Forum banning decisions, etc

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Cyberpi,

Your position is duly noted. I take exception to being taken out of context, and the fact that my tirade was noted at that time by me to FaithfulServant that I *was deliberately* acting out of character, in frustration over a person who couldn't seem to get it across that his methods were improper regarding how we do things around here. The reasons and methods are clearly spelled out in the CoC. A great deal of your complaint is selective to your agenda, had you had this discussion at that time with Silas...perhaps, just perhaps...things might have gone differently. Further, it neglects the several times Silas was politely asked to conform to the CoC, both before and after my tirade.

As for Silas coming back, I have no issues *if* he can conduct himself appropriately. I would suggest you petition Brian about the matter if it is of that much concern to yourself. Considering it was only when Silas was under threat of removal that he even attempted to conform (which tells me he knew how, and just didn't care to as long as he could get away with it), if he cannot comply with our simple request, then perhaps it is as well he not return. His conduct is his choice...the consequences are not. Same as for everybody else...myself included. Were I to conduct myself on a regular basis in the manner I did that evening with Silas, I would expect to be asked to leave.

The goalposts I suggest are for you and anyone who got angry and asked for him to be banned. If I could tolerate words from Silas and enjoy his presence, then surely you can too?

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Interesting...we were saying the same thing (at least I was, having children and all). I guess I didn't give it to you with the right flavor...

Q, I was not the one who asked the question. Somewhere before you have described various methods of punishment involving your children, but I think your latest here was the best... except for the part about banishment to a room which would communicate nothing but your displeasure. I suggest its better to use words... and would agree with you that is a required social tool.

So was Silas forcefully banned or just asked to leave? Is he really unable to log in? It was strange that he just disappeared without a clearly given reason. If someone did not say anything then nobody would have ever known he was banned. How many people in the last two years have been banned?

[I, Brian]

Silas was warned repeatedly that his attitude couldn't be accomodated at CR.

It wasn't his beliefs that were a problem, as much as the fact he wanted to push them on others here - ie, condemnation of other Christians and non-Christians. It was an aggressive style of posting we couldn't accomodate under CR's remit.

We've had a couple of Born Agains do this - step into CR with an extraordinarily arrogant self-righteousness, knowing that if they are thrown out they've become a martyr.

Silas was indicated as a potential trouble-maker from day 1, but as I've been pushing for far less moderating and a much more open forum, I tried to give him a chance to settle into a more constructive behaviour.

Because he couldn't, and because of the ruckus he caused, I was faced with two options:

1. Ban Silas and try to keep CR as an interfaith forum
2. Allow Silas to post, and allow CR to become nothing more than a conservative Christian proselytising board

I couldn't allow the second, so it had to be the first.

As for how many have been banned - there are a string of 1-post wonders who try to drop links to porn, viagra, and casino links and similar who are banned on sight.

There have also been a few Muslim spammers who've joined up simply to paste in material from other websites trying to persuade people of different faiths to convert to Islam.

As for regular posters who have been permanently banned - very few indeed.

Generally we try and make sure issues are defused either on the boards or via PM, and banning someone is not a decision taken lightly.

I've been incredibly busy running my own business and at time allowed things to get out of hand by my absence - but now I'm able to visit more regularly again I'm trying to pushon CR being as open and accomodating as possible, with moderating only in extreme situations, and defuse any such tensions where they may ask, whether among members or staff.

But ultimately CR needs to work with an interfaith remit, and that fact that we can accomodate liberal and conservative views across Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other faiths, I think shows that it can and does work when it's going well. But should any individual try and tip the scales to force CR into becoming a one-man soapbox against everyone else, that's where something generally needs to be done.

Hope that helps.

[cyberpi]

Since I do oppose that definition of condemnation as being non-biblical, I’d like to see the show of hands: Who here thinks they were personally condemned by Silas?

Brian, I have noticed and would commend your movement towards more open forums on top of your obvious efforts with this site. However, in an effort to convince you that there are many more options available than the two that you have listed, please consider the following additional option:

3. If anyone including yourself wants someone banned, then start a thread as a hearing and limit the person to posting only on that thread. Allow people to present their arguments for why the person should be banned, in support or in defense of the person for a set period time: like one week. Allow the accused person to respond to every person who posts at least once, but only on that one thread. In this way the following occurs:

a) The person potentially banned is given a last word in respect for the time that they have invested, allowing them to respond to the CR public in their defense, to repent, or to simply vent.
b) The people who can not stand the presence of the person, including moderators and the owner, are forced to put their arguments and mindset into constructive words, encouraging improvement of social skills for both the accuser and the accused, and to allow for public rebuttal.
c) The people who might disagree or would simply like to say encouraging words to the person are given respect for the time that they have invested, and are given an opportunity for final words with the person… if nothing else but to exchange a PM and share contact information outside of CR.
d) The person banned is given a better education (more direct words) for why his/her presence was not tolerated, and to see the extent with which the public forum agrees or disagrees.
e) The last threads for anyone banned would serve as examples for newcomers to review the alleged civility of CR and to learn what is presently tolerated or not tolerated.
f) Greater public discourse of civil conduct is encouraged with the responsibility for placing arguments for banning anyone encouraged across the entire CR community, yet without limiting the power of the owner or the moderators.
g) A method of addressing moderator and owner as equals with potentially fallible conduct is available to help prevent unseen creepage of their beliefs by argumentum ad baculum, medal boasting, or militarization of forums otherwise intended for open discussion of religions.
h) A method for moderators to present their arguments against a person to decrease chastisement outside of that single thread. The conversations on the issue might be limited to a single thread, placed in an appropriate forum, with a time limit, and put to rest rather than resurfacing in other threads like this one.
i) The justice of any CR standard is improved by keeping the last threads of the banished in one forum for future comparison so that the arguments for incidents involving a person from one religion are on a direct level of comparison with incidents from other religions. Public attention is drawn towards making individual unbiased judgment of a person’s words in comparison with the words from others, the intentions of the forum, CoC, and the best wishes of the CR community, moderators, and website owner.

I noticed that ChinaCat had disappeared and I had wondered if he was banned too. It appears to not be the case, but he did leave in disappointment.

I can list more, but for brevity I would like to see how the above is received… please demonstrate this alleged civility. I personally do not consider it civil when dinner guests mysteriously disappear from a pot luck just because there was a heated disagreement over the food that someone brought to the table. If someone is going to be shown the door, I would expect an announcement and full discussion about it. I wish to understand the ingredients and why the food was inappropriate for the forum. I hear your words, but I am not seeing the civil process that you once claimed. I wish to see Silas' response to the accusation. Maybe someone like Silas likes the hot tobasco sauce… or maybe he was devilishly forcing it into other people’s recipes. Did he really put a spider in someone's soup? I don't know. Some of the evidence is hidden and that is my point. Who was poisoned and who fell over? I personally do not see someone like Silas as a threat to me, but neither am I the owner of the website, and neither do I wish to defend someone that a community might otherwise agree was being belligerently disruptive and truly deserving to be banned. I seek ways to discourage the community from passing condemnation without passing judgment. I have seen a fair degree of hypocrisy so I further wish to discourage the site owner and moderators of a site called comparitive-religion from using it as basis to promote their own religious beliefs anymore than Silas did his. Afterall, how many people did Silas ban?

Once again, I am NOT trying to promote Silas and I am NOT trying to denigrate the importance of a site owner, moderators, or online community to enforce something. I wish to promote the individual responsibility in passing judgment by open discourse among the community before executing condemnation. If condemnation is truly necessary and someone is to be shown the door, then lets give them the rightful and due service of individually passing them our best judgment over the matter. Please diverse that discussion across the entire community before the person is banned.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If anyone including yourself wants someone banned, then start a thread as a hearing and limit the person to posting only on that thread.

It's a commendable idea, and maybe a democratic process can work in some instances of forum management (such as politics forums) - but generally speaking, from experience and observation, forum administration works best when there is an individual or small group who can take responsibility for making decisions.

These decisions aren't simply made on banning issues, but a whole range of various management and administration issues, such as removing spam, server admin, software management, webmastering, and of course, running costs.

Generally, I don't see people rushing to share in the general tasks of running a site like this, excepting people who accept to be moderators, who help take some of the responsibilities and usually thanklessly.

Also, the remit of CR has always been to accept persons of all faiths, and simply ask for some degree of civility. It's a very neutral position that I think needs a decision-making process that upholds that principle, because most everybody here has their own faith bias they would probably express. Turning the forum over to a democratic process would be in danger of simply defining CR by the largest faith group at the time.

I think what you're really after is greater transparancy, and assurance that simply having strong beliefs isn't going to see a member forcibly removed, and I'll certainly bear that in mind in my drive to make CR more open.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I noticed that ChinaCat had disappeared and I had wondered if he was banned too. It appears to not be the case, but he did leave in disappointment.

It's common for people to drop in and drop out according to how busy they are, so sometimes people will stop posting for a while just because of this. I know China would have liked to see CR move in different ways, especially being less protective of the faith boards, so perhaps when he's next posting he'll find things have improved a little.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I personally do not consider it civil when dinner guests mysteriously disappear from a pot luck just because there was a heated disagreement over the food that someone brought to the table.

It's a very good analogy, and I don't seek to ban people just because of disagreements over the food between guests. However, if someone sits at my table, tells me my food is foul, my guests are poor company, and then proceeds to rail this point to one and all, generally I'm going to remove them.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If someone is going to be shown the door, I would expect an announcement and full discussion about it.

Generally this isn't done to be least disruptive to all parties. I can't think of any common example where someone may be forcefully removed from any premises, and then have their removal publically announced in detail, and set for discussion.

There's always the danger such threads can be disruptive, too, where people want the responsibility of the decision-making process without the accountability. If banning decisions become democratic, who takes final responsibility?

Plus it's worth bearing in mind that such threads could be potentially humiliating for the person banned. The method of least disruption is to quietly remove such people and allow the community to continue regardless.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I wish to understand the ingredients and why the food was inappropriate for the forum. I hear your words, but I am not seeing the civil process that you once claimed.

To be honest, one of my personal complaints about CR is that we've been too restrictive on the discussions here. Sure, it's a policy I originally pushed on, but now I think the community needs room to grow and define itself, with least interference. Even still, there will always be a requirement for someone to make final judgements.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I have seen a fair degree of hypocrisy so I further wish to discourage the site owner and moderators of a site called comparitive-religion from using it as basis to promote their own religious beliefs anymore than Silas did his.

I have my own religious and spiritual views, but I'll be impressed if anyone can find myself promoting or enforcing them here.

Moderators were picked in a way to represent their faith, but I think sometimes there may be misunderstandings as to when someone is speaking as a moderator and simply a member.

I've made a point recently of changing moderation policy, so that individual moderators are less tied to individual boards. I'm also trying hard to ensure that moderators allow for much more room before acting, and that moderators aren't seen to get into personal fights with members.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I wish to promote the individual responsibility in passing judgment by open discourse among the community before executing condemnation.

I think this is the key problem - a site like CR just isn't set up to allow for this.

Firstly, sending warnings or banning a member isn't an act of condemnation. It's simply an administrative decision. This is an important point to remember.

Secondly, there is far more to the administration of CR than simply banning, and this administration comes with responsibilities.

There are basic ones, such as putting the time in to ensure everything's running okay, not simply on the community, but also on the server. It's a huge time sink.

And there are basic monetary costs involved in all of this. A quick calculation suggests CR has cost me $3500 just in hosting and software, plus I'm mooting some changes to the staff that - if followed through - would have immediate costs of $8500. Anyone want to share responsibility for that?

Responsibilities aren't simply task related either - a while back the Christian members were in uproar about a certain member disrupting their discussions. When that person was finally removed, they threatened CR with legal action.

So the bottom line is that being responsible for a site like CR means taking on board a range of responsibilities, investment of time and money, and all for little apparent award.

Should CR be more accountable? I think so, and as above, I'm trying to do this - but ultimately, I'm going to have to make final decisions on what happens with CR because I am ultimately responsible, accountable, and liable for everything that happens here.

But in doing so, I'm constantly trying to ensure that I can do so while being as fair and neutral as possible in all of the decision-making processes. I think I haven't done as well as I should have in the past, but I'm keen to make sure I do better today and for the future.

Hope that helps.

[17th Angel]

Yeah I agree with Brian... It would have nothing to do with his belife system.. If that was the case... You'd think I'd be here?

[17th Angel]

Further more... Not brown nosing... However, in the defence of most mods and Brian... This site is extremely tolerating... I try (believe me I do..) To be civil and join in on some conversations but, I admit I get out of hand... But I am still here.... This site does an excellent job of tolerating and accepting all sorts of people upon it... Take for example I would be shot on site, on most religious sites... But, here I am allowed to post... I am like the poster child at CR for tolerance and acceptance....

There are not many sites like that, so you must give credit to this site.... If you are constantly advised to tone down a certain trait and you do not... Is that the site or the posters fault? Continually..... Advised..... ?

[wil]

I think 17th actually makes a strong point on Dor, FS, Silas's behalf. Their claim as I understand it is that fundamentalist, biblethumping Christians are not tolerated on this tolerant interfaith site.

I must admit they do have a point. But the problem as I see it doesn't apply to the site but to the need to witness and the need to be right.

By definition as I understand it this is an interfaith forum on a site called Comparative Religion. And as such when we play in an interfaith forum we can't go around telling everyone else they are wrong and we have the only answer in the world. If that is what you wish to do, you may pick up whatever book of holy scripture you subscribe to and get on your bicycle or in your car, or walk door to door and discover your level of acceptance or getting banned at physical sites....instead of this virtual one.

So the ground rules are that we are here for discussion, learning, delving into the intracies of our own beliefs. If all we wanted to hear were Islamic, Judaic, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist...whatever beliefs....there are plenty of sites we could go to to preach to the choir, high five each other with our sanctimonious dedication to whatever word we belong to and have a mutual admiration party.

I think we are here because we don't need that patting on the back. Even without the walls we just need to be aware of what garden we are in, and show some respect. In this case I can be pointed at as one who could do better in this regard. For all practical purposes they made a garden for me so I didn't disrupt the one I thought I should be able to plow....but often the fruit is still so tempting over there I gotta go to the picnic table.

Lot of teeth gnashing and seething going on occasionally trying to not reach through the screens....but all in all a wonderful place...one that truly shows us how much work we all have to do....ie if we can't stay peaceable on our computer screens....what can we expect in the streets?

[17th Angel]

Brian is saying, You worship frogs in pink tutus? Fine.. You worship jesus, follow Buddah... Whatever That's fine... But when it gets to the point you are telling people what to do..... Then is it fine?

"I think 17th actually makes a strong point on Dor, FS, Silas's behalf. Their claim as I understand it is that fundamentalist, biblethumping Christians are not tolerated on this tolerant interfaith site."

I don't think I am... I think this site DOES tolerate the biblethumpers... To a point. Just like it tolerates me to a point, like it tolerates you to a point.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

I think this site DOES tolerate the biblethumpers... .

As before, a person's belief doesn't determine suitability for posting at CR - the only exception being Neofascists, after we sustained attacks on the site by a Belgian Neonazi to the extent that I actually blocked most of Belgium from accessing CR for a while.

Interfaith *has* to embrace conservative viewpoints, otherwise it's just liberal back-slapping, which doesn't really achieve anything.

I think one of the points of success for CR is that conservative Christians such as Faithfulservant and Dor have felt they can play a constructive role on the forums.

No, witnessing at members isn't tolerated - and would achieve little anyway - but Faithfulservant and Dor have made heard a conservative voice that I sincerely value. I don't remember ever PM'ing them stating their opinions or beliefs are unwelcome, and it would be a genuine shame to lose that voice.

2c.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It's a commendable idea, and maybe a democratic process can work in some instances of forum management (such as politics forums) - but generally speaking, from experience and observation, forum administration works best when there is an individual or small group who can take responsibility for making decisions.

I did not mean to propose anything democratic. Some main points were:

1. A direct method of communication of the problem with a person before action is taken.
2. A requirement for owner and mods to put their reasoning into civil words before the community and subject it to comment.
3. A method for the community to comment before the action is taken.
4. An opportunity for last words to be exchanged before the forced separation.
5. Isolation of the conversation to a set time and place separate from the forum intended to a specific religion.

Nothing democratic... the monarchist moderators can continue to do what the monarchist moderators do... it simply requires moderators to subject it to public comment and gives the condemned person and the community a few last words before the action is taken.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

These decisions aren't simply made on banning issues, but a whole range of various management and administration issues, such as removing spam, server admin, software management, webmastering, and of course, running costs.

I suggest that judgment of a food that a person has brought to the potluck, and the condemnation of the person who brought it, is entirely different than commenting on the house owner's wallpaper selection or financial decisions. People are bringing something that you don't have, whether it is good or bad, and they brought it to interact with the community and not necessarily just the owner of the house and his servants... I suggest that both the person being judged / condemned, and the community deserve respect before anyone is thrown out the door and that can be done by putting it in words and allowing the community and the person to comment as he is being shown the door.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Generally, I don't see people rushing to share in the general tasks of running a site like this, excepting people who accept to be moderators, who help take some of the responsibilities and usually thanklessly.

If you want people to mow the yard or set the table in addition to cooking and preparing the food that they have been bringing, then I think you might need to put up some more help wanted signs.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think what you're really after is greater transparancy, and assurance that simply having strong beliefs isn't going to see a member forcibly removed, and I'll certainly bear that in mind in my drive to make CR more open.

That is not it. Forums are very transparent already.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It's a very good analogy, and I don't seek to ban people just because of disagreements over the food between guests. However, if someone sits at my table, tells me my food is foul, my guests are poor company, and then proceeds to rail this point to one and all, generally I'm going to remove them.

To me, that is what a moderator did... they judged that one of the guests that I was conversing with was poor company, told him before everyone that his food was foul, and proceeded to rail that point to one and all. I personally had no problem there... let them argue, but then the guy mysteriously disappeared without even a trace and without respect to the community that was exchanging recipes with him.

I would seek ears that are able to separate the recipe from the person. The exchange of recipes and direct commentary on them is part of this. If I am sensitive to that then I have a sensitivity issue that is equally a problem. It seems that people focus on the tongue and forget the ear. If someone tells me that I am a bad cook, a bad Christian, a bad Muslim, or a bad person, and that I am going to hell... forgive me if I do not shed a tear or get angry... they won't be the first and they won't be the last. I ask that they put it in words and that I will do my best to respond in a manner that might be received. The more words that anyone uses the more it can be deciphered and scrutinized so that I can choose whether to change my recipe or carry on with full knowledge that someone disapproves of me.

But I understand that people are sensitive while others can be beligerent. I personally do not care if you ban people starting with me... I am simply asking for conversation about it while you do it so that the public, the bouncer, and the person being banished might learn something from the process.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Generally this isn't done to be least disruptive to all parties. I can't think of any common example where someone may be forcefully removed from any premises, and then have their removal publically announced in detail, and set for discussion.

Would it be less disruptive to have no court, trial, or hearing where the accused could minimally say a few words before being sentenced?

Originally Posted by I, Brian

There's always the danger such threads can be disruptive, too, where people want the responsibility of the decision-making process without the accountability. If banning decisions become democratic, who takes final responsibility?

I see your concern but I hope that it is disruptive and yet confined to the thread. Good things can be just as disruptive as bad things. I suggest it is the exact opposite because the accountability is in the posts with every word that a person speaks. In one aspect I am calling for accountability through conversation, regardless of who makes the decision. In many ways that relieves the moderator from the burden because the community can equally verbally support their decision as well as oppose it. If there was a jury making the decision (democratic decision?), then the responsibility would be on whoever made the decision. I was not calling for a court with a jury. I called for a hearing. Whoever wants to place words into the hearing takes responsibility for their own words and whoever makes a decision from it takes responsibility for their own decision. You can be the one to throw the switch every time if you wish... it is your house.

I can see your concern though... if someone gets into the "Fry him, pull the switch" or "No, this is just not right" mode, which is what I see right now without the hearing, then I would try to bring it back to focus on the posts that were considered offensive. Ask for evidence. Encourage conversation that narrows it down to the sentence or posts that were considered the most offensive and then pick them apart, compare them with the CoC, and compare them with other posts on CR. I would try to make it an analytical process and try to remove the subjectivity. I would place similar sentences in front of the accused and ask if he is following the Golden Rule. It is important though to encourage participation or comment from everyone who is willing.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

To be honest, one of my personal complaints about CR is that we've been too restrictive on the discussions here. Sure, it's a policy I originally pushed on, but now I think the community needs room to grow and define itself, with least interference. Even still, there will always be a requirement for someone to make final judgements.

It is a tough one because any decision that anyone makes will cause the forum to be more like them. If you make all the decisions then it should be called comparative-religion according to Brian, because whether you see it or not your beliefs will be assimilated by natural selection. I know it is not your intention but it happens. I suggest that it becomes sanitized to your standards whereas the world religions are dirty. I personally do not think the community is large enough to change away from the way that CR is currently making decisions. All that I suggested is a focused hearing before you ban someone wherein people can exchange words before the action is made.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I have my own religious and spiritual views, but I'll be impressed if anyone can find myself promoting or enforcing them here.

I barely saw you in the time that I've been here, but I'd say a person promotes something with every word they speak.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Firstly, sending warnings or banning a member isn't an act of condemnation. It's simply an administrative decision. This is an important point to remember.

I disagree. Please take it more seriously. Regardless of who Silas was, he invested time and interacted, and so did everyone who interacted with him. If he is to be banned, lets spend a little more time interacting while he is being kicked out.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Secondly, there is far more to the administration of CR than simply banning, and this administration comes with responsibilities.

Give to ceasar what is ceasars but to others what is theirs. Everyone is contributing at this potluck dinner... not just the administration. The issue I was focused on is when the administration picks and chooses out of the potluck dinner and selects dinner guests to be banished.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

There are basic ones, such as putting the time in to ensure everything's running okay, not simply on the community, but also on the server. It's a huge time sink.

Your choice to delegate.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

And there are basic monetary costs involved in all of this. A quick calculation suggests CR has cost me $3500 just in hosting and software, plus I'm mooting some changes to the staff that - if followed through - would have immediate costs of $8500. Anyone want to share responsibility for that?

Sure, send the receipts. I question whether any 'staff' should be paid if that is what you are indicating.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Responsibilities aren't simply task related either - a while back the Christian members were in uproar about a certain member disrupting their discussions. When that person was finally removed, they threatened CR with legal action.

I've seen that before somewhere else... hopefully we see that would be a waste of his time and would be easy to defend. Perhaps it is evidence that the blow needs to be softened with a a hearing. If it is an unpopular decision with the entire community then I too would question why he was banned. I am guessing I was not here at the time. Otherwise I suggest the banishment can be softened as someone from the community agrees with the decision and provides verbal support in the thread to help provide explanation before he is banned... and the person would have a final rebuttal.

I realize that I probably come across as taking it too seriously that Silas was banned. Which is fine, but then just for kicks how about you ban whoever thinks that and see if they might also approve or disapprove. I am perfectly happy with you banning people but I am also for better refinement and definition of why anyone should be found unacceptable. The goal is to show people how to change for the better, right? You would use words like attitude, which is fine... lets make that a more objective measurement rather than the subjective one that it is by having some discussion over it when the time is appropriate. Now that Silas is gone it is perhaps no longer considered appropriate and I can fully understand my unpopularity for making a stink over it. So, next time lets institute an appropriate time for a week when someone is on the chopping block and while they are still present to discuss the matter with. Usually it is an altercation between individuals who care while 3rd party members might choose to not get involved. If the 3rd party members knew someone was going to get banned though, they might be interested in commenting on what they see from their perspective.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

So the bottom line is that being responsible for a site like CR means taking on board a range of responsibilities, investment of time and money, and all for little apparent award.

I personally don't award anyone for banning Silas... but I will if someone can convince me that Silas was worse than the moderators and that he has really learned anything from it.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Should CR be more accountable? I think so, and as above, I'm trying to do this - but ultimately, I'm going to have to make final decisions on what happens with CR because I am ultimately responsible, accountable, and liable for everything that happens here.

Nope... you are not. Please think more about that one. I am ultimately responsible, accountable, and liable for what I say regardless of where I say it. Whereas I am not accountable for everything that even my own children say and do. Furthermore I will benefit from whatever conversation I might participate in whereas you might not if you don't participate. However, I fully agree that it is your right to claim final decision on whatever you want to simply because it is your website... you originated it, you own it, and you control it. Those are the real reasons. If you want to willy nilly ban every member that is perfectly within your rights. If you want to secretly ban the IP's of whoever you want that is your choice too. If you want to be offensive and call people names, judge or chastise anyone's religion on your website... you have that right. I do not deny your right.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

But in doing so, I'm constantly trying to ensure that I can do so while being as fair and neutral as possible in all of the decision-making processes. I think I haven't done as well as I should have in the past, but I'm keen to make sure I do better today and for the future.

I can see your efforts and I think the website clearly reflects it. Your interest, tolerance and knowledge of religions certainly exceeds mine.

Sorry for the long post.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

You worship frogs in pink tutus?

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

[juantoo3]

Sure, send the receipts. I question whether any 'staff' should be paid if that is what you are indicating.

Hey Brian, I want a raise! How about double what I'm making now?


(*Be careful what you pray for...one double portion of thankless headache coming right up!*)

[Sunny C.]

The only raise you'll get is when Brian puts a pillow under your ass.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

The only raise you'll get is when Brian puts a pillow under your ass.

Hell, what 'cha talkin' 'bout? I ain't got that much outta the deal.

I guess it's a really good thing I like this place and what it stands for.

[I, Brian]

Thanks for the post, cyberpi, and believe me, I'm taking the concerns raised seriously.

It's just that there seems something very ideological about your approach, whereas I have to take a more practical approach.

You mention that the individual posters are responsible and accountable for what they post - but in legal terms, it's solely the responsibility of my internet company under whose protection I run CR.

Court-style discussion threads about banning decisions sound like they offer great potential for libel issues - real or perceived. I got caught out with this on another forum I run, and it cost me $2k in legal costs just to make a legal response before I could get the case dropped.

I think the bottom line is that communities expect the admins to look after the overall running of the community for them, but also with their interests at heart and with a sense of accountability and trust that the important decisions are made fairly.

I do make a point of PM'ing people when their behaviour is over the line, and usually that's all that's required. Misunderstandings happen, and people get heated sometimes. It's all part of community relations.

But if someone continues regardless, and I receive complaints via PM about continuing problems created by such an unheeding individual, then a decision needs making.

I hear you in terms of making any banning process more transparent, so if and when I find myself having to make such a decision about a regular poster, I can look to set up a thread explaining why that decision was made.

Then if people disgree, they can determine whether my interests really are in line with how they see the community's interests, and make their own decisions on that.

Hope that helps.