I suppose there was an inevitability to my chiming in on this thread at some point. 
The off-the-cuff outline I gave, which provided the basis for this thread, was merely that, and certainly not any kind of fixed blueprint to be taken verbatim. A revision along the lines of "the GoneA solution" or the "novice_btm variant" would make perfect sense if it is believed that giving more detailed reasons jeopardizes privacy. One might also have a couple of additional cover-all options such as "mysexybabyarm was banned for undisclosed reasons", which, if used sparingly, would not imho get anybody's nose out of joint - this particular formulation would simply signal an exceptional case in which it was necessary to maintain complete privacy.
One point I would like to reiterate and expand on, though, is that I stressed any 'sin bin'-type thread should be a closed sticky to which only moderators could contribute. While mindseye and others appear to have envisaged this as simply an endless cavalcade of 160+ repetitive posts, I would suggest that it need never extend beyond a single post in length. Since moderators are able to go in and re-edit posts at any point, it would simply be a case of a mod adding a new line of text to the opening post each time a new ban was implemented, so that this OP might resemble something like this:
25-Sept-2007 bigdixxxxx was banned for commercial spamming
28-Sept-2007 21hotinches was issued a 3-day suspension for flaming
2-Oct-2007 UnDiStEnDeD was banned for being underage
5-Oct-2007 i-am-mary was issued a 7-day suspension for wearing white shoes after Labor Day
17-Oct-2007 fairweatherfriend was banned for commercial spamming
19-Oct-2007 little16 was banned for being underage
22-Oct-2007 15andhot was banned for being underage
25-Oct-2007 lolitas_lovechild was banned for being underage
30-Oct-2007 flickabooger was banned for being underage
etc. etc. etc.
It may not be scintillating reading, but it lets ordinary users feel that they have some idea of what's going on; and is it really any less interesting than a function such as "site statistics"?
The off-the-cuff outline I gave, which provided the basis for this thread, was merely that, and certainly not any kind of fixed blueprint to be taken verbatim. A revision along the lines of "the GoneA solution" or the "novice_btm variant" would make perfect sense if it is believed that giving more detailed reasons jeopardizes privacy. One might also have a couple of additional cover-all options such as "mysexybabyarm was banned for undisclosed reasons", which, if used sparingly, would not imho get anybody's nose out of joint - this particular formulation would simply signal an exceptional case in which it was necessary to maintain complete privacy.
I didn't ever promise that a "sin bin"-type thread would be gripping reading. However, I do believe that its simple existence would bring transparency so that the populace does not feel alienated from the site's decision-makers. Indeed, it is the difference between feeling that one is operating within the borders of "open debate within the limits of an autocracy", as I outlined in greater detail in a post on 19th March; and between suddenly feeling that one has been deposited in the midst an online community that has taken Pinochet's Chile as its model of leadership, with unexplained disappearances of familiar 'faces' and the inability to discuss these simply 'the order of the day'.mindseye said:
One point I would like to reiterate and expand on, though, is that I stressed any 'sin bin'-type thread should be a closed sticky to which only moderators could contribute. While mindseye and others appear to have envisaged this as simply an endless cavalcade of 160+ repetitive posts, I would suggest that it need never extend beyond a single post in length. Since moderators are able to go in and re-edit posts at any point, it would simply be a case of a mod adding a new line of text to the opening post each time a new ban was implemented, so that this OP might resemble something like this:
25-Sept-2007 bigdixxxxx was banned for commercial spamming
28-Sept-2007 21hotinches was issued a 3-day suspension for flaming
2-Oct-2007 UnDiStEnDeD was banned for being underage
5-Oct-2007 i-am-mary was issued a 7-day suspension for wearing white shoes after Labor Day
17-Oct-2007 fairweatherfriend was banned for commercial spamming
19-Oct-2007 little16 was banned for being underage
22-Oct-2007 15andhot was banned for being underage
25-Oct-2007 lolitas_lovechild was banned for being underage
30-Oct-2007 flickabooger was banned for being underage
etc. etc. etc.
It may not be scintillating reading, but it lets ordinary users feel that they have some idea of what's going on; and is it really any less interesting than a function such as "site statistics"?
Ultimately, I don't think anyone would ever have suggested that this was the case with regard to you lovely people. It was more a question, from my perspective at least, of having started to give the appearance of having adopted an authoritarian (and by association, an alienating) manner. Hence the reason for transparency having been the keyword throughout my posts.Pecker said:
I'll probably be offering up further lengthy posts for your entertainment in the coming days, so please stay tuned to Comedy Central on LPSG.Shelby said:
