outed, and stopping chronic off-subject ranting.

Sometimes the software asterisks are kinda funny, but hey, we're educated people. We know we can write words like feces and copulation, and we're not restricted to the simple daily words for such things.

The Fiona

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

I don't mind moderation, but I do think it is problematic when the mods seem more sensitive than the members of the board. Two times that I was warned, it was for remarks that the subjects of my remarks actually conceded as either true or "deserved." I don't mind policing, but the "police" shouldn't be the most sensitive or reactive of the bunch.

On a less sincere note, I think it would be very exciting if bans were announced publicly, in red and caps lock. Like this:

NOTICE FROM THE MODERATORS: TOUCHEDBYANOODLE HAS BEEN BANNED FROM THIS BOARD FORTHWITH.

That's the kind of drama that would keep me coming back, not that I need any encouragement in that area. Can't people who have been banned just come back under a new login or are IPs actually tracked? Even then, couldn't they just log in from a different work computer? Just curious. I don't actually wish to be banned. I'm rather fond of my moniker, though I suppose I could always switch to TBAN, which would be fitting under such circumstances.

(Mods: I am speaking in jest, for the sake of other posters. I'm not trying to "bait" you, which, by the way, I have also been warned against.)

[prytania3]

That's the kind of drama that would keep me coming back, not that I need any encouragement in that area. Can't people who have been banned just come back under a new login or are IPs actually tracked? Even then, couldn't they just log in from a different work computer? Just curious. I don't actually wish to be banned. I'm rather fond of my moniker, though I suppose I could always switch to TBAN, which would be fitting under such circumstances.

You can't log in with a different moniker if you are banned. In fact, when you are banned, you can't even READ the fora. You can only log in from a different computer with a brand new moniker and a different email address, different name, etc.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

Interesting. So, it's an IP thing. That's easily solved, isn't it? Again, only curious.

[prytania3]

Interesting. So, it's an IP thing. That's easily solved, isn't it? Again, only curious.

Not really. I have cable and my IP stays the same. I guess I could have called the cable company and asked for a new IP, but I don't know if they would have given it to me.

[fiona]

What I think is weird, and kinda sad, is that some posters don't seem to have any other outlets for their aggression, so they hurl mean and insulting comments at strangers on these fora.

It could be they don't have friends in "real" life, but surely they have enemies. Or they could just get in any number of random chat rooms and insult strangers at random--probably strangers whose responses would be more illiterate than ours. That might be a satisfying confirmation of their low opinion of people in general.

Anyone who's using the CHE fora mainly as an outlet for misanthropy really should read some good books, get a hobby, go into therapy, watch mindless TV, and/or write strongly-worded letters to newspapers, magazines, online bloggers, or other sites for opinions.

These fora are excellent for being clever and for sharing ideas, but no one benefits if the main point is to spew rage.

The Fiona

[cc_alan]

That's the kind of drama that would keep me coming back, not that I need any encouragement in that area. Can't people who have been banned just come back under a new login or are IPs actually tracked? Even then, couldn't they just log in from a different work computer? Just curious. I don't actually wish to be banned. I'm rather fond of my moniker, though I suppose I could always switch to TBAN, which would be fitting under such circumstances.

You can't log in with a different moniker if you are banned. In fact, when you are banned, you can't even READ the fora. You can only log in from a different computer with a brand new moniker and a different email address, different name, etc.

Unless you have a static IP, this can result in banning more than just the one poster. New emails are simple to get and if it's a cookie-thing, that can be handled by deleting them. Granted, I'm not advocating any of these things but unless you have a static IP, permanent banning can be problematic.

A few years ago I went to a forum and instead of the postings, I saw a message that stated I was banned. My IP was assigned dynamically and I believe they banned a range of IP addresses which caught me. When I emailed them about it, they grudgingly lifted the ban but warned me about future violations. I bailed since I wasn't in the mood for someone to get pi$$y with me when I didn't do anything.

And who is this Harry "Pottter" person Larry was talking about? Me, I can't wait for the last book and this "Pottter" book has me intrigued. After all, someone waxing on (or is that waxing off?) about grammar and spelling would never make such a mistake...

Alan

[kaysixteen]

The mods seem to have it about right.  Except for obvious spammers, banning people ought to be rare and for exceptionally egregrious repeated misbehavior.  We are all adults here, and we ought to be able to have discussions about topics serious and not-so serious while respecting diversity of opinion and without taking personal offense at views wherewith we disagree.  It does not always work out that way, but we all ought to at least try to make it so.

[litdawg]

I had no idea that any banning or such was going on.  I remember the bad old days before CHE invested in the current software to host the fora.  Incivility was king and the boards sometimes resembled online gaming rather than community.  Logging IP's, a fundamental change in the new fora software, enabled the Mods to get rid of the most notorious spoofers and flamers. 

I was under the impression that troublemakers were given internal exile--a new board could be started up just for their hobbyhorse.  As it is now, the scope of the CHE fora makes it easier for the occasional poster like me to wander through the boards blissfully ignorant of the gang wars which occasionally rage through this online city.

[normative_]

I now see I should have posted the following here. Maybe it's been done before.

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,40367.0.html

In the case in question, I went back to the beginning of the thread, and it was combined, perhaps inadvertently. The animal rights activists ended up pushing out and berating the people who just wanted to eat meat. Perhaps these proposals would work better.

Though it has no hard rules for name calling.

[infopri]

I now see I should have posted the following here. Maybe it's been done before.

No, you did the right thing to start a new thread, normative.  This "Banning" thread is more directly concerned with the moderators banning forumites from the fora.  Your topic deserves its own thread.