Why was MickeyLee banned?

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Didn't you just create a thread this afternoon bemoaning such inane personal exchanges taking discussions completely off-topic?

Unless you were making some very oblique object illustration of gross hypocrisy, I fail to understand what your post here has to do with MickeyLee being banned.

I didn't think I'd ever say this, all things considered, but you just made me horny HG! Are you sure you're not some vicious gay with a razor tongue in RL? :biggrin1: Apologies Seaside for the heinous flirt spam. :wink:

 

[mitchymo]

To quote that famous quote, 'power corrupts and absolute power....'

How does the membership know that the mod team are working in the interests of the site effectively across the spectrum of duties? We can all agree without a shadow of doubt that an excellent job is being done in regards to spammers, minors, fakers and thread removals in breech of ToS. But what about the actual community involvement, banning some of the biggest contributors whilst engaging rarely in threads (one or two notable exceptions). Do you even care about the site you're modding? (one Admin at least excluded, clearly they do, but everyone else?)

The criticism might seem unfair, but it exists because of one seemingly over the top response to an infraction to another, and the mod team stay silent, and for why? If there was confidence that the most appropriate course of action was taken then we should surely see a thorough explanation to put down critics. The absence of this openess/lack of clarity does yourselves no favours.
Are you perhaps concerned that your reasoning would'nt wash and therefore your credibility as competent MODERATORS would be harmed? Don't worry, it clearly already is to many, so you got nothing to lose.
I recommend you have a social group made up of longtime, high post count members who can be privvy to the full details following a high profile members banning, and then to be allowed a vote on it themselves. This way, if the moderators actions are felt too excessive for whatever infraction, it allows a banned member not to have to approach you having to apologise for something which was treated too harshly to begin with and furthermore adds some membership protection for those members who might have just ruffled the majority of the mods feathers, clearly not helpful in reaching an impartial action to be taken.

 

[vince]

oohhh..... like a Star Chamber. I'd be up for that. Do I have a high enough post count?

 

[mitchymo]

oohhh..... like a Star Chamber. I'd be up for that. Do I have a high enough post count?

I dunno about that, we could make brain cell count acceptable just in case. :smile:

 

[Bbucko]

To quote that famous quote, 'power corrupts and absolute power....'

How does the membership know that the mod team are working in the interests of the site effectively across the spectrum of duties? We can all agree without a shadow of doubt that an excellent job is being done in regards to spammers, minors, fakers and thread removals in breech of ToS. But what about the actual community involvement, banning some of the biggest contributors whilst engaging rarely in threads (one or two notable exceptions). Do you even care about the site you're modding? (one Admin at least excluded, clearly they do, but everyone else?)

The criticism might seem unfair, but it exists because of one seemingly over the top response to an infraction to another, and the mod team stay silent, and for why? If there was confidence that the most appropriate course of action was taken then we should surely see a thorough explanation to put down critics. The absence of this openess/lack of clarity does yourselves no favours.
Are you perhaps concerned that your reasoning would'nt wash and therefore your credibility as competent MODERATORS would be harmed? Don't worry, it clearly already is to many, so you got nothing to lose.
I recommend you have a social group made up of longtime, high post count members who can be privvy to the full details following a high profile members banning, and then to be allowed a vote on it themselves. This way, if the moderators actions are felt too excessive for whatever infraction, it allows a banned member not to have to approach you having to apologise for something which was treated too harshly to begin with and furthermore adds some membership protection for those members who might have just ruffled the majority of the mods feathers, clearly not helpful in reaching an impartial action to be taken.

Much as I can sympathize with the intent expressed here, I really can't see it working. Anyone who cares to be a mod can likely get his/her chance. There have been more than one members posting rather vociferously in this forum over the last several hours who have been, at one time or another, mods themselves. While their decisions to step down remain their own, I'm sure they were arrived at after careful contemplation.

Personally, I really just want transparency, and I don't think that's too much to ask and transparency goes beyond the especially oblique "reason" behind ML's ban. I'm not asking for a roll-call of votes here, just a genuine and open reason, backed by a quotation/link to whatever ToS the bannee broke to warrant the banning.

As I wrote previously this afternoon, there have been changes in the way moderation is handled here, but it is not always consistent nor always especially clear.

FWIW, I have less than zero interest in generating any input into the decisions behind whatever mod action was deemed necessary by the team; I simply want to understand the whos, wheres and whys in plain English.

 

[Gillette]

As I recall this was added to the ToS due to certain members creating entire web pages devoted to smearing other members with fictitious allegations. Clear and obvious harassment.

What ML did was to show that the persona presented here is a fraud and in the fraud's own words. She did so without links. Now that I understand the nature of her "offense" I'm embarrassed for the mod team as they have banned someone for something less grievous than those who post links to TinEye showing that a member's gallery is not what they present in threads dedicated to defaming the member using said photos. I guess that's now bannable, instant and permanent.

Does the same standard apply to mods using sites like TinEye to find those who are "attempting to deceive the membership"? I mean if they're linking to another site to prove that gallery pics might not be originals to the detriment of the gallery owner then they are breaking this very same rule.

Hmmm.

 

[Lex]

HG -- Thanks for posting this. I got a PM from mickeylee this morning giving me the details of what she did do (from her perspective, of course). She admits to posting an image of a post from another site with all names blurred and no URL so that only someone with familiarity would know from whence it came. I mean, PHP is a rather common board software, so it really could have come from ANYwhere (although, thanks to the many members and mods who frequent that site, we can know where the post occurred).

Others have said it far more eloquently than I, but I fail to understand this (even given the history of the site that can not be named and LPSG). As Zora used to say, there is nothing private about public behavior and people's behavior on other sites has certainly been factored into many a moderator decision (or at least has been off and on over the years by my personal witness as a mod and the tales of other former mods).

An explanation would be great. This does not seem to be a clear violation of the ToS. I mean, they might as well make a rule saying you can't be registered at the site that can not be named at this point.

In the end, as I told ml earlier -- she did the board a favor-- she exposed someone's true colors (even though many had already figured it out and shared). When people show you who they are, believe them.

I know I played a part in starting all this inanity by being one of the first mods and helping to draft the first ToS many years ago, but I can say, I have been a member of many a site and have never seen any site with less VISIBLE moderation than this one. Mods should post. Talk, Smack people down publicly, so members have an idea of what is and is not acceptable. Right now, all the speaking in private and staying silent (until some mod wants to make snarky statements) reeks. A LOT.

 

[Lex]

....
I simply want to understand the whos, wheres and whys in plain English....

Agreed. I don't have the emotional investment to feel all OUTRAGED and ANGRY over bannings anymore. I would simply appreciate a window into the thinking process for my own posting understanding. Especially since I am someone who can be pretty fucking direct at times.

As I recall this was added to the ToS due to certain members creating entire web pages devoted to smearing other members with fictitious allegations. Clear and obvious harassment....

Yes. I am seeing a CLEAR distinction between creating blogs and websites to defame, embarass and harass (by making shit up, etc.) and what ml said.

It was NOT a link. I was not harassment.

So what was it? And where in the ToS is the offense covered?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Seriously, why?
...
As a member struggling to make some sense of the almost incomprehensibly inchoate application of the rules, I'm once again asking for some clarification.

It ain't gonna happen. It just simply will not.

You already know why, you just want someone on the mod team to articulate it. And you already know they won't. You've thrown down the gauntlet, but guess what? It's just going to lie on the ground and get covered with dust. You won't get a cogent response. They will close ranks as they always do when they know there's no justification.

I've seen the "offending" images that were placed in her gallery. The images themselves were of the member's own words, which could hardly be considered defamatory. They were not links, and she was careful to remove all traces of visible URLs so that nobody unfamiliar with the source could follow them back.

So, if there were no names of the principals visible, that begs the question, how do the powers that be know that anyone was being "harrassed?" And how do the powers that be know the source? Simply posting a screen shot of a quote is the issue? She got banned for that?

I know for a fact that, contrary to what we've been led to believe, moderator actions do NOT require discussion or concensus. We have been told that only in "extreme" cases (such as underage posters, incest threads, etc.) does a single moderator take an action. That's simply not true.

I also know for a fact that when a certain outcome is desired on the mod board, only select info is given to all the mods. Certain key facts may be left out. That's not healthy for the board community, but there you have it.

How does the membership know that the mod team are working in the interests of the site effectively across the spectrum of duties? We can all agree without a shadow of doubt that an excellent job is being done in regards to spammers, minors, fakers and thread removals in breech of ToS. But what about the actual community involvement, banning some of the biggest contributors whilst engaging rarely in threads (one or two notable exceptions). Do you even care about the site you're modding? (one Admin at least excluded, clearly they do, but everyone else?)

The criticism might seem unfair, but it exists because of one seemingly over the top response to an infraction to another, and the mod team stay silent, and for why? If there was confidence that the most appropriate course of action was taken then we should surely see a thorough explanation to put down critics. The absence of this openess/lack of clarity does yourselves no favours.

There's a super-simple answer to your question, M-mo, but as I told HG, I feel certain you already know the answer. The most appropriate course of action is NOT always taken, it is deliberate, and the only justification you are going to get is "because I said so."

 

[B_Hickboy]

Yes, I can see where our society is breaking down. We have a generation of soulless, anchorless, rudderless little empty brats taking over things, and it does not bode well for any of the rest of us.

 

[Bbucko]

As I wrote in the MR thread, expect to see some changes in the mod staff in the near future, unless ML was somehow seen as a "burden", which I simply find ludicrous.

Her POV here was completely unique and will never be duplicated.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

If words from the Dark Site were simply quoted, without display of names or links, I can't see why they resulted in a banning, especially of an inoffensive member with no prior infractions.

 

[HazelGod]

There were 4 screenshots from That Dark Place (*shudders*), all with blurred out areas for the URL and the names.

One minor correction, though I believe it's very significant here:

Yes, names were blurred, true enough. But she also had cropped the images in such a way as to capture only the text of the post. There was no URL visible, blurred or otherwise...nor was there any visible site name or other reference, blurred or otherwise.

 

[Enid]

One minor correction, though I believe it's very significant here:

Yes, names were blurred, true enough. But she also had cropped the images in such a way as to capture only the text of the post. There was no URL visible, blurred or otherwise...nor was there any visible site name or other reference, blurred or otherwise.

Oh thank you HG, I didn't save the images so didn't have visual reference there.

Even more perplexing!!

 

[ZachMorris]

Exposition and whine! Hmm actually a wine exposition sounds like a fun idea. I'll have to consult the internet.

 

[HellsKitchenmanNYC]

I just saw this thread and haven't read thru it yet b/c I needed to respond! Mickey Lee BANNED?!!!! WTF!~of all people

 

[SilverTrain]

.....I have been a member of many a site and have never seen any site with less VISIBLE moderation than this one. Mods should post. Talk, Smack people down publicly, so members have an idea of what is and is not acceptable. Right now, all the speaking in private and staying silent (until some mod wants to make snarky statements) reeks. A LOT.

I was all set to post some nearly identical comments last week, but I aborted the post at the last minute out of some incomprehensible (to me) and probably misguided sense of propriety. Lex has said it much more efficiently than I'm sure I would have.

I was a moderator on another site with more active members than lpsg, and I've participated in countless other fora. And there's justvno denying the points Lex makes.

That said, I would also note DCDeep's point that not all moderators may have access to all information. As such, a failure of a mod team, may not necessarily reflect any involvement by a particular individual mod.

This MickeyLee banning seems to be a glaring example of incomprehensibly poor web forum management. I'm truly disturbed and disappointed.

 

[houtx48]

In my humble opinion the moderator system here on this site only nominally works. I guess it's the best they can come up with for the present.

 

[Daisy]

Didn't you just create a thread this afternoon bemoaning such inane personal exchanges taking discussions completely off-topic?

Unless you were making some very oblique object illustration of gross hypocrisy, I fail to understand what your post here has to do with MickeyLee being banned.

Actually my comment was entirely appropriate as I was agreeing with Joll. What would be annoying is another 20 pages of banter between Joll and me. But agreeing with him ..no, that is not off topic and I am not a hypocrite in the least.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Actually my comment was entirely appropriate as I was agreeing with Joll. What would be annoying is another 20 pages of banter between Joll and me. But agreeing with him ..no, that is not off topic and I am not a hypocrite in the least.

Agreeing? Really?

LOL!!! I just love you Joll.

That's not really agreeing so much as expressing approval...

Perhaps you don't understand the difference though, so I guess we should let it slide.