Social Anxiety Support Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
8K views 112 replies 42 participants last post by  Drew 
I didn't even know who was banned until just now.

Normally, it's three bans in a 30 day period - first time two week ban, second time month ban.
There are some who like to "bend things", like timing their infractions just right so they can get away with the infraction thing and not get banned. I have seen this happen, too.

Some people, unfortunately, just don't show any improvement whatsoever. I am not sure that the length of time makes any difference. Although, veterans should know the rules and the vast majority of them have not changed.

I am not sure how effective the multi-mod is given the scattered online times of the moderation as it is. Sometimes, the decision cannot wait for more than one mod.
 
I think these are fair points and something worth looking into. I know that the mod team may not agree with this approach but it will make things a lot more easy to swallow. I would prefer my case be judged by a panel of mods as opposed to one which may or may not be having an off day or any other things which could affect their decision.

Because we all know how close I am to a permaban :afr
oh so close. :b :duck

How does that tomato appear to come out of that emoticon's head? :con :stu
 
I think the biggest issue here is simply a lack of communication. I also believe that there should be a section of the forum which is updated when a member is perma banned and an explanation (not in-depth) as to why, to simply give the rest of the forum insight into what they should and should not be doing (on a practical level since the forum rules seem rather inconsistent) and also as a means of keeping the mods honest.
That would not be fair to the people who are banned.
I still don't know the full story about this case. :stu
 
Everytime a popular member gets banned this topic comes up. Nothing changes. I guess if you want to stay a long time member here you need to change your personality and just make sure you are always walking on egg shells.
There are plenty of longtime members here. You should not have to walk on eggshells, but there is a clear request for decorum here. The guidelines have been in place here longer than I have.
 
That, and the fact that mods themselves have been guilty of conflict, intolerance, and agenda pushing in threads, but they are immune. Hardly seems fair to me. Also, moderators often issue infractions/warnings in threads where they had previously posted inflammatory and insensitive comments, then retaliate when lowly serfs like us reply to things they've said, or just lock the thread.

On some sites I visit mods are either allowed to either comment in a thread or moderate a thread, but not both. If they participate in a thread, they cannot issue warnings/infractions or lock that thread. That has to be done by a mod who did not participate in the discussion. I think this kind of policy would really be good for the Society & Culture forum here.
Wrong - we are not immune.
You are not a lowly serf. We lock the thread when things are beyond out of control. For me, it means that there were multiple infractions/warnings prior to the post.....and either an advisory or a watch had already been posted.

I don't know the full story about what happened, so I cannot comment about that.

For the record, our posting in the Society and Culture forum also has the censure policy. We are still responsible for everything we post. There is a lot that you don't see that is among moderation.
 
How many mods have been permabanned since Drew took over?
None, and there was only one moderator banned before that to my knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top