Discussing Banned Members

[Too Much Garlic]

Especially since we've all been scammed and don't want to see others get scammed in such a way that they may lose their interest in the hobby because of the scammer and also because we could have prevented it but chose to do nothing.

I can understand the rule of not showing or generally talking about banned members or their wares... but to limit the ability of members to warn others about potential scammers that are known to us and likely banned from here... is not a good choice.

If a member makes those snide comments when warning someone... sure... kick that user. But most of us should be adults - not sure we are able to act like one - and should hold our tongues with the personal crap and just state the facts.

For instance... there are new forums popping up all over... if someone knows the guy creating one of those is a known recaster for instance and banned from here for scamming others... and some user of the RPF posts a link to that forum... then whoever tells the user that the forum creator is a scammer and recaster will get warned for saying so? That just can't be the reason for this rule.

 

[Art Andrews]

At this point, arguing this subject is more or less moot as the rules on this have changed.

http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?p=1094652#post1094652

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Crap... how dare you change things before I've bitched about something and scolded you enough?

 

[outlander]

To my pal from Michigan

Not sure why that would be relevent a sockpuppet is a sockpuppet and will be removed by the staff.

A virus is a virus. You do not knowingly expose yourself because you have confidence that modern antibiotics can deal with it.

A CANCER IS A CANCER.

A marginally competant attorney will claim that his points should have expired.

Unethial business practices should result in permanent banning, not "badboy points". Discussion of those members should be allowed when possible to alert others who might get victimized.

I agree that not discussing members banned for general internet sociopathic and nihilism is the way to go and should be discouraged. When those names come up, those who have long memories are hard pressed to refrain from venting spleen. I am guilty of this failing myself.

Although the last time I was accused of hiding behind a keyboard it was from a twerpy kid in Ireland who accused me of hiding behind the boardname of Jeff A. Simon.rolleyeswacko:lol

Some of these nerds are so precosious [sp] that it is precious.

I heartily urge those with an incessant urge to take up causes and arguement to consider joining the A.C.L.U. http://www.aclu.org/
and not worry about whether a nerd's nerdly rights are being trampled here on this board. Non-Americans are welcome to join and send all the checks they want.

 

[ItsThatGuy]

At this point, arguing this subject is more or less moot as the rules on this have changed.

http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?p=1094652#post1094652

What about previously banned people? Are they now allowed back?

 

[Art Andrews]

What about previously banned people? Are they now allowed back?

Today's clarification of the rules is in regard to actions going forward and has no bearing on past decisions or actions. We are moving forward into the future and unlike many, have no interest in rehashing the past. At this time we are not considering the reinstatement of any banned members nor can I imagine a time when we would.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Art, isn't this line a bit much?

Please note that your actions outside the confines of the site may affect your membership.

 

[Lear60man]

Hey Art I got one.............Say banned member X makes, or made a great 'helmet' but was banned at his own request, not due to bad deals. A helmet thread pops up can I chime in with "I love my member X helmet?"

I get and agree with the reasons given. I also know that using initials is sketchy at best to get around the rule. But this one has me a little stumped as it is for the benefit for all.
Chrisitan

 

[Art Andrews]

Art, isn't this line a bit much?

Two words... Guy Raz... need I say more?

 

[Darkknight0667]

Say banned member . . . was banned at his own request, not due to bad deals.

This situation has always stuck in my craw a bit. What about these former members? They were in good standing (not scammers or trolls) and for whatever reason, they asked for their account to be closed. Now, some time later (months, years, whatever), they would like to rejoin the community. Can the rules be adjusted to allow for their reinstatement? There doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for keeping them out. When I brought the question up in the past, a former staff member's explanation came down to it being too much work to cancel and reinstate folks.

 

[Art Andrews]

Hey Art I got one.............Say banned member X makes, or made a great 'helmet' but was banned at his own request, not due to bad deals. A helmet thread pops up can I chime in with "I love my member X helmet?"

I get and agree with the reasons given. I also know that using initials is sketchy at best to get around the rule. But this one has me a little stumped as it is for the benefit for all.
Chrisitan

Christian,

In the past, technically, no you weren't allowed to say that although many did and it was often overlooked.

One of the things we looked at when going back over the CoC and clarifying these guidelines were rules that stated one thing, but in day to day practice the rule was not applied or not followed.

In regard to not discussing banned members, lets face it, they are mentioned all the time... and sometimes members were dinged for it and sometimes they weren't.

So we went back and revisited that rule to see what the original intent of the rule was and how we could reshape the rule to fit the current community.

To the best of our understanding the rule was more or less created for the 4 initial reasons I gave in this thread.

However, as time has progressed since the rule was created, we have seen issues with this rule that can result in an inability to inform new members of important information as well as the inability of certain members to show off pieces of their collection simply because the piece is from a banned member.

How have we achieved the intent of the initial rule not cutting off members ability share information on a banned member or their product? By utilizing a couple of other rules.

There are those who want to show off pieces of their collection that may have come from a banned member... and a lot of that will come down to what you perceived intent is... are you showing off a piece or are you shilling for that banned member? We are all adults here so I would ask that members not play games with us in these regards or try to skirt the rules in these areas. We have made every effort to give you more wiggle room and the ability to share your love of the hobby unencumbered. Please don't try to take advantage of it.

 

[Art Andrews]

This situation has always stuck in my craw a bit. What about these former members? They were in good standing (not scammers or trolls) and for whatever reason, they asked for their account to be closed. Now, some time later (months, years, whatever), they would like to rejoin the community. Can the rules be adjusted to allow for their reinstatement? There doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for keeping them out. When I brought the question up in the past, a former staff member's explanation came down to it being too much work to cancel and reinstate folks.

Again, at this time we are not considering the reinstatement of any banned members, regardless of the reason for the ban, nor are we interested in discussing/debating the reinstatement of banned members.

I can't speak on behalf of previous staff members and I can't speak about the ease or difficulty of reinstating a member account within software previous to vBulletin, but I will tell you that this is not a technical matter (within vBulletin, it is a matter of moving a member from one group to another).

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Two words... Guy Raz... need I say more?

Ah...I was thinking that you were mainly focused on conduct on other boards and such. I completely overlooked the legal aspect of things.

 

[Darkknight0667]

I can understand that stance for members who were banned for cause, but not for those who left voluntarily. As there was no reason for their banning, other than their own personal ones, it seems that there should be no reason to not allow them to come back.

As for the old reasoning, it wasn't a technical issue then either. More of a "we don't want to be bothered with doing it".

Anyway, I hope that you and the staff will consider this issue further in the future.

 

[defstartrooper]

A virus is a virus. You do not knowingly expose yourself because you have confidence that modern antibiotics can deal with it.

A CANCER IS A CANCER.

A marginally competant attorney will claim that his points should have expired.

Unethial business practices should result in permanent banning, not "badboy points". Discussion of those members should be allowed when possible to alert others who might get victimized.

I agree that not discussing members banned for general internet sociopathic and nihilism is the way to go and should be discouraged. When those names come up, those who have long memories are hard pressed to refrain from venting spleen. I am guilty of this failing myself.

Although the last time I was accused of hiding behind a keyboard it was from a twerpy kid in Ireland who accused me of hiding behind the boardname of Jeff A. Simon.

Some of these nerds are so precosious [sp] that it is precious.

Perhaps a little pedantic but antibiotics don't affect viruses they kill bacteria two completely different beasties, and even if they did antibodies are created from the bacteria they are designed to attack, so you see ignoring the disease won't lead to a cure.

With regard to point expiration arguement , from a legal standpoint any lawyer will also tell you that this is a private members forum not public property and therefore the owners are free within the law to restrict access to anyone they wish for any reason they wish.
They don't have to give a reason or discuss it or mention it at all to anyone, the fact that they do is purely voluntary on their part.

Unethical practices should result in a permanent banning yes and as i read the rule updates this is still the case just as it was before, yes it's true that warnings expire after 12 months but the rules also state that a member can be banned without this warning structure should the staff feel that is needed.

The last point well i guess people will have to learn some self restraint in how they express their feelings, including me :lol

 

[Art Andrews]

DK0667, I do understand where you are coming from and I won't say that we will NEVER consider it, but it is something we are not considering at this time.

I will tell you that in the short time that I have been on the staff, I have had a number of members ask to have their accounts banned and I have done everything I could to discourage them from making that decision final, because as the policy stands it IS final and often the things we are bent out of shape about today and make melodramatic pronouncements about today seem silly and trivial in the light of tomorrow. We do everything we can to point this out to members and to discourage them from self-banning.

 

[Darkknight0667]

DK0667, I do understand where you are coming from and I won't say that we will NEVER consider it, but it is something we are not considering at this time.

I'm glad to hear that the subject isn't closed forever.

I will tell you that in the short time that I have been on the staff, I have had a number of members ask to have their accounts banned and I have done everything I could to discourage them from making that decision final, because as the policy stands it IS final and often the things we are bent out of shape about today and make melodramatic pronouncements about today seem silly and trivial in the light of tomorrow. We do everything we can to point this out to members and to discourage them from self-banning.

You're absolutely right. And what seems like a final, unchanging decision today to never return to the board might change a couple years down the line.

 

[outlander]

Perhaps a little pedantic but antibiotics don't affect viruses they kill bacteria

I suppose I should have used snakebites and anti-venoms for my analogy rather than aimed for viral infections and vaccines. That was looming in the back of my mind as I typed -- but I thought "What the heck, they'll get the point."

I should have remembered where I was and who I was talking to.

Thank you DST for that correction which changes nothing but does waste the valuable time of others. Speaking of infections that waste the time of others: DST I am still wondering about your rationale for the desirability of voluntary exposure.

 

[defstartrooper]

I suppose I should have used snakebites and anti-venoms for my analogy rather than aimed for viral infections and vaccines. That was looming in the back of my mind as I typed -- but I thought "What the heck, they'll get the point."

I should have remembered where I was and who I was talking to.

Thank you DST for that correction which changes nothing but does waste the valuable time of others. Speaking of infections that waste the time of others: DST I am still wondering about your rationale for the desirability of voluntary exposure.

You really shouldn't be wondering at this point i've made myself perfectly clear.

 

[outlander]

You really shouldn't be wondering at this point i've made myself perfectly clear.

You know, I know two gents from Essex in the U.K., one named Tim and one named Steve. Known them for years. I could listen to them talk all day. I never get tired of listening to their wit and charm.

And then there's you....

Child - yes you are - I am done wasting my time with you, the prince of pointless semantics and argumentation.

I now return you to your pointless existance. I am sure I will encounter you on some other thread arguing pontless semantics on important RPF topics such as global warming and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I know you will be powerless to refrain from responding...I've only seen one nerd with worse lastworditus... a lawyer on the East coast.

Please send your fascinating and unending commentary to:

>evilwarlockstudios@yahoo.com< so I might savor the cornacopia of your occasional logic and wit privately, without subjecting the other members of this forum to your endless drivel.