Australian Politics Forum - rules for banning

mantra

Gold Member

Offline

ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female

Re: rules for banning
Reply #90 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:55am

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

mantra wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:26am:

They're only volunteers, so some action from them is better than none even if they can't understand the rules themselves. It's like going into a charity op shop. The server might perform some services, but overall you don't expect competence, because he/she is doing it for nothing.

People volunteer to do many things for all sorts of reasons. They don't do it for nothing. Have you ever dealt with volunteers in a charity store? I have and I must say I'm a bit incredulous that you're putting them down like that. The people there work very hard and its very rewarding in ways that financial gain can't touch.

It's an analogy and you are taking this personally. You shouldn't be. I am not putting down volunteer workers - they deserve respect regardless of their performance.

There are regular complaints about the moderation here and there always have been and long before you became a member. You wouldn't abuse an elderly person struggling with the cash register at St. Vinnies simply because he/she's a volunteer, so my point is that we should give the same consideration to the moderators here.

Quote:

You seem incapable of posting anything that isn't a passive aggressive dig at the moderators of this board. A bit of charity work might do you some good.

And you come across as rude and defensive Annie. We have to handle your abuse when you are angry, but remain silent when you jump down someone's throat if you even slightly suspect a little criticism.

Back to top

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: rules for banning
Reply #91 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:57am

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

Transparency and accountability are missing.

I searched on “Idiot” here when banned (4 days!) for saying Armpit was an idiot. Personally, I don’t think the word “idiot” deserves a ban. I got 690 pages of hits on the word idiot! Did each use result in a suspension? Bet they didn’t, and there goes consistency.

Longy was abusive for a whole freaking day, had to drag my family into it—*I* got a ban, not Longy!

Stop fussing over small words, concentrate on viler or more violent language and usages and consistency and clarity are improved. That just leaves accountability.

Any ban message should say briefly what offence is being published and how long the ban is for. If the YABB software allows this then that should always be done.

JohnS got banned for months and doesn’t know why—that is not right! You email FD and never get a reply.

You'll find George that you'll find more to do with your rants and calling other members a bitch was more likely a cause of your exit than idiot.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23818 Carlsbad, CA Gender:	Re: rules for banning Reply #92 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:59am I think we aren't reflecting on the fact I hung out with a respected 4 star US General today...
Back to top	Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: rules for banning Reply #93 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:02am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:05am: That's because only male members are able to access it, Perce. Really? And, would you & the other females, find such an arrangement acceptable?
Back to top	IP Logged

Annie Anthrax

Gold Member

Offline

Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 7057
Gender: female

Re: rules for banning
Reply #94 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:04am

mantra wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

mantra wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:26am:

They're only volunteers, so some action from them is better than none even if they can't understand the rules themselves. It's like going into a charity op shop. The server might perform some services, but overall you don't expect competence, because he/she is doing it for nothing.

People volunteer to do many things for all sorts of reasons. They don't do it for nothing. Have you ever dealt with volunteers in a charity store? I have and I must say I'm a bit incredulous that you're putting them down like that. The people there work very hard and its very rewarding in ways that financial gain can't touch.

It's an analogy and you are taking this personally. You shouldn't be. I am not putting down volunteer workers - they deserve respect regardless of their performance.

There are regular complaints about the moderation here and there always have been and long before you became a member. You wouldn't abuse an elderly person struggling with the cash register at St. Vinnies simply because he/she's a volunteer, so my point is that we should give the same consideration to the moderators here.

Quote:

You seem incapable of posting anything that isn't a passive aggressive dig at the moderators of this board. A bit of charity work might do you some good.

And you come across and rude and defensive Annie. We have to handle your abuse when you are angry, but remain silent when you jump down someone's throat if you even slightly suspect a little criticism.

I have yet to be angry, abusive or defensive despite your best provocation, Mantra. I'm generally amused at how repetitively transparent and overly dramatic your posts about moderators are.

Back to top

I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway.

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: rules for banning Reply #95 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:05am Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:59am: I think we aren't reflecting on the fact I hung out with a respected 4 star US General today... I'm sorry. I'm just jealous.
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: rules for banning Reply #96 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:05am But very impressed!
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: rules for banning
Reply #97 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:07am

mantra wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

mantra wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:26am:

They're only volunteers, so some action from them is better than none even if they can't understand the rules themselves. It's like going into a charity op shop. The server might perform some services, but overall you don't expect competence, because he/she is doing it for nothing.

People volunteer to do many things for all sorts of reasons. They don't do it for nothing. Have you ever dealt with volunteers in a charity store? I have and I must say I'm a bit incredulous that you're putting them down like that. The people there work very hard and its very rewarding in ways that financial gain can't touch.

It's an analogy and you are taking this personally. You shouldn't be. I am not putting down volunteer workers - they deserve respect regardless of their performance.

There are regular complaints about the moderation here and there always have been and long before you became a member. You wouldn't abuse an elderly person struggling with the cash register at St. Vinnies simply because he/she's a volunteer, so my point is that we should give the same consideration to the moderators here.

Quote:

You seem incapable of posting anything that isn't a passive aggressive dig at the moderators of this board. A bit of charity work might do you some good.

And you come across as rude and defensive Annie. We have to handle your abuse when you are angry, but remain silent when you jump down someone's throat if you even slightly suspect a little criticism.

That is absolute nonsense.
Annie is as fair as the day is long and never jumps down the throat of anyone, despite several times it probably being warranted...

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

mantra

Gold Member

Offline

ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female

Re: rules for banning
Reply #98 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:08am

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

I have yet to be angry, abusive or defensive despite your best provocation, Mantra. I'm generally amused at how repetitively transparent and overly dramatic your posts about moderators are.

You fooled me. People are scared of responding to you honestly when you're angry and they shouldn't be.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: rules for banning
Reply #99 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:14am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 9:02am:

I am fortunate enough to have been at a talk here in the US this morning by a born leader and a modern day hero - 4 star General Stanley McChrystal. Former commander of US forces Afghanistan.

He talked to us on a leadership - but something else RESPONSIBILITY.

You people are responsible for your own actions, you make your own destiny, but importantly stand up and own your actions.

You can easily push this back to here - people need to behave, act responsibly and then there would be no need for banning.

I would agree Responsibility is or should be, one of the major requirements and not just for leadership and not just for Politicians!

There is a far wider application & a need for it to spread far wider across all sectors, including the General, the general Public, Business, Politicians & TPTB!

Because, at present, it is "absent without leave", in many, if not most instances!

Back to top

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax

Gold Member

Offline

Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 7057
Gender: female

Re: rules for banning
Reply #100 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:15am

mantra wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:08am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

I have yet to be angry, abusive or defensive despite your best provocation, Mantra. I'm generally amused at how repetitively transparent and overly dramatic your posts about moderators are.

You fooled me. People are scared of responding to you honestly when you're angry and they shouldn't be.

You're projecting again. Anybody who is scared of responding to me because they think I'm angry is paranoid and delusional.

Back to top

I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway.

IP Logged

St George of the Garden

Gold Member

Offline

http://tinyurl.com/n
3o8m2x

Posts: 9809
Gender: male

Re: rules for banning
Reply #101 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:23am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:57am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

Transparency and accountability are missing.

I searched on “Idiot” here when banned (4 days!) for saying Armpit was an idiot. Personally, I don’t think the word “idiot” deserves a ban. I got 690 pages of hits on the word idiot! Did each use result in a suspension? Bet they didn’t, and there goes consistency.

Longy was abusive for a whole freaking day, had to drag my family into it—*I* got a ban, not Longy!

Stop fussing over small words, concentrate on viler or more violent language and usages and consistency and clarity are improved. That just leaves accountability.

Any ban message should say briefly what offence is being published and how long the ban is for. If the YABB software allows this then that should always be done.

JohnS got banned for months and doesn’t know why—that is not right! You email FD and never get a reply.

You'll find George that you'll find more to do with your rants and calling other members a bitch was more likely a cause of your exit than idiot.

The lady in question earned that tag. But Longy was alright, calling me a blithering idiot and much worse, dragging my Mum into his abusive rants that was OK? Or was it my 6-7 PMs reporting Longy’s personal abuse that caused you to ban me. Four days was it?

If AA didn’t ban me when I told her that, why did you have to do it?

Back to top

I want Muso as GMod. Bring back Muso!

Friends of the National Broadband Network

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: rules for banning
Reply #102 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:41am

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:42am:

Phem, moderators are accountable for bannings.

Annie, that accountability is somewhat limited to be fair. Given that, for the main part, most are not aware who is banned or when, then the lack of transparency alone would indicate only limited accountability at best.

Further, and in the main, I do want to make perfectly clear that it is not my intention to be "having a go" at either you or Andrei with regard to individual moderating. That is not an issue of concern to me personally (not withstanding others may want to push that barrow, that is not where I am coming from).

I have consistently said I think the "system" is a wee bit flawed, I also acknowledge that the framework may be well intended, but, I do not shrink from pointing out that intent and practice are two different things, in this case that would seem palpable.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: rules for banning
Reply #103 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:46am

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:57am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

Transparency and accountability are missing.

I searched on “Idiot” here when banned (4 days!) for saying Armpit was an idiot. Personally, I don’t think the word “idiot” deserves a ban. I got 690 pages of hits on the word idiot! Did each use result in a suspension? Bet they didn’t, and there goes consistency.

Longy was abusive for a whole freaking day, had to drag my family into it—*I* got a ban, not Longy!

Stop fussing over small words, concentrate on viler or more violent language and usages and consistency and clarity are improved. That just leaves accountability.

Any ban message should say briefly what offence is being published and how long the ban is for. If the YABB software allows this then that should always be done.

JohnS got banned for months and doesn’t know why—that is not right! You email FD and never get a reply.

You'll find George that you'll find more to do with your rants and calling other members a bitch was more likely a cause of your exit than idiot.

The lady in question earned that tag. But Longy was alright, calling me a blithering idiot and much worse, dragging my Mum into his abusive rants that was OK? Or was it my 6-7 PMs reporting Longy’s personal abuse that caused you to ban me. Four days was it?

If AA didn’t ban me when I told her that, why did you have to do it?

A couple of things stand out here...

Firstly, Andrei, I think it far more credible to either say it for what it is, i.e. George you were banned for..... Rather than what it "might" have been for. As such, either exercise integrity and tell it like it is, or, as per the idea that "no discussion will be entered into..." do not engage. You are kind of having an each way bet with that comment and, presumably, you know EXACTLY what the ban was for.

Secondly, George, NO ONE ever "earns" being verbally abused, yep even you. That is not a defense or justification for you choosing to make an abusive post. Otherwise, Longy may well (and, based on your comment here with some justification) merely deflect his comments back to you saying you "earned" them.... Would that be apt?

Bottom line, abuse is either an appropriate way to respond or it is not. I understand that concept is particularly muddy on this particular forum, but, none the less, that is how this stuff works. If you justify, excuse or dismiss your own verbal abuse, then others will respond in kind.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

The Mole Gold Member Offline http://www.ozpolitic .co/album/forum-atta chments/y Posts: 1499 Gender:	Re: rules for banning Reply #104 - Jan 24^th, 2015 at 12:17pm Well it would seem from all the threads on banning of late, the only rule is, there are no rules. YAY!
Back to top	"Why Johnny Ringo, you look like someone just walked over your grave" IP Logged