Should the moderators tell people why they are suspending people?

If you're going to ask people to vote shouldn't you tell them why you selected that person?

That makes sense. I think that in terms of the member who is currently under consideration of being banned many of us know why the suspension was given.

Bogins? Please.

Ex-Pat-Pegger wrote:That makes sense. I think that in terms of the member who is currently under consideration of being banned many of us know why the suspension was given.

Bogins? Please.

Well said EPP. Thanks

I'll agree with that ex-pat...it would be like starting a thread with a heading "niggers" or in some areas "indians"

It's a negative connotation generally used to incite and inflame.

As was stated in that thread...I thought it was about toboggan slides in Winnipeg (not that I want to think about them yet)...but was a bit offended by the slang incendiary term (once I learned what it was).

Perhaps a ban for one offense would be a bit much...but certainly a directive to change the title of the thread to avoid the inflammation. Mentioning the word within the thread (if put in an appropriate context) may be acceptable...such as to define or explain what something or perception of someone is.

That was just "flaming" imo.

The mods could edit out the word b****S much like n****r....and left it without impact ... the flame would have died...(20/20 hindsight btw).

Not if he'd continue to bring it up.
I have a suggestion:
Why not make a special forum beside this one directed only to troublemakers, and let them BS themselves to cyber-death.

It depends on how much you want your new forum to be consumed with "teh dramaz".

If you invite public announcements, voting, figurative flogging - what does it do to the culture and tone of the whole site and discussion board?

If someone is banned or removed for stuff they did in very public forums, that's one thing. Lots of times people get banned from sites for stuff that isn't so public - harassing other members by PM, threats, that kind of thing. That kind of stuff does NOT need to get aired in public, and I would be disgusted if it did just because the new mods are determined to be so "transparent", etc.

Frankly, I think with every new forum (ESPECIALLY one that evolves out of leaving the format and rules of another forum), you will have people testing the limits and boundaries. And you will always have the attention-seekers that do that no matter how new the place is. If you want to have a place that is community-moderated, publicly flogging and banning the first test case is not a good start. I belong to an online community that is mostly community-moderated. When people like NB happen along, they are either ignored by most community members, or it is just made clear that their posting style does not fit in. If the person wants to fit in, they change their style. If they don't, and their goal was attention or disruption, they tire and go away. Trouble with that is that it takes patience, and it takes more than one day. So yeah, the mods have to sit back a bit and not push the Big Red Button. The times that admin have to actually ban someone is rare.

I do think that physical threats should always be a bannable offence. Because you never know how serious someone is, and just for the one case that is a real wack-job, you have to make a blanket policy.

Another good reason as mods to keep bannings and suspensions out of public discussion: If you hold other people to a list of hard and fast rules, you will find your own selves being scrutinized. And you will find people waaah-ing over every time a well-established member goofs up and crosses "the line" with a post. If you want to set yourselves up as the police and have nothing better to do than scrutinize, explain and justify everything that is said, it's a lot of work.

I think the best policy is to just ignore the trolls (ever hear "don't feed the trolls", let things settle, and let the community atmosphere become your moderation. I "get" that everyone here is uber-sensitive about rules and trolls and banning right now. So that's why I think now is not the time to make hard policy. Let the dust settle.

Well said darkwind and I agree with you. This is a very new forum and it takes time to establish.

Me thinks there's a big difference between a slipped bad comment, and tons of bad disruptive comments.
So a guy gets banned. Will he learn? Maybe yes, maybe no. Will he come back, will he continue? Who knows.
My last thought: I personally DO NOT like having offensive comments archived in this forum, for the sake of new friendly members, if the comments don't get deleted, at least park them in a "trash can", so only who's really interested, will go dig through the "rubbish".

Electrician wrote:So a guy gets banned. Will he learn? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Since the moderators of this site banned from NW you should ask them if they learned anything.

JTF wrote:That was just "flaming" imo.

The mods could edit out the word b****S much like n****r....and left it without impact ... the flame would have died...(20/20 hindsight btw).

I agree Jimmy.

It seems to me that this NB guy started another thread with a more politically correct thread title and that was the one that got deleted. The mods have admitted they deleted the thread.. they just can't seem to own up to the fact that they deleted the wrong thread. But that's our fault right?

Me thinks that this is a slippery slope. Next up, metal detectors and dogs.

Darkwind you totally sound like a NW moderator.

"I do think that physical threats should always be a bannable offence. Because you never know how serious someone is, and just for the one case that is a real wack-job, you have to make a blanket policy."

LOL.. I love it that it's gothchic who agrees with you. If the rules applied to her she'd be gone long ago. LOL

TOO FUNNY.

paper wrote:Darkwind you totally sound like a NW moderator.

"I do think that physical threats should always be a bannable offence. Because you never know how serious someone is, and just for the one case that is a real wack-job, you have to make a blanket policy."

LOL.. I love it that it's gothchic who agrees with you. If the rules applied to her she'd be gone long ago. LOL

TOO FUNNY.

Really??? Who did I physically threaten? If you are referring to my quote from google groups which I said I would be tempted then please .

Being tempted to do something is a far cry from a threat.

That's not the way I heard it from ewinnipeg. I heard you wanted to punch someone... tempted.. wanted to.. pretty much the same thing to most cops.

paper wrote:That's not the way I heard it from ewinnipeg. I heard you wanted to punch someone... tempted.. wanted to.. pretty much the same thing to most cops.

Feel free to call them sean! :-) PM me and I will give you my name, address, phone number.

LOL, wanting to punch somebody is not a threat......
I want to punch a whole whack of folk, doesn't mean I'd do it, the same way wanting to win the lottery doesn't make one a millionaire.
I'd like punch alex too, but that would be like kicking a puppy, seeing how he is a self professed pacifist (coward). So I would not do it, where is the fun. He'd probably drop and roll like he did in front of his house last winter when some loon jumped him. Man, that was good reading.

Wanting to kill someone is not a crime. Posting your wanting on a public forum is.

I'm with Mike.

paper wrote:Wanting to kill someone is not a crime. Posting your wanting on a public forum is.

Kill? Who said kill? Putting words in peoples mouths again...tsk tsk

ewinnipeg.

paper wrote:ewinnipeg.

Where does it say kill? And who said kill?

lol.... no, I'm not a NW moderator. I used to be a mod on another site (not related to winnipeg) a long time ago, and I learned a lot from the experience though. And I have had disputes with people online that evolved into threats and it's not something I take lightly.

I plan on lurking around here and if the tone of discussions settles down to something I enjoy, I'll stick around.

paper wrote:That's not the way I heard it from ewinnipeg. I heard you wanted to punch someone... tempted.. wanted to.. pretty much the same thing to most cops.

Hearsay. I move to strike.

Come on. its semantics.

paper wrote:ewinnipeg.

Please provide a link.

Goth_chic wrote:

paper wrote:Darkwind you totally sound like a NW moderator.

"I do think that physical threats should always be a bannable offence. Because you never know how serious someone is, and just for the one case that is a real wack-job, you have to make a blanket policy."

LOL.. I love it that it's gothchic who agrees with you. If the rules applied to her she'd be gone long ago. LOL

TOO FUNNY.

Really??? Who did I physically threaten? If you are referring to my quote from google groups which I said I would be tempted then please .

Being tempted to do something is a far cry from a threat.

This sounds just like someone who felt threatend, I know who so do the boys .

jimjim wrote:I'm with Mike.

who is mike?