So many posts to respond to, so little time.
Optimus Prime wrote:-Do you think permabans should only be issued when absolutely necessary?
Yes, I think that permanent forum bans should be used as a final measure to ensure the stability of the community. However, in the effort to ensure that stability, I also believe that if a user has received numerous warnings and punishments that a permanent forum ban can be warranted to prevent problems from arising
if the user has demonstrated that they are here in the community to be a general nuisance and very little else, regardless of how popular they may be with some forum regulars.
I will repeat Haggis' question, is stability really the main factor to be considered? And further: What do you mean by "stability of the community"? A community can be stable and still have heated discussions, a community can be stable with a lot of banter going on, a community can be stable even if some members regularly get on each others nerves (personally, I wouldn't have it any other way, I know some happy-go-lucky online fora with no friction at all, and they are among the most boring I've ever seen). I would say that a community is stable if people enjoy coming back to it. With DM gone for real it will certainly be less enjoyable for me, apparently also for many others.
You say that several smaller infractions can warrant a permaban if the poster in question has demonstrated that they are only there in order to be a nuisance. With all due respect, DM has not demonstrated that. Going straight to the point in no uncertain terms when telling someone that they are posting bullshit (especially when it's demonstrably true) is not "being a nuisance". Trashtalking among people who agree to it, within a single thread even, is not "being a nuisance", when done intelligently it can be a cause for much amusements for those not participating as well.
Repeatedly posting links to other websites to get people to sign up through a referral link, spamming up the fora with ads for penis enlargements, links to websites that provide prescription drugs without recipes, people being blatantly racist and bigotted in
every post they make (along the lines of "Blacks are inferior to the white race and AIDS is god's curse for homos") detract from everyone's forum experience and threaten the stability. DM did none of that.
-Do you think a permaban in the case of DM was absolutely necessary
Anyone can always argue that anything is never
absolutely necessary, which I think makes sense to most of us. In the case of Dancing Mustard, yes, I do believe it was time for him to go, and I do support the decision that was made as a collective of four admins over the course of a discussion that had facts and examples brought forward in what I believe to be a fair manner.
The problem here is that the community has no idea of what these examples were, who presented the facts, or actually what was discussed at all. A key term that has been used quite often by moderators and admins recently is "behind the scenes", the same is true here, there is no real transparency, a decision is made and everyone is left to figure out how it was reached. I'm not saying to let everyone participate in every decision, but in cases like this (and also the forum reorganisation in all its aspects) it could turn out to be a great advantage to allow the ordinary users to
view the debates among those who ultimately make the decisions. Consider this a constructive suggestion.
-Do you think the community is better (as a whole, not personally) without DM around?
Yes, I do, and please let me explain why. During Dancing Mustard's self-imposed sabbatical from Conquer Club the moderation team and the admins especially enduring a very large drop in complaints about the atmosphere in the forum as a whole. Was Dancing Mustard the only cause for those complaints? No, he was not, they are largely brought about by a chosen few forum regulars (who I shall not name out of respect and a wish to avoid mud-slinging). Upon his return, the number of general complaints about him and others who followed his lead began to rise dramatically, at least in respect to the work that I do personally as an admin, I cannot speak for the other three members of the admin team.
What you are saying here is that the mods work became so much easier while he was away because there were fewer complaints. I wonder what sort of complaints those were, you say they were "about the atmosphere in the forum as a whole", but how exactly? "Lately the general athmosphere of the forums has been a lot more hostile in a general way, but I can't quite say how" or "DM and these other members were mean to me in these posts when they said that my theory about the US economy is bullshit"? I think you will have a hard time conclusively pinning the first on him, and as for the second, "I've sent him a pm telling him to tone down the vulgarity (provided there was any, and in any case I don't recall the rules generally forbidding it), now SIUC and foe him or find arguments that he cannot refute" would be the appropriate response. Telling someone they are wrong and providing sources to back up one's opinion is not something that should be considered detrimental to the forum atmosphere.
I am entirely willing to admit that over my time here at Conquer Club I have laughed out loud on many occasions due to the wit of Dancing Mustard, and at times I've thought he was dead on with his ideas and thoughts, but that does not change the fact that not everyone saw him as some sort of hero or personality figure in the forum, and as admins it is our jobs to try and make decisions that will benefit the greater number of people. Many here don't believe the decision to ban Dancing Mustard permanently is of benefit, but what everyone also needs to remember is that what you see here in the publicly viewed forums is not the entire story of the impact he had on the community. Think what you will about that, but it is the truth.
More "behind the scenes", you admit that DM often was a great source for enjoyment and that he could express his views well and to the point, and then you say that you have to consider what will benefit the greater number (btw, didn't you say you were against "popularity contests" and pure majority decisions, or was that someone else? Looking at your next paragraph, it does seem to be you, although you would allow for some consultation) and that we don't know all that goes on. Well, we don't know it because you aren't telling, because you aren't telling we are having this debate. Saying that we don't know the reasons but should trust your decision, and implicitly cease the discussion, is not a good argument. In fact, it's the worst sort of argument you can make and it breeds resentment.
-Do you think the community should get any input as to what is best for the community?
I don't think that the community at large should be put in charge of discussing who should and should not be permanently banned, no. I think that will lead to many more problems than it would solve. However, I do think that the community can be allowed to have a voice in deciding certain things that will ultimately provide what is best for the community. Case in point is the not so far in the past situation revolving around bigotry/racism and the policies that should be enforced regarding such things. The community was clamoring for more definitive punishment procedures and out of that came quite a productive discussion about consistency, the difference between major and minor forum infractions, and many other things. As a result of the community input AndyDufresne was able to determine two new ladders for escalating punishments, one for major infractions, and one for minor infractions.
Interestingly enough, the community was quite pleased when Andy made it known that the new ladders were in place and he explained how they would be used, but now that they are being enforced and someone who is "beloved" by the community is the victim all of the sudden these new ladders of punishment are inadequate and absurd. I find it quite interesting to see the same people who praised the new ladders now tearing them down as absurd, but that is simply my personal opinion.
We were pleased back then because the then new system promised to be more transparent and fair than the haphazard and biased handing out of bans and warnings that had been the modus operandi until then. The hope was that clear rules would lead to clear-cut cases. A rather foolish hope in retrospect, favourites are still being played, what could be construed as infractions committed by some people are ignored while others almost seem to be targeted for the same or less, the interpretation of the rules varies, at times greatly, from person to person and occasionally between mods as well. The "Fireside Tavern Incident" was one such case, this is not the place to go into detail, if anyone wants to revive that discussion, bump one of the old threads, I'm merely saying that the rules were interpreted VERY differently by different people in that case and that the end result should have led to banning a whole lot more people for cross-logging and effectively should have outlawed babysitting of accounts in its current form, which it, as far as I recall, didn't.
The new punishment system is clearer than leaving it up to the discretion of an individual what the sentence is to be, or if a sentence is to be pronounced at all. This does not mean it is a good system.
Unfortunately it usually takes at least one prominent case study to get several people to analyse the system in detail and for these people to get the attention of others, DM's permaban is our study.
-Finally, do you think shortening the term of DM's ban to a temporary one would cause a problem?
Yes, I do believe that it would. He was punished according to the new punishment system that the community was calling for and he received the proper punishment within that system. To reverse the decision will not only make the system worthless, but it will also require many other bans to be reversed as well, something that is not favorable in the least.
"The system's the system and the system says what's what." Sorry, but even respecting your opinions as you asked in your introductory paragraph, this carries no weight. In this thread we are not only discussing DM's permaban, but the
flaws of the system that led to it. DM only plays a role because he is the case study I mentioned, in this thread people have pointed out
flaws within the system itself, for example: the fact that old bans under admins and mods that were later removed for being incompetent are not revised, that the escalation of the sentence up to the point of a permaban even for very minor infractions is not a good model, that infractions that may be a year old or more are not prescribed.
Also my own addition that the process is not transparent enough.
