Hi Korimyr,Korimyr the Rat said: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 said: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
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.akyron said: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.
Champs is not banned, he is just suspended.akyron said:How often to people get banned?
The only one I ever noticed getting banned was Batman and occasionally Champs when he loses his cool.
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.akyron said:How often do people get banned?
We do one step better...Captain America said: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?
Yah can always ask.Jerry said:Do you take requests? No, really.
steen.vauge said:Yah can always ask.
We're listening.
That's why they call it "faith", brotha!vauge said: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.
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.Gardener said: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?
Gardener said: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?
vauge said: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 said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?