Thread Tags from Banned Users

Bop

Bop

Remember the Treeline
Hello, [MENTION=5141]Shane[/MENTION] [MENTION=10938]Broken[/MENTION] [MENTION=5623]Silinrul[/MENTION]

Recently a number of members have received Thread Tags from a banned user.

Having a banned member, whose voice on TI has been silenced, have the ability to spend their time to cause even a slight inconvenience to actual members is a problem that needs to be remedied.

Thank you for your time,

~Bop of Mok'Nathal

P.S., I report this officially with perhaps a shade of regret. Being able to push one button to wipe away all of the time and effort that this person put into causing me the slightest of grievances gave me an inordinate amount of satisfaction.
 
I don't even know what thread tags are, so I guess I've been lucky, but... Banned users shouldn't be able to interact with the site at all. I have also seen posts getting "like"s from banned users as well.

There's a larger issue going on here, one that I think needs addressing by the top admins. When a user is banned, it's usually only for a time, to make them learn a lesson and change their behavior. I would be interested in seeing the rates of recidivism (that's criminal justice speak for "likely to do it again") of those people who have been banned. I would guess that just about every person who has been banned for a time has ended up continuing their behavior and ultimately getting perma-banned.

But the problem--and here is where the changes need to happen--is if someone who has been banned is making ANY efforts to "get back at" the mods, the site, or even the people they think were "responsible" for them getting banned, then that person needs to be immediately perma-banned and blacklisted. If you are given a punishment as an opportunity to correct your behavior, and you use it instead as an opportunity to childishly lash out, and clearly not learning your lesson, then you are not redeemable and we, the larger community, are better off never seeing your face here again.

Permanent banishment needs to actually MEAN something. There needs to be more vigilance against people who are trying to "get back at" the people they hold responsible for their ban. Mark these words: nobody is responsible for a person getting banned except for that person. If a banned person is behaving in a manner that shows they think someone else is responsible for them getting banned, then they are not taking responsibility for their own actions that got them banned. And if they aren't going to take responsibility for the actions that got them banned, then they should stay banned. For good.

I'm tired of this pussy-footing around with tolerating bad behavior. There are rules--in some cases very strict rules, that say things like "mandatory automatic ban"--but the mods are NOT enforcing those rules. Shane and crew, please re-train your mods to stick to the letter of the law. There are certain actions that should warrant an automatic response--no deliberation. I applaud you for laying down your "no tolerance" policy on insulting and trolling, and I ask that that no-tolerance policy be actually carried out.

If someone isn't willing to change and correct their ways, we do NOT want them back. If anyone harasses the site while on a temporary ban, that ban needs to be made permanent and unappealable. We don't want people here who don't take responsibility for their own behavior.


EDIT: Actually, I'm being a little harsh in my rebuke. The mods are actually doing a much better job even in the last month than in the six months prior. I think maybe it's not that they need to be re-trained, it's that the two or three who actually do the job need to be praised, the ones who do not do the job need to be respectfully let go, and some new people who are willing to do the job need to be brought on. The sanity of this site really rests on the shoulders of maybe two mods, maybe two and a half, and it's not right for me to decry the whole system without giving due credit to those individuals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Takeo said:
I personally think when someone is suspended or banned (not warned) we should know who and why.
Click to expand...

I agree. There's a rule against members discussing mod actions, which makes sense because we can't have every mod decision be publicly questioned when the mods almost always have more information about the situation than we do. However I agree with you that the mods actually talking about why a person was banned when they are banned would serve several important purposes. It would demonstrate to the community that rules are actually being enforced, it would head off any wild speculation about why a person suddenly disappeared (which can often be more damaging than the truth), and it would give people a clearer idea of what behaviors are acceptable and which are not.
 
Like Hash Tags, I guess. You can tag someone with a button below each thread. Guess that special someone used the "All Friends" checkmark.
 
Luckily, it only takes a click to remove all the notifications. I never thought a banned member could be so desperate in trying to annoy others. Banned members lose the majority of their website permissions, like posting, PM'ing, etc, but I didn't think he'd figure out something like this.

I think this would lie in Shane's domain. He has the ability to edit the permissions banned users would have.


Takeo said:
I personally think when someone is suspended or banned (not warned) we should know who and why.
Click to expand...
Kincaide said:
(...) It would demonstrate to the community that rules are actually being enforced, it would head off any wild speculation about why a person suddenly disappeared (which can often be more damaging than the truth), and it would give people a clearer idea of what behaviors are acceptable and which are not.
Click to expand...

I don't completely disagree with this and I've thought about it myself a few times also. But I'm reluctant about measures like those for two reasons: 1) Publicly shaming the member 2) Attracting extra drama to the situation

When a person breaks the rules, we punish him (with warnings, infractions, bans, etc) accordingly. To then use him as an example, stick his offences on a sign and wave that around the website would, personally, seem a little cruel. Obviously, our intention wouldn't be to further ridicule the banned member but that's what could indirectly happen. I've seen a few forums which keep a "Hall of Shame" thread and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And then, partially also due to what I mentioned above, it could attract extra drama or members might try to make a spectacle out of it. Stuff like that could ruin the atmosphere of the forums.

I don't disagree with your suggestion but I'm just trying to share my opinion. At times I'd also like to reveal the reason why a member has been banned because, like Kincaide mentioned, a few of those wild speculations by the community have included stuff like "That Mod is biased and banned him because of some in-game grudge".

I'm interested in hearing more about this from you guys.
 
Broken said:
Luckily, it only takes a click to remove all the notifications. I never thought a banned member could be so desperate in trying to annoy others. Banned members lose the majority of their website permissions, like posting, PM'ing, etc, but I didn't think he'd figure out something like this.

I think this would lie in Shane's domain. He has the ability to edit the permissions banned users would have.





I don't completely disagree with this and I've thought about it myself a few times also. But I'm reluctant about measures like those for two reasons: 1) Publicly shaming the member 2) Attracting extra drama to the situation

When a person breaks the rules, we punish him (with warnings, infractions, bans, etc) accordingly. To then use him as an example, stick his offences on a sign and wave that around the website would, personally, seem a little cruel. Obviously, our intention wouldn't be to further ridicule the banned member but that's what could indirectly happen. I've seen a few forums which keep a "Hall of Shame" thread and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And then, partially also due to what I mentioned above, it could attract extra drama or members might try to make a spectacle out of it. Stuff like that could ruin the atmosphere of the forums.

I don't disagree with your suggestion but I'm just trying to share my opinion. At times I'd also like to reveal the reason why a member has been banned because, like Kincaide mentioned, a few of those wild speculations by the community have included stuff like "That Mod is biased and banned him because of some in-game grudge".

I'm interested in hearing more about this from you guys.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. I deal with this sort of thing at work.

Maybe a thread that only mods can post in could provide the transparency Kincaide and I suggest and also protect the site's integrity from public shaming and drama escalation.
 
Takeo said:
I get what you're saying. I deal with this sort of thing at work.

Maybe a thread that only mods can post in could provide the transparency Kincaide and I suggest and also protect the site's integrity from public shaming and drama escalation.
Click to expand...

A ban reasoning thread already exists and is used almost on a daily basis :) There is no way we could allow something like this available to regular members though. Sometimes I do publicise peoples reasons for being banned, if I feel they deserve to be called out about it. If we ban somebody then 99.9% of the time it's for a legitimate reason (numerous warnings, major offenses) you just have to trust that we are doing the right thing and answering your reported posts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reasons why members become banned:
CoC violation


That's all I'm going to say. If every single person read the CoC and took it seriously, there wouldn't be any warnings or bans going out. I've said it a thousand times... Before you submit a post, ask yourself if your post is respectful to all, on topic and has some sort of revenant information or opinion.


The CoC is pretty clear and we cannot physically take any action on any account if we cannot site the specific example of how they have violated the CoC.


What that means is... If someone receives any disciplinary action from a moderator or admin, it's because they have breached the CoC in some way or another and in most cases more staff members are brought in to approve of the actions taken.


I know a lot of people love to be rebellious and stick it to the man, but that simply hasn't, doesn't and will not fly on this site.


Our job isn't to flash around "power" on an internet forum. Believe me, I could care less about shutting down people on a forum. The reason why I have accepted this position (twice) is because like you guys, I have been a member of this site for a long time and I like to see Twink.info as an informative and respective community.


These forums are not for trash talking or epeening around. If that's what you are after, make your own free forums and talk all the trash you want over there.


This website is intended to be the best reference of information related to twinking so any level twink can have a place to share information, or learn information from others with minimal clutter.


The rules and regulations by which we act are already publicly accessible and posted all over this site. That's about as transparent as we ever need to be. If you do not understand the CoC or a part of it, ask a Moderator for clarification.


There is also a ban appeal section where banned members attempt to appeal their bans. The entire TI staff sees this and researches each offense and voices their opinions.


If you are curious as to why a member is banned, I guarantee if you check their post history you will find violations. If you do not, then it is because we have had to delete the post / thread all together.
 
Kilda said:
A ban reasoning thread already exists and is used almost on a daily basis :) There is no way we could allow something like this available to regular members though. Sometimes I do publicise peoples reasons for being banned, if I feel they deserve to be called out about it. If we ban somebody then 99.9% of the time it's for a legitimate reason (numerous warnings, major offenses) you just have to trust that we are doing the right thing and answering your reported posts.
Click to expand...

If anything I wrote gave the impression that I was questioning the reasoning or integrity of the admins and mods, please accept my apologies. That was not my intent. Maybe using the word transparency was not the right context. I was not trying to imply that there was anything shady.
 
Kincaide said:
I don't even know what thread tags are, so I guess I've been lucky, but... Banned users shouldn't be able to interact with the site at all. I have also seen posts getting "like"s from banned users as well.

There's a larger issue going on here, one that I think needs addressing by the top admins. When a user is banned, it's usually only for a time, to make them learn a lesson and change their behavior. I would be interested in seeing the rates of recidivism (that's criminal justice speak for "likely to do it again") of those people who have been banned. I would guess that just about every person who has been banned for a time has ended up continuing their behavior and ultimately getting perma-banned.

But the problem--and here is where the changes need to happen--is if someone who has been banned is making ANY efforts to "get back at" the mods, the site, or even the people they think were "responsible" for them getting banned, then that person needs to be immediately perma-banned and blacklisted. If you are given a punishment as an opportunity to correct your behavior, and you use it instead as an opportunity to childishly lash out, and clearly not learning your lesson, then you are not redeemable and we, the larger community, are better off never seeing your face here again.

Permanent banishment needs to actually MEAN something. There needs to be more vigilance against people who are trying to "get back at" the people they hold responsible for their ban. Mark these words: nobody is responsible for a person getting banned except for that person. If a banned person is behaving in a manner that shows they think someone else is responsible for them getting banned, then they are not taking responsibility for their own actions that got them banned. And if they aren't going to take responsibility for the actions that got them banned, then they should stay banned. For good.

I'm tired of this pussy-footing around with tolerating bad behavior. There are rules--in some cases very strict rules, that say things like "mandatory automatic ban"--but the mods are NOT enforcing those rules. Shane and crew, please re-train your mods to stick to the letter of the law. There are certain actions that should warrant an automatic response--no deliberation. I applaud you for laying down your "no tolerance" policy on insulting and trolling, and I ask that that no-tolerance policy be actually carried out.

If someone isn't willing to change and correct their ways, we do NOT want them back. If anyone harasses the site while on a temporary ban, that ban needs to be made permanent and unappealable. We don't want people here who don't take responsibility for their own behavior.


EDIT: Actually, I'm being a little harsh in my rebuke. The mods are actually doing a much better job even in the last month than in the six months prior. I think maybe it's not that they need to be re-trained, it's that the two or three who actually do the job need to be praised, the ones who do not do the job need to be respectfully let go, and some new people who are willing to do the job need to be brought on. The sanity of this site really rests on the shoulders of maybe two mods, maybe two and a half, and it's not right for me to decry the whole system without giving due credit to those individuals.
Click to expand...

tldr: Kincaide wants a mod to lose mod status so he can be mod.

Anybody surprised?
 
Shaket said:
tldr: Kincaide wants a mod to lose mod status so he can be mod.

Anybody surprised?
Click to expand...

Dude, if I felt I had enough time to devote to do the job properly, I would have become a mod a long time ago. I've certainly had enough mods ask me to apply. But I wouldn't want to take on the job and then not have the time to do as good a job at it as I think should be done.

You don't know anything about me, yet you're always quite willing to crawl up my shorts about anything you can find. It's annoying. Do you really think a thread wherein all of the active mods have posted is the wisest place to come around and start insulting and belittling me?
 
I think this thread has been addressed. If there is something else, please open a new thread!

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top