With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

[Searcher08]

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.

[seemslikeadream]

someone's perception may not be the same as yours....especially if one is on the receiving end ...any way like I said from page 20 the thread should have been locked or moved and NONE of this would be happening....ENFORCE THE FIRE PIT RULE

Because nobody was picking on or ganging up on Canadian_watcher on that thread. I mean, she and I fight all the time. And (at least as far as the topic goes), for most of the thread, even I was on her side and/or had her back more than the other way around.

So I'm not trying to be obstructive or mean. I want her to come back. But the truth is that this:

MIB, Brekin?

Where are you big swinging dicks now? Let's have your answer to my question.

[size=200]LET's HAVE IT.[/size[


...is not exactly the portrait of somebody who's being assaulted.

The reason she had to post asking AD, MiB, and brekin if they believed she was an anti-Semite or not was:that nobody had called her one.

[American Dream]

MiB wasn't arguing that he was anti-Semite; brekin was only arguing it incidentally; and AD wasn't arguing it exclusively. Or even primarily.

I'd say that the reason it became such a disproportionate focus of attention was that as far as this board is informally concerned, there's no difference between suggesting that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and Holocaust revisionism/denial are anti-Semitic and being a fucking latter-day member of the Irgun.

I wouldn't actually say that David Icke is an anti-Semite as I'm not privy to the inner workings of his mind. I would definitely say that he perpetuates anti-Semitism. This may be because he has a screw loose and consequently lacks discrimination, which is the hypothesis I lean towards.

There are plenty of other reasons to criticize Icke however and for me, exactly none of them have to do with defending settler colonialism in Palestine.

[compared2what?]

So the question is going forward who gets to decide which threads are necessary and which are not and is everyone going to be happy with that persons decisions and if they are not what is the recourse.

...

You may be right. But I hope you're not. Because I don't think it's possible (or even desirable) to have a discussion board full of threads that make EVERYONE happy.

I mean, threads that everyone is required to act happy about might be doable. But there would have to be totalitarianism first. In a reasonably free environment, conflict is inevitable. There's the freedom to either stay away from stuff you find intolerable or to engage with it. But that's about it. That's just freedom.

[Hunter]

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.

Well all I am saying is if you give CW the chance to have her banishment put up for vote then you rightfully have to afford that opportunity for others in the future, HENCE THE NEED for some guidelines and discussion about this before going forward with it, is it to be a one time deal or are we going to allow this for everyone.

Like I said, doesnt really matter to me I am just trying to help by giving an example of how this has worked for another much larger forum. But for something like this to work you need the membership to not take advantage of it and start ban polls on anyone that pisses them off on any given day, at the other forum we take it very seriously and you really have to fuck up for someone to start a ban poll and when someone does we all vote for seriously on it and usually the poll fails and the person is not banned. But at least youre allowing the community, the people who actually have to interact with eachother day in and day out, to decide. But if it is not used responsibly it will just be another headache for Jeff and the Mods. I cant speak for the responsibility of the membership here, that would be up to you all to decide.

Do whatever works for you all, I wish you the best, its a cool forum, its been a challenge lately to enjoy the place, I wont lie, and I have stepped back because of that but that doesnt mean much, the place is still a great forum to discuss issues that are never discussed anywhere else seriously like they are here and there is certainly something wonderful to be said for that.

I hate to see the bickering ruin the place and I am simply offering one possible way to address that.

[Hunter]

So the question is going forward who gets to decide which threads are necessary and which are not and is everyone going to be happy with that persons decisions and if they are not what is the recourse.

...

You may be right. But I hope you're not. Because I don't think it's possible (or even desirable) to have a discussion board full of threads that make EVERYONE happy.

I mean, threads that everyone is required to act happy about might be doable. But there would have to be totalitarianism first. In a reasonably free environment, conflict is inevitable. There's the freedom to either stay away from stuff you find intolerable or to engage with it. But that's about it. That's just freedom.

I agree with you, there is no desire to be right about any of that, it is just a possibility that may need to be considered.


There is no decision about ANYTHING that is going to make everyone happy, that is an impossible ideal. I strive for a mere 50 % that is to say if 50% agree with me and 50% dont, I have probably done pretty well.


Of course there is the arguement that when everyone is lined up against you, you may just be the Messiah or something.


Fair point though for sure.

[Wombaticus Rex]

If it is of any assistance towards expediting the poll, I would vote for a dumb simple, binary question: Banned or Unbanned?

That is the only issue to discuss, in terms of the OP here.

[barracuda]

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.

[Hunter]

If it is of any assistance towards expediting the poll, I would vote for a dumb simple, binary question: Banned or Unbanned?

That is the only issue to discuss, in terms of the OP here.

Agreed, since that is the main issue, do we want her to remain banned or not, I dont see the purpose in watering down the poll with other unnecessary options. I understand the purpose and need for humor but I am not sure if it is fitting or needed in this situation, it is pretty straightforward and it appears the majority does not want her banned.


Is Jeff ok with allowing her back if the poll suggests such and what this the threshold? 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.

[American Dream]

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 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.

What did the Talking Heads say?

Stop Making Sense

Actually I'll revise that:

Keep Making Sense- and maybe we will actually think about what you are saying...

[Hunter]

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.

Those are certainly very good points and concerns to be considered. I only suggested what I did because a poll itself was first suggested as a way to deal with her banishment. That is not an endorsement overall for polling every banning or even this one, just that if we do it that way, this may be the way to go about it.

FWIW the system that is in place seems to already work well, it isnt often a person is banned around here.

That said, 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. But then that brings up the problem of everyone else who may be banned in the future, expecting the same treatment. Consistency is what is MOST important IMO when dealing with matters such as these. Without consistency in this matter you open yourself up to all sorts of allegations and finger pointing and accusations of unfairness etc.

Basically, the whole fucking thing is a headache I wouldnt want to deal with, kudos to Jeff and the mods for subjecting themselves to it for our benefit and our benefit only as it seems to benefit them in no way whatsoever.

[Perelandra]

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.

[barracuda]

It sounds from Wombat's comments that the mod team has contracted buyer's remorse. If that's the case, they should simply reconsider the permanent ban, institute a longer temporary suspension, and give Canadian_watcher one final, absolute, line-in-the-sand, no-eighth do-over, last chance mulligan. I guarantee you she'll fuck it up.

Otherwise, this polling nonsense undercuts their ability to moderate the joint effectively.

[Wombaticus Rex]

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.

[Hunter]

It sounds from Wombat's comments that the mod team has contracted buyer's remorse. If that's the case, they should simply reconsider the permanent ban, institute a longer temporary suspension, and give Canadian_watcher one final, absolute, line-in-the-sand, no-eighth do-over, last chance mulligan.

Otherwise, this polling nonsense undercuts their ability to moderate the joint effectively.

I think I would tend to agree with you on that. Again, the only reason I mentioned any of the poll stuff is because it was already being discussed that one be created, that being the case I thought some discussion was needed on how to best deal with that situation. You have to admit IF we are going to have a poll such things need to be addressed first.

But I think the best thing all around and to prevent future problems with everyone else expecting polls when they are banned, is for the mods and Jeff to just let her come back if she will agree to do so on their terms, which should not be unreasonable terms but certainly terms that address whatever problems they had with her and I will admit I have no idea what those problems are as I try not pay very much attention to that sort of thing. She has always been very kind to me and had my back several times when the opportunity was there for someone to have it and I certainly show my gratitude for her kindness by saying that I would like her to be allowed back. Ultimately that is not my decision and I accept that.