board77

I will reiterate my previous comment on the subject. I do not support banning anybody, unless they are doing something illegal. I don't care if that person is repeatedly obnoxious. If that person is such a bother, then ignore them, change the subject or smash the keyboard. Nobody is forced to post to anyone else on this board.

Edit: With yov's permission, I have split off all of the posts from the 'banning hal' thread where no names are mentioned so that we may continue the discussion.

...

Eru is right.

I absolutely agree with Eru's statement as well.
However, a general discussion about how to deal with drama before it becomes a full-scale war is probably wise.

I also agree. In fact, my suggestion would be for a ranger to take the appropriate posts from this thread and split them into a new thread that is a general discussion of banning a non-specific member, rather than keeping them in this thread. Since this thread is specifically about hal, I think it naturally invites ongoing discussion of hal, which I don't think is a wise course of action given the fact that he is no longer posting on the board. I am quite sure that he is still reading, though.

Just a thought and a suggestion. I guess the rangers would have to check with yovi first to see if he cared if posts were split off from here.


Lali

I think that's a good idea.

I also think it's a good idea for each of us to remember that this is a public forum. Just because we haven't "seen" somebody around doesn't mean that they aren't reading what you post or won't read it sometime in the future.

I'll say again what I have said previously.

1) If someone causes a board-wide disruption, a ranger should feel free to confine that person to one forum for an indefinite period of time. (?? How long? Till they calm down? For an automatic period of 1 week? 2? 3? Not sure about that yet.)

2) I think this can be very well justified based upon our existing charter.

3) I would like to see us consider a charter amendment that makes repeated violation of the board-wide disruption rule an offense that can have a stricter punishment. (I'm not sure what that should be yet.)


#3 is the only one that I might change my mind on. Maybe taking the first action is sufficient, and I would add that the confinement should be to the Bike Racks forum. That's the one that makes the most sense, imo.


Lali

Lali: I'm pretty clear on what I'd like to see: b77 should have a way to ban a member who is repeatedly disruptive. Period. That doesn't violate anything that we stand for.

Not everyone is equal on B77 some people get away with more than others. It's a fact, which is why only hal is in this position. For some reason other members are over looked.

Who do you think has been overlooked, TM?

TM,
You and I will probably never agree on this, but hal's position is unique only because his behavior is unique. But this thread isn't supposed to be about hal specifically, and like I said, we'll never agree on it, so on to the larger issue.

tolkienpurist wrote:

Lali: I'm pretty clear on what I'd like to see: b77 should have a way to ban a member who is repeatedly disruptive. Period. That doesn't violate anything that we stand for.

Depends on who gets to define "disruptive". And whether that definition gets uniformly applied.

Really though, no one person can disrupt this board. It takes a cooperative effort. If someone starts a thread (or even multiple threads) saying that Angbasdil is an asshole, I have two options. I can ignore him, in which case he is the asshole. Or I can call him an asshole, in which case we now have two assholes. And if other people start taking sides on which of us is the asshole, then the asshole factor grows exponentially. (Do the math, it really is exponential.)

The truth is that every single person (including me) who ever posted in a "disruptive" thread was, at that time, a disruptive influence. The only way to kill Teh Drama is to starve it. I know it's not easy to ignore sometimes, but as I've said before, this whole community thing ain't for wimps. And from a practical perspective, it's kinda fun to watch someone get more and more frustrated as they try and fail to get a rise out everybody. =:)=:)

Bottom line - we founded this board on the idea that banning someone was an asbsolute last resort. And if we turn our backs on our principles the first time someone challenges them, then we have no fucking principles, we are not who we say we are and everything we do is a lie.

....

It's why I think my option could work. At the discretion of the rangers (which could be any one of us at any given point in time), they can temporarily confine one (or two or three) people to the Bike Racks. I think I've done a reasonable job showing how the charter we currently have in place can support this action. (No, it wouldn't hold up to Supreme Court scrutiny, but I think it works for us.)

Isolating the single source of the drama is even better, so that he or she is alone in the Bike Racks having a hissy-fit in isolation. (I apply this same principle to my children. Stuffed animals occasionally sail into the hallway if I leave the door open, but it mostly works.)

Instituting option 3 or tp's suggestion requires a lot of work. Anyone up for that? It would require an amendment to the charter.


Lali

...

Yes, sometimes it's not about figuring out who's at fault, per se. It's about dealing with a person who is out of control. Normally, it's only one person who is out of control. Others may be fueling the fire, but dealing with that is not what I think this issue is about. The issue is about dealing with anyone who goes on a rampage, really. Or starts disrupting all forums, many threads, etc.

That's the special case scenario that warrants a temporary confinement in order to get that person to cool off.

Again, using my kids as an example, Sarah does something to Katie. Katie responds inappropriately. Sarah escalates the conflict. Katie then gets out of control. What do I do? Sit down with them both and try to figure out what went wrong where?

I could, if they were both in control of themselves. But if Katie is out of control, then she needs to be isolated till she cools off, regardless of whether or not she's the original one at fault.

Only when she is in control of herself again can I then have a reasonable conversation with her. Then there's probably some punishment for her actions (her decision to lose self-control or retaliate or whatever) or it's time served, something like that.

And, yes, I would also deal with Sarah and her actions, and she would face the consequences. But I think that's a different issue here, really. Or at least one that needs to be addressed separately.

That's how I see it anyway. Most people here respond very well to a gentle reminder from a ranger saying, "Hey, could you please edit your post or keep your comments non-personal?" Or something to that effect. Most really do! To me, in a messageboard setting, that's usually all the corrective action that's needed for those people "fueling the fire." If the person out of control would respond to those rangerly admonitions, then that would be great, too. But if they don't or won't or can't, then they need a "time out," basically.

All my opinion, of course.

Lali

Perhaps if three or more people complain to a ranger about the behavior of a poster AND the ranger agrees with them that the poster needs it, then confinment to the bikeracks for 1 week.

However, if the ranger thinks that people are complaining because they are being thin-skinned and the comments are not that bad, then it should be up for review by all the rangers before any action is taken.

I like the idea of getting rid of a lot of the drama, however, I wouldn't want board77 to be a place where the people who complain the most and the loudest are catered for the most, even if they're not the majority.

Quote:

I wouldn't want board77 to be a place where the people who complain the most and the loudest are catered for the most

Just wanted to point out that this is a huge pet peeve of mine about volunteer organizations in general: what is perceived of as trying to be supportive becomes enabling all too easily. Eventually everyone else who is trying to be a reasonable adult figures out there's no percentage in it, and either leaves or cranks up to fit in.

To me, the issue doesn't have to do with who is fueling the fire. Everyone in the history of the Internet has done that from time to time, and although I agree with what you're saying, Ang, I don't think that it is possible to eradicate the fire-fuelers (all of us), if you will. Someone is always going to respond. Even when a lot of us agreed that the best solution was to just stop responding to hal, for instance, (sorry - it's impossible to discuss this topic without using the clearest example of the behavior we're discussing), some people kept responding. There's no way to get everyone to agree to stop responding at the same time, and so long as some people feel that they need to keep going, the fire starter can continue with however many fire-fuelers s/he has.

The issue, to me, is whether there is a persistent fire-starter. Certainly, someone who has started a fire on a single occasion can be relegated to Bike Racks to calm down (although that sounds disturbingly like kindergarten, honestly.) But, in my view, someone who keeps on starting fires ad nauseum, should be sent a clear message by the community: based on your behavior, you have no place in this community (whether temporarily or permanently.) That is what HoF, TORC, and every board which has made it online have (temporary and permanent bans); that is what school districts and universities have (suspension and expulsion); that is what real life communities have (jail, prison, and even the death penalty). It is a fundamental part of any workable human society - to expel those individuals who, through a long pattern of behavior, have shown that they do not belong in that society. And where online societies deviate from this requirement, they are diminished and in some cases destroyed. b77 HAS been diminished by this very issue: the inability in past dramas to deal with fire starters or the most rabid of the serial fire fuelers. It has caused valued posters to leave, sometimes quietly and sometimes otherwise.

I believe we would do ourselves a disservice by following the parliamentary procedures outlined in the Charter. What is needed is a simple protocol informally agreed to in this thread and then approved by a simple majority (at most.) I like the idea of "three strikes and you're out" - for instance, if someone is confined to the Bike Racks by the Rangers three times (Lali's idea), then they'd be eligible for a ban. I like Estel's idea for when someone should be confined to the Bike Racks - perhaps adding that two Rangers should agree, to reduce the possibility of a single Ranger being biased.

I'm swamped with work and can't respond again today, but will be back later.

tp has hit the nail on the head. While it is all very well and good to have a Utopian idea of "no banning", the reality is that this is not a Utopia and we have no other mechanism available.

TheMary wrote:

Not everyone is equal on B77 some people get away with more than others. It's a fact, which is why only hal is in this position. For some reason other members are over looked.

Who? When? Under what circumstances?

I think if you are going to make such a charge, you ought to be prepared to show the evidence.

How to deal with drama? Sell tickets. Raise the curtain. Wait for the reviews.

If it lacks entertainment value, it will close quickly.