Banning notification (spunoff from "Be part of the solution" thread.)

[findfirefox]

The mods should be much more transparent then they already are. It seems that their moves towards further transparency have done nothing to satisfy their members.

They also need to stop the attitude of being the "all mighty" (or Nazi cunts as some might say). While I understand the structure is supposed to be for Rob_E's benefit, which don't get me wrong makes sense, but isn't it in Rob_E's best interest to happy and satisfied members instead of consistent drama? It would seem to be easier to keep the old members and draw in the new...

Maybe it would be helpful to rotate the older mods out and let the members pick their new mod in some kind of democratic way, again instead of a Members V. Mod system?

I mean you must have some spots since you lost some mods over time...

 

[mindseye]

The mods should be much more transparent then they already are.

Findfirefox --

I'm speaking only on my own behalf here, but I think you've addressed only part of the problem.

There are some grumblings about lack of transparency, but the number of members who are grumbling form only a tiny percentage of our constituency.

I've been sincere about my position on transparency; in fact, my position hasn't changed since I first wrote about it in August 2006:

The decision we made was this: we will not share behind-the-scenes information. This is a promise that we make that your online privacy, your identity, your private messages will not be violated by us. Consider it our 'prime directive', if you're a Star Trek fan.

What this means, is that we're willing to discuss issues like, "Why does the TOS allow X but not Y?" and "Should a decision to do X require a simple majority vote, or something stronger like 2/3 or a unanimous consent?" What we're not willing to discuss are questions about specific cases like "Why did you ban X?"

I understand that some members disagree with that position. They raise the transparency issue without fail after a banning of a prominent member has taken place: Spladle, Stronzo, Doublemeatwhopper, big dirigible, chicagosam, and last week's episode. It's precisely at these times that emotions are running higher, and that an open discussion over what's in the best interest of the board overall becomes overshadowed by the specifics of the recent case.

How open can such a discussion be when you begin the discussion by name-calling? "The almighty" and "Nazi cunts" aren't exactly diplomatic (but then again, we've had members express deathwishes for us before). I shouldn't have to say it, but I will: in fairness, how productive can an open and transparent discussion be when the participants on one side are hurling epithets like that?

I continue to offer to be open about discussing general issues; very few times have I been invited to do so. But I'm not entering a powderkeg while you're holding a pack of matches.

 

[Gonzo3]

Here Here well said mindseye.

 

[Ethyl]

Findfirefox --

I'm speaking only on my own behalf here, but I think you've addressed only part of the problem.

There are some grumblings about lack of transparency, but the number of members who are grumbling form only a tiny percentage of our constituency.

That tiny percentage is made up of people who have been at this site for quite some time and are interested in improving the quality of the site. No one likes being discounted, especially those who have a vested interest.

I've been sincere about my position on transparency; in fact, my position hasn't changed since I first wrote about it in August 2006:


The decision we made was this: we will not share behind-the-scenes information. This is a promise that we make that your online privacy, your identity, your private messages* will not be violated by us. Consider it our 'prime directive', if you're a Star Trek fan.

What this means, is that we're willing to discuss issues like, "Why does the TOS allow X but not Y?" and "Should a decision to do X require a simple majority vote, or something stronger like 2/3 or a unanimous consent?" What we're not willing to discuss are questions about specific cases like "Why did you ban X?"

Feel free to use this thread to discuss ways to improve the TOS (which is a work in progress that needs improvement), or to criticize our prime directive if you'd rather.

Maybe it's time to rethink that decision. Not in the sense that you should divulge everything that happens behind the scenes but give the membership some confidence that there IS work in progress on problems at hand. All it would take is a few words: "We're working on the problem and we'll make a decision soon" or something to that effect. When there is silence from the moderators/administrators, the membership will assume that the problem is not in the process of being solved. That's natural. I think most members would agree.

As far as discussing the problems involving banned members, I don't think moderators and administrators should necessarily discuss every detail either, however, there is a simple solution to the transparency problem:

Add a sticky designed for banned members that gives a specific reason for the banning without providing details. For example: "________ was banned for being underage" or "__________ was banned for violating this specific rule in the ToS". This would also help with what is perceived as consistency issues and should encourage the team to make the ToS as specific as possible to avoid further interpretation problems.

Your sticky about the recent bannings was an improvement, IMO. I would've preferred to receive a warning before being banned (only because that's the usual protocol here) but at least there was some explanation for the bannings, albeit vague.

I understand that some members disagree with that position. They raise the transparency issue without fail after a banning of a prominent member has taken place: Spladle, Stronzo, Doublemeatwhopper, big dirigible, chicagosam, and last week's episode. It's precisely at these times that emotions are running higher, and that an open discussion over what's in the best interest of the board overall becomes overshadowed by the specifics of the recent case.

How open can such a discussion be when you begin the discussion by name-calling? "The almighty" and "Nazi cunts" aren't exactly diplomatic (but then again, we've had members express deathwishes for us before). I shouldn't have to say it, but I will: in fairness, how productive can an open and transparent discussion be when the participants on one side are hurling epithets like that?

I continue to offer to be open about discussing general issues; very few times have I been invited to do so. But I'm not entering a powderkeg while you're holding a pack of matches.

Productive discussion on the board cannot happen when people are slinging mud - you're right. Having tossed around my own fair share of it recently, I did so because I was concerned for another member. What I should've done is discuss the situation with a moderator before spouting off in a thread. But I didn't and became one in a group of sweeping bans. Old news.

I wasn't particularly thrilled with being banned but I did take the time to think about what went wrong and what could've been done to prevent the situation from escalating as it did. I would venture to say that earlier intervention from mods, however small, would've done wonders to diffuse the situation before it blew. I don't want to speak for the others who were banned but I know that I was very frustrated and it definitely showed in several of my posts. I know that moderators sometimes miss things; we're human, after all. They can't be everywhere at once. But I think it's the moderators/administrators job to set the tone for the board. When the tone is set, members ( for the most part) will strive to meet those expectations. I think it's time to change said tone. If you want open and transparent discussion with the members on the site, you should take the time to facilitate the discussion you wish to see on the boards. Don't wait for an invitation. You're a co-administrator. Take the initiative. You may be surprised by the responses you receive. The members can only do so much by themselves.

 

[Drifterwood]

Very cogent as usual MB.

I will go further and combine these thoughts with my post above. The problem is the TOS. I can't think of any top down system that works when imposed upon people. Socialism sounds great, but reality makes it unworkable.

Many of those were recently banned, and some of those who have been banned in the past, represent the essence, the brand of this site. i may be wrong, and the job of managing the brand of this site rests ultimately with the owner. Because i work in business, I'll use my own terms. Rob E is like a non executive chairman, Pecks and Mindseye are his executive Directors and the Mods are the managers.

I think that some of the managers see their job as enforcing the TOS. I would disagree. The job from top down is to maintain the site brand.

Several conclusions and questions arise from this. Is the owner being clear as to his brand goals? Are Pecks and Mindseye completely on board with the strategy and do the mods in turn see their role to maintain this.

As far as I remember when new mods were being sought last time, Rob E wanted a braod representation of the membership. I disagree with this strategy. You should have mods who truly represent the brand of the site, as directed by the owner and his admins.

A core membership with shared brand values is so much stronger that a TOS document. What the TOS and its enforcement has done, is to tear apart a once cohesive core membership. In the process the MOD team has become alienated and I am sad to say, not respected.

 

[mindseye]

No one likes being discounted, especially those who have a vested interest.

I didn't mean to suggest that these members were less important, and I apologize for having given that impression. (It's good to have you back, by the way.)

I would venture to say that earlier intervention from mods, however small, would've done wonders to diffuse the situation before it blew.

I agree. We should have gotten involved earlier. Again, I'm speaking only for myself here: Inevitably, we're accused of being heavy-handed fascists when we do intervene. As we've seen, the hands-off approach produced different, but not better results. We won't find a middle ground that will satisfy everyone, but we could definitely have handled this more smoothly had we done so earlier.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

[...]
As far as discussing the problems involving banned members, I don't think moderators and administrators should necessarily discuss every detail either, however, there is a simple solution to the transparency problem:

Add a sticky designed for banned members that gives a specific reason for the banning without providing details. For example: "________ was banned for being underage" or "__________ was banned for violating this specific rule in the ToS". This would also help with what is perceived as consistency issues and should encourage the team to make the ToS as specific as possible to avoid further interpretation problems.
[...]

I think that this is a great idea. It would solve many problems, like:

• Helping members and mods keep track of banned members who come back with an alias.
• Dealing with the broken ban notification system; if it's been broken for years then I doubt it's going to get fixed any time soon.
• Clearly showing which infractions are the most common.
• Improving the consistancy of the mods when dealing with infractions.
• Ending the confusion of why John Doe was banned.

If the moderators could make a sticky about members being banned/suspended, then surely they could take the time to make a sticky list of those they've banned/suspended, and why.

On the other hand, those with suspensions would have a permanent scar on their record.

 

[dong20]

I think that this is a great idea. It would solve many problems, like:

• Helping members and mods keep track of banned members who come back with an alias.
• Dealing with the broken ban notification system; if it's been broken for years then I doubt it's going to get fixed any time soon.
• Clearly showing which infractions are the most common.
• Improving the consistancy of the mods when dealing with infractions.
• Ending the confusion of why John Doe was banned.

If the moderators could make a sticky about members being banned/suspended, then surely they could take the time to make a sticky list of those they've banned/suspended, and why.

On the other hand, those with suspensions would have a permanent scar on their record.

All of the above have been suggested and rebuffed previously, save perhaps the first bullet, I don't recall that one before. The risk with underage age banning was the fear that the same id would appear elsewhere (on other sites) and thus be targeted.

I think it's a valid concern but I don't think it's justification for a refusal to state banning for other reasons. The risk then of course being that underage bans would be identified by elimination. The argument that by revealing a minor this way puts them at risk is noble but tenuous.

The privacy element IMHO, is a red herring. In the context of LPSG I've yet to read a compelling justification for it's invocation other than, perhaps in the context of the banning of minors. The broken ban notification system should be remedied. If you have a decade to spare all this has been hashed and rehashed, in this thread and others.

Ultimately, the changes such as those in this thread and others will only come about when those in a position to implement them are also possessed of the desire to do so.

Despite recent events, I remain unconvinced that those criteria are much, if any closer to being met. Until that changes, LPSG likely won't, except perhaps for the worse.

 

[mindseye]

If the moderators could make a sticky about members being banned/suspended, then surely they could take the time to make a sticky list of those they've banned/suspended, and why.

I was the one who omitted the list of names. The message communicated to the people who were affected (in the absence of a better notification system) a brief reason, and more importantly the fact that the suspensions were temporary.

Adding a list of names to the post would make the post seem more like public stocks, in my opinion; nevertheless, a list of names was supplied within minutes.

 

[Rugbypup]

I would like a troll button on the profiles, that way, if someone is being a troll, other members can activly do something about them.

They hit the troll button on the trolling persons profile, maybe even give a a box for a short reason or with a couple of different reasons tick boxes like 'Aggressive Behavior' and if 10 or more people hit the troll button for the same reason on the same profile, the mods are alerted and the troll can be warned or taken out back and shot.

Limit it so new mebers can't press the troll button on profiles until they've had 500 posts, that way only the longer term members can have an active input over trolls.

Just a small pups idea.

PS, You could also keep an on screen troll record of the number of times someone has been acussed of being a troll on their peofile too, like there's a record of how many posts you made. That way people can see if someone is known for being trollish and ignore them.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I was the one who omitted the list of names. The message communicated to the people who were affected (in the absence of a better notification system) a brief reason, and more importantly the fact that the suspensions were temporary.

Adding a list of names to the post would make the post seem more like public stocks, in my opinion; nevertheless, a list of names was supplied within minutes.

Yes - but consider this. Because I didn't know I was banned I didn't know to clear cookies to read here so I ended up being informed of my ban by a posting on big_dirigible's site. How helpful is that?

Banned members atempting to log in need to be redirected to a screen that informs them they are banned. Doesn't have to be anything fancy. "Fuck off, mate, you're banned!" and a smilie flipping the bird would be better than nothing.

I would like a troll button on the profiles *snippington snip*
PS, You could also keep an on screen troll record of the number of times someone has been acussed of being a troll on their peofile too

Oooo - far too open to abuse , specially that last bit.

 

[Gillette]

As far as I remember when new mods were being sought last time, Rob E wanted a braod representation of the membership. I disagree with this strategy.

I believe the concept behind that was to produce a more balanced discussion on controversial issues when they arise. I'm not sure I'm interpreting what you suggest correctly but eliminating the diversity of the mod forum reads like only allowing republicans to vote for the next president.

You should have mods who truly represent the brand of the site, as directed by the owner and his admins.

My take on the brand of the site is that it is a SUPPORT GROUP for the LARGE PENIS. I think in that regard those of us in the moderating team represent that quite well, either in the having or the supporting of.

A core membership with shared brand values is so much stronger that a TOS document. What the TOS and its enforcement has done, is to tear apart a once cohesive core membership.

Yes, shared brand value is a strong uniting force. That's been proven smashingly elsewhere, has it not? However, if a group, cohesive or not, choose to veer off the path to pursue individuals they dislike it is no longer a shared value of the membership as a whole.

In fact, in this last instance, many of the membership had voiced their displeasure with the development of feuds and attack packs only to be told to bugger off, they could write what they wanted and if they didn't want to read it they didn't have to. I have to question why those saying this couldn't apply their own advice and not read or respond to posts by those that drew their ire in the first place. I don't think it's the ToS that has torn apart the membership here.

Further, I'm going to ask you to clarify what you mean by "core". Length of time here? Number of posts? Like minded groups who communicate off site? I would define "core membership" as those who are dedicated to the subject of the site, that being support of the large penis. By this definition I'm not sure there has been a "core" group torn apart.

In the process the MOD team has become alienated and I am sad to say, not respected.

Certain to happen no matter what we do and likely to flip flop case by case depending on which side of a decision an individual or group falls.

 

[Rugbypup]

What's a *snippington snip*?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

What's a *snippington snip*?

It's what you don't want to hear the vet say, pup :biggrin1:

It just means I cut some of your text rather than quote the post in full - it is a very silly way of saying "[...]" - which is a more correct editorial way of showing where text has been omitted from a quote.

 

[Rugbypup]

Fair enough, I understand, I'll cancel the growl i ordered for you, lol.

 

[B_dumbcow]

Add a sticky designed for banned members that gives a specific reason for the banning without providing details. For example: "________ was banned for being underage" or "__________ was banned for violating this specific rule in the ToS".

On the other hand, those with suspensions would have a permanent scar on their record.

Totaly. But maybe not perminately chiseled in stone, but up for a month or so and then taken down, or the list will get too long. The banned will get their exposure and shame for what they have done and will be able to change this, with the past being a distant memory...

I would like a troll button on the profiles, that way, if someone is being a troll, other members can activly do something about them.

Rugbypup has the basis for a good idea, maybe just a 'report' button on each profile which people can press, put in their reason and the report is sent to a moderator (e.g. X revealed he was a clever 1 year old, so H presses 'report' on X's profile and types in the reason that X is underage)

Or some kind of rating that could bypass the unpopular people getting a big dancing troll forever on their profile :tongue:

 

[Industrialsize]

I didn't realize there were any problems.....I come here.....look at some dicks, flirt alot, post comments, start threads.....then I leave..no problem

 

[Mem]

From what I understand most of the recent temporary bans were over an argument with and about 2 trolls that are still here, and the criticism for the Mod team at letting them stay. Some have called me a troll before and that is fine, it is their opinion. I have changed my ways as best I could. I was told to stop making polls and new threads.

These two trolls are still here. One I obiously dislike (he's been banned from another site that has no Mods) the other I do not dislike, but I can be objective in the fact that he is trolling and can not change.

There needs to be a way for the Mods to put their personal feelings aside and do what is best for site.

As much as it can abused, a public poll by the Mods asking if a person is a troll may be the best way. If 66% vote yes on a person, they should be put on probation (instead of member) If they can not clean up their act they should be banned.

 

[dong20]

I didn't realize there were any problems.....I come here.....look at some dicks, flirt alot, post comments, start threads.....then I leave..no problem

That's pretty much my approach too, in a sense, though it's clear that for some problems exist and are significant, at least from their perspective. It seems that's not enough for some, but the problem is that many of those who may be seeking 'more' appear unwilling (or able) to clearly articulate what that 'more' is.

Without this information I imagine it's hard to formulate any sort of site moderation strategy that meets some or all of their needs, even if such a thing were possible, which in the case of a few, I doubt.

 

[DaveyR]

As much as it can abused, a public poll by the Mods asking if a person is a troll may be the best way. If 66% vote yes on a person, they should be put on probation (instead of member) If they can not clean up their act they should be banned.

Sorry I have to strongly disagree with this. It conjures up images of public hangings with hags baying for blood.

I cannot see anything wrong with the current report post feature which seems effective if used properly.