Sprintcyclist - not so long ago  I was blocked from Feedback for a week or so. This was the first time in 8 years since the inception of this forum any restrictions were made on my posting and it was simply because a few disgruntled members tend to drag my nick into all their grievances.  Perhaps because they want me to bite or perhaps they hold an old grudge that most of the time I'm unaware of.  I make very few posts and although I have my cynical moments have not consciously abused anyone or used bad language. Even if they haven't liked my response  - it's been nowhere near the level of abuse which has been dished out to me.

I don't even bother the mods anymore, but obviously others do.  There are some challenged people here - that is obvious and for some of us it is impossible to understand where they're coming from. Those who cry loudest are heard even if their complaints are only figments of their imagination.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:


still no pm from a mod about my banning.

What was it for ?

It is possible for me to ban members from individual boards, but it is a complicated process. So please follow this procedure. Temporary bans will not be given, so use all other avenues first.

For all members:

Please follow the instructions of board moderators. If you don't like them, cease to use the board. This is the most powerful mechanism you have to handle poor board management. You may of course complain to the mod publicly or privately, but give it up if it is not achieving anything. If they ask you to stop posting on the board, stop posting on the board. If you refuse to follow their instructions, you will be blocked from the board and also suspended from the whole forum.

For board moderators:

1) Warn the member via PM and then publicly that they are breaking the rules.

2) If they persist in being disruptive, send them a PM notifying them that they are banned from the board. Include a link to this post so that they are aware of the ban and my expectations of them under this procedure. CC a copy of this PM to me. At this stage the member is expected to voluntarily refrain from using the board.

3) If they continue to post, advise them publicly that they are banned, or refer them to their PM from you if you want to be more subtle. This is in case they don't read their PMs.

4) If they continue to post, PM me with a link to their public warning and where they posted afterwards, and quotes. I will put in an appropriate ban at that stage. This could be a ban from the board, from the section or from the entire forum.

---

I will not ban people from individual party boards. On the first offence you will be banned from the entire section (currently 6 boards) or from the entire forum.

For member run boards, I have traditionally banned people from individual boards first, then from the entire section. I will continue this for the moment.

If the 'offence' is particularly nasty the member will be banned or suspended from the entire forum.

The point of this process, and the member run boards in general, is to reduce the workload on myself and the other global mods. I expect the board mods to make a reasonable effort to handle and diffuse a problem themselves before asking for a ban. I do not want the board mods to use bans as part of any personal disagreements.

Does this have anything to do with the rules for banning from member run boards?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172540626

cods wrote on Aug 14^th, 2014 at 8:08am:


I have seen the alcoholic reference used dozens of times by various members and it has always escaped scrutiny. I saw one reference to it yesterday involving another member who used it for the first time and he was banned immediately. He will not return and this is Ozpolitic's loss.

cods wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 10:09am:


Unless you are also a GMod, those like me who moderate the Member run Boards do not have a ban button.  To get someone banned form that Board, we have to go through a three stage advice/request process, and even then nothing may happen.  In effect, it means that an offender gets three strikes before  freediver might act.