Mistaken Banning? No. Your Login ID needed reactivation

About Site Feedback
1

[quote=“In a thread in the Living in Taiwan forum, EOD”]Yes, I was banned by mistake. [color=orange]Originally I was told it was because I had updated my email address. Later a thoughtful moderator explained to me that the former owner of Forumosa, Gus did it intentionally.[/color] He had suspected that Aristotle and I were one and the same because I had permitted him to post a criticism of Forumosa in the Taiwan section at Daves ESL caf? I am the primary mod over there.
No one likes criticism but there really is no need to be insulting. [color=orange]I tried to plead my case with him only to have my email rejected as undeliverable.[/color] Miraculously when the control changed here on Forumosa as few months ago my User name was reactivated.
Thanks again Gus .
Everyone is more than welcome to post anything they like on Daves Chat Board so long as they maintain proper net etiquette. We have an open policy over there based on the freedom of speech principle. Something the mods over here might want to consider. [/quote]

:fatchance:

Here’s what I believe happened, EOD: you were not banned. Neither were you banned by mistake. You changed your own e-mail address, and in the process, this software automatically deactivates your account.

It deactivates your account to make sure that the new e-mail address you use is a valid one. In other words, if you mistype your new e-mail address, you cannot get the activation link. So you are forced to try again.

I suspect that you misunderstood this process back then, and incorrectly believed you were banned. You probably tried to complain to me, but wrote to the wrong address. This would explain the “undeliverable” error message that you received. :boo-hoo: Since you – inexplicably – imply that I engineered the undeliverable error message as my way ignoring you, you figured that you were “banned from Forumosa”

[Edited 17 Jan 04: Found EOD’s original case here: forumosa.com/3/viewtopic.php?t=9289]

Why am I so certain that you were not intentionally banned? Because bannings happen so rarely here that they are a big deal. We have a private forum solely for archiving and discussing banning cases. And you are not in it.
Btw, according to our Ban Forum, Aristotle was banned on 7 Jan 2003 (neat, it’s an anniversary!). His alter-ego was identified and also banned a few months later (and it was not EOD)

Even an administrator (like I was) could not get away with banning someone sans discussion without causing an uproar among the team. Your alleged case would have been discussed, argued over and voted upon. None of this is on record.

Back in the ORIENTED.org days, all discussions that led to extreme actions, like bannings, were stored in a special forum. This led to the decision to disable the DELETE post capability for regular members. Our concern was that confusing accusations were arise against the admins and moderators months later. This forum was our CYA file.

Today, bannings are handled competely differently – but the notion of preserving the original reasons for a ban is still central to the banning process.

I do not recall intentionally banning you, EOD, and I doubt it happened. I would like to know which moderator told you I intentionally banned you. There must have been some miscommunication somewhere. Please PM or e-mail to me (on second thought, better that you PM me :wink:) and I can hash it out with them.

It’s a shame that you believe we (and me, in particular) do not tolerate criticism. I think we do. In fact, I think we (esp. me) respond to criticism. Heck, some of the most critical people of this website over the years (and of me, in particular) are now moderators on Forumosa.com! Doesn’t that speak for itself?

I do agree that criticism is not something that we enjoy, and I am insulted that you think I would censor (ie. ban) you for it.

One more thing: I still do the tech support for Forumosa.com. So there’s a more than likely chance that I was the person who reactivated you after the Handover to Maoman

Don’t mention it.

2

EOD, I managed to lock myself by changing my email address. It took a few days to get back in, and I was only able to get the message out by emailing other forumosans that I had talked with off-site. Gus’ explanation makes sense to me.

Gus, I was banned a while back. No real explanation has ever been forthcoming from anyone. There was no opportunity to present my side of whatever the problem was. Not so subtle hints at several threads have failed to elicit any response about why ‘the rules’ are not enforced evenly.

May I suggest that bannings in future be subject to some sort of consultation process involving the person concerned? You wouldn’t deport someone from a country, or deny them access to any physical public space, without giving them the chance to speak first.

I think you have a responsibility to email your victims and explain why they have been locked out. State very clearly what is objectionable. Allow the person to respond, and post their reply in the banning forum for the management team to read and discuss. If the rules are not being enforced fairly, or if there is a reasonable explanation, then a warning is more appropriate than a banning. Even when banning is appropriate, you need to say why.

And once someone is banned then make an announcement to the community at large, so that everyone knows what has been done and why. It’s only fair to the rest of us, and might prevent people inadvertantly straying over whatever lines you may choose to draw.

Just my tuppence ha’penny worth.

3

Well, walk with me thru my thinking for a moment:

Banning a member is an extreme action. I understand that it also takes a fair amount of discussion among a panel of moderators before a final decision to ban a login is made. So, if you were banned, the reason ought to be for something that was extreme or flagrant. In other words: you shouldn’t be surprised that it happened… and thus, an explanation is probably moot.

Now, from what you wrote, and given the above thinking, I figure you mean that you were banned for “no reason at all”. Was this really the case?

Or do you only mean to say that you were banned, but you ought to have been given a chance to argue otherwise?

Incidentally, I believe Forumosa.com’s Standard Operating Procedure IS to warn people that they risk being banned – unless they are doing something that requires immediate action (like deleting their own posts).

More recently (within the past 6 months, just before I handover to Maoman), Forumosa.com started to use a ‘temporary’ ban – this had 2 purposes: (1) whatever the apparent abuse that was going on had to stop immediately, or (2) to signal to the offender that their situation is being discussed by the Ban Panel.

4

Thanks for your reply, Gus.

I don’t want to get into a "you shouldn’t have done that’ type argument. It’s all water under the bridge now, and no harm done.

But yes, I was surprised. And nobody bothered to really communicate with me, even after the ban was lifted. I tried to log back in a few weeks later, and was suddenly able to do so again. This hardly seems like a reasonable way to deal with transgressions.

How hard is it to send an email saying you don’t want so-and-so to do such and such a thing, that you have banned him/her while the matter is discussed, and invite a reply? In my case you would have got a contrite apology, because I genuinely didn’t realise I had broken a rule I was unaware of, although I would have been at pains to point out that the rules are not seen to be enforced uniformly. In fact, had the moderator responsible simply deleted the relevant post, and sent a warning then that would have been the end of the matter. I guess this is all tied in to the discussion about whether Forumosa is too PC, puritanical, or whatever.

And once a matter has been decided, one way or another, you do have a duty to communicate what decision has been made and why. Arbitrarily locking people out, then opening the door again without telling them, is hardly a good way to encourage respect for the admin team.

All the best, and no hard feelings.

5

[quote=“stragbasher”]And nobody bothered to really communicate with me, even after the ban was lifted. I tried to log back in a few weeks later, and was suddenly able to do so again. This hardly seems like a reasonable way to deal with transgressions.

How hard is it to send an email saying you don’t want so-and-so to do such and such a thing, that you have banned him/her while the matter is discussed, and invite a reply? In my case you would have got a contrite apology, because I genuinely didn’t realise I had broken a rule I was unaware of, although I would have been at pains to point out that the rules are not seen to be enforced uniformly. In fact, had the moderator responsible simply deleted the relevant post, and sent a warning then that would have been the end of the matter. I guess this is all tied in to the discussion about whether Forumosa is too PC, puritanical, or whatever.

And once a matter has been decided, one way or another, you do have a duty to communicate what decision has been made and why. Arbitrarily locking people out, then opening the door again without telling them, is hardly a good way to encourage respect for the admin team.

All the best, and no hard feelings.[/quote]
I just went through some old records to find out specifically what had happened. Here’s a recap: You had arranged a sexual encounter over the internet with some local girl you had met online. You then had second thoughts and were inviting other people to show up at the arranged location to impersonate you in order to have sex with this girl. I thought the idea was pretty offensive and possibly made forumosa legally liable. I didn’t see too many happy endings for condoning posts like that. I took it to the Mod Squad who, in light of your many positive contributions, decided to keep you on board. In the meantime, you were not in the dark about what was going on, as you claim to have been. You were notified with this message every time you tried to log in:

[quote]From the Registration Agreement Page:

If you post something abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented (that we, ahem, object to) or any other material that any reasonable person on this planet would have a problem with – then we are probably going to do something about it.

From admin: Your post regarding a “give-away” of a sexual encounter that you arranged in another website is controversial enough that a temporary ban is in place until “tmwc’s” fate is resolved.[/quote]
How much clearer do we need to be? :?

6

forumosa.com/3/viewtopic.php?t=13843 - what’s the difference?
forumosa.com/3/viewtopic.php?t=9868 - and another.

Search Forumosa on the word ‘fucking’, and I get 229 references. I find that offensive.

The point is not that you were right or wrong, it’s your site and you’re free to do what you like. And, as I said, it’s all water under the bridge anyway. I don’t really care, and I’m not trying to pick a fight here.

But there does not appear to be a clear standard as to what constitutes acceptable behaviour. And without a clear standard decisions are made on the basis of what you personally find offensive. OK, it’s your site. But it’s a community site, and has to reflect the standards of the community.

I received two emails in response to that posting before you took it down, so clearly not everyone found it offensive. In retrospect I can see that it was not a smart thing for me to do, but I do think that you over-reacted. If you’re going to react in a way that does not reflect the apparent views of the members of this community then perhaps you should consider taking a more interactive approach?

No harm done in my case, and perhaps you have always made the right decision so far. But without hearing the other guy’s side of the story can you be sure that you’re always going to be fair?

I guess I’m just comparing Forumosa to a real life community, where judgement is not made until the accused has had the opportunity to defend his/her self. The internet is obviously still outside the legal and moral framework that society has evolved to try and allow us to all live together in harmony and freedom. Maybe that’s why it’s so much fun?

Peace. Enjoy your New Year. I’m going to be off line for a week, so take time to count to 10 before you blast me.

PS Thanks for helping when I locked myself out.

7

I’d have to say, I’m positive there are horny men out there (even if I haven’t met them yet). I think the main difference between your cited posts and what caused you trouble was that these two are being straightforward about wanting a woman, albeit it in rather sleazy ways, while your post was about tricking a woman in a downright disgusting way. No offense, la. Just my NT$0.67.

8

Hey! You’ve met me! :wink:

9

Imani thinks this, I think that, and Maoman thought whatever he thought. Whatever, no harm done, but had the ban been permanent I would have been denied the chance to argue my case. That’s all.

I disagree with Imani’s interpretation of my ‘offer’, but if I misrepresented the situation such that her (and Maoman’s) view is fair then I obviously made a mistake and gave an unreasonably bad impression of myself. The right to clarify what I meant would have been nice.

I’m trying not to get into a ‘you shouldn’t a done that’ fight, but to recommend that in future the process be more interactive. I used my case to illustrate the point, and we’re getting sidetracked into the merits of a particular decision. That decision is no longer important, and I’m not going to come back to this thread because it doesn’t really matter.

Peace.