With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:35 pm

Searcher08 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:53 pm wrote:
Project Willow » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:28 pm wrote:
barracuda » 21 Jul 2013 09:44 wrote: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.

It is understood that your intentions were/are just to make a poll to provide Jeff with some information wrt to the communities feelings about the ban, but it is just a matter of semantics, no matter how you look at it or how respectful your intentions are, it IS a popularity contest and that is all it will ever be.


IF I were banned I wouldnt have a problem with seeing the results of such just to know where I stood with my peers, those I interacted with day in and day out and whether they really thought I deserved to be banished or not, even if the results were not honored by the admin I still wouldnt mind seeing them just for my own curiosity. Being voted down or unpopular on an internet forum wouldnt hurt my feelings any and in some cases it may even make me feel better, depending on the circumstances of course.


I am pretty sure being unpopular doesnt bother CW either, her own signature is a quote that says something to the effect that true genuis can be known when all the dunces are lined up against it. :wink:
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:53 pm

OK, so:

With the poll up, and with this being a consistent 10 pages of "discuss contributors, not content" -- I would like to move this thread to the Ask Admin forum.

Any objections?
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:02 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:53 pm wrote:OK, so:

With the poll up, and with this being a consistent 10 pages of "discuss contributors, not content" -- I would like to move this thread to the Ask Admin forum.

Any objections?


Not by me, but I would suggest there's not a sharp line dividing "contributors" and "content" given the subject of the thread, the banning of a contributor.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:07 pm

No objections, move it, it's incredibly boring stuff, perfect subforum fodder.
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Project Willow » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:14 pm

Moved. You can find it here: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=36811

^ On edit: that is the poll thread has been moved. So that both don't just disappear, let's leave this one here for a little while so interested folks can catch up.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:19 pm

^^Works for me.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:55 pm

brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:58 pm wrote:
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.



Would you like to name the members here that you are calling her band of sycophantic cohorts?

Because if you can't or won't then maybe you should shut up...sounds like a pretty personal attack...but with a bit of oh I won't name names cause that against the rules...I can go around the rules this way...would it be some of the 21 people that voted for that thread to be shut down??

Who is "them"?
Stroke Illiterate Dementia Drugs does not matter
#25thAmmendmentNow


I've had enough of pretending trump isn't completely insane

This Isn’t the Madman Theory. This Is a Madman President
Rick Wilson

The world can not wait for the 2020 election
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30889
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby worldsastage » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:17 pm

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.



I like Hunter's suggestion: A set time for an open poll with two simple questions:

Should C_W remain banned?
Should we allow C_W to return?
We go with the one with 68% of the votes.

In fairness going forward I think offering such a poll option for repeated violations of the forum guidelines would be ideal. I would like to see her back even if at times I don't particularly like something she says. It's about reasonable adult discourse.

I've moderated much larger forums than this and there are always problems. On one in particular, after a series of issues the administrator decided to take a rigid and authoritarian stance regardless of what everyone else thought. It quickly devolved into a place where little disagreement but also little learning and discourse occurred. Suffice to say I left along with a number of long-term members. Those remaining ended up behaving as if they had a monopoly on "truth" and activities that questioned the leader no matter how polite, was not allowed at all. It's now has levels, some closed and some open but all must toe the line or get booted. Thank goddess this place isn't like that. The firepit usually but not always suffices. The latest flap is just one of a few, very few cases that I've seen (I miss Hugh) of repeated offenses by an individual and something has to give. A poll before banning outright is fair in my view. As for adding on other previously banned members or those who choose to leave to this poll, I don't agree. C_W and should remain the focus for this particular poll. Those who choose to leave did that on their own and can always return if they wish.

My dos pesos.
"who is more likely to make a personal, resolute change - an optimist... or a pessimist?
I reckon The System prefers an optimist"----Coffin_dodger
worldsastage
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:13 pm
Location: baltimore
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:25 pm

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:55 pm wrote:
brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:58 pm wrote:
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.



Would you like to name the members here that you are calling her band of sycophantic cohorts?


Absolutely not.

Because if you can't or won't then maybe you should shut up


Absolutely not. Nice to see you defending that free speech thing you're always so worried about.

...sounds like a pretty personal attack


Absolutely not. Personal implies, you know... personal.

...but with a bit of oh I won't name names cause that against the rules...I can go around the rules this way


pffftt

...would it be some of the 21 people that voted for that thread to be shut down??


I don;t know. Maybe we should do an exit poll and ask why people voted the way they did. Maybe ask them if they feel like a sycophantic cohort.

Who is "them"?


You know .... them. The Sycophantic Cohorts.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:26 pm

members in good standing at RI?
Stroke Illiterate Dementia Drugs does not matter
#25thAmmendmentNow


I've had enough of pretending trump isn't completely insane

This Isn’t the Madman Theory. This Is a Madman President
Rick Wilson

The world can not wait for the 2020 election
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30889
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:27 pm

I respectfully disagree with bph and his band of sycophantic cohorts
Stroke Illiterate Dementia Drugs does not matter
#25thAmmendmentNow


I've had enough of pretending trump isn't completely insane

This Isn’t the Madman Theory. This Is a Madman President
Rick Wilson

The world can not wait for the 2020 election
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 30889
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:28 pm

worldsastage » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:17 pm wrote:
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.



I like Hunter's suggestion: A set time for an open poll with two simple questions:

Should C_W remain banned?
Should we allow C_W to return?
We go with the one with 68% of the votes.

In fairness going forward I think offering such a poll option for repeated violations of the forum guidelines would be ideal. I would like to see her back even if at times I don't particularly like something she says. It's about reasonable adult discourse.

I've moderated much larger forums than this and there are always problems. On one in particular, after a series of issues the administrator decided to take a rigid and authoritarian stance regardless of what everyone else thought. It quickly devolved into a place where little disagreement but also little learning and discourse occurred. Suffice to say I left along with a number of long-term members. Those remaining ended up behaving as if they had a monopoly on "truth" and activities that questioned the leader no matter how polite, was not allowed at all. It's now has levels, some closed and some open but all must toe the line or get booted. Thank goddess this place isn't like that. The firepit usually but not always suffices. The latest flap is just one of a few, very few cases that I've seen (I miss Hugh) of repeated offenses by an individual and something has to give. A poll before banning outright is fair in my view. As for adding on other previously banned members or those who choose to leave to this poll, I don't agree. C_W and should remain the focus for this particular poll. Those who choose to leave did that on their own and can always return if they wish.

My dos pesos.

FWIW the poll is up and running and it has been moved to the ASKADMIN forum, so you can head over there and cast your vote.


I am not sure, now, that I agree with moving a POLL THREAD way down there to that Siberian forum because it will not get maximum exposure, was that the purpose of it? I would think that a poll thread like that should remain in the general discussion forum because that is where the most people will see it. Seems sort of buried now and Worldstage is proof that one member has missed it completely and its been up for several hours.

Anyway, just my opinion on the matter. If we are going to have a poll at least have somewhere that people can see it and peruse it. Common sense.


JUST IN CASE, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO VOTE ON THE CW BAN POLL IT IS LOCATED IN THE ASK ADMIN FORUM.
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby worldsastage » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:29 pm

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.


Thanks.....didn't consider that. Being relatively new whatever you all find best I will accept even if I might not fully happy with it. In general this forum works well and it ain't about my being happy in any case. I must say though that the recent mean spirited bickering just when I had gotten the nerve to start posting here and there, did however, make me wonder if this is the place for me. That's my issue though, not the moderators.
"who is more likely to make a personal, resolute change - an optimist... or a pessimist?
I reckon The System prefers an optimist"----Coffin_dodger
worldsastage
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:13 pm
Location: baltimore
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Searcher08 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:35 pm

seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:55 pm wrote:
brainpanhandler » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:58 pm wrote:
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.



Would you like to name the members here that you are calling her band of sycophantic cohorts?

Because if you can't or won't then maybe you should shut up...sounds like a pretty personal attack...but with a bit of oh I won't name names cause that against the rules...I can go around the rules this way...would it be some of the 21 people that voted for that thread to be shut down??

Who is "them"?


That was really helpful and sincerely said, bph
Thank you for such a snark free constructive comment. :lol2:

SLAD, My conception of Them isnt the same as Dr B P Hackenbush upthread , more
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: With regret, Canadian Watcher has been banned.

Postby Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:36 pm

worldsastage » Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:29 pm wrote:
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.


Thanks.....didn't consider that. Being relatively new whatever you all find best I will accept even if I might not fully happy with it. In general this forum works well and it ain't about my being happy in any case. I must say though that the recent mean spirited bickering just when I had gotten the nerve to start posting here and there, did however, make me wonder if this is the place for me. That's my issue though, not the moderators.

I feel the same way. It didnt use to matter much but now that my internet time is more limited due to some new career responsibilities I sort of like to enjoy the little time I have on it and the petty bickering and personal attacks really makes that difficult sometimes. There is so much hate in the world already I really cant justify subjecting myself to more of it voluntarily. But I want to stick around, this forum has so much to offer that you just cant find in other places.

That said, I do enjoy having people around who question me and challenge me and dont generally agree with me, I just dont think it has to be so damn personal all the time but I guess that is a sign of the times, the country itself is very divided with everyone dug in deep on one side or the other it seems. Nothing good will come of it nor will anything ever get done or accomplished with that sort of mentality. There has to be some give and take, some tit for tat for there to be any progress.
Last edited by Hunter on Sun Jul 21, 2013 6:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Hunter
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:10 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Ask Admin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests