Why has big dirigible been banned???

[Big Dreamer]

Since when is being a curmudgeon a crime?

It may depend on who you're 'curmudgeoning'.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

It may depend on who you're 'curmudgeoning'.

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.
But I think there were other factors, too.

 

[HazelGod]

It's not your privacy to spare.

Are you assuming that his is the only privacy that's involved here?

Puh-lease. This "privacy" song and dance isn't fooling anyone, and it's rather insulting to the intelligence of the members here. Big Dirigible was the most outspoken person here with regards to this very issue, and it's the poorest form of irony that it continues to be trotted out over his banning.

So, playing devil's advocate with your assertion, whose privacy remains to be protected? The only plausible answer I can imagine is that of the staff, i.e. those responsible for the banning. Further extrapolating, the only reasonable privacy concern they would have centers around whether or not they initiated or supported the ban.

I'm of the opinion that if you aren't willing to publicly display the courage of your private convictions, then two things can be said: you have no place making decisions that affect another member, or the membership as a whole; and that your convictions themselves aren't as strongly held as you would have us believe.

The system that permits this level of opacity is disturbing. That such actions can be effected without any degree of public accountability is just despicable. Such lack of transparency engenders distrust and resentment amongst those subjected to its whims. It creates a cloak behind which personal vendettas and power abuses of all kinds can be shielded from scrutiny.

Unlike citizens of the USA however, the denizens here aren't bound by worldly constraints...when they decide they've had enough of an administration's cowardly bullshit, removing themselves to a saner place is as simple as clicking a mouse.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

If a member is banned there should be a simple heading why they were banned - abusing another member, multiple accounts, whatever, the admin may not have any obligation to explain why to non paying members but the members who do pay have a right to know why someone they may have communicated with every day and who contributed to their enjoyment of the site has suddenly been effectively excommunicated.

 

[SlimGuySB]

So, playing devil's advocate with your assertion, whose privacy remains to be protected? The only plausible answer I can imagine is that of the staff, i.e. those responsible for the banning. Further extrapolating, the only reasonable privacy concern they would have centers around whether or not they initiated or supported the ban.

You seem quite sure that you know the entire story here! Perhaps BD got into a 'discussion' with another board member, stepped over some 'line' and was reported by them. Rather than be known as the person who got him kicked, they have perhaps requested the events remain unpublished. All anyone is doing here is pissing in the wind as getting to the bottom of the tale is concerned, so why not until one of the people involved actually says something, instead of wasting time pointing fingers. If you really don't like the way this is being handled, you only have to follow your own advice...

 

[SteveHd]

For the second time this month I agree with AngleGod. *The term Blue Moon has entered my mind for some reason.*

 

[Osiris]

If a member is banned there should be a simple heading why they were banned - abusing another member, multiple accounts, whatever, the admin may not have any obligation to explain why to non paying members but the members who do pay have a right to know why someone they may have communicated with every day and who contributed to their enjoyment of the site has suddenly been effectively excommunicated.

Being a newbie and moderator on other forums, you raise a very good question that has been asked numerous times. Is there a higher level of information/confidence/involvement for a paying member of a forum. There are varying levels of privacy in these matters. I can't speak to BD as I never had the opportunity to chat with him, but like one of the mods posted "Who said it's his privacy at stake here?"

Let's say the banning involved something that could be used in a criminal investigation of some sort, if I recall, by law, the staff of the forum can't say a thing period.

I have fought with this issue before, what do you say to the friends of said banned person? The only way around it usually is to go to the source and if anybody has BD's e-mail, you could ask him.

I'm not sure, but it sounds like a lot of people think he was unjustly accused of wrongdoing.

I also have to say what another person said, the power of the ignore feature is a beautiful thing. If someone is harrasing you on the forum, you usually can ignore them.

Just having read this thread, it sounds like a pretty messed up situation and I hope everybody gets what they desire from getting this out in the open.

Good luck all.

 

[Big Dreamer]

You seem quite sure that you know the entire story here! Perhaps BD got into a 'discussion' with another board member, stepped over some 'line' and was reported by them. Rather than be known as the person who got him kicked, they have perhaps requested the events remain unpublished. All anyone is doing here is pissing in the wind as getting to the bottom of the tale is concerned, so why not until one of the people involved actually says something, instead of wasting time pointing fingers. If you really don't like the way this is being handled, you only have to follow your own advice...

If that's the route we collectively take, the thread will die and there will never be another word on the issue. Showing a high interest level through continued posting will hopefully convey the message that this is a serious enough issue in many people's minds that letting it die on the vine (as usual) isn't acceptable.

 

[mindseye]

So, playing devil's advocate with your assertion, whose privacy remains to be protected?

Yours.

Let me explain. EVERY time a prominent member of the community ends up being banned, there's a hue and cry demanding to know why. If we answered those demands in some cases, but not others -- Spladle was banned because of X, Stronzo was banned because of Y, Big Dirigible -- there's a privacy concern and we can't discuss it! -- we'd only end up focusing even more intense scrutiny on those specific cases.

I believe it's fairer to treat all the cases the same way, so that those cases that really do involve a serious privacy issue aren't exposed. Especially now that members and former members have taken to gathering elsewhere to gossip and exchange information and misinformation, I take that responsibility seriously.

What that means, HazelGod, is that I'm willing to put up with you accusing my colleagues and me of opacity and cowardice, in order to ensure that those members that have legitimate concerns about their privacy and safety on here don't lose confidence in us. I hope you're never put in such a situation, but if you are, we'll handle it as conscientiously as we can.

 

[dong20]

Puh-lease. This "privacy" song and dance isn't fooling anyone, and it's rather insulting to the intelligence of the members here. Big Dirigible was the most outspoken person here with regards to this very issue, and it's the poorest form of irony that it continues to be trotted out over his banning.

So, playing devil's advocate with your assertion, whose privacy remains to be protected? The only plausible answer I can imagine is that of the staff, i.e. those responsible for the banning. Further extrapolating, the only reasonable privacy concern they would have centers around whether or not they initiated or supported the ban.

I'm of the opinion that if you aren't willing to publicly display the courage of your private convictions, then two things can be said: you have no place making decisions that affect another member, or the membership as a whole; and that your convictions themselves aren't as strongly held as you would have us believe.

The system that permits this level of opacity is disturbing. That such actions can be effected without any degree of public accountability is just despicable. Such lack of transparency engenders distrust and resentment amongst those subjected to its whims. It creates a cloak behind which personal vendettas and power abuses of all kinds can be shielded from scrutiny.

Unlike citizens of the USA however, the denizens here aren't bound by worldly constraints...when they decide they've had enough of an administration's cowardly bullshit, removing themselves to a saner place is as simple as clicking a mouse.

While I agree with you, I'd also like to play Devil's advocvate. There is a counter argument:

Privacy (if that's the particular shield one has decided to hide behind) is either maintained or it's not, there is rarely a 'halfway' situation likely to meet the needs of both sides. If the thought that enough people haranguing the 'staff' will cause them to cave in and 'tell all' exists then that isn't going to engender trust in them any more than their using it as a convienent 'out'.

Also, this is a 'private' club, if you like. When members sign up they agree to its conditions of membership. Like most clubs they may petition for changes to said conditions, which may or may not be given effect. The owners are under no obligation to comply. And like most clubs they may terminate membership at their sole prerogative.

Most clubs will not allow members to decide which rules apply or don't apply on a whim, or to pout because they have not be dealt with in the way they want, whether a mechanism to satisfy such a grievance is catered for or not.

They are, as you say free to leave.

 

[SteveHd]

When a member is banned, could the reason be stated as one of the following:

• Underage
• Trolling
• Management

That's it, just one of those three words and no elaboration. The majority of the bans would fall into the first two reasons. The recent controversial bans would fall into the last reason. There would be some members who would want to know more but they'd be s/o/l as they now are.

 

[Lex]

... Especially now that members and former members have taken to gathering elsewhere to gossip and exchange information and misinformation, I take that responsibility seriously.
....

People were whispering in PM Long before BD created his own site. And let's not forget all the various IM services that people share. This ISN'T new.

 

[mindseye]

Yes, and the page over at myspace, and the page over at proboards20. It's not new, I'll agree, and I didn't intend to suggest it was.

 

[arliss]

Since when is being a curmudgeon a crime?

a law was passed last July..punishable by three yrs i jail or a permanent ban from LPSG

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, and the page over at myspace, and the page over at proboards20. It's not new, I'll agree, and I didn't intend to suggest it was.

Well, someone's been doing his homework! I guess it must really suck that your powerful arm doesn't reach off the pages of lpsg, doesn't it? You've always said, if we don't like it around here we can leave. You banned him as punishment for starting his own site, plain and simple. He has no idea why he was banned, and yes- we've talked on the goddamned PHONE! "Privacy" my fucking crotch, you're just a cowardly ass. Thanks for ruining the site, d00d, and enjoy lpsg-lite where nobody's allowed to be "offensive" according to ambiguous definitions.

 

[kalipygian]

It is definately not true that explanations of bannings have never been given. There have been explanations by moderators of previous bannings:
Spooge/DMW: coming back under a different UserID after being banned.
Chicago Sam: posting from more than one account.

I object to both bannings, they seem to me to have done no significant harm.
These bannings create an atmosphere of 'Ten Little Indians'. These are(were) very active and prominent members, their are others unknown, whose absence was not noticed. They are nevertheless entitled to fair treatment. A process that is secret by definition cannot be demonstrated to have been fair.

(When Vestigial was banned, I asked for an explanation, there was absolutely no moderator response, it became semi moot when the ban turned out to have been temporary)

My gold membership lapsed recently, it is going to remain lapsed, if moderators continue to play cryptic games with members who are asking reasonable questions, as has been done in this thread.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Bye, BD. Or, see you around, if it's a temporary ban.

 

[mindseye]

It is definately not true that explanations of bannings have never been given. There have been explanations by moderators of previous bannings:
Spooge/DMW: coming back under a different UserID after being banned.
Chicago Sam: posting from more than one account.

In both of those cases, someone else broke the reason publicly, not a moderator. You want an explanation from a non-moderator? Madame_zora's offered one: I banned him as punishment for starting his own site, 'cause I'm just a cowardly ass.

 

[dolf250]

Some members had noted that Big. D was controversial, at times a little short and a “miserable bugger.” Well, those are all piss poor reasons for a banning. When I came to LPSG years ago I came for the controversy and the opposing view points. Those who were at odds with one another often held very strong opinions and without moderators the debate would often become heated; there was no body but the membership to be accountable to and the threads never got locked because they had become too heated.

In my real life I have very conservative friends and know mostly people who hold similar views to mine. I am very rarely taken to task for what I believe or even challenged to explain myself. This was, perhaps the only place where people were not afraid to say “WTF are you thinking?” and I appreciate it. In another thread that phrase is specifically cited as contributing to a poster “lashing out" and made to seem like a bad thing. I think that we need to be challenged directly to grow. If Big. D has challenged you and perhaps even offended you with what he wrote and you consider that reason enough to be glad he is gone then you need to pull you head out of your ass; so what if he did not coddle you when he questioned your opinion?

I do not know the reasons for his banning; perhaps there was a good reason, but to be glad he is gone with no explanation is just sad.

 

[B_Hickboy]

No, I banned him as punishment for starting his own site, 'cause I'm a cowardly ass.