Page 1 of 5
banning policy
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:47 pm
by Cece
Banning Policy
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-1964.html#1964
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:05 pm Post subject: Banning Policy
Posted by: Arron - Site Admin
Quote:
Multiple situations have arisen now where members have been accused of crossing the line in one way or another and a call has been raised to ask them to leave.
It is extremely difficult to determine in a fair fashion if one should be on the site or not. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they should be prevented from posting.
However, if the manner in which they respond is making a large number of people uncomfortable and negatively affects the tone of the site, the offending member will unfortunately need to leave, or in forum terms, be "banned."
Effective immediately, if I [receive] 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.
Any thoughts?
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:19 pm
by Johnson
What I would like to see is an "ignore user" option - wherein one can block posters they find to be annoying. Then people can post to their hearts' content. Annoying posters eventually give up when they receive no reads, and no responses.
This forum has unfortunately become something of a circus, which is a shame.
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:07 pm
by Cece
Lyon, you have your moments, as do we all. This was not aimed at you, unless you have that double identity. Good analogy with the houseguests. But whether we're new or old, it seems reasonable to step up if we see people setting fires in the corners.
I spent hours upon hours here in 2006, that was when I was diagnosed. I didn't post then, though, I saved them all up for 2010.
An "ignore user" option would be great but we haven't got that.
There are a few people who I believe negatively affect the tone of the site. But do they make a large number of people uncomfortable?
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:09 pm
by L
[quote="Cece"But do they make a large number of people uncomfortable?[/quote]
For sure. No doubt about it.
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:14 pm
by Trish317
Cece wrote:Lyon, you have your moments, as do we all. This was not aimed at you, unless you have that double identity. Good analogy with the houseguests. But whether we're new or old, it seems reasonable to step up if we see people setting fires in the corners.
I spent hours upon hours here in 2006, that was when I was diagnosed. I didn't post then, though, I saved them all up for 2010.
An "ignore user" option would be great but we haven't got that.
There are a few people who I believe negatively affect the tone of the site. But do they make a large number of people uncomfortable?
Yes, and totally annoyed.
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:18 pm
by Lyon
L wrote: Ah yes, the good old days of MS when there was absolutely no hope except for aggressive chemotherapy.
That there is no substitute for hope but a minority singing the (as yet unproven) glory of CCSVI REALLY constitutes certain cause for hope?
If the theory of CCSVI really is so promising and if the singers are REALLY so convinced, the question always has been and remains "why are those asking questions always treated as the enemy?"
cheerleader wrote:That's why there are 30 other forums that cover a variety of other topics...personal attack removed
I'll stay, thanks!
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:28 pm
by Cece
L wrote:Cece wrote:But do they make a large number of people uncomfortable?
For sure. No doubt about it.
Trish317 wrote:Yes, and totally annoyed.
Ok, I like the direction this is going.
Is Arron still on this site or will any pm's need to be directed to one of the mods instead?
What is needed is a pm, with a list of complaints with examples, about any individual who you believe is negatively affecting the tone of the board and made you uncomfortable. Please do not send a pm unless these criteria have been meant. This is not meant as a witch hunt, but maybe a little empowerment back to any of us who have been affected by it.
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:32 pm
by PCakes
Cece wrote:There are a few people who I believe negatively affect the tone of the site. But do they make a large number of people uncomfortable?
Yes, without a doubt.
Johnson's idea would be best... I know not of the possibility..
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:36 pm
by Cece
PCakes wrote:Cece wrote:There are a few people who I believe negatively affect the tone of the site. But do they make a large number of people uncomfortable?
Yes, without a doubt.
Johnson's idea would be best... I know not of the possibility..
It would be a major change, I don't know that it's feasible. I think we have to work within the rules of the board, if we're to do anything at all.
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:54 pm
by garyak
It's so hard not to get a bit upset at some of the negative ccsvi posts that are from repeat posters.
Their styles, when they reply, often appear to be just wanting to get us pwMS riled up. I have really aggro MS and before my procedure I often thought about how and when to kill myself. So I have a fairly short fuse for some posters.
I now have hope for my future and are in much better mental health since my procedure. I try to be tolerant but it's tough at times.
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:56 pm
by jimmylegs
my 'ignore user' button is in my head! usually i find it quite reliable
the rules are pretty simple: 5 well documented cases for consideration by arron.
i remember the last person (as far as i know) that was banned, that case still stands out against anything i've seen to date.
if we had such a user at TIMS today, i assure you at *least* 5 members would have done the work by now.
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:58 pm
by jimmylegs
garyak i hear you... although my route has been different, i remember when i was doing so badly i expected to die by the end of the year.. it really sucks when life gets you like that
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:09 pm
by jimmylegs
rules of the board
slightly veiled innuendo or sarcastic comments aimed at the poster as opposed to the content of the post, are not tolerated at This is MS. We of course reserve the right to ban or suspend any member who violates this rule.
anyone have comments on banning policy?
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:03 pm
by Mathd
I dont think Banning someone is the best way.
anyway they will be capable to came back with an other name.
at this point you can ban a ip address, but it can be easy to change ip address,
And the ignore button is not the key too. The problem will be a lots of hole in a thread, and it will be as unreadable than reading junks...
I think(my 2 cents... ) that a moderator is always needed when things goes wrong like now, but a good common sence is always better
yelling that CCSVI is not real is not a good thing, but for the same reason yelling that CCSVI is the miracle we were waiting for is not better
their is studies on both side, both side are not flawless. we'll all have to wait for new (good, well built, not biased) studies to be completly sure...
anyway this is not politics, I dont want to be convinced to vote for someone... I'm old enough to think by myself,like everyone
(sorry for the quality of my english...)
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:23 pm
by jimmylegs
@mathd: thanks for your post, although i will say that banning has seemed effective in the past (1 single case i know about). i certainly agree it might not work 100% of the time!
the rules of the forum are clearly stated. please feel free to contribute accordingly