So WHY was mod lang banned?

About Site Feedback
21

[quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“brianlkennedy”]
From a “criminal justice” standpoint, if a “cyber criminal” is going to be disciplined then the reasons ought to be publically stated so that others can learn from the errors of the blacklisted/banned. I see what folks are saying about stating reasons leading to further arguments but I would recommend something like this “sample verdict”:
[/quote]

Or perhaps we can state that “So and so didn’t read or follow the rules and therefore was banned”.

I get the feeling that people who want a public record or announcemnt of a banning are a bunch of gossipy old women who sell fish at the fish market.

Banning is enough…no need for a public flogging. Our system of banning works and it was proven today.[/quote]
Maybe some people are interested in gossip. It is pretty clear to me that those asking for disclosure on this issue are not in that category. Nor am I, and I agree with Mr. Kennedy’s position. The suggestion that we “assume” someone was banned if we don’t see them in here anymore is not good enough. Having people disappear with no notice, especially regular participants, is counter the the idea of “community”. That no-notice disappearance policy actually promotes gossip. Open disclosure would discourage it.

Former U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis got it right when he said,

22

Well, where else would you expect them to sell fish? :slight_smile:

23

Well, where else would you expect them to sell fish? :slight_smile:[/quote]

Why is it very time you post I keep thinking about your smiley? :laughing:

I also needed to clarify that the women are indeed selling fish rather oysters or squid type things.

24

Before I came to Taiwan, I had over 20 people working under me. It was my responsability to assure everyone would be respectful, hard working and that they adhered to the rules sort of speak.
More than a few times over the years I had to ask an employee to pack it up and go. In most cases the reasons were obvious and there was no need for any explanations.
In other circumstances,(theft,drug use, etc) I felt it was better to let the other employees in the loop as a reminder of what is expected of them. Besides, it kept the gossiping out of it which is never a good thing to have in a small business. On the other hand, in a situation as such, if an employee did not actually acknowledge and come to term with his mistakes, I had to keep my reasons to myself because too many time the physical evidences were enough to dismiss someone but not enough to speak out about it unless my accusations were to be assesed and deemed reasonnable in a court of law. It was like beeing stuck between a rock and a hard place really.

I see this banning issue here to be about the same. Although this is not a business and I’m not protected by civil rights here. I’m protected by the common sense and morality of the people in power. I like it and I think it’s fair. This alone should end this conversation IMHO:[quote=“Goose Egg”]Yes, it is for THEIR sake, it is to respect their privacy. [/quote]

25

I’d agree if that was relevant. The question is “what did [someone] do to be banned?”

So let me get this straight. No one has rights here when they arrive and it’s a priviledge to be here, but they have rights to ‘privacy’ when they do something that causes them to get banned?

I still don’t see what an banning explanation has got to do with privacy, when the privacy relates to a internet handle (as mentioned above).

26

I’ve never met mod lang. At least, I don’t think so. But other forumosans may have. They may know ML in real life and they may even know him/her as ML. Now ML has done something so extreme as to be banned from Forumosa. What would justify our having to prolong this any further?

So you can learn what not to do? :unamused: I don’t understand that line of thinking, because remember, it takes some effort for you to get banned in the first place! [url=Forumosa's New Rules now, we have even made it really easy for you to avoid getting yourself unwittingly banned - we call the them Short Rules[/url]

“Getting unwittingly banned” – whew! what an absurd concept. If you’ve managed to get yourself suspended, then you probably knew you were close to crossing a line, and you will have certainly been warned about it by the relevant moderator.

And truant, you bring up the notion of “anonymity” in an Internet handle. Just how anonymous are you after you have logged some serious time on this website? After you’ve built up a following of people who look forward to / avoid your writing?? Sure, I often hear and read that some behave quite differently when they are online or offline - that their Forumosan identities “seem so different” from their real world identities. But can we assume that everyone is like this?

I heard that you went to the Taoyuan happy hour, so we know now that there’s at least one person who met you and now knows you as “the Forumosan named truant”. Something tells me that it wouldn’t be difficult for me to know quite a bit more about you from my buddy. Don’t worry, I still do not know anything about you (no offense, but I’m not THAT interested :wink:), and you don’t know squat about me (I hope) - but I think now you might agree that this anonymity thing in our community bit is just a little shakier. And if you do have a long history here on the website, you may not care for people to gossip and talk about you after you have decided to trash and burn your login ID

For me, not discussing what led to a banning is similar to not discussing what is passed along in Private Messages. It’s none of my business, unless you make it my business.

One more thing – it’s kinda funny. I’ve just realized that even I do not know why ML got banned (I’m not a member of the Star Chamber), although I certainly can look it up if I cared. But all I really care about is that at least 7 out of 11 moderators, all of whom I know do care enough about this website to commit themselves to being a part of the Star Chamber, have discussed it carefully and judged. 'nuff said

(Now I gotta get back to work :slight_smile:)

27

[quote=“seeker4”][quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“brianlkennedy”]
From a “criminal justice” standpoint, if a “cyber criminal” is going to be disciplined then the reasons ought to be publically stated so that others can learn from the errors of the blacklisted/banned. I see what folks are saying about stating reasons leading to further arguments but I would recommend something like this “sample verdict”:
[/quote]

Or perhaps we can state that “So and so didn’t read or follow the rules and therefore was banned”.

I get the feeling that people who want a public record or announcemnt of a banning are a bunch of gossipy old women who sell fish at the fish market.

Banning is enough…no need for a public flogging. Our system of banning works and it was proven today.[/quote]
Maybe some people are interested in gossip. It is pretty clear to me that those asking for disclosure on this issue are not in that category. Nor am I, and I agree with Mr. Kennedy’s position. The suggestion that we “assume” someone was banned if we don’t see them in here anymore is not good enough. Having people disappear with no notice, especially regular participants, is counter the the idea of “community”. That no-notice disappearance policy actually promotes gossip. Open disclosure would discourage it.

Former U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis got it right when he said,

28

[quote=“Yellow Cartman”][quote=“seeker4”][quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“brianlkennedy”]
From a “criminal justice” standpoint, if a “cyber criminal” is going to be disciplined then the reasons ought to be publically stated so that others can learn from the errors of the blacklisted/banned. I see what folks are saying about stating reasons leading to further arguments but I would recommend something like this “sample verdict”:
[/quote]

Or perhaps we can state that “So and so didn’t read or follow the rules and therefore was banned”.

I get the feeling that people who want a public record or announcemnt of a banning are a bunch of gossipy old women who sell fish at the fish market.

Banning is enough…no need for a public flogging. Our system of banning works and it was proven today.[/quote]
Maybe some people are interested in gossip. It is pretty clear to me that those asking for disclosure on this issue are not in that category. Nor am I, and I agree with Mr. Kennedy’s position. The suggestion that we “assume” someone was banned if we don’t see them in here anymore is not good enough. Having people disappear with no notice, especially regular participants, is counter the the idea of “community”. That no-notice disappearance policy actually promotes gossip. Open disclosure would discourage it.

Former U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis got it right when he said, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

Seeker4[/quote]

Bump for further emphasis. :uhhuh:[/quote]

That makes no sense at all. :s

29

[quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“Yellow Cartman”][quote=“seeker4”][quote=“Durins Bane”][quote=“brianlkennedy”]
From a “criminal justice” standpoint, if a “cyber criminal” is going to be disciplined then the reasons ought to be publically stated so that others can learn from the errors of the blacklisted/banned. I see what folks are saying about stating reasons leading to further arguments but I would recommend something like this “sample verdict”:
[/quote]

Or perhaps we can state that “So and so didn’t read or follow the rules and therefore was banned”.

I get the feeling that people who want a public record or announcemnt of a banning are a bunch of gossipy old women who sell fish at the fish market.

Banning is enough…no need for a public flogging. Our system of banning works and it was proven today.[/quote]
Maybe some people are interested in gossip. It is pretty clear to me that those asking for disclosure on this issue are not in that category. Nor am I, and I agree with Mr. Kennedy’s position. The suggestion that we “assume” someone was banned if we don’t see them in here anymore is not good enough. Having people disappear with no notice, especially regular participants, is counter the the idea of “community”. That no-notice disappearance policy actually promotes gossip. Open disclosure would discourage it.

Former U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis got it right when he said,

30

God bless, man, you always make us guess – what is your point? Just spell it out - don’t be shy. Are you proposing we publish all the people who have been banned and why? OK, make your case. I’m really interested to hear how you will make it work

But, please, just tell us

31

God bless, man, you always make us guess – what is your point? Just spell it out - don’t be shy. Are you proposing we publish all the people who have been banned and why? OK, make your case. I’m really interested to hear how you will make it work

But, please, just tell us[/quote]

I’ve already spoken. And you will still continue doing your thing. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?

32

Mothers of the Forumosan Disappeared

Midnight, our sons and daughters
Were cut down and taken from us
We read their old threads
We read their old threads

In the threads we read their antics
In the flounder forum we see their last communion
We hear their keyboards
We hear their keyboards

Night hangs for a banned poster
Stretched over black and blue
Ghosts on their keyboards
Ghosts on their keyboards

In the threads a new poster is born
Better not give your new identity away
Don

33

God bless, man, you always make us guess – what is your point? Just spell it out - don’t be shy. Are you proposing we publish all the people who have been banned and why? OK, make your case. I’m really interested to hear how you will make it work

But, please, just tell us[/quote]

I’ve already spoken. And you will still continue doing your thing. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?[/quote]

So desu ne, YC has spoken – but I am still unaware of your great wisdom. I agree to drop the matter out of deference to you :notworthy:

Hangonacottonpickinsecond… if you believe that we will continue to do “our” thing (btw, correct me if I’m wrong, but last I checked, you are included in the “our”) then I agree with DB – your post does not make sense!! :ponder:

(Well, I’m glad we got that settled :pray: Time for dinner :wink: later)

34

I believe the reason so many want to know why Mod Lang was banned is NOT just idle curiosity or an interest in gossip.
Anyone who spends a lot of time here gets to “know” the regular posters. If one of them just disappears with no warning or explanation given, it seems strange. If an acquaintance in the real world just disappeared, you’d want to know what happened to him or her. The same here. Given the number of posts Mod Lang accumulated, he can hardly be regarded as a marginal member of forumosa.

35

[quote=“bababa”]I believe the reason so many want to know why Mod Lang was banned is NOT just idle curiosity or an interest in gossip.
Anyone who spends a lot of time here gets to “know” the regular posters. If one of them just disappears with no warning or explanation given, it seems strange. If an acquaintance in the real world just disappeared, you’d want to know what happened to him or her. The same here. Given the number of posts Mod Lang accumulated, he can hardly be regarded as a marginal member of forumosa.[/quote]

Sigh…he broke the rules. :s

36

Which one!!!

37

One of the ones listed in the rules section.

38

It was an interesting irony. As I looked at the page, the top said; Forumosa.com Taiwan oriented online community. It made me feel all warm and fuzzy, full of share and care, just like a bliss ninny.

Then the bottom said; “topic locked” basically because the mod could not/would not state a simple reason why person “X” was banned. And I felt like I got kicked out of the Masons or the Lion’s Club; a closed world of secret handshakes and “you better not question or else” (well the Masons and Lions Club are not that sinister).

What that kind of stunt implies is: we banned person “X” because we did not like his face/agree with his views/other personal reasons and when pressed on it rather than simply state a clear specific reason (emphasis on “specific”) we made up some bullshit vague nonsense, called the people who questioned us on it “rumor mongers” and old women, and then when all that did not work–locked the thread.

There is more than a little irony there. I hope that Forumosa is not starting to pick up the Taiwanese habit of saying “X” then turning around and doing completely the opposite and then turning sullen when asked about it. It will be interesting to see what happens to this post.

Have a nice day,
Brian
Cyber-rights Attorney at Law

39

I wanted to add to my original thread regarding mod lang that I wasn’t disagreeing with the mods decision (I don’t know what he’s actually done). I wanted to know why because I did look forward to his posts and not because I’m a gossip (I’m a vegetarian, selling fish would be a no no) . I’ve no idea how he views me, probably thinks I’m a tit for all I know.

If your favourite footy player got thrown in the slammer and the coppers said it’s cos he ‘broke the law’ you’d want to know in what way wouldn’t you? And as for this ‘he’s been extreme on the internet’ business, I don’t think he was trading kiddie porn or hacking the Pentagon, or was he?!

I understand that your time may be consumed by arguments over these matters but this is easily avoided:
State the reason(s) for a ban (you don’t ban many folks anyway) and don’t respond to any questioning of your decision unless you want to. I can then make my own decision as to whether it was justifiable or not, otherwise it could well look like you just didn’t like the geezer.

Getting all misty eyed and that, I won’t forget his response to the suggestion that Taiwanese, in general, are not materialistic-
:laughing:

Thanks Brian for keeping this one alive.

40

Hey, I have no problem unlocking the thread. I just felt that the discussion had run its course. Some people want to see who was banned and why. Some people don’t care. The Star Chamber moderators decided against it. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know what my reasons for voting against it are - I strongly suspect that people will want to “retry” every banned person’s case, without knowing all the facts. They can’t and won’t know all the facts because any offending posts are moved to the Flame Forum, which is viewed by the moderators only. This came to be only after many, many arguments were brought from flame forum into other forums, disrupting the quality of the experience for all. So, that’s a policy that’s not going to change any time soon…

Anyway, it’s a moot point. The eleven people responsible held a vote. The majority decided not to publicize bannings. What’s left to talk about? It’s already policy. And while we are a community-oriented website, we’re not governed by the masses. Goose Egg and I own the site. We like the way it is. It’s growing the way it is. We have the best moderators and the coolest happy hours. I’m spending my CNY camping with Forumosans from all over Taiwan, people I would not likely have met if it weren’t for this website. Enjoy all the good things this website has to offer. We’re sorry if there are some things that you don’t like. Feel free to offer your suggestions, but understand that we’re not always going to implement them. Because my hard-working moderators are volunteers, I’m going to listen carefully to them…