A Toast to Banned and Disappeared Posters

[Project Willow]

And if this is one those "wrong calls" you speak of, there are remedies.

Yeah, there are remedies, like dealing IN GOOD FAITH and with respect to Jeff and the mods here, and to me too. You know who I am, my real name and my reputation in the community is attached to my user name here. I haven't seen one of the posters you're trying to defend act in good faith that way. As far as I know not a single one of them has approached leadership here or me or anyone with any real information about themselves, yet you trumpet their victimhood.

I am so tired of this BS bully campaign. Do you want me to show a real example of bullying? It's from last fall when that whole cadre joined, all within a week of each other and their first requests were to be a part of the art show I was organizing. Try these links: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25544&p=293564#p293564 and here: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25544&p=293667#p293667 Their tag-teamed attack on me continued but they've since deleted those posts of curse.

Then you commented on the conflict and rather than condemn their behavior, you "defended me" speaking disrespectfully about me in the third person, as if something in my behavior needed defending and rather than their attack. My biggest mistake was being too self effacing to call bullshit on the whole circus at the time.

I assert, especially after DD's last posting in which she commented that DID was a hoax, that not one of those folks has a leg to stand on calling anyone a bully, not a one of them, not even you, Free.

[Jeff]

I don't really understand. Filedactivity's banning seems excessive and wrong.

And if this is one those "wrong calls" you speak of, there are remedies.

No, I don't believe it is.

Willow has been stalked and trolled on this board more than most members realize or can imagine. Our trying to make this a safe place for her and others who have been targeted means the mods need to exercise some pattern recognition that might not be readily available to the general membership.

[elfismiles]

I have to agree with HMW I'd like to see a forum/thread explaining the whys and howtos of bannings.

[elfismiles]

Thanks for understanding it's difficult to moderate a board like this. Much of that difficulty comes down to two things:

1. We shouldn't presume people always tell the truth about themselves on the Internet, and
2. RI has made some enemies.

There are hard calls, and sometimes wrong calls, but for the health of the board and the protection of its members, moderators moderate with these in mind.

In the case of Sock-Puppets I think it would be good to post that publicly as reasons for banning and identifying the Username of those who've been caught engaging in such.

[barracuda]

In the case of Sock-Puppets I think it would be good to post that publicly as reasons for banning and identifying the Username of those who've been caught engaging in such.

Could you explain your reasoning behind this suggestion?

[Simulist]

If the trolls that have been plaguing this board keep returning under new guises soon after they get banned, then not only is there a perceptible pattern to their behavior and their posting habits, but there is also a need for the board administration not to reveal exactly what those patterns are in order to be able to recognize them as they revolve back through the door.

If Jeff and the moderators are playing their cards pretty closely to their chests on this, then I think that's probably understandable.

[barracuda]

I don't think most people here appreciate that there is an IRL component to some of the activity on the board. On the other hand, I know perfectly well that some people do understand that, but pretend that they don't.

Anyone who wishes to understand some of the dynamic I'm talking about might be advised to carefully read or re-read the blackout blog comments thread from Patriots Day weekend, with due consideration of the both the conversation and the context.

[elfismiles]

In the case of Sock-Puppets I think it would be good to post that publicly as reasons for banning and identifying the Username of those who've been caught engaging in such.

Could you explain your reasoning behind this suggestion?

Sure Cuda.

There have been numerous incidents where someone is banned but there may be no posted reason. In some of those cases it has been stated by Jeff and Mods that the reason is because the person was sock-puppeting. That info, in the rare occassions it has occurred, is buried deep in misc thread here and there.

It makes a difference in processing people's posts (understanding where they are coming from) when one suddenly discovers that they were not who they claimed to be and may have even been posting conversations between their sock-puppets.

For example, if I'm not mistaken, MasonicPlot was a sock-puppet of "Eve's" ... so if there were a "Guide to Past Sock-Puppets at RI" wherein it was stated that suchandsuch username was also posting as suchandsuch other username, it provides greater context for the rest of us non-sock-puppet users.

[Jeff]

I want there to be as much transparency as possible, but the fact of bad actors renders absolute transparency impossible.

We're operating in good faith, which puts us at a disadvantage, so to compensate I'm afraid our decisions can't entirely be open source.

[elfismiles]

I want there to be as much transparency as possible, but the fact of bad actors renders absolute transparency impossible.

We're operating in good faith, which puts us at a disadvantage, so to compensate I'm afraid our decisions can't entirely be open source.

Granted ... but by not alerting people to the specifics of people operating multiple usernames and who have gotten caught, the posts they have left in their wake can not be properly understood by the rest of us in context.

[elfismiles]

Wasn't SockPuppetry listed as against the rules of the forum?

I'm trying to find that again ... I thought it was in one of these:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=9030

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=8705

Wasn't it added to the list of no-nos within the last couple years?

[barracuda]

If it's any help, elfismiles, I can't think of a single example of a poster who was suspended for sock-puppeting during my tenure as a mod.

[Jeff]

Thanks for pointing out the oversight. Corrected:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=29766

[barracuda]

[§ê¢rꆧ]

I don't think most people here appreciate that there is an IRL component to some of the activity on the board. On the other hand, I know perfectly well that some people do understand that, but pretend that they don't.

Anyone who wishes to understand some of the dynamic I'm talking about might be advised to carefully read or re-read the blackout blog comments thread from Patriots Day weekend, with due consideration of the both the conversation and the context.

Give me a little more to go on, that thread is an awful read, I felt I had wasted my life when I read it the first time. What am I looking for there?

Also, I have a question, does the no sock puppet rule apply to mods and admin as well?