Confused about some bannings

[Shakeyhands]

Greg, I certainly don't expect that you would want to nor need to explain every banning but unless I missed some foul post or something I can't see why a couple of members have been banned of late. Yet, by the same token, others that seem to yell troll alot seem to stay. It's very confusing indeed.

[kimmy]

If this is about "masterkush" and "Mary Jane", it's because they were the same person masquerading as two. And frankly somebody who gets their information from rense.com is somebody we can do without.

-k

[crazymf]

I didn't call masterkush a troll. I called him/her a whacko.

To me when someone doesn't answer or respond to a debate or question or a point of view, but rather tirades into a rehearsed rhetoric, they're a troll.

If someone gets turfed because they have a point of view someone just doesn't like, that would be wrong, but I don't see that happening.

Frequenting the board to specifically attack individuals or to push an agenda needs to be stopped as it will eventually degrade the discussion into nothing productive.

[Shakeyhands]

If this is about "masterkush" and "Mary Jane", it's because they were the same person masquerading as two.  And frankly somebody who gets their information from rense.com is somebody we can do without.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well sort of but not specifically, I didn't know it was one person. It just seems that we have lost some good posters, and kept some that I would have thought would have been gone long ago... just wondering.

[Greg]

The recent bannings were exactly as Kimmy pointed out, the result of a banned troll returning under a different pseudonym.

The only other long time posters that were recently banned were MapleSyrup and Mirror. Both bannings were well documented and deserved.

Also remember, being banned for trolling doesn't result from one post, it is the results of repeatedly poor behaviour and annoying troll-like posts.

The forum rules and guidelines,

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

[Shakeyhands]

The recent bannings were exactly as Kimmy pointed out, the result of a banned troll returning under a different pseudonym.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the feedback

[PocketRocket]

Now, can we get back to something productive like the Kimmy Party Agenda???

[August1991]

I'll put this here:

It is certainly unfortunate Whenever a long-time participant gets banned from these forums, but it is always a result of their repeated ignorance/dis-respect. Shoop, Eureka, BHS, MapleSyrup, bigdude, mirror, ScottBrison, The Terrible Sweal, THELIBERAL, AllianceFanatic, etc, all took things too far and ignored the repeated warnings.

I'm always the bad guy when it comes to maintaining order in these forums, but such is life. I always get a kick out of participants who claim I'm a Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Communist, Facist, etc - you name it, I've been called it.

It's true that you'll likely be damned if you do and damned if you don't.

BTW, I took a quick glance at Shoop's last posts and I didn't see anything outrageous. If anything, I thought Temagami was being provocative. Care to explain what happened?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

BTW, I took a quick glance at Shoop's last posts and I didn't see anything outrageous. If anything, I thought Temagami was being provocative. Care to explain what happened?

We don't know what may have transpired between Shoop and Greg, perhaps Shoop PM'd him with a profanity-laced tirade, for reasons of hs own. Either way, I don't believe Greg has any obligation to explain it. He may choose to, but then again, if we disagree with his actions, we are free to leave.

I would like to see more suspensions/bannings forthcoming, especially of those that continue to sreate multiple threads on the same, racially charged histrionics, but that's just me.

[Michael Hardner]

Either way, I don't believe Greg has any obligation to explain it. He may choose to, but then again, if we disagree with his actions, we are free to leave.

Hear, hear. This is not a democracy, but a benevolant dictatorship. MapleLeaf has thrived and is the only board with such open dialogue and a left/right balance.

[sharkman]

I just heard that montgomery Burns was banned and I wanted to express my disappointment if this is true. Some on the left hate him outright, and I have seen some try to goad him into stepping over the line I think. People play such silly games.

[BubberMiley]

I don't think he was such a prominent figure among the left, being an anonymous forum poster. But the left truly hates the real Montgomery Burns, what with his exploitation of the workers and the environment to make ridiculous amounts of money.

[Argus]

Dear August1991,

BTW, I took a quick glance at Shoop's last posts and I didn't see anything outrageous. If anything, I thought Temagami was being provocative. Care to explain what happened?

We don't know what may have transpired between Shoop and Greg, perhaps Shoop PM'd him with a profanity-laced tirade, for reasons of hs own. Either way, I don't believe Greg has any obligation to explain it. He may choose to, but then again, if we disagree with his actions, we are free to leave.

This is true. On the other hand, I think everyone is more comfortable with knowing what the hard limits are. If we know what someone was banned for, we know what not to ever do. It also gives us some confidence that moderation is not being done arbitrarily.

I would like to see more suspensions/bannings forthcoming, especially of those that continue to sreate multiple threads on the same, racially charged histrionics, but that's just me.

Like Temagami?

[Charles Anthony]

I think everyone is more comfortable with knowing what the hard limits are.

There may not be any definite limits, it may actually be discretionary.

We are all guests in the forum. This forum is not a tax-payer funded public service to benefit all members of "society" even if it appears that way. As guests, we are not owed anything and we do not dictate the rules. The owner of the forum can operate this forum any way he sees fit and is not answerable to anybody.

If we know what someone was banned for, we know what not to ever do.

I think it has been made clear. To sum things up, it really seems like "common decency" is the main rule.

For some people, common decency is a difficult concept to grasp that it may need to be explained. Some people never understand it in their whole entire old lives.

It also gives us some confidence that moderation is not being done arbitrarily.

Uh.... Do you think you are OWED an explanation? Maybe we should lobby our government to enact a forum-moderation-fairness law.

This reminds me of non-smokers telling the restaurant owners how to run their businesses.

I have complete confidence that it is fair. Maybe if I ever get my chance at being banned, I will recount my experience when I return. However, I am willing to bet that Greg is fair.

[BubberMiley]

This is true. On the other hand, I think everyone is more comfortable with knowing what the hard limits are. If we know what someone was banned for, we know what not to ever do.

You just want to insult people without worrying about getting turfed.

[sharkman]

On the whole, I must say I think the rules are quite fair here. I have had a few posts deleted at another forum, when I said get back to me when Christian missionaries are blowing people up and massing their populations, like in France. As you can imagine, this was in response to a comment that equated Christian missonary activities to militant Islam. One of his phrases was, " Maybe that's why some of these places string missionaries up."

The moderatore recieved complaints about my post( I never called names or defamed him) but never deleted this post I've described. When I asked him to delete this other post as well to be fair, he declined, telling me not to blame other posters for my comments! I then invited him to revoke my membership, as I didn't want to frequent a forum that applied its rules as thus.

Like I said, this place allows passionate debate as long as general guidelines are followed, and I find it pretty reasonable.

[Oddman]

Maybe a more accurate post would have included a reference to the NRA - as they were Christians who used terrorism to further their cause.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus (and everyone),

On the other hand, I think everyone is more comfortable with knowing what the hard limits are. If we know what someone was banned for, we know what not to ever do. It also gives us some confidence that moderation is not being done arbitrarily.

The rules for all of us are outlined under "Forum Rules". Most often the problem lies with policing each post, an impossible task for a moderator (which, I would suspect, is why Greg put out a call for 'administrators', some time ago). The only way he can warn/suspend/ban posters for not following the spirit of the forum is if offending material gets reported. The best way, however, is if we, the membership ourselves, 'self-police'. Starting with one's own self: refrain from returning insults in kind, avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and remember the cardinal rule: 'Play the ball, not the person'.

We are here to play with ideas, not with each others minds. Brains can get real messy.

[Argus]

Dear Argus (and everyone),

On the other hand, I think everyone is more comfortable with knowing what the hard limits are. If we know what someone was banned for, we know what not to ever do. It also gives us some confidence that moderation is not being done arbitrarily.

The rules for all of us are outlined under "Forum Rules". Most often the problem lies with policing each post, an impossible task for a moderator (which, I would suspect, is why Greg put out a call for 'administrators', some time ago). The only way he can warn/suspend/ban posters for not following the spirit of the forum is if offending material gets reported. The best way, however, is if we, the membership ourselves, 'self-police'. Starting with one's own self: refrain from returning insults in kind, avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and remember the cardinal rule: 'Play the ball, not the person'.

We are here to play with ideas, not with each others minds. Brains can get real messy.

The problem is that the rules, while clear, are somewhat akin to the rules of hockey, which are equally clear. But as with hockey, enforcement is up to the interpetation of the referee. Sometimes the ref is in a good mood, sometimes a bad mood. Sometimes the NHL will crack down and announce a "zero tolerance" for this or that, and then as the days go on things loosen up again and the refs stop calling things. Players start elbowing and slashing and holding, and when the refs don't call it other players start elbowing, slashing and holding in retatliation, until things deteriorate to a certain point, whereupon we have another crackdown.

[Charles Anthony]

I like this comment:

remember the cardinal rule: 'Play the ball, not the person'.

We are here to play with ideas, not with each others minds.

because the astute poster can wisely conceal a mind-game to appear as a clever discussion of ideas.

Oh, how much fun we can have with language arts!

[Shady]

If Burn's was banned, this forum is bullshit. That's my opinion.

[BubberMiley]

If Burn's was banned, this forum is bullshit. That's my opinion.

See ya.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Shady,

this forum is bullshit

I suspect you know that this isn't true. I further suspect that the banning of Burns was directly related to his inability to 'self-police'. The moderator has always tried to limit denigrating comments such as 'al-Gore', etc. (I received a warning in the past because I called my MP, Rob Anders, a 'moron'). If Burns had been repeatedly warned to cease and desist from such behaviour, and chose to ignore the warnings, then he must also suffer the consequences.

Just as your repeated use of the term 'the kook-left' should be dropped. It is a broad and derogatory statement which does nothing for the level of debate. Just my opinion, of course.

There are plenty of reasonable, intelligent people on this board from both sides of the political spectrum. They all, however, should respect the viewpoints of others, and while being free to take issue with those viewpoints, should not attack the individual who raises those points. I am not guilt free on this score, mind you, but I do try to heed warnings when I get them.

[scribblet]

I've been away for a bit and havn't really caught up. Have M Burns and Shoop both been banned really - from what I read they weren't any near as abrasive or prone to adhominems as some more recent posters have...(in a very contentious thread.)

[Riverwind]

I've been away for a bit and havn't really caught up. Have M Burns and Shoop both been banned really - from what I read they weren't any near as abrasive or prone to adhominems as some more recent posters have...(in a very contentious thread.)

I don't know about shoop but MB made some (now-deleted) posts threatening to shoot aboriginal people. The post was pretty vile and I can see why it would be an immediate banning offense.