Reasons for banning individuals

I have just realised why I didn't set up a thread about my actions as moderator a long time back! I think I will let the discussion roll on for a bit, and then lock the thread and forget the whole idea!

David

Please don't lock this thread. I think it's not a bad idea and you're possibly not asserting yourself quite enough.

As for farfromhere, I think he's a complete f***ing d***head and I don't like him effing and f***ing blinding around here. If I were you, I'd boot him outta here right now, and a few others I can think of too, not least FDRS.

Someone's got do do moderating, and it ain't an easy job. I for one am 100% behind you. I don't give a s**t what anyone else thinks about this. They can all kiss my a**e. I just thought you ought to hear that.
 
Please don't lock this thread. I think it's not a bad idea and you're possibly not asserting yourself quite enough.

As for farfromhere, I think he's a complete f***ing d***head and I don't like him effing and f***ing blinding around here. If I were you, I'd boot him outta here right now, and a few others I can think of too, not least FDRS.

Someone's got do do moderating, and it ain't an easy job. I for one am 100% behind you. I don't give a s**t what anyone else thinks about this. They can all kiss my a**e. I just thought you ought to hear that.
lol
 
As you must have gathered, I gave up on transparency with moderation decisions. Of course Laird is welcome to try again, but it can only work if the rest of you are reasonable. In particular, bear in mind that moderators have other things they want to do (on and off this forum)!

For the time being, I will continue as before!

David
 
Was that the bippy thread? Can't say I'm sorry - I didn't call it out but at the very least it should have been moved to the CD subforum.
 
Was just going to post an update re that thread here, but Max got here first: a moderation decision was made that the new poster who started that thread, Henson813, was posting nonsense, and seemed more than a little dense, and thus was not a good fit for the forum, and so he was banned. A further decision was taken that the nonsense he had already posted in that thread should be deleted, and that took out the entire thread.

I wasn't the moderator who made those decisions, and, had I got there first, I would probably have made a slightly less drastic decision - to move the thread to Critical Discussions, and confine Henson813, along with his two skeptic buddies who made an appearance, to that forum, as already are the other "resident skeptics" - but I see the merit in the decisions that were actually made.

Bob - bippy123 - was banned by his own request, although I've sent him a PM encouraging him to change his mind.
 
Just playing devil's advocate here. While I agree that maybe this Henson fellow was not ready for what he was getting himself into, the man was literally goaded into coming here in hopes that we would gang up on him. I was disappointed to see the "here he comes!" thread and opted not to participate in the whole affair. It seems like an incredibly pretentious thing to do and will only raise our profile among the angsty ideologues of Twitter and Reddit, which is the opposite of what you want if you are trying to raise the level of discussion (and keep trolls to a minimum).
 
Just playing devil's advocate here. While I agree that maybe this Henson fellow was not ready for what he was getting himself into, the man was literally goaded into coming here in hopes that we would gang up on him. I was disappointed to see the "here he comes!" thread and opted not to participate in the whole affair. It seems like an incredibly pretentious thing to do and will only raise our profile among the angsty ideologues of Twitter and Reddit, which is the opposite of what you want if you are trying to raise the level of discussion (and keep trolls to a minimum).
Now this, I agree with wholeheartedly.
 
Just playing devil's advocate here. While I agree that maybe this Henson fellow was not ready for what he was getting himself into, the man was literally goaded into coming here in hopes that we would gang up on him. I was disappointed to see the "here he comes!" thread and opted not to participate in the whole affair. It seems like an incredibly pretentious thing to do and will only raise our profile among the angsty ideologues of Twitter and Reddit, which is the opposite of what you want if you are trying to raise the level of discussion (and keep trolls to a minimum).

Fair points. To try to be fair to bippy123, I think he probably felt ganged up on and ridiculed on Twitter, and he just wanted to move the exchange to an environment of like-minded folk where the numbers weren't against him.
 
Fair points. To try to be fair to bippy123, I think he probably felt ganged up on and ridiculed on Twitter, and he just wanted to move the exchange to an environment of like-minded folk where the numbers weren't against him.
I think part of being a part of skeptiko comes with recognizing that twitter debates and the like are oftentimes subpar if not entirely futile. It's important to recognize how many trolls are out there who are dedicated to conversation stopping and blatant ad homs, and frankly aren't worth anyone's time, and I think bippy sort of needs to learn that
 
I think part of being a part of skeptiko comes with recognizing that twitter debates and the like are oftentimes subpar if not entirely futile. It's important to recognize how many trolls are out there who are dedicated to conversation stopping and blatant ad homs, and frankly aren't worth anyone's time, and I think bippy sort of needs to learn that

Again, fair points. You guys are being entirely too reasonable in a thread about moderation. ;-)
 
Was just going to post an update re that thread here, but Max got here first: a moderation decision was made that the new poster who started that thread, Henson813, was posting nonsense, and seemed more than a little dense, and thus was not a good fit for the forum, and so he was banned. A further decision was taken that the nonsense he had already posted in that thread should be deleted, and that took out the entire thread.

I wasn't the moderator who made those decisions, and, had I got there first, I would probably have made a slightly less drastic decision - to move the thread to Critical Discussions, and confine Henson813, along with his two skeptic buddies who made an appearance, to that forum, as already are the other "resident skeptics" - but I see the merit in the decisions that were actually made.

Bob - bippy123 - was banned by his own request, although I've sent him a PM encouraging him to change his mind.

I don't want to waste my time contributing to threads that get deleted, because somebody throws a tantrum as they ain't 'winning', and throws the game-board and all the pieces into the air so nobody else can play either... Tantrum throwers should not be indulged, or have any attention paid to them... they need to learn to calm down on their own... like the rest of us.

And, I agree with your 'less drastic' moderation Laird, ...Dr J made some detailed observations about Vicki Umipeg that I didn't agree with, but they were certainly worthy of discussion. Now - frustratingly - they are gone.

If it were only soft deleted from Xenforo, I'd restore the thread...
 
If it were only soft deleted from Xenforo

Actually, it has only been soft deleted. Moderators can still view the thread, and it can still be restored. However, restoration of the thread would probably be dependent on demand from the forum community, and there is disagreement amongst moderators (and non-moderators) as to whether the forum community in general ought to have a say in (overturning) moderator decisions such as this one. Your (and everybody else's) thoughts on this meta issue are welcome (at least to me, I can't speak for others). Personally, I am happy, as a moderator, to "submit to the will of the majority", however, I recognise that this is a fraught issue. Interestingly, it links philosophically to our discussion on direct democracy at the political level.

Oh, and I'm glad to find that you agree with my "less drastic" solution, Max.
 
Actually, it has only been soft deleted. Moderators can still view the thread, and it can still be restored. However, restoration of the thread would probably be dependent on demand from the forum community, and there is disagreement amongst moderators (and non-moderators) as to whether the forum community in general ought to have a say in (overturning) moderator decisions such as this one. Your (and everybody else's) thoughts on this meta issue are welcome (at least to me, I can't speak for others). Personally, I am happy, as a moderator, to "submit to the will of the majority", however, I recognise that this is a fraught issue. Interestingly, it links philosophically to our discussion on direct democracy at the political level.

Oh, and I'm glad to find that you agree with my "less drastic" solution, Max.

Guessing... I'd have thought there would only be strong objections to restoring the thread from bippy and perhaps the original moderator, the majority probably don't have a strong opinion either way but found the thread pointless, and only a few - like me - feel it was, on balance, probably worthwhile continuing to see where it went.

The 3 new posters could be managed the way skeptics usually are on here... by warnings about how to play nice and engage with the data, and short temporary bans to drive home the point and encourage more sociable behaviour.

I'm just objecting to banning 3 new posters, and deleting their first thread completely along with my and other comments, at the merest hint of problems...

Anyway, I'm teaching you to suck eggs, and at the end of the day, it's not my decision, and I have absolutely no way of doing anything about it.
 
Guessing... I'd have thought there would only be strong objections to restoring the thread from bippy and perhaps the original moderator, the majority probably don't have a strong opinion either way but found the thread pointless, and only a few - like me - feel it was, on balance, probably worthwhile continuing to see where it went.

The 3 new posters could be managed the way skeptics usually are on here... by warnings about how to play nice and engage with the data, and short temporary bans to drive home the point and encourage more sociable behaviour.

I'm just objecting to banning 3 new posters, and deleting their first thread completely along with my and other comments, at the merest hint of problems...

Anyway, I'm teaching you to suck eggs, and at the end of the day, it's not my decision, and I have absolutely no way of doing anything about it.

All very fair, Max. I am not in a position to countermand another moderator's decisions, especially since, as you note, the majority of forum participants probably don't care either way. I would say though that you do have significant influence, but that's based on a view of democratic/egalitarian moderation which others - including, I sense, and which is somewhat counter-intuitive, you, yourself - may not share.

Also, just so you know, Dr J and Pogatch have not been banned. Should they continue to contribute (unlikely, in my opinion, since they were probably only here to have a go at Bob, who invited them), they will be confined to the CD forum.
 
Back
Top