The Fundamental Problem with Permanent Bans

[jiminski]

No...you made a statement, and then provided supporting information for that perspective. You even stated "the innate truth of hooks' words" (or something to that effect).

So now I'm quite confused. What exactly was your position regarding "the ones having fun on the site are the ones that are being asked to leave", because I thought you were disagreeing with me when I read your post, but your response here seems to indicate that you weren't disagreeing with me.

i think you are scanning too many posts Wood!
My response was more complex than either agreeing or disagreeing with you. My post shifted the focus from it being a huge misconception to a mild one; agreeing with you in a way but reducing its gravity so to lead to the next concept. Adapting it to a related one but without staying locked to the original. you will see in the next sentence i state that 'Some' or even 'Many' of the permanently banned deserved to be so, so i was moving from a blanket and obviously flawed assessment that 'all people having fun were permanently banned' onto a flavour that those who had fun were likely to be banned... or a prevailing feeling that fun was at risk.
Though, as i say it is still a mild misconception, it is still more likely for the mischievous in the present atmosphere, thus it has a certain validity even as an exaggerated and flawed analogy in the first instance from Hook..

Anyway, what i really was amazed at was that you picked-up on this minuscule and largely minor point in my a long and, what i had thought to be interesting in its alternative approach, post. you picked up on a point where i was at worst toning down the import of your position and certainly not disagreeing, when i'd written an allegorical friggin thesis on the integral dynamics of the pecking-order and forum food-chain on CC. .. heheh the thought 'i don't know why i bother!?' came to mind at your post (i of course said it to myself wryly as your summing-up is not wholly my raison d'etre. )

[Woodruff]

No...you made a statement, and then provided supporting information for that perspective. You even stated "the innate truth of hooks' words" (or something to that effect).

So now I'm quite confused. What exactly was your position regarding "the ones having fun on the site are the ones that are being asked to leave", because I thought you were disagreeing with me when I read your post, but your response here seems to indicate that you weren't disagreeing with me.

i think you are scanning too many posts Wood!
My response was more complex than either agreeing or disagreeing with you. My post shifted the focus from it being a huge misconception to a mild one; agreeing with you in a way but reducing its gravity so to lead to the next concept. Adapting it to a related one but without staying locked to the original. you will see in the next sentence i state that 'Some' or even 'Many' of the permanently banned deserved to be so, so i was moving from a blanket and obviously flawed assessment that 'all people having fun were permanently banned' onto a flavour that those who had fun were likely to be banned... or a prevailing feeling that fun was at risk.
Though, as i say it is still a mild misconception, it is still more likely for the mischievous in the present atmosphere, thus it has a certain validity even as an exaggerated and flawed analogy in the first instance from Hook..

Anyway, what i really was amazed at was that you picked-up on this minuscule and largely minor point in my a long and, what i had thought to be interesting in its alternative approach, post. you picked up on a point where i was at worst toning down the import of your position and certainly not disagreeing, when i'd written an allegorical friggin thesis on the pecking-order and food-chain on CC. .. heheh the thought 'i don't know why i bother!?' came to mind at your post (i of course said it to myself wryly as your summing-up is not wholly my raison d'etre. )

Sometimes, your way with words disarms you. <smile>

[hookshotwillaby]

Agreed the Moderators are for moderating conflicts. That is why Administrators, the club managers, are involved with high up disciplinary actions like the removal from the club.


--Andy

You seem to have quite a vaunted opinion of your status here and your duties, but as a usual bystander and observer i have to say that what i've seen is a lot of petty mean spiritedness on your part. I certainly wouldn't refer to your usual modus operandi as "high up". Your disciplinary procedures that i've seen are frivolous, erratic, and frequently motivated by personal grudges.

[Woodruff]

Agreed the Moderators are for moderating conflicts. That is why Administrators, the club managers, are involved with high up disciplinary actions like the removal from the club.
--Andy

You seem to have quite a vaunted opinion of your status here and your duties, but as a usual bystander and observer i have to say that what i've seen is a lot of petty mean spiritedness on your part. I certainly wouldn't refer to your usual modus operandi as "high up". Your disciplinary procedures that i've seen are frivolous, erratic, and frequently motivated by personal grudges.

Huh.

[Fruitcake]

Agreed the Moderators are for moderating conflicts. That is why Administrators, the club managers, are involved with high up disciplinary actions like the removal from the club.
--Andy

You seem to have quite a vaunted opinion of your status here and your duties, but as a usual bystander and observer i have to say that what i've seen is a lot of petty mean spiritedness on your part. I certainly wouldn't refer to your usual modus operandi as "high up". Your disciplinary procedures that i've seen are frivolous, erratic, and frequently motivated by personal grudges.

Huh.

It's actually pretty obvious what he is saying. Interesting that another 'bystander' has ventured forth to put an opinion across that does not show the perception of the admin in the light they seem to believe they are perceived.

[MeDeFe]

No...you made a statement, and then provided supporting information for that perspective. You even stated "the innate truth of hooks' words" (or something to that effect).

So now I'm quite confused. What exactly was your position regarding "the ones having fun on the site are the ones that are being asked to leave", because I thought you were disagreeing with me when I read your post, but your response here seems to indicate that you weren't disagreeing with me.

i think you are scanning too many posts Wood!
My response was more complex than either agreeing or disagreeing with you. My post shifted the focus from it being a huge misconception to a mild one; agreeing with you in a way but reducing its gravity so to lead to the next concept. Adapting it to a related one but without staying locked to the original. you will see in the next sentence i state that 'Some' or even 'Many' of the permanently banned deserved to be so, so i was moving from a blanket and obviously flawed assessment that 'all people having fun were permanently banned' onto a flavour that those who had fun were likely to be banned... or a prevailing feeling that fun was at risk.
Though, as i say it is still a mild misconception, it is still more likely for the mischievous in the present atmosphere, thus it has a certain validity even as an exaggerated and flawed analogy in the first instance from Hook..

Anyway, what i really was amazed at was that you picked-up on this minuscule and largely minor point in my a long and, what i had thought to be interesting in its alternative approach, post. you picked up on a point where i was at worst toning down the import of your position and certainly not disagreeing, when i'd written an allegorical friggin thesis on the integral dynamics of the pecking-order and forum food-chain on CC. .. heheh the thought 'i don't know why i bother!?' came to mind at your post (i of course said it to myself wryly as your summing-up is not wholly my raison d'etre. )

And in all fairness it must be said that even hookshot didn't say that the only ones enjoing themselves were "asked to leave at one time or another", but merely that the ones he has noticed enjoying themselves have been asked to leave.

[PLAYER57832]

Is there a requirement that there must be a complaint before disciplinary action is initiated? In other words, if Player A is trolling, is that Player disciplined regardless of whether another player makes a complaint? If so, maybe we can make that part of a revised rule set - "In cases of minor infractions (trolling, etc.), discipline will not be meted out unless the alleged offender has been formally accused by another member of the community."

That makes sense.

But this also might be part of the problem. Because essentially, it means that the biggest whiners get to dictate what happens. Ironically, many of the biggest whiners are themselves a big part of the problem -- those they complain about are the ones who make fun of the whiners. I definitely think this is the case with captaincrazy, right now. He is constantly claiming he will report this person or that person. Yet, most of his recent posts are more trolling than anything DM put forward (that I read ... I admit I avoid a good deal of stuff). I have not complained because he's not really harmful. Also, I would rather just refute him than shut him down, in general. Sometimes he actually carries on decent debate.

Is there any tracking of who makes a complaint?

In some cases, I think the real response should not be a warning to the poster, but to the complainer.. something like "seems as though you are just unhappy with CC forum policies, perhaps you should form your own forum so you can limit membership to only those who share your views?"

This absolutely should be true in chat. Who cares if playerA and playerB prefer to sue only "four letter" words to communicate, as long as no one else is in the game? I see the various clans and discussion groups similarly.

[notyou2]

What if it cost 1 point everytime you hit the "register a complaint" button/icon?

I believe that would eliminate all the frivoulous "look at this objectional thread" complaints.

People would have to be serious about their perceived infraction before lodging a complaint.

[squishyg]

Nor should you make it harder for people to report wrongdoing.

[thegreekdog]

Player sort of beat me to the punch, but I think there needs to be transparency around the issue of reporting posts for the reasons Player stated (among others). Nearly all of us don't know why a person is missing or what the person's violation was to cause them to be missing. For example, captain.crazy was recently sent on a vacation. I have no idea why, I didn't know why when he went, I don't know who accused him. I think that information is valuable both for the community to know that someone is gone and so that the community can make sure they don't engage in the sorts of activities that the vacationed person was engaged in.

[Woodruff]

Agreed the Moderators are for moderating conflicts. That is why Administrators, the club managers, are involved with high up disciplinary actions like the removal from the club.
--Andy

You seem to have quite a vaunted opinion of your status here and your duties, but as a usual bystander and observer i have to say that what i've seen is a lot of petty mean spiritedness on your part. I certainly wouldn't refer to your usual modus operandi as "high up". Your disciplinary procedures that i've seen are frivolous, erratic, and frequently motivated by personal grudges.

Huh.

It's actually pretty obvious what he is saying. Interesting that another 'bystander' has ventured forth to put an opinion across that does not show the perception of the admin in the light they seem to believe they are perceived.

My implication wasn't that I didn't understand what he was saying...as you say, it was pretty clear. My implication was that I was stunned he was saying such a thing right in the middle of a thread where that particular individual (Andy) is working with us to correct what the community sees as a major problem. It seems as though the individual is, in my opinion, intentionally trying to derail the thread.

And in all fairness it must be said that even hookshot didn't say that the only ones enjoing themselves were "asked to leave at one time or another", but merely that the ones he has noticed enjoying themselves have been asked to leave.

Of course...that's why I said "mis-perception".

But this also might be part of the problem. Because essentially, it means that the biggest whiners get to dictate what happens. Ironically, many of the biggest whiners are themselves a big part of the problem -- those they complain about are the ones who make fun of the whiners. I definitely think this is the case with captaincrazy, right now. He is constantly claiming he will report this person or that person.

True enough, though I think captain.crazy is still just "smarting" from receiving a 3-day ban himself, so he's acting a bit of the baby in that regard. I don't think (I could be wrong) that he actually IS reporting most of those posts, as they're pretty clearly not report-worthy.

As well, just because a post is reported, doesn't mean that it's automatically going to lead to the punishment...if someone is doing such a thing then eventually, the mods will get sick of "dumb reports" from the same individual and give THEM consequences for it.

Is there any tracking of who makes a complaint?

I would hope that the mods have done this.

In some cases, I think the real response should not be a warning to the poster, but to the complainer.. something like "seems as though you are just unhappy with CC forum policies, perhaps you should form your own forum so you can limit membership to only those who share your views?"

I get the impression that this does happen, for those who submit lots of false complaints (for lack of a better term).

This absolutely should be true in chat. Who cares if playerA and playerB prefer to sue only "four letter" words to communicate, as long as no one else is in the game? I see the various clans and discussion groups similarly.

Sure. By the same token, there are absolutely individuals who consistently abuse people in the game-chat that should be dealt with.

[AndyDufresne]

In reference to talk about Reported posts and those reporting---we receive multiple and repeated spurious reports by an individual, we will take action against the user---per the Minor Infractions as listed in the Community Guidelines in its second post (Report a Post Abuse).


--Andy

[notyou2]

What if it cost 1 point everytime you hit the "register a complaint" button/icon?

I believe that would eliminate all the frivoulous "look at this objectional thread" complaints.

People would have to be serious about their perceived infraction before lodging a complaint.

I'm serious about this. If there is a high percentage of frivolous use of the "report this post" button, perhaps a cost of one point per use is justified. Or maybe there isn't a problem. Would the admins care to enlighten us on this issue please.

[Woodruff]

What if it cost 1 point everytime you hit the "register a complaint" button/icon?

I believe that would eliminate all the frivoulous "look at this objectional thread" complaints.

People would have to be serious about their perceived infraction before lodging a complaint.

I'm serious about this. If there is a high percentage of frivolous use of the "report this post" button, perhaps a cost of one point per use is justified. Or maybe there isn't a problem. Would the admins care to enlighten us on this issue please.

Well...an admin DID speak on the issue in the post just prior to yours...

[hookshotwillaby]

Agreed the Moderators are for moderating conflicts. That is why Administrators, the club managers, are involved with high up disciplinary actions like the removal from the club.
--Andy

You seem to have quite a vaunted opinion of your status here and your duties, but as a usual bystander and observer i have to say that what i've seen is a lot of petty mean spiritedness on your part. I certainly wouldn't refer to your usual modus operandi as "high up". Your disciplinary procedures that i've seen are frivolous, erratic, and frequently motivated by personal grudges.

Huh.

It's actually pretty obvious what he is saying. Interesting that another 'bystander' has ventured forth to put an opinion across that does not show the perception of the admin in the light they seem to believe they are perceived.

My implication wasn't that I didn't understand what he was saying...as you say, it was pretty clear. My implication was that I was stunned he was saying such a thing right in the middle of a thread where that particular individual (Andy) is working with us to correct what the community sees as a major problem. It seems as though the individual is, in my opinion, intentionally trying to derail the thread.

Derailing the thread? Because i don't brown nose like you? You honestly believe that andy's "working with us"? You seem to be the type to kiss up to any authority figure and swallow whatever flavor of kool-aid they're passing out at the time. Members like you will never effect any change at all - they called you Tories back in 1776.

Andy is doing nothing but putting on a little show. Change the permaban to 6 months? Who cares? It's not the length of the ban that's the problem, it's the chickenshit nature of the rules. Andy's throwing us a little smokescreen, and you're probably the only one dumb enough to swallow it.

I've been here 3 years and never come to the forum because of nonsense like this. On the one hand we have the administration, who from what i have seen could care less whether the forum is interesting or not. On the other hand we have the brown nosers, who contribute very little (if anything) of interest to the forum, but they cheer the administration on when they ban the people who are interesting and make the forum fun.

[Woodruff]

You seem to have quite a vaunted opinion of your status here and your duties, but as a usual bystander and observer i have to say that what i've seen is a lot of petty mean spiritedness on your part. I certainly wouldn't refer to your usual modus operandi as "high up". Your disciplinary procedures that i've seen are frivolous, erratic, and frequently motivated by personal grudges.

Huh.

It's actually pretty obvious what he is saying. Interesting that another 'bystander' has ventured forth to put an opinion across that does not show the perception of the admin in the light they seem to believe they are perceived.

My implication wasn't that I didn't understand what he was saying...as you say, it was pretty clear. My implication was that I was stunned he was saying such a thing right in the middle of a thread where that particular individual (Andy) is working with us to correct what the community sees as a major problem. It seems as though the individual is, in my opinion, intentionally trying to derail the thread.

Derailing the thread? Because i don't brown nose like you? You honestly believe that andy's "working with us"? You seem to be the type to kiss up to any authority figure and swallow whatever flavor of kool-aid they're passing out at the time. Members like you will never effect any change at all - they called you Tories back in 1776.

You clearly aren't paying attention. But continue with your unnecessary ranting if you'd like.

I've been here 3 years and never come to the forum because of nonsense like this.

Then why did you choose to alter that stance?

(And you say you're not trying to derail anything...)

[hookshotwillaby]

"Unnecessary ranting"? Dancing Mustard is banned permanently for trivialities, b.k. barunt is banned (for how long?) for other trivialities, etc. etc. ad nauseum, and you call it "unnecessary". The mods must love you and your obsequious kowtowing, and your posts don't carry enough content of any kind to be a danger to them or anyone else. You are clearly a yes man for all seasons.

As to "derailing" the thread, this thread was not originally started for people like you to kiss up to the mods. You derailed the thread from its original purpose when you first started that. This thread was a protest, and your attempts to turn it into a sychophant's dream are very sad.

As to why i broke my habit of not posting in the forums, you of all people would certainly not be able to understand.

[TheProwler]

hookshotwillaby is very close to bk barunt.

[Fruitcake]

hookshotwillaby is very close to bk barunt.

That may be so, but he does have a point. The thread was started to engender discussion, not to become yet another sycophants trail so OP and his little crew could sit there stroking their self righteous self inflated egos feeling good about the whole situation when they have done little but mismanage since the disastrous day they stepped into the positions they have. Their skill levels have shown to be little short of a lower end mediocrity at best, their vision as limited as a short sighted buffoon on a bad day and their understanding of the situation barely causing ripples upon their consciousness, such as it is.

Once again, Andy has been wheeled out to get the situation under control, while the Community Manager (interesting choice of title as Manager denotes prerequisite skills completely lacking in this person) throws hissy fits and storms off, no doubt with knees clutched together throwing his handbag around, when attacked in any way. Interestingly I note Andy has a long record of acting in this fashion, but he should be aware that all good things come to an end, and being the ‘nice guy’ doesn’t always ultimately work.

[hookshotwillaby]

hookshotwillaby is very close to bk barunt.

And you are very far.

[AAFitz]

Sorry if this is a repeat. I'm pressed for time. But here is an example that can be used as an analogy:

A person shoplifts and is found guilty. He is sentenced to 20 hours of community service.

He shoplifts again 6 months later and is found guilty. He is sentenced to 2 weeks in jail.

He shoplifts again 3 months later and is found guilty. He is sentenced to 1 month in jail.

He steals a car 2 months later and is found guilty. He is sentenced to 1 year in jail.

He shoplifts again 6 months later and is found guilty. He is sentenced to 2 months in jail.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

But there is no way this annoying prick is going to ever be executed or thrown into jail for more than a few months for shoplifting. He might get another year for stealing a car. But never, ever, life.

This time, DM only shoplifted. A fuckin' pack of chewing gum. 24 hours of community service. Max.


I agree with the concept of a permanent ban. But it would have to be applied only in extreme cases. The permabanning of DM was a poor decision.

Your analogy fails. The mods did not put DM in prison for life. They stopped him from using that which he was abusing.

If you use speeding as an example...though it varies by state, the punishments increase as the number of violations increase.

Speed once: fined

speed twice: fined

Speed three times: fined, sometimes banned

speed four times: fined, usually loss of license in most states

speed five times etc. As the number of violations accumulate, they are punished more heavily, and the suspensions to actually go up to 10 years at least.

Further, your analogy again is about putting someone in prison. In this case, a restraining order was only issued. DM can join all the other games in the universe, but on the one here that he abused, and was warned and punished for repeatedly over years, he was issued a restraining order.

If you apply that to your legal system analogy, a restraining order can be issued for life after one threat of violence.

DM did not shoplift, speed, or threaten violence. He broke stated rules on an internet gaming site repeatedly, knowing full well that he would be permanently banned at some point, but continued to do so. That is the situation. Not some silly real life analogy that is anything different than a private business, which offers a game and game forum. There's no constitution, no unalienable rights, no freedom of speech. Its a service provided by a group of individuals who simply got tired of repeatedly warning the same person over and over. They decided not to put any more time into it.

This is not a public institution, where the people are paid to deal with such things as the police are. The police have no choice but to respond to a repetitive shoplifter. Thats why they are paid. In this case, the business simply banned a player, because they were spending too much time monitoring and warning him.

Its fun to make it out to more than that, and I do it all the time, but it still comes down to this being a business, and an internet one at that, not some venue or extension of our rights as human beings on the planet.

[PLAYER57832]

To get back on track, I think we really have 2 issues here. One is the thread title, whether truly permanent bans are really helpful in all but the most extreme cases.

The second issue is just what ''extreme" should be.

A better analogy to the above is the "three strikes" laws passed a while back in CA. Initially, a guy who was busted for x amount of drugs, then committed a couple of petty thefts (in one case, stole a glove) wound up with life in prison. No one was saying the guy was innocent, but even the prosecutors acknowledged that this was not the type of guy the law was intended to snare. Yet it did.

In that case, the law was remanded a bit. Maybe it should be here, too.

From the outset, I think dealing with issues of chat abuse (essentially a private matter between a few people), blatant forum abuse (a public matter) and "teasing" (more like what DM did) perhaps just need different types of punishments. Simply have an escalating scale doesn't necessarily do it.

I realize that making too many different punishments, etc could get pretty complicated. However, I think there is room here to nudge things just a bit without making too much more work for mods.

Offhand, the two ideas I like best are to allow minor infractions to, not quite dissappear completely, but essentially fall off the record, only to be brought back if someone commits a serious offense. Second, to another escalation beyond permanent. For minor infractions, I can see adding 6 months, then a year. Anything over a year is not much different from a perme-ban anyway.

This also has a tie-in to the justice system in our country. It definitely has tie-ins to the way most schools, even many families, work places operate. That keeps someone who just constantly breaks the rules (yes, DM probably qualifies)

[TheProwler]

AAFitz, here's a definition of an analogy: "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

By your incorrect definition/understanding, all analogies would fail.

I was simply displaying how escalating punishment can be carried out properly. While punishments can be made more severe as the number of offenses increase, the punishment is never horrendously disproportionate to the offense.

People tend to like analogies, for some reason. So I used one.

Player, a six month ban or a year ban is still too long for minor infractions - no matter how many times a user has been banned. The possibility of a six month ban would only make some of the more interesting posters here tiptoe around, careful not to upset anyone. They would be stifled and would become uninteresting.

An analogy: It would be like chopping off BK Blunt's nuts and sending him into a school yard. Sure the children would finally be safe. The police wouldn't have to arrest him and toss him into jail every couple of months. But you'd have this fat, old, smelly guy hanging around in the school yard all the time.

Okay, maybe that wasn't the best analogy. I'll agree with you on that, AAFitz.

[Woodruff]

"Unnecessary ranting"? Dancing Mustard is banned permanently for trivialities, b.k. barunt is banned (for how long?) for other trivialities, etc. etc. ad nauseum, and you call it "unnecessary".

Yes, I do. Ranting is almost always unnecessary and unproductive.

The mods must love you and your obsequious kowtowing and your posts don't carry enough content of any kind to be a danger to them or anyone else. You are clearly a yes man for all seasons.

You keep saying I'm a yes-man, but all that shows is that you're not paying attention.

As to "derailing" the thread, this thread was not originally started for people like you to kiss up to the mods. You derailed the thread from its original purpose when you first started that. This thread was a protest, and your attempts to turn it into a sychophant's dream are very sad.

You should really read the thread before commenting with such ignorance.

As to why i broke my habit of not posting in the forums, you of all people would certainly not be able to understand.

Brilliant!

[AAFitz]

AAFitz, here's a definition of an analogy: "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

By your incorrect definition/understanding, all analogies would fail.

I was simply displaying how escalating punishment can be carried out properly. While punishments can be made more severe as the number of offenses increase, the punishment is never horrendously disproportionate to the offense.

People tend to like analogies, for some reason. So I used one.

Player, a six month ban or a year ban is still too long for minor infractions - no matter how many times a user has been banned. The possibility of a six month ban would only make some of the more interesting posters here tiptoe around, careful not to upset anyone. They would be stifled and would become uninteresting.

An analogy: It would be like chopping off BK Blunt's nuts and sending him into a school yard. Sure the children would finally be safe. The police wouldn't have to arrest him and toss him into jail every couple of months. But you'd have this fat, old, smelly guy hanging around in the school yard all the time.

Okay, maybe that wasn't the best analogy. I'll agree with you on that, AAFitz.

Sometimes analogies are useful. I simply showed how yours failed, and gave more useful ones. Of course, that depends upon perspective, which Is why I clarified the exact situation for what it was, and why comparing it to life in prison simply doesnt apply even as an analogy.