So, what DOES get you banned from Segue?


#1

Some of the trouble that brews about the moderating (and administration :wink:) here at Segue comes from the lack of a sitewide banning policy.

Personally, I see some problems in having a fixed policy. Two difficulties stand out in my mind: (1) too many rules could force moderators (especially new ones) to have to refer to them before taking action (which wastes time – I’d rather go with a moderators immediate judgement and correct/review later); (2) keeping things open allows what nominal rules do prevail to change and go in new directions as guaged by the team@segue (I think, “evolve” is the word I’m looking for)

For me, banning is a prerogative of the moderators and administrators of Segue. Any provocative behaviour that increases the amount of time it takes to moderate at Segue could lead to the banning of a member. This is tricky because we often have more than one moderator overseeing a forum, and they could disagree from time to time.

I’ve started this thread because I think there is some “pretty obvious” behaviour which will get you canned. Now, in my mind, since we don’t have a hard and fast policy, the following are not Gospel, nor should they represent the “only” conditions that should lead to a ban. If you disgree with any of these, and wish to argue otherwise, please do it in this thread.

What will most certainly get you banned on Segue

  1. Deliberate and provocative racism
  2. Belligerently removing your own posts
  3. Hardcore pornographic images

I think this is it. But please add to or disagree with this list…


#2

(1) Why should only one end of the political spectrum–“deliberate and provocative racism” be proscribed? What about “deliberate and provocative anti-racism,” which others may find just as offensive? (e.g. “Racial differences should disappear, we’re all the same, it’s only skin-deep, racists are stupid.”) It seems arbitrary to proscribe based on which side of an issue one takes, rather than the issue itself.

Besides, you would have to identify what “racism” is. For example, here is another spectrum of possibly-racist statements. Which ones are you proposing to ban?

a. There are important biological differences between the races.

b. These include IQ, creative ability, and propensity to commit crime.

c. We have to preserve our own race/ethnicity and its beautiful culture, for example by avoiding intermarriage.

d. Other races / ethnic groups cannot be completely trusted.

e. I personally dislike members of [group here].

f. Yay [controversial representative of my race], boo [celebrated representative of some other race].

g. You are a stinking [group name here]. I hate you.

h. I support the mass execution of [group name], and laugh at atrocities committed against them.

Before you answer, you should perhaps decide if your answer would change according to the race or ethnicity in question. (I note that Jewish publications can go all the way from a to h.)

  1. Why should removing one’s own posts be considered “belligerent”? If one cannot accept the editing imposed, this seems an honorable way to register one’s refusal to accept the proposed censorship. An author with an editor would have the same right, no?

#3

Why ban people for “deliberate and provocative racism” and exclude sexist and homophobic comments. For example, look at this thread. There are a number of very sexist comments here. (I am not suggesting banning anyone for it though). And I am sure some people find them offensive (including me).

As for points two and three I agree totally.


#4

The banning things is part of my guest posting campaign. Since now people have to go through all the “trouble” (I know I know :unamused: ) of registering, banning shouldn’t be taken so lightly. I don’t think it would be a lot of trouble to suspend a person first. It’d be fun if a little poll was run with a discussion about banning the person. This would make one place for people to voice their views on the banning and it would let the mods/admins know if the majority agreed with it. In the end the final decision would be up to a mod/admin but there would have been a chance to sway the banners decision (or the illusion of it).

Not all guests post anonymously. When given the option to, a lot of people would continue to post with the same “guest” name. And as far as administration goes, I don’t see how guest posting is any different from registered. Someone that was a real problem can always re-register. Or register a backup username to post “anonymously” with.

Another thought would be if there is a way to have the anonymous posters IP display to everyone. I think I’ve seen that somewhere.

This could be the rule. Suspend and discuss. It seems like the past bannings I’ve witnessed have endend up having a fair amount of discussion about the issue any way (after the banning).

All just thoughts


#5

Wix, good point about sexism etc.

Why are you and Gus offended by “belligerent” editing out of posts, though? I honestly can’t fathom what you think the problem with that is.


#6

I think what Gus is talking about with “belligerent” editing of posts refers to people editing their own posts beyond recognition, long after people have replied to them, thus making the people who replied look completely ridiculous and/or completely destroying any possible thread of cohesiveness or meaning that the discussion once may have had.


#7

How about deliberate and provocative stupidity? Baituo… :unamused:


#8

Maybe it’s just me, but I find racial epithets easier to spot. I think people will agree that a particular racial comment is hateful and unwelcome faster than the same group might find something sexist.

This isn’t to suggest that sexist and homophobic slurs are “OK” – they are not. But I figured if I was to start a list that members can look at and say, “yeah, I’d ban someone if they tried to pull one of those on MY bulletin board,” we could agree on at least these three.

If there is something on Segue that offends you, I hope you’ll write about it in the [color=darkblue]Blue Sneetches[/color] forum. This forum creates a link directly to the offending post. If you can, quote the part of the message that bothers you – this way, we can keep a running record and future moderators can benefit if any decision to act (if any) is made
as result.
To my mind, the [color=darkblue]Blue Sneetches[/color] forum serves as a reference or indicator for us about who reads and posts at Segue. This is NOT a promise that posting in [color=darkblue]Blue Sneetches[/color] will certainly result in action taken. But it will help direct our moderators to your (and the entire Segue community’s) sensitivities.


#9

quote=“Vincent” Why should only one end of the political spectrum–“deliberate and provocative racism” be proscribed? What about “deliberate and provocative anti-racism,” which others may find just as offensive? (e.g. “Racial differences should disappear, we’re all the same, it’s only skin-deep, racists are stupid.”) It seems arbitrary to proscribe based on which side of an issue one takes, rather than the issue itself.

Besides, you would have to identify what “racism” is. For example, here is another spectrum of possibly-racist statements. Which ones are you proposing to ban?

a. There are important biological differences between the races.

b. These include IQ, creative ability, and propensity to commit crime.

c. We have to preserve our own race/ethnicity and its beautiful culture, for example by avoiding intermarriage.

d. Other races / ethnic groups cannot be completely trusted.

e. I personally dislike members of [group here].

f. Yay [controversial representative of my race], boo [celebrated representative of some other race].

g. You are a stinking [group name here]. I hate you.

h. I support the mass execution of [group name], and laugh at atrocities committed against them.[/quote]

All of them, except (a) if it was in some way relevant, which I doubt it would be.