banning policy

If you're having any problems with the site, please post here and a site administrator will respond.

Postby dreddk » Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:12 pm

"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche.
User avatar
dreddk
Family Elder
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: South Pacific

Advertisement

Postby jimmylegs » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:15 am

@cece: all posts by the banned user have been removed from the forum. only the most innocuous posts directed at that user remain, nothing contentious - as far as i can see anyway. basically it was trolling squared.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby L » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:27 am

which banned user?
User avatar
L
Family Elder
 
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: The United Kingdom

Postby scorpion » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:01 am

An old Scottish saying:


"A little bit of disagreement keeps the talk long.
Too much agreement kills a conversation.J"
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby Cece » Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:44 am

concerned wrote:I'll make a concerted effort not to respond to the responses that my posts generate which are simply attacking me and not what I posted, I swear.

Also, jimmylegs is doing a good job. She doesn't often remove the point, if any, of the offending posts, just the personal attacks. If people could just stop attacking other posters every time they say something they disagree with (and I mean attacking the poster personally, not attacking what they say, which is fair game in my opinion, and that works both ways too...) then I think all would be fine. And, although I would like to never read the comments of some posters on this forum ever again ever in my life ever( except maybe for comedic reasons), I don't think bannings are the way to go.

EDIT: That post seemed like I was trying to skirt responsibility. I do get angry at things people say and respond in really stupid ways, that I think are sometimes kind of funny, but not what people with MS, like my mother deserve. From now on I will only post my skepticisms, not my beefs.


Group hug?

I would definitely have to lay down the pitchfork, if we're going for a group hug. No hidden knives?
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9024
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby HappyPoet » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:01 am

For Arron:

I'm wondering why the number of moderators hasn't increased in relation to the growth of TIMS since the appearance of CCSVI?

Increasing the size of the team of moderators would take off pressure from current moderators, provide for better coverage of all forums, increase respect for all moderators, decrease moderator mistakes, and increase member satisfaction.

I can think of two people who would make excellent additions to the team of moderators.

Looking forward to your reply,

Respectfully,
~HappyPoet
User avatar
HappyPoet
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1401
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:23 am

Group hugs? Forgive and forget? Turn the other cheek?

What about
Lone Watie wrote:"I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender. They have him pulling a wagon up in Kansas I bet."
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:41 am

hi happy, monitoring is of course the task of TIMS members.

therefore, the number has increased in lock-step with the growth of the site.

anyway, the moderators' role is to respond to your private messages - including links to issues - and i thank you for your help to date.

rules of the board:
we cannot and do not monitor every posting for content-- all problems should be reported to the moderator(s); otherwise assume we have not seen the offending posts.


by and large, messages arrive in my inbox at a slow trickle.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby scorpion » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:58 am

HappyPoet wrote:For Arron:

I'm wondering why the number of moderators hasn't increased in relation to the growth of TIMS since the appearance of CCSVI?

Increasing the size of the team of moderators would take off pressure from current moderators, provide for better coverage of all forums, increase respect for all moderators, decrease moderator mistakes, and increase member satisfaction.

I can think of two people who would make excellent additions to the team of moderators.

Looking forward to your reply,

Respectfully,
~HappyPoet


HappyPoet I do not think the answer is more moderators. One thing to keep in mind is the ONLY forum where there are complaints,generally speaking, is from the CCSVI forum. Maybe a moderator just assigned to this forum would help? Although there has definitely been a need for some reminders to some of the members about forum rules I really have not read anything that would justify banning someone from Thisisms. If people are really looking to work through disagreements here is some tips from conflict resolution 101:

Unhealthy responses to conflict are characterized by:


* An inability to recognize and respond to matters of great importance to the other person
* Explosive, angry, hurtful, and resentful reactions
* The withdrawal of love, resulting in rejection, isolation, shaming, and fear of abandonment
* The expectation of bad outcomes
* The fear and avoidance of conflict


Healthy responses to conflict are characterized by:

* The capacity to recognize and respond to important matters
* A readiness to forgive and forget
* The ability to seek compromise and avoid punishing
* A belief that resolution can support the interests and needs of both parties
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby CenterOfGravity » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:38 am

I am a new poster here on TIMS but I've been reading for awhile. I will say that some of the naysayers do make me uncomfortable, because it's obvious they only want to stir up trouble. I don't see a problem with skepticism, brought with intelligence and data, but it isn't usually that way. It's more often snide or rude comments that appear to be intended to derail the conversation (and I can say it did create an environment where I was uncomfortable even joining). I also do find myself wondering how anyone with MS or knowing someone with MS isn't at least open to CCSVI as a possibility, let alone wanting to come in here and shoot down anybody who believes strongly that CCSVI has a major role in MS (whether causative or not). Yes it is important to have rigorous studies, and for the quantity of time this has been out there, I think the studies are happening, and over time, we will continue to learn more and more about what i believe is an amazing discovery. I did think this message board was supposed to be a supportive place for the discussion.
User avatar
CenterOfGravity
Family Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby L » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:53 am

CenterOfGravity wrote:I am a new poster here on TIMS but I've been reading for awhile. I will say that some of the naysayers do make me uncomfortable, because it's obvious they only want to stir up trouble. I don't see a problem with skepticism, brought with intelligence and data, but it isn't usually that way. It's more often snide or rude comments that appear to be intended to derail the conversation (and I can say it did create an environment where I was uncomfortable even joining). I also do find myself wondering how anyone with MS or knowing someone with MS isn't at least open to CCSVI as a possibility, let alone wanting to come in here and shoot down anybody who believes strongly that CCSVI has a major role in MS (whether causative or not). Yes it is important to have rigorous studies, and for the quantity of time this has been out there, I think the studies are happening, and over time, we will continue to learn more and more about what i believe is an amazing discovery. I did think this message board was supposed to be a supportive place for the discussion.


well said!
User avatar
L
Family Elder
 
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: The United Kingdom

Postby Cece » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:15 am

L wrote:
CenterOfGravity wrote:I am a new poster here on TIMS but I've been reading for awhile. I will say that some of the naysayers do make me uncomfortable, because it's obvious they only want to stir up trouble. I don't see a problem with skepticism, brought with intelligence and data, but it isn't usually that way. It's more often snide or rude comments that appear to be intended to derail the conversation (and I can say it did create an environment where I was uncomfortable even joining). I also do find myself wondering how anyone with MS or knowing someone with MS isn't at least open to CCSVI as a possibility, let alone wanting to come in here and shoot down anybody who believes strongly that CCSVI has a major role in MS (whether causative or not). Yes it is important to have rigorous studies, and for the quantity of time this has been out there, I think the studies are happening, and over time, we will continue to learn more and more about what i believe is an amazing discovery. I did think this message board was supposed to be a supportive place for the discussion.


well said!

Yes, this is a helpful post.

Concerned has offered this:
concerned wrote:EDIT: That post seemed like I was trying to skirt responsibility. I do get angry at things people say and respond in really stupid ways, that I think are sometimes kind of funny, but not what people with MS, like my mother deserve. From now on I will only post my skepticisms, not my beefs.

So he is distinguishing between skepticisms and beefs and you are distinguishing between skepticisms and rude or snide comments meant to derail.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9024
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby TMrox » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:25 am

Banning is not the way to help patients make sense of the unfolding research on CCSVI.

On the other hand I don’t like seeing the posts written by medical tourism clinics we have from time to time. I don't like seeing personal attacks either.

I would suggest that moderatos need to give posters that are clearly violating the forum rules a warning. If more than say 3 warnings are given then, a ban might be applied.

As you might know I’ve been unreasonably banned from a forum where I was documenting my progress after I was treated for CCSVI.

I was banned a few days after I finally got off medication and almost fully recovered.

My posts were never disrespectful. I was banned because a couple of moderators on that forum disagreed with CCSVI.

We don’t have to agree with every single post. If you don’t like it or disagree don’t get offended or heated up. Skip it. I know that it is very hard to do.

But at any cost try be respectful and avoid personal attacks. Our diseases are horrible, we have enough going on in our lives to add more drama and aggression here.

Kindly,
Rox
Diagnosed with Transverse Myelitis in December 2008. Inflammatory demyelination of the spinal cord (c3-c5). No MS, but still CCSVI.
User avatar
TMrox
Family Elder
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:43 am

http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-1964.html#1964
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:05 pm Post subject: Banning Policy
Posted by: Arron.
Effective immediately, if I recieve more than 5 PMs from established posters (registered for over 1 month, with more than 10 posts) complaining in detail-- with examples-- about a particular member, I will put the member on notice of the complaints and ask them to provide a public response. If after posting the defense, those same complaints are upheld, the member will be banned. If no defense is provided, the member will of course be banned.

Reinstatement will be on a case-by-case basis, run through me.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby scorpion » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:22 pm

jimmylegs wrote:http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-1964.html#1964
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:05 pm Post subject: Banning Policy
Posted by: Arron.
Effective immediately, if I recieve more than 5 PMs from established posters (registered for over 1 month, with more than 10 posts) complaining in detail-- with examples-- about a particular member, I will put the member on notice of the complaints and ask them to provide a public response. If after posting the defense, those same complaints are upheld, the member will be banned. If no defense is provided, the member will of course be banned.

Reinstatement will be on a case-by-case basis, run through me.


Sounds fair to me as long as the "complaints" are due to violations from the "rules of the board".
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Site Support

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service