Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.

[Jackalope]

John, are you privy to the warnings that have been issued?  Is it that we haven't banned him what's sticking in your craw?

You do also understand, don't you, that we act based on what's reported, not every fucking post that someone makes?   Haven you reported any of the issues in question recently?  (I happen to know that the answer is no.)  If you haven't reported it, how the fuck can you reasonably complain that we haven't done anything about it?  How would you even know?

Key word is "recently." I've reported in the past and been shot down, so as a rational person o don't report anymore. If you've done something about it, that's great. Keep it up. But since as you note I don't know what you do, I'm going to assume that the patterns I've seen over a couple of years are continuing unitl there's evidence otherwise.

We don't make public the results of reports, but I can tell you that he's been warned recently for that *exact behavior* and if it continues in the future, then it will be escalated.

Frankly, John, you've got little room to complain about posts we don't act on if you don't report them.

Again, I was told that in the past, I reported, and the votes weren't there, as you put it. I'm not going to bang my head against the wall with continued reports, particularly as you guys use that as a weapon, and then ban the person for reporting too many posts.

We do that only when they *flood* us with reports, usually when they're upset that something didn't go their way.

As far as not taking action on your prior reports - we don't take action on the majority of reports we receive, no matter who it is, because they're not actionable.  We're happy to explain why we don't take action on a particular report.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Look, moderate the goddamn forum with a clean conscience, and if you adhere to your system, most of the folks will continue to be happy.

There will always be critics and backseat drivers. Giving them the satisfaction of seeing this protest is not likely to mollify them and stop the protesting.

If you want to make omelets, you've got to break a few eggs. The system builds plurality into a decision and that prevents abuse, presumably.

And for the membership here, would you like it if your supervisor criticized you publicly at your job? Ask after, and if need be discuss and criticize, a decision you don't like in private.

[robvalue]

Member: I don't like what x is saying
Moderator: make a report
Member: I really don't like what they are saying, tell them everyone!
Moderator: make a report
Member: I shouldn't have to make a report, just do something about this!
Moderator: make a report
Member: fine! Here's fifty reports!

[Jackalope]

Member: I don't like what x is saying
Moderator: make a report
Member: I really don't like what they are saying, tell them everyone!
Moderator: make a report
Member: I shouldn't have to make a report, just do something about this!
Moderator: make a report
Member: fine! Here's fifty reports!

What could possibly go wrong?

[Whateverist]

Again, I was told that in the past, I reported, and the votes weren't there, as you put it. I'm not going to bang my head against the wall with continued reports, particularly as you guys use that as a weapon, and then ban the person for reporting too many posts.

Seems excessively whiny to me.  So you think the rules should be formatted in such a way as to alleviate the need for you to register a complaint when you feel aggrieved so as to protect you from being accused of abusing the reporting system.  I think you use your best judgement and then take your chances, the same as the rest of us.  We like the rules the way they are.  If you don't, hasta la vista baby.

[John V]

Again, I was told that in the past, I reported, and the votes weren't there, as you put it. I'm not going to bang my head against the wall with continued reports, particularly as you guys use that as a weapon, and then ban the person for reporting too many posts.

Seems excessively whiny to me.  So you think the rules should be formatted in such a way as to alleviate the need for you to register a complaint when you feel aggrieved so as to protect you from being accused of abusing the reporting system.  I think you use your best judgement and then take your chances, the same as the rest of us.  We like the rules the way they are.  If you don't, hasta la vista baby.

The rules don't bother me. I'm just calling bullshit on their claims to be so fair and unbiased. As I said, it's their forum and they can do what they want. If they want to play favorites, why deny it?

[Whateverist]

You are like a child. The world isn't fair! Boo hoo. Well no, it isn't. But what we have here is an attempt to codify a series of checks and balances and a set of rules which will maximize freedom of expression without too many flame-ups. They work pretty well, though no, of course not perfectly. Please point me to a Christian website where the rules are conducive to a freer, less repressive exchange of ideas. I'll wait.

[John V]

You are like a child.  The world isn't fair!  Boo hoo.  Well no, it isn't.

LMAO! I'm not the one "on strike."

But what we have here is an attempt to codify a series of checks and balances and a set of rules which will maximize freedom of expression without too many flame-ups.  They work pretty well, though no, of course not perfectly.  Please point me to a Christian website where the rules are conducive to a freer, less repressive exchange of ideas.  I'll wait.

And atheists here bitch about those Christian websites regularly. Guess you can dish it out but you can't take it.

[Tonus]

Seems excessively whiny to me.

I think he has a point.  It's simply the way the system is set up: you make reports, and they are considered for action, then action is or is not taken.  Results are not posted (the best option, IMO-- publishing those would add to the workload and create a lot more headaches for the staff) so you won't know the result unless something obvious happens or you ask one of the staff.  I think it's a good system and I trust the people running it, but I also don't make an emotional investment in it like I did when I was younger.  Bias runs both ways, and the system really isn't built to deal with that in a manner that will satisfy everyone.  John seems to understand that, so it's less whining and more of a "this is how it looks from where I am standing."

Mind you, when I was a mod/admin I was more touchy than any of the mod team here.  The site admin at that place was a no-nonsense type when it came to making it clear that it was his place and his rules and the door was that way if you didn't like it.  On at least two occasions he banned several people who were otherwise productive and useful members of the place and it alarmed me, but he felt that establishing his control of the place was worth the risk.  It's a very busy forum these days, more than a decade later.  And holy shit, my login still works.  Last visit, September of 2011. :o

[Whateverist]

I briefly posted on a one a xtian site but found people enormously defensive and hostile about it. Not every theist who shows up here gets that treatment. When they do it is often because they carry that defensiveness and hostility in here with them.

But seriously, do you think any xtian website is any where near as open and fair as this one? And I'm talking about the structure of the rules and their enforcement, not the conduct of the members. There is a sizable number in each camp which will gladly cast a first stone. But if you know of a xtian site that runs a better ship than this one, why are you here instead of there? Please tell me so I can try it out. (Hint: if admitting to being an admitted atheist is grounds for banning, not interested.)

---

Mind you, when I was a mod/admin I was more touchy than any of the mod team here.  The site admin at that place was a no-nonsense type when it came to making it clear that it was his place and his rules and the door was that way if you didn't like it.  On at least two occasions he banned several people who were otherwise productive and useful members of the place and it alarmed me, but he felt that establishing his control of the place was worth the risk.  It's a very busy forum these days, more than a decade later.  And holy shit, my login still works.  Last visit, September of 2011. :o

Now you have me curious, which site was that?