Banning criteria.

[Beto]

Thought Criminal was recently banned. All I read in the Probation subforum was:

"If you can't see this, then this is your mental defect and I don't want to hear another word about it."

I'm perfectly aware of TC's general political incorrectness and bluntness, and granted, TC wasn't always very polite, but is it enough to ban a member like TC, someone who often wrote very interesting posts, and with a verbosity level well above average, while members that add zilch to debate like InTheFlesh keep on cluttering threads? Moderators may tell me "if you don't feel ITF adds to debate, than ignore him, but he's not being impolite to anyone". True, but is being "polite" (and I'd argue that about ITF) more important than anything else? Why can't people that feel offended by TC ignore him? This is ridiculous. You're all perfectly aware the level of TC's debating skills. I'm honestly very disappointed at the criteria this forum has for banning people. Daedalus was another one that was capable of very interesting posts.

I'm now deprived of their opinions while members like ITF are free to ignore rule #5 to their heart's content. I was learning a great deal from TC, and this simply isn't fair.

[Confused]

Thought Criminal was recently banned. All I read in the Probation subforum was:

"If you can't see this, then this is your mental defect and I don't want to hear another word about it."

I'm perfectly aware of TC's general political incorrectness and bluntness, and granted, TC wasn't always very polite, but is it enough to ban a member like TC, someone who often wrote very interesting posts, and with a verbosity level well above average, while members that add zilch to debate like InTheFlesh keep on cluttering threads? Moderators may tell me "if you don't feel ITF adds to debate, than ignore him, but he's not being impolite to anyone". True, but is being "polite" (and I'd argue that about ITF) more important than anything else? Why can't people that feel offended by TC ignore him? This is ridiculous. You're all perfectly aware the level of TC's debating skills. I'm honestly very disappointed at the criteria this forum has for banning people. Daedalus was another one that was capable of very interesting posts.

I'm now deprived of their opinions while members like ITF are free to ignore rule #5 to their heart's content. I was learning a great deal from TC, and this simply isn't fair.

Backlash was expected from the banning of TC. However, the final straw was calling another forum member an incompetent parent. We all agree the he was intelligent and made good points, but his presentation was rude, uncivil, and did not encourage open debate in the least. He cried foul when someone broke the very rules he broke himself.

If you feel we were not fair in banning him, then I am sorry you feel that way. But he was given as many opportunities as twobitsmedia was to learn how to present his information with respect. Even on probation, he could not do this. The alternative was what?

[Beto]

However, the final straw was calling another forum member an incompetent parent.

But I also think the non-vaccination of children is incompetent parenting and social irresponsibility. They're strong words, for sure, and I would personally choose not to go there, but not resorting to euphemisms isn't reason to be banned. Can't the offended parties ignore the member?

We all agree the he was intelligent and made good points, but his presentation was rude, uncivil, and did not encourage open debate in the least. He cried foul when someone broke the very rules he broke himself.

My question remains the same. If any member can be ignored, why is this possibility denied regarding a rude member that so often wrote interesting posts? You're demanding from every member that "politeness" be more important than the presentation of supported arguments. This could make an interesting poll.

If you feel we were not fair in banning him, then I am sorry you feel that way. But he was given as many opportunities as twobitsmedia was to learn how to present his information with respect. Even on probation, he could not do this. The alternative was what?

Ignoring? I'm just not entirely sure "respect" is the most important attribute in a forum with an available "ignore" function.

[Confused]

However, the final straw was calling another forum member an incompetent parent.

But I also think the non-vaccination of children is incompetent parenting and social irresponsibility. They're strong words, for sure, and I would personally choose not to go there, but not resorting to euphemisms isn't reason to be banned. Can't the offended parties ignore the member?

The heading of this forum is CIVIL. That is a concept he could not grasp. No one should have to ignore others. You may think that it is socially irresponsible and that is your right. But you have no right to call another parent incompetent because of it and still expect to be taken as "civil". And that was hardly the only cause Beto. TC has been breaking rules left and right for quite a while. He casts insults and then cries foul when they are cast back at him. This wasn't a one time occurrence. But the point of being on probation is to give the person the opportunity to show that they DO want to stay here and are willingly to adhere to the rules. TC did none of that. And for the record, no, the moderators are not allowed to "ignore" anyone. We get to read every report and every post whether we choose to or not. It is still our responsibility.

We all agree the he was intelligent and made good points, but his presentation was rude, uncivil, and did not encourage open debate in the least. He cried foul when someone broke the very rules he broke himself.

My question remains the same. If any member can be ignored, why is this possibility denied regarding a rude member that so often wrote interesting posts? You're demanding from every member that "politeness" be more important than the presentation of supported arguments. This could make an interesting poll.

If this is in regards to ITF, then I cannot comment on it right now. I am not requesting politeness. I am requesting respect. Supporting arguments is another topic we are also discussing, so please, if you feel we are ignoring something, ask us.

If you feel we were not fair in banning him, then I am sorry you feel that way. But he was given as many opportunities as twobitsmedia was to learn how to present his information with respect. Even on probation, he could not do this. The alternative was what?

Ignoring? I'm just not entirely sure "respect" is the most important attribute in a forum with an available "ignore" function.

Again, we are not allowed to ignore any of you as moderators. So that option isn't open to us. But IMO, respect is as important to an open and civilized debate as supporting your position. Again, take note, that is an issue we are addressing, but we do have other things in life we must take care of aside from the forum and I am sorry if they cause us to not move fast enough.

[Beto]

The heading of this forum is CIVIL.

I understand that. But whether or not "rudeness" is less "civil" than other debating behaviors is kind of a personal matter. My problem is that I feel this decision is being made for me, but perhaps that's the only way.

That is a concept he could not grasp. No one should have to ignore others. You may think that it is socially irresponsible and that is your right. But you have no right to call another parent incompetent because of it and still expect to be taken as "civil". And that was hardly the only cause Beto. TC has been breaking rules left and right for quite a while. He casts insults and then cries foul when they are cast back at him. This wasn't a one time occurrence. But the point of being on probation is to give the person the opportunity to show that they DO want to stay here and are willingly to adhere to the rules. TC did none of that.

I agree that by the current criteria TC was properly banned.

And for the record, no, the moderators are not allowed to "ignore" anyone. We get to read every report and every post whether we choose to or not. It is still our responsibility.

That is a bummer, but I suppose it comes with the territory. That's precisely why I'm not moderator material. Same reason I'm not fit for "customer service". It takes a special patient sort.

If this is in regards to ITF, then I cannot comment on it right now. I am not requesting politeness. I am requesting respect. Supporting arguments is another topic we are also discussing, so please, if you feel we are ignoring something, ask us.

No, it wasn't specifically about ITF. I'm getting frustrated because I understand why some members loose their patience. I feel only the symptoms are being tackled, when the underlying cause, despite being ruled on, can't really be moderated. I suppose I'm complaining over a system flaw that just can't be fixed without indulging a different democratic flaw that could be even worse.

Again, take note, that is an issue we are addressing, but we do have other things in life we must take care of aside from the forum and I am sorry if they cause us to not move fast enough.

I also apologize, but for having too much free time on my hands. I appreciate the answers.

[Vanguard]

I am somewhat ambivalent myself about TC's banning though I do understand why this decision was made. Every standard can ultimately be challenged though there is no way of escaping this. TC, as did daedalus2.0, understood full well the standard set though they decided to skirt the edge of that standard. I wish TC well as it is merely a practicality that he was banned. He was a sharp mind but in need of a forum who's standard allowed for his flavor of uncivility. The balance on this forum I believe is a wedding of all important considerations though by definition still ulitmatley flawed. The point is, this site is the least flawed.

[otseng]

Thought Criminal was recently banned. All I read in the Probation subforum was:

"If you can't see this, then this is your mental defect and I don't want to hear another word about it."

That was my fault. I hadn't posted his latest violations that led to his banishment. I've since added the offending posts.

someone who often wrote very interesting posts, and with a verbosity level well above average

I would agree with you on these points.

Why can't people that feel offended by TC ignore him? This is ridiculous.

We cannot allow people to post on this forum and violate the rules without enforcing those rules. Though individuals might be able to ignore people, the general public are still able to read the posts.

You're all perfectly aware the level of TC's debating skills. I'm honestly very disappointed at the criteria this forum has for banning people. Daedalus was another one that was capable of very interesting posts.

I feel we gave them both plenty of warnings to follow the policies here.

The selling point of this forum is civility. If we do not enforce that, then we lose our distinctiveness and our drawing card.

[Beto]

The selling point of this forum is civility. If we do not enforce that, then we lose our distinctiveness and our drawing card.

Yes, I agree. The alternative may have more immediate results, but perhaps less long term benefits.

EDIT: "Alternative" being the prioritizing of "debate etiquette" over civility.

[Zzyzx]

.

We cannot allow people to post on this forum and violate the rules without enforcing those rules. Though individuals might be able to ignore people, the general public are still able to read the posts.

The selling point of this forum is civility. If we do not enforce that, then we lose our distinctiveness and our drawing card.

I agree 100%.

The unique character of this forum is that it is perfectly level "playing field" with no partiality shown to any point of view AND it is a place where blatant incivility is not acceptable. I have posted in forums where one or the other of these characteristics is missing – and find them unpleasant and unproductive.

If we cannot present our arguments focused upon IDEAS rather personalities we are functioning at a low level. Let those who insist on doing so be encouraged to go where discussion is more their style.

Thanks to admin and the moderating team for maintaining the character of DC&R.

[C-Nub]

Honestly, I've found TC's recent contributions to be counter-productive, interesting as he may have been, I think he was doing more harm than good. He rarely encountered an opposing opinion that he didn't respond to rudely, and that detracted from the overall forum more than his general ability and contributions added to it, so I definitely agree with him having been banned.

I think that the staff here have a very fine line to walk, and I think they generally do a good job. One could point to TC and Daedalus and point out a number of good qualities or solid contributions.

Things are dealt with here on a case by case basis, and there seems to be a fairly good system of 'trial by committee' in which the moderators discuss the pros and cons of any action they're planning on taking. This is at least partially an assumption on my part, but that seems to be what's happening, and that's probably the best way to handle it.

There's no way to represent everyone's point of view. Some people are going to see bias on either side, whenever action is taken, where as some people will feel that it's justified while others will wonder why it took so long to get it done in the first place. Some, of course, will be entirely indifferent as well.


I am of the opinion that the individual groups need to step up and take more responsibility towards how their members post. Atheists, for example, need to watch and police other atheists, to prevent the presentation and opinions of members like TC and Daedalus from representing us all. This is something I have a thread regarding in the A-Room.

I think an appeals process would be a step in the right direction too, if enough members of the community disagree with a moderator / staff decision, there should be a means to address that disagreement and a system underwhich to it can be resolved to the majority's satisfaction.

We, as participants, have a fine line to walk as well. There will be times when scorn is absolutely called for, and when people can't help but condescend towards the more outrageous philosophies presented. That's unavoidable in any society, any human interaction, but what we have to learn to do is present it appropriately, articulate not only the 'what' of how we feel, but the 'why' as well. I'm not above getting angry or sarcastic, and its something I have to watch more closely here than in my day to day life. That said, I think it does have a place here, sarcasm is a valuable tool that can be used to an argument's advantage as well as oppositely.

If there are serious objections to decisions that are being made, then a serious effort has to be made to address those complaints, and a dialogue between administration and the members of this forum has to be organized in such a way as to give both sides equal 'floor time' and arrive to a mutually benificially conclusion. If not enough people feel that management has erred, then the minority of complainers have to pretty much man-up and deal with it.