New form of discipline???

[Motokid]

Something new appears to be in use.

Suspension.

Can we have an explaination of what this is all about?

There's nothing about this in the Membership Agreement.

2.8 The Book Forum operates a "three-strikes" policy. Unfortunately, in an online community of our size, there will ocassionally be the need for the site administrators to take action against a member for continued non-compliance with the rules and guidelines of this site. "Three Strikes & You’re Out" simply means that you are given three "chances" before your account is disabled. Two official warnings will come from site moderators, and will state the offense and ask politely that you adhere to site guidelines. The third note will be from the site admininstrator and will result in a permanent, irreversible ban from the site.

Just wondering if there's a set length of time? What qualifies as something that deserves a suspension verses a strike? How many suspensions does one get before a strike is levied? What brought about this new form of "punishment"?

Maybe some others here have questions about it too?

 

[Kenny Shovel]

My question is sort of linked:

Would the mods care to tell us the real identity of the recently banned slaughterhigh? My initial thought when he started posting here a few days ago was "Oh hello, bobbyburns is back" although I also considered it might be the "Oh No Origami" guy or whatever his handle was...

Kenny "nosey git" Shovel

 

[StillILearn]

I'm curious.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

And slightly enigmatic…

 

[StillILearn]

And slightly enigmatic…

If you mean me, Kenny -- you need to look again. I'm about as open-faced as a non-sandwich can be! But, if you mean the suspension thing, then I'm right there with you. This behind-the-scenes thing seems kinda creepy to me. Some of the forum's best minds seem to be missing.

(Now, I guess that last sentence might be called slightly enigmatic.) But I meant it in the nicest possible way.

 

[Motokid]

This behind-the-scenes thing seems kinda creepy to me.

There have been repeated requests to have things be more open. Which would lead to less questions. Most of these requests have been turned down.

Hopefully an honest and open discussion can be had about this "suspension" thing.

 

[Kenny Shovel]

StillILearn: I meant that the post "I am curious" was rather enigmatic...

There have been repeated requests to have things be more open. Which would lead to less questions. Most of these requests have been turned down.

Well indeed, we voted 30-5 in favour of a "Hall of Shame" only for the mods to overrule...

Hopefully an honest and open discussion can be had about this "suspension" thing.

Well, that kind of goes back to mods/Darren just keeping people informed about what's going on...

 

[SFG75]

I really can't complain here, the mods have been more than excellent and I think we all know that its a thankless job. When I first joined, we had a number of trolls and people who were deservingly banned for dishonestly joining the board when they were in the past, banned. They were a negative and corrosive influence and I don't miss them for one minute. Heck, I like to read some of their old threads for amusement.

With all this being said, could we not have posts and threads deleted? Transparency is a good thing. Isn't that why we can't modify our posts after the first ten minutes? If it's to create a more open and honest environment, then why not carry it out to it's logical extension and not get rid of posts? What harm is done by leaving it up for all to see?

 

[StillILearn]

StillILearn: I meant that the post "I am curious" was rather enigmatic...


Well indeed, we voted 30-5 in favour of a "Hall of Shame" only for the mods to overrule...

Well, that kind of goes back to mods/Darren just keeping people informed about what's going on...

Ah.


...............

 

[Motokid]

I really can't complain here

Because you happily conform to the guidelines.

Others like to push at the edges.
Broaden the scope.
Expand the horizens.
Open the minds.
Pick at scabs.

 

[SFG75]

Because you happily conform to the guidelines.

Others like to push at the edges.
Broaden the scope.
Expand the horizens.
Open the minds.
Pick at scabs.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm somewhat conflicted. By no means am I trying to knock 'em. To me, the only area of improvement that I see is mentioned in my post above-that being, transparency. Leave things up for people to see and leave it at that. We voted for a "hall of shame" and it wasn't carried through, fine-but I think you're right. Posts like these would be unnecessary if everything was out in the open. Perhaps I'm mistaken?

 

[Motokid]

I also wonder if situations that were once considered deserving of a "formal warning/strike" could now be considered just a suspendable offense?

 

[Halo]

Suspension.Can we have an explanation of what this is all about?

Just wondering if there's a set length of time? What qualifies as something that deserves a suspension verses a strike? How many suspensions does one get before a strike is levied? What brought about this new form of "punishment"?

Suspension is a feature that moderators here can use. In the past, we have used it for members who break the MA, to give them a chance to "change their ways" before having to issue them with a warning. However, we found that suspending someone had no effect on their behaviour; they just continued in the same way when their suspension was lifted, so we decided not to use it in this way and continue with the "Three Strikes" system.

As you probably know, when someone breaks a rule of the MA, the mods get together to discuss whether a warning should be issued. Sometimes that person might be trolling or otherwise creating havoc, so in cases like this we will suspend the person until we have all had the chance to get together and discuss the issue. We will then take the agreed course of action. So to sum up, suspension is not a "new punishment", but just a way of preventing someone posting until we have made our decision.

Stewart's recent suspension was made for this reason - i.e., to stop him posting until we had discussed what needed to be discussed, and I was the person who suspended him. However, I would like to point out now that in this case, Stewart had not done anything wrong, and his suspension was a mistake on my part, due to a misunderstanding about a certain feature of The Book Forum. As soon as I realised I lifted his suspension, informed him and apologised. This was on Sunday, so he knows he has been reinstated. I very much regret suspending him unfairly, but all I can say is that everyone makes mistakes sometimes, and at least I have learnt from this and will not be repeating my mistake. I hope this clears up your questions about suspension. If anyone has any further questions, please contact one of the mods or Darren.

Re: "Slaughterhigh" - he was found to be a banned former member who had re-registered under a new name, so that's why he was banned (again).

(Also, the moderators decided that a "Hall of Shame" was in no-one's interest, so decided not to implement it.)