Forum banning decisions, etc

[cyberpi]

Brian,
I think you are missing a point and maybe the best way I can put it is: Individuals do not learn a dance without trying the dance.

There are many individuals in the community who have the talent to dance with the likes of Silas without getting their toes stepped on. But the moderators can be somewhat deprived of that sometimes because they have this sword in their hand and a chip that says moderator on it. While some may claim that chip is a cross or a service that they provide, the chip and the sword actually have written on them, "Don't cross me". Kind of ironic isn't it? The sword can hinder the ability to use words.

I have been to a number of forums, and I'm sorry to report that this website has been the most cowardly when it comes to banning someone. Cowardly in the worst possible way. Why do I say that? Because when I look at Silas' profile there is not even a hint that he was banned. When I look at his last threads, I see the insults layed on by a moderator who claimed to be teaching him something. Beyond that it was a secret from the community that anyone was ever banned. People had no way to physically know anything of it until someone in the know said something about it. Someone appears to have been afraid of something.

Transparency post mortem would be a good start. You have killed Silas' presence from here, along with some other people in the site's history... so start with them. Please start with Silas and make a thread called, "Silas was condemned and this is the reason why." In it, please reveal to everyone the thread or post from Silas that best represents where you considered him intolerable. Reveal where and how Silas broke the CoC. Reveal which part of a CoC he broke and where and how he was directly warned in the manner by which he was breaking it. Reveal an example PM or whatever was sent to Silas to communicate to him precisely what it was that was intolerable. Reveal where he broke that warning and duplicated the error. Reveal where you see a beligerent attitude within his words. Reveal how that was identified to him before his presence was terminated from here.

In the spirit of teaching people your brand of CoC, or in simply being honest, I am looking for more than empty judgments like, "he broke the CoC", or "he had a bad attitude", or "he was a law breaker", or "he was justly removed for the peace of the community". I consider those to be empty generalizations and I learn nothing by them except for the intolerance of whoever speaks them. Explain the evidence to me. Educate me. I need to see the scrutiny of Silas' words if I am to understand why anyone claims that he persecuted someone with mere words. He was outspoken against Islam, so I am not in support of anything specific that he said. I saw his rigidity in his beliefs, but I also saw people dancing with him and he danced with them. I saw good things in his conversations with some other people, whether it was for him or for them. I am NOT Silas' defender, so I will only point out where I saw that if someone wants me to. What interests me is the justness or honesty in the method of judgment for terminating (condemning) someone from a site called comparative religion.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Well now I do!!! I didn't even know that was an option before! Thanks 17th, I think you just saved my soul!!

That's what I am here for... Kicking ass, taking names... And worshipping the frogs in the tutus....

[juantoo3]

With all due respect, cyberpi, it sounds to me like you desire a portion of the benefits with no obligation to the responsibility.

Case in point, you continue on about the past with Silas, and I have been attempting to take some of what you say to heart in being a bit more transparent. Funny, I don't see you making any attempt with the newest person who seems to have issues with how we prefer to do things...that is, with mutual respect and polite manners. Yet, I have made myself quite available beyond what I have time for. Perhaps you should referee the discussion I am speaking of, before you continue with your complaint here?

The discussion is in the child molesters thread, B&S section, between myself and newcomer niranjan. Perhaps rather than gripe here, you might instead demonstrate there? Put your words into action, so to speak.

[juantoo3]

Well Cyberpi, after only one morning I am beginning to think your idyllic scenario is an administrative PITA, excuse me, nightmare. And it accomplishes nothing except unravelling everything that has already been built.

Alas, this is but my mere two cents worth.

In other words, your argument looks good on paper, but it sucks in application.

[I, Brian]

cyberpi, as before I think what comes across the most in your posts is a concern about the transparency, and what can lead to a member being banned.

You suggest something on the lines of a legal process, but in all fairness, legal processes can be played against the community.

I have to admit, I don't know of any forums I visit where they actually list who is banned, though will answer questions if raised. You say this is the only one that doesn't do that, but perhaps you are simply unaware of when people are banned from them?

However, on other forums I visit, banned members usually have a "banned" title which makes it plain what has happened. Here at CR the "banned" title is actually "Interfaith forum", but I don't think I've ever explained that to anyone - my apologies for that.

As for the rules of the dance - one of the big things I've tried to do recently is basically remove any hard and fast rules, and that re-writing of the CoC basically meant that any kind of disciplinary decision could be made on more intuitive grounds.

That may make the rules of the dance appear less apparent, but they are basically this - civility, mutual respect, consideration. You don't have to love nor share nor agree with the opinions of other members of CR - but if the only way any member here can engage with the others is to repeatedly denigrate them in an extreme pattern of behviour, then it's something I'm going to need to look twice at.

Bottom line is that I usually try and understand the motivations of the poster, and make a decision based on intentions. That's why I can give a lot of people room to make mistakes - we're all human, we get heated and argue. And if I send a PM telling someone to calm down I sort of expect it to be acted upon. I don't think you've ever received any kind of warning PM from me, cyberpi, so I guess that shows you're not in trouble, nor have a history of trouble.

You raised a point about conflict with a moderator - I'd like to assure you, I'm very much working on that, and don't think we're going to see any issues with moderators perceived to be fighting with members. I don't really think it's in the acceptable interests of the community, so have been having words on that very issue.

As for Silas - I've already given the reasons I can, but condensed: his sole motivation for being here appeared to be to proselytise at the community. That's not acceptable, and the majority of members here, despite their strong feelings on matters of faith and religion, usually don't allow themselves to push it into other people's faces.

I've also started a post about the only banning of a poster since Silas, which can be found here: niranjan has left the building

I also want to make it quite clear that this is an experiment, and I don't expect to see such threads turned into a lynching exercise - the last thing I want to do is have to have to deal with yet another libel case. The thread exists to ask questions as required. ADDED: In fact, I've closed it, and should anyone have any questions on that matter, please PM me.

Anyway, hope that helps again. As before, though, we need a system that works in practical terms and this is what we have, and I can't see myself changing the system into something that is open for issues of abuse and liabilities.

[cyberpi]

Well, this time it was no secret. I consider that a step in a positive direction. Thanks Brian.

Hopefully not the last or final step. A fire was lit with someone, stoked, and then thrown out the window. Is that a good thing? No... I don't think so. If anyone, Niranjan needed this forum. When I go back and read the two threads that were closed, and I scan them for the sharp comments about the other person and the personal adjectives that people just could not let go of... if niranjan was banned, then I see that Tao_Equus, Juantoo3, and 17th Angel should equally be banned from CR.

You guys broke the golden rule right along with niranjan. Before pointing out where I think the golden rules was broken... I'd ask anyone to show me where someone could have quenched the fire with Niranjan without someone getting banned. Because if somebody can not find another way to quench that fire, or to help others identify that there is no argument that they can not walk away from, then I know that it will happen again and again.

Juantoo3, I don't understand what you wanted me to help with yesterday morning. I had to work and I had not even read those threads. But when there are three to six people conversing with someone, it is not going to help them to have another person to contend with. Niranjan became too popular. If he were left alone there was no fire. I was planning on interacting with him more sometime when the dust settled, but now I can't. I think that patience would have helped. I realize that conversing with some people requires more patience than others, and I understand that Niranjan expressed his hatred or bias over a number of things. I saw that I had plenty of differences with him. While I don't understand some of the agendas; regardless, I submit that a lot more patience was needed.

Brian, how about a temporary ban? Like say one day or one week on the first offense? More like a timeout.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Well, this time it was no secret. I consider that a step in a positive direction. Thanks Brian.

No problem.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

When I go back and read the two threads that were closed, and I scan them for the sharp comments about the other person and the personal adjectives that people just could not let go of... if niranjan was banned, then I see that Tao_Equus, Juantoo3, and 17th Angel should equally be banned from CR.

I removed a string of posts from both threads which were nothing more than personal insults.

Also - if a single member manages to create a disturbance pretty much everywhere they post, usually from throwing out insults first, then I can't really blame any other member for reacting.

Someone who goes around throwing first punches can't cry foul when other people react to it.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If he were left alone there was no fire. I was planning on interacting with him more sometime when the dust settled, but now I can't. I think that patience would have helped.

If someone joins a community, but can only be a constructive part of it by not interacting with members, then there's a potential problem from the start.

As for whether patience would have helped - I think a lot of people tried to be patient, but when someone simply posts in an inflammatory manner across the boards, the overall interests of the community need considering.

2c.

[wil]

If I remember correct niranjan was upto something like 260 posts...no stranger to the site or discussion. And then began on a tangent.

I also would have loved to seen that soul calmed, there was definitely some trouble there....but I don't think you'll actually find that as one of the purposes of this sight...more interfaith discussion and dialogue...which he really didn't want to do anymore.

Many of his threads that were started were ignored...I think he found a couple buttons and rolled with it.

As for sites which display those banned...take a look at evilbible.com you'll notice my name with a big red circle with a line through it as an avatar, actually, I was banned er...three times. They really can't stand a liberal christian over there any more than some can here

Actually that is not true, I've only been in one self imposed exile here... and a couple slaps on the wrist....possibly instigated some keyboard or other material damage on the other end of the line occasionally....

I'd like to apologize for that.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Also - if a single member manages to create a disturbance pretty much everywhere they post, usually from throwing out insults first, then I can't really blame any other member for reacting.

Well that is precisely what I was going to bring up. I see then that Niranjan was wrongly banned by your words, because while he offered a number of unpopular generalizations and quotes, along with national pride, I see that it was other people who threw out the first personal insults at him. He glanced a few of those off but he slowly reciprocated and then it ratcheted upwards. While I would say that niranjan was wrong, the first personal insults that I see on those threads did not come from him. That concerns me. Somehow there was a free license to insult him. Regardless, I suggest that the other people who reacted should not have been laying down more insults either. Niranjan was teamed against in the end and had a mob insulting him.

Before that Niranjan was popular, albeit some for being controversial, but I see some extraordinary things in some of his words. Good things. In fact, a couple of his words relate directly to the overall message that I'm trying to put forward here. One was deep, deep into the spirit of the Abrahamic religions and one that irks me when alleged Christians don't get it. If anyone here sees that God talks through people, then I suggest a much closer look. Also, several people thanked him for some of his posts and conversational perspective, including Juantoo3 initially. Look past his natural reaction to being insulted.

[Sunny C.]

It would seem that there is a hierarchical pecking order here, the top tier of which is exempted from what is expected from the lower tier. And then there are certain folks who seem to expect some modicum of obesience from the rest in deference to their self-perceived position in the aristocracy of the forum. I find this endlessly interesting to observe.

[Tao_Equus]

Cyberpi,

My first post in regard to Niranjan was to ask that people give him a fair hearing. It soon became clear to me that giving a fair hearing was something Niranjan himself was clearly incapable of. Increasingly he was demanding that others conform to his thinking, which was revealing itself to be ever more extremist and worst of all supremacist. As I stated elsewhere I can tolerate anything but intollerance. And so I reacted.

You may like to paint Niranjan as provoked and with his back against the wall from several fronts. And I can see your point. Toward the end he was indeed under counter-attack from a few of us and nobody was coming to support him. But why? My own thinking was that he had burnt any bridges. You may see it that perhaps myself or another was first to throw an insult. Is that because it supports your contention here or because it is a fact? I nor anyone else started any thread to promote a racist insult in the way he did. His direct childish insults were responded to by me in kind and perhaps this was wrong of me, but by that point I was keen to know what his real agenda was.

I am sorry that Niranjan was banned and I feel a degree of guilt in being one of those that was involved in that. Perhaps if I had ignored him as I had intended at one point none of the messy, undignified posts of the last 2 days would have happened and he would still be here. But if he was here he would still be him. Still be telling others what they think or should think. Ultimately he showed no respect for the other people using this forum and thus was shown no respect in return. I dont think it bad behaviour to show a degree of disagreement with someones beliefs and opinions, and even be heated about it. But to tell people what they must do and think oversteps the boundary by a big step.

I am somewhat in agreement with you in your philosophy regarding banning. I think a first ban should be a cooling off period as in most online forums. But that is not the rules here at present and Niranjan knew that. And he had been warned. That said given that our host here is reviewing these rules maybe Niranjan and others will be back. I would have no problem with it personaly. However I respect what I,Brian has already imparted here on this thread. It is his responsibility, his time, effort and cold hard cash that keeps this place alive. It is the best discussion forum I have yet found and what makes it so is the mutual respect that the forum fosters. The rules have worked well to date and there is that common logic in not fixing what aint broke.

Just before Niranjan was banned he pm'd me with an appology showing that tho he had yet to take the step of doing so publicly he was capable of doing so privately. And so I am in ageement with you also that he needed this forum as much as anybody. He is a very bright young man with the potential to contribute much to our discussions here. And to learn from the wisdom that I see so often imparted on these pages. Perhaps some of the sages here could have helped to temper his youthful passion. Unfortunately I am not one of these sages.

Last, but by no means least, I am owe others here an appology for my part in that ignoble exchange. Especially to Muslimwoman who's important thread was trashed in the process. And here it is humbly tendered. I appologise to all.

TE

[wil]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

It would seem that there is a hierarchical pecking order here, the top tier of which is exempted from what is expected from the lower tier. And then there are certain folks who seem to expect some modicum of obesience from the rest in deference to their self-perceived position in the aristocracy of the forum. I find this endlessly interesting to observe.

How can you possibly see it all from your seats. Heck I can hardly hear you from there.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by wil

How can you possibly see it all from your seats. Heck I can hardly hear you from there.

Wha'd he say? "Blessed are the cheesemakers?"

[juantoo3]

How Gouda you to notice!

[Tao_Equus]

I'l brie edamned if I know what this is all about! I'l put my stilton, see if i can see whats going on.