With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

[Hunter]

No. I still think I made the right decision. I would make it again today.

I'm just willing to listen to the community -- I mean, we have to, right? We're not doing this on behalf of ourselves.

Edit: I would also like to clarify that I am using "I" rather than "we" because I do not, and cannot, speak for the other members of the moderating team. I am not a consensus.

And that is the other side of the coin, you guys made the decision, a lot of people arent happy with it, so what do we do about that. We may just have to accept it OR we can make a simple poll about it.

One way or another a decision should be made soon, having this in limbo does not help anyone in moving forward.


Has Jeff even agreed to honor the results of a poll wrt this matter, because if he has not then this discussion is a big waste of time.

[barracuda]

We're not doing this on behalf of ourselves.

I get what your saying, but yeah, you are. The mods are a part of the community too, an important part. I assume you'll all be voting in the phony poll, right? And voting to ban, right? So there's five votes right there.

If the mods are listening to the community, then you're hearing that a significant group of posters want her to come back, and a significant group almost never wish to see longtime posters banned. Determine how significant that group is, mull it over with this new perspective, and make a decision. Again.

Then, please, if you decide to reconsider, draw a line for good. And wait for her to cross it. It won't take long.

[Project Willow]

Allow me to preemptively delegitimize the whole idea of polling this decision:

- Whoever has the most sock accounts will prevail in an anonymous voting scenario. Dust off your old nicknames, put on some lipstick and let's roll.

- The poll essentially asks individual members to decide to ban or not ban a fellow member. Most people will never do that, ergo, the result is a foregone conclusion.

- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.

That and, I personally would not like to be the subject of a popularity poll on a forum from which I'd just been banned. Insult to injury, regardless of the outcome.

I suggest that anyone who has serious concerns about the decision, and who hasn't made their feelings known here already, appeal privately to the mods to reconsider.

[Wombaticus Rex]

That and, I personally would not like to be the subject of a popularity poll on a forum from which I'd just been banned. Insult to injury, regardless of the outcome.

That, is an excellent point.

[brainpanhandler]

We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.

I agree. All the arguing seems rather disrespectful of their already carefully made decisions.

This wasn't just because of the Icke thread, and it wasn't a decision arrived at lightly. The regret is sincere.

I wouldn't say disrespectful, but agree and also:

2. The moderation team consists of Jeff, Project Willow, Dr Violin, Bruce Dazzling and myself. The vote was unanimous. I volunteered to make the announcement.

It was a unanimous vote after what I can imagine was long and careful deliberation. I assume there was contention at least. Arguments for and against. I am curious if a unanimous vote was necessary for the ban to go forward or some lower threshold would have triggered it.

I would like to see CW come back so in this situation, barring a mod change of heart and letting her back without a poll, then I would be in favor of polling it.

I don't think it would be a change of heart. We know where their hearts are. It would be a change of mind I would hope.

Allow me to preemptively delegitimize the whole idea of polling this decision:

- Whoever has the most sock accounts will prevail in an anonymous voting scenario. Dust off your old nicknames, put on some lipstick and let's roll.

That's something I had not considered. Vote fraud. I have no way to gauge even roughly what risk might exist for that to significantly effect a poll.

Painful as it is I guess I owe Stevie Ray an apology for this comment in the Toasts thread:

well, goodbye, Canadian_watcher.
I have asked why you were banned and as you can see from reading the thread there is no real reason forthcoming. People are sure "it must have been bad." I guess only the mods know the secret list, the level of 'bad' that can't be crossed, and they have the power to silence. They won't spell it out and no one seems to have caught the obviously egregious infraction but ask about it too pointedly and you might get suspected of insulting the moderation team!

Oh ffs. Are you really that lazy?

As for your inquiry into the legitimacy of CW's previous suspensions, that's not really a question so much as your insinuation that we did a horrible job moderating. If you'd like more information, it's all here. There are no internal records for you to FOIA. If you want to conduct your own independent investigation, you can start anytime. Pro Tip: use google in addition to the phpBB search, you'll locate the key threads faster by running parallel queries.

I am finding it more difficult than I reckoned to find the threads where CW was suspended. It's not hard to find lot's of them where she is being rude, vindictive, disruptive, instigating, irrational, etc.....

I understand the argument for the deliberations of the mods and admin over these sorts of issues to remain private.

But that doesn't mean we can't as wombat suggests locate and examine at least the six threads where CW was suspended.

Here's a start:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32630&p=430687&hilit

[compared2what?]

I'm a bit uncomfortable that a one off poll on asking for a reconsideration regarding 'Jeff and Mods' permanent banning decision is getting turned into a 'Common Board Law' precident for the whole future of R.I.

If Jeff + Mods wants to do that, fine but I myself have no legal thinking background.

If there is going to be a addition to the Posting Guidelines, WR's
"Let's be excellent with each other"
resonates with me much more than codification

c2w? - I need to register that I disagree *completely* with your assessment.

I know. I respect that. And I hope you know that I don't want or intend to cause you or anyone here any distress.

I'm really being as honest and straightforward as I can be when I say I'd be grateful to be shown that I was wrong, if I am. Because for better or worse, my best understanding of that thread really is:

The OP was very strongly and uncompromisingly challenged by the people who found it objectionable from start to finish, for seventy-plus pages.

There were numerous explicit suggestions that the people on one side of the conflict shouldn't be allowed to express their views.

That made it first problematic (and eventually impossible) to continue the discussion.

But with the arguable exception of MiB -- who was nearly universally rebuked for it, as well as promptly and repeatedly warned to stop by the mods -- those suggestions didn't come from the pro-OP posters (who were -- in fact -- in the minority).

AD's tenacity in defending a position he believes to be righteous can sometimes be maddening. But as I said of Canadian_watcher: Having the courage of your convictions is not an easy quality for those who possess it or for others.

However, he didn't initiate the personal part of the conflict in any way other than that.

And I'd not only defend Canadian_watcher for the same thing under the same circumstances, I've actually done exactly that. (Not that she needed it. But that would have been "including on that very thread," if she had, as far as MiB goes.)

I'd also oppose AD (and, in fact, anyone) who I saw making it that much of a point to single out the posters he/she disagreed with by name as personally contemptible and/or exclusively responsible for any conflict that (in reality) had both the usual two or more sides and the usual distribution of imperfect behavior. FWIW.

_________________

^^To the best of my belief, I could easily and abundantly support each of those statements with direct evidence that fairly represented the tone and substance of the thread without leaving anything out.

So if you disagree with that completely, please tell me. It would mean I have such serious issues with basic reality-testing that I can't afford not to know it.

I hope it's clear that I'm not arguing against Canadian_watcher, just because I'm not too shy to say I think she was in the wrong. She sure wouldn't be, if it was me. That's actually one of the things I like about her. She completely fucking disagrees with me. She finds my views -- and sometimes me -- repellent. And the reason I know that is that she replies to me.

I could do with less of the personal stuff. But I love her for for the other part of it.

I'm in favor of more speech, not less, always. Basically. But those rules have to be the same for everyone, or there's no point in having them.

[Searcher08]

Allow me to preemptively delegitimize the whole idea of polling this decision:

- Whoever has the most sock accounts will prevail in an anonymous voting scenario. Dust off your old nicknames, put on some lipstick and let's roll.

- The poll essentially asks individual members to decide to ban or not ban a fellow member. Most people will never do that, ergo, the result is a foregone conclusion.

- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.

That and, I personally would not like to be the subject of a popularity poll on a forum from which I'd just been banned. Insult to injury, regardless of the outcome.

I suggest that anyone who has serious concerns about the decision, and who hasn't made their feelings known here already, appeal privately to the mods to reconsider.

Thanks, barracuda for some interesting ideas there.

Im sure that justdrew would be able to *easily* detect sockpuppetry around this poll, so doubt there is a need for concern around it.

I'm not sure how the poll has migrated to a characterisation as a group decision to ban or unban like some sort of gladiatorial arena thumbs up or thumbs down (which I agree with Willow is horrendous) - I asked WR if the Mods could look at the decision and move it from a permaban to something less drastic. WR suggested I do a poll, I put forward some options, which have now been pruned down to two basic ones.
The locus of that decision has been (at least in my mind) about providing information for Jeff and The Mods to re-consider - that is respectful and characterising it as a sockpuppity beauty contest seems a bit... unpleasent really.

[brainpanhandler]

That and, I personally would not like to be the subject of a popularity poll on a forum from which I'd just been banned. Insult to injury, regardless of the outcome.

I disagree. I would think an unban result would be some vindication and would undoubtedly feel good.

I suggest that anyone who has serious concerns about the decision, and who hasn't made their feelings known here already, appeal privately to the mods to reconsider.

I respectfully disagree with this as well. One of the "theories" that CW and her band of sycophantic cohorts allude to all the time is some back channel conspiracy by a cabal of evil freedom haters secretly working their plans to squelch dissent and creative thought on the board. The thought police! C'mon.

No need to give them any grist for that mill. Let the discussion be as public as possible.

[barracuda]

Im sure that justdrew would be able to *easily* detect sockpuppetry around this poll, so doubt there is a need for concern around it.

No he wouldn't. Well-laundered socks are commonly registered through proxy servers and alternate machines. Impossible to detect.

[slimmouse]

As someone who has myself served a couple of suspensions here on RI for being less emotionally centred than is nothing approaching sufficient, I just sympathise enormously.

In such situations I was kinda forced to understand that the heart literally rules the head in both all the right and even more importantly perhaps the wrong ways.

I think its probably a case of simply getting too attatched to our own ideas and opinions.

That was less than 18 months ago, and rest assured Im not going there again.

I'd like a vote on CW at least.

[justdrew]

ban the poll, it's a really bad idea.

[compared2what?]

someone's perception may not be the same as yours....especially if one is on the receiving end ...

I appreciate that, from the heart. We have a real disagreement. But as far as I'm concerned, that doesn't necessarily mean anything except that we both honestly think we're right and should say so.

I've been on the receiving end as well. But while I'm pretty sure you've seen that a time or two:

If you think I've forgotten that the only time I'm aware of when there was no question that I was on the end that was dishing it out -- meaning: "wrongly, without any excuse, when I should have known better"; I'm not saying I'm too sweet-natured and accommodating to get into fights or anything -- you were the recipient, I haven't. I'm permanently deeply ashamed of it. You didn't deserve it. And I wish I could make it un-happen.***

_________________

If anyone else has been dumped on by me unfairly and wants me to acknowledge my shame over it, they should PM me. I'll do what I can to make amends.
_________________

***ON EDIT: You're a sport not to have brought it up, btw. So don't think I don't appreciate that about you, too.

[brainpanhandler]

ban the poll, it's a really bad idea.

Nonsense. I say we have a poll to determine whether we should have an unbanish poll.

It's an awful idea. But so is democracy.

On the other forum I suggested, you need at least 68% in favor of ban for there to be an actual banishment of a member, I dont know where they got that number but that is the one we use.

Except we would not be voting on banishment per se. Rather we would be voting to overturn a decision already made by the mods and admin, unanimously.

I would argue that you need 68% to repeal the banishment. Especially if we are going to vote without actually examining the evidence. I understand many members here already have their minds made up to unban on principled grounds or the occasional hug emoticon (and for you evidence is irrelevant), but I assume there are others reading this thread afraid to type a word here lest she manage to rise from the dead and they fall into her crosshairs forever more and they might benefit from having more information at their disposal.

[Perelandra]

I asked WR if the Mods could look at the decision and move it from a permaban to something less drastic.

But there had also been numerous occasions, over years, to speak to her about disruptive behaviour on the board, particularly with respect to personal attacks. She had been suspended before for this reason, but the behaviour persisted.

[PufPuf93]

Project Willow

That and, I personally would not like to be the subject of a popularity poll on a forum from which I'd just been banned. Insult to injury, regardless of the outcome.

I suggest that anyone who has serious concerns about the decision, and who hasn't made their feelings known here already, appeal privately to the mods to reconsider.

Agree with PW about the at least perception of a popularity poll regards to any poster in general.

I would not vote in this one because my presence at RI is as a lurker / voyeur; though read here nearly every day, don't feel I have the right or knowledge to judge another poster.

Many of the topics at RI tickle my fancy, more on average than any forum I have found.

Wish I had more energy and the strong conviction to post more. My curiosity is such that my questions would often seem nosey if the positions were reversed.

Seems like the toothpaste is out of the tube and this is an RI learning experience.

My preferences going back to usenet have been to avoid bickering so have never been a prolific poster anywhere.

Peace.