Perma-ban hearing - discussion

[Schweddy]

An addition to the rules has been posted - please see the forum rules thread.

Moderator Perma-ban hearing.

This thread is to open discussion of this new process.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

It seems solid enough to me, but I can't see anything particularly worth discussing among non-Moderators.

It's good that this was posted publically, however, in the interests of transparency. Knowing how the system works generally prevents accusations of moderator bias.

 

[Tashah]

It seems solid enough to me, but I can't see anything particularly worth discussing among non-Moderators.

It's good that this was posted publically, however, in the interests of transparency. Knowing how the system works generally prevents accusations of moderator bias.

Hi Korimyr,
The Moderator Team here at Debate Politics has devised the Moderator Perma-ban Hearing (MPH) process with the intent of delivering due process and eliminating any perceptions of moderator bias. This is a Team process, and the particular Moderator who initiates this process is excluded from both the deliberations and the vote. In many ways, this process is weighted in favor of the accused.

All member comments are welcomed and appreciated!
Tashah

 

[jallman]

Hi Korimyr,
The Moderator Team here at Debate Politics has devised the Moderator Perma-ban Hearing (MPH) process with the intent of delivering due process and eliminating any perceptions of moderator bias. This is a Team process, and the particular Moderator who initiates this process is excluded from both the deliberations and the vote. In many ways, this process is weighted in favor of the accused.

All member comments are welcomed and appreciated!
Tashah

I couldnt agree more with the sentiment that the process is weighted in favor of the accuse. Removing the accusing mod from the process definitely eliminates most basis for moderator bias. Thanks to you guys for continued vigilance and interest in impartiality and fairness.

 

[tecoyah]

Looks very fair, and well thought out. If you dont mind terribly I would like to bring a few of your Ideas to the attention of those I work with. Thanx for the hard work folks

 

[Apostle13]

I don't rightly perceive that removing the accusing mod from judgmental decisions favors more the accused. Who can say or know the behind the scenes goings on in the hood. It would seem to level the bias in fair form, as I do agree it is well and carefully thought out. Implementing this change speaks good volumes to your alls commitment toward proper and fair moderation... Keep up the good work team... And thanks!

 

[KCConservative]

Excellent idea. Fair, impartial, thorough. Good job, vauge.

 

[cherokee]

Good idea.....

Can I be first?....:doh

 

[akyron]

It certainly seems to be a well thought out process.

Question:
How often to people get banned?
The only one I ever noticed getting banned was Batman and occasionally Champs when he loses his cool.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It certainly seems to be a well thought out process.

Question:
How often to people get banned?
The only one I ever noticed getting banned was Batman and occasionally Champs when he loses his cool.

Depends on who you count as people. Do spammers count? If so, then fairly regularly. If we only count folks who attempt to use the forum for it's intended purpose, then not so often.

There're a few score usernames that have been banned. Several of those are folks w/ more than one username (some of them w/ 3 or more names).
Most of the list are folks you've prob'ly never heard of because they were caught spamming quickly. If I come in and find five identical messages in different forums all pointing to your website and these are your only posts to DP, you'll get a summary ban and an email explaining our policy on advertising as well as an opportunity to contact vauge to set up an ad account.

Here's a small sampling of banning reasons provided in account notes:

spamming
Created another user
spamming
spamming
Rule #12. Multiple accounts - Multiple accounts of the same user will not be tolerated and you will be banned.**
spamming
Posting personal information on another board member.
Spamspamspam
double user
sock puppet
multiple accounts
already banned...trying to come back in
Troll and sock
Duplicate usernames, email to be reinstated
Duplicate usernames, email to be reinstated
​

There're less than a dozen folks who have temporary suspensions at this moment

 

[Schweddy]

How often to people get banned?
The only one I ever noticed getting banned was Batman and occasionally Champs when he loses his cool.

Champs is not banned, he is just suspended.

We are revisiting the suspension process as well. Soon suspended folks will say suspended and probation will say probation. Perm banned will say banned.

How often do people get banned?

We have permanently banned 3 people since the begining of the year. Less major spammers that never intended to participate. The previous process was similar, but not as specific and clear cut. Nor was the process public knowledge.

 

[Captain America]

I only have one account here so I am in the clear regarding that rule. But I am guilty of having more than one account at another site (that I no longer particiapate in.) It was done simply because I had forgotten my 1st user name and password. After becoming aware of that forums rules regarding multiple accounts, (which are the same as this forums) I contacted the mod and explained him the situation and they waived the rule for me and cancelled my first account (which only had two posts to begin with.) I suppose I could have not said anything but I wanted to clear it up before it came back, down the road, to bite me in the butt.

In short, I suppose is what I am suggesting is a 7 day amnesty for users with more than one account. If a user here has more than one account, and wants to make a correction, I think it would be a good gesture on behalf of the forum to allow them 7 days to contact administration advising them of this infraction so they can have a chance to make amens and avoid future problems.

Wadda ya think?

 

[cnredd]

I only have one account here so I am in the clear regarding that rule. But I am guilty of having more than one account at another site (that I no longer particiapate in.) It was done simply because I had forgotten my 1st user name and password. After becoming aware of that forums rules regarding multiple accounts, (which are the same as this forums) I contacted the mod and explained him the situation and they waived the rule for me and cancelled my first account (which only had two posts to begin with.) I suppose I could have not said anything but I wanted to clear it up before it came back, down the road, to bite me in the butt.

In short, I suppose is what I am suggesting is a 7 day amnesty for users with more than one account. If a user here has more than one account, and wants to make a correction, I think it would be a good gesture on behalf of the forum to allow them 7 days to contact administration advising them of this infraction so they can have a chance to make amens and avoid future problems.

Wadda ya think?

We do one step better...

We have a "detector" that gets tripped when we have a user with more than one account accredited to them...They immediately get a personal message questioning it...We just had one a few days ago...We found out it was someone's little brother who also joined...

Such as your situation in another forum, we don't say "Two accounts...he's gone!"...

The one issue that has NO toleration is someone who has been suspended or banned by the Mod Team, and then try to circumvent the actions taken by creating another user....There can be no misinterpretation when that happens...

 

[Captain America]

Awesome...sounds like you guys got it all under control....

Never Mind. Carry on.:3oops:

 

[Jerry]

Do you take requests? No, really.

 

[Schweddy]

Do you take requests? No, really.

Yah can always ask.

We're listening.

 

[Jerry]

Yah can always ask.
We're listening.

steen.
Everywhere I go he calls people who disagree with him liars, hypocrites....."misogynistic, theocratic enslavers of women"... he issues personal attacks in virtually every post.

EVEN WHEN I AGREE WITH HIM HE ATTACKS ME!!!!
I've reported @3 of his posts just last week because I've finally had enough of his false accusations and personal attacks.

I mean, if you disagree, even passionately, fine. The occasional quip or derogatory insinuation is expected in any public setting......but with steen insults are staple. He simply can not stay on topic.

Do something about this guy already!!!

 

[Schweddy]

Keep reporting all the posts that you believe you are being attacked and not debated with. We take these reported posts *very* seriously. Rest assured that your reported posts have been noted. I cannot disclose the outcome of them.

Currently, the only thing we can do is go through our process and attempt to be as fair as possible. Soon, more will be revealed on the reported posts/mod action system as well.

I hope this helps.

 

[Jerry]

Keep reporting all the posts that you believe you are being attacked and not debated with. We take these reported posts *very* seriously. Rest assured that your reported posts have been noted. I cannot disclose the outcome of them.

Currently, the only thing we can do is go through our process and attempt to be as fair as possible. Soon, more will be revealed on the reported posts/mod action system as well.

I hope this helps.

That's why they call it "faith", brotha!

 

[Gardener]

I imagine would be banned if I responded in the way I wanted to respond to some of the creatures who slither into these forums with their hateful agendas. I would be banned because my response would be considered a "personal" attack, while their racist blather aimed at denigrating groups of people somehow would not. I have left forums where it was just fine to be a Nazi, but by golly, you sure better not call anybody one.

As far as mods being recused, I do recall suggesting just that in an earlier thread, but my question isn't really so much as to that particular process, but whether or not you take into account provocatiion in determining whether the response to it was a personal attack? Seems to me that if you give some people license to spew hatred towards groups but tie people's hands by way of potential reply, you only end up enabling the former at the expense of the latter. Is your policy sophisticated enough to recognize the inherent baiting quality to certain postings and hold those postings just as accountable as the replies to them? Freedom of speech is fine, but seems to me that if people are free to indulge in hate speech, but others are not really allowed to respond in kind because their replies would be considered "personal", then you aren't truly engendering free speech since you are exercizing control over the response but not the originating statement.

Do you take into account the bait or only the reaction to the bait in determining a personal attack?

 

[Schweddy]

Is your policy sophisticated enough to recognize the inherent baiting quality to certain postings and hold those postings just as accountable as the replies to them? Freedom of speech is fine, but seems to me that if people are free to indulge in hate speech, but others are not really allowed to respond in kind because their replies would be considered "personal", then you aren't truly engendering free speech since you are exercizing control over the response but not the originating statement.

Do you take into account the bait or only the reaction to the bait in determining a personal attack?

Tuff question. We can only hope so. Again, reported posts help to make that accountability. For instance, Say someone posts a very bad nasty attack on someone and we miss it or a mod is not participating in it. Then 40 posts later someone else responds in kind but this second one was reported. 40 posts is quite a bit to wade through if your not that interested in the topic. So, in this case B could get a warning. Bare in mind that context is of utmost importance.

Obviously we are not very strict on this rule. Sometimes it seems we are very intense, but we have to have the ability to have outs - some folks just have bad days. If it becomes a trend or he/she blatantly disregards the topic and *always* shooting for the original authors jugular then that warrants action IMO. There are places for that and it is not upstairs.

With the above said; actions are not imposed on a whim at all. If I don't like someone, I will post in the private mod forum my issue and recluse myself on personal grounds. This is typical behavior in the mod team.

 

[mixedmedia]

I imagine would be banned if I responded in the way I wanted to respond to some of the creatures who slither into these forums with their hateful agendas. I would be banned because my response would be considered a "personal" attack, while their racist blather aimed at denigrating groups of people somehow would not. I have left forums where it was just fine to be a Nazi, but by golly, you sure better not call anybody one.

As far as mods being recused, I do recall suggesting just that in an earlier thread, but my question isn't really so much as to that particular process, but whether or not you take into account provocatiion in determining whether the response to it was a personal attack? Seems to me that if you give some people license to spew hatred towards groups but tie people's hands by way of potential reply, you only end up enabling the former at the expense of the latter. Is your policy sophisticated enough to recognize the inherent baiting quality to certain postings and hold those postings just as accountable as the replies to them? Freedom of speech is fine, but seems to me that if people are free to indulge in hate speech, but others are not really allowed to respond in kind because their replies would be considered "personal", then you aren't truly engendering free speech since you are exercizing control over the response but not the originating statement.

Do you take into account the bait or only the reaction to the bait in determining a personal attack?

I understand what you're saying, believe me. It is an issue I struggle with myself as a mod. But the way I see it, if one wants to hang around here for long, they have to develop a thick skin and control their immediate reactions to go on the attack. Certainly one can disagree and disagree quite passionately without resorting to name calling. Or they can take it to the basement. Or they can slough it off with humor and a little reality check. That being that most likely you are being provoked intentionally. Baited. Trolled.

Having been here a while, by far most of the extreme Nazi-types don't manage to kick back for long anyway. They don't tend to be "model citizens" themselves.

So yes, to an extent, provocation is considered but it is not an excuse.

Also, very often inflammatory posts will be reported, but when you check out the thread you will find that both sides are baiting and being offensive. Certainly in cases like these, the overall tone of the discussion is taken into consideration.

 

[Gardener]

Tuff question. We can only hope so. Again, reported posts help to make that accountability. For instance, Say someone posts a very bad nasty attack on someone and we miss it or a mod is not participating in it. Then 40 posts later someone else responds in kind but this second one was reported. 40 posts is quite a bit to wade through if your not that interested in the topic. So, in this case B could get a warning. Bare in mind that context is of utmost importance.

Obviously we are not very strict on this rule. Sometimes it seems we are very intense, but we have to have the ability to have outs - some folks just have bad days. If it becomes a trend or he/she blatantly disregards the topic and *always* shooting for the original authors jugular then that warrants action IMO. There are places for that and it is not upstairs.

With the above said; actions are not imposed on a whim at all. If I don't like someone, I will post in the private mod forum my issue and recluse myself on personal grounds. This is typical behavior in the mod team.

Thanks for the quick response. I'm always impressed.

I have to admit, I was soured by my experience in the John Kerry official forum, where the head administrator ordered the moderators to favor the anti-Israeli people, and since so many of those folks were antisemitic as all get up, it got to the point where they were able to spin tales of Jews running the world, reference neonazi sites, indulge in blood libels and holocaust revision, but people were censored if they disagreed too strongly or criticized Palestinians. I'm not even Jewish, but was amazed at the bias shown.

I certainly don't see any of that here, and am glad you folks have a balanced approach. I think you're doing a great job.

 

[Gardener]

I understand what you're saying, believe me. It is an issue I struggle with myself as a mod. But the way I see it, if one wants to hang around here for long, they have to develop a thick skin and control their immediate reactions to go on the attack. Certainly one can disagree and disagree quite passionately without resorting to name calling. Or they can take it to the basement. Or they can slough it off with humor and a little reality check. That being that most likely you are being provoked intentionally. Baited. Trolled.

Having been here a while, by far most of the extreme Nazi-types don't manage to kick back for long anyway. They don't tend to be "model citizens" themselves.

So yes, to an extent, provocation is considered but it is not an excuse.

Also, very often inflammatory posts will be reported, but when you check out the thread you will find that both sides are baiting and being offensive. Certainly in cases like these, the overall tone of the discussion is taken into consideration.

I didn't even mention all the "you liberal posts", wherupon what is then sumarily described is some demonic creature out of an H.P Lovecraft story rather than an actual liberal. The self control you show on these postings is admirable. I think thick skin is quite necessary in these cases because the finger pointing is so polemic in nature. "You liberals" acts as bait to any person who sees themself as a liberal, so in diagnosing any particular thread as to who said what to whom, IMO, this is the act that lays down the gauntlet. One either reacts or they don't, but I think it is just as much the responsibility of the people who post these statements to self-censor as it is those who need to show restraint in self-censoring byway of response. I see it much like the playground interaction, where often times the yard monitors see the kid retaliating, but don't notice the sucker punch that elicited it.

 

[Schweddy]

Even as a diehard conservative - the "you liberals" or "you conservatives" gets my goat everytime.

I would participate more in some of those threads less the exclamitory anyone whom opposes this is "exclusively" a liberal comments.

Bah, there are over 2 thousand users here and over 2 thousand opinions.
It is simple mathmatics.

About the sucker punches - it shows how shallow folks will go to attempt to win at something that is unattainable. lol