Do not ban people just because they are offensive.
The forum will quickly become boring.
You may find it frustrating that some people have a “complex” or are “childish” or seem “to be posting for their own amusement” but think - if you ban them because of this, then…
NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO POST FOR THEIR OWN AMUSEMENT
Then, the website might as well fold.
quote:
Keep both of them out. Their statements could be made in a better way.
The issue is not if you want to keep them out, because you can NOT keep them out!!
They will be back, or are already back. Using a different name and email, but their content will be the same.
Banning does not achieve ANYTHING, unless users have to register with the single email provided by their ISP.
I have complained about the “Mod Squad,” too, but ultimately everyone here has to realize that it is a posting forum on the Internet, doesn’t matter at all (really), and that it is the baby of the administrators.
If they want to take their ball home and end the game, that is their right.
Look, if ABCguy24 was simply annoying as hell to the Mod Squad, they can kick him off. You don’t like it, you can start your own Oriented-esque deal. Or surf sites on how to make your muscle bigger…
Who did Dummy my poo-poo become do you think?
I just read the whole “first impressions of Taiwan” thread, and must say I don’t see where ABCGuy was out of line…other than in ignoring the most interesting question posed to him about his own sense of identity!
quote:
Originally posted by Gus: Here's what it all boils down to for me: [b]is your online behaviour so offensive to others that it inhibits discussion? If it is, you aren't welcome.[/b]Our team of moderators at ORIENTED recently discussed a short list of members who clearly violate the spirit of these forums.
This “official explanation” seems to me awfully vague. Seems to me the moderators should come up with a short list of things that constitute “behavior so offensive to others that it inhibits discussion” or “violates the spirit of these forums” and post it publicly. A more explicit idea of what types of behavior are inappropriate would help the community self-police itself, and it would also help the community ensure that censorship, when applied, is done so objectively and fairly.
I know the moderators probably don’t want to get flamed for banning certain members, but it seems like a policy of open disclosure and explanation is the only way to give the community confidence that there are objective rules being applied fairly. Seems like we should be able to take those rules and apply them to other forum discussions as well. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to criticism.
Try running the search function that let’s you get all of a certain individuals posts. I don’t think he should have been banned myself, but that’ll give you an idea why he was. Keep in mind threats of violence, etc. were all edited by the mods.
I’m a regular at the Expatica forums:
and I feel their rules/regs are pretty good.
"Dear Readers,
Expatica does not censor users or postings in the forums. We ask explicitly that users treat each other with respect, avoid insults and foul language and avoid hurtful, hateful, or untrue remarks. It is impossible to define, especially with such a diverse audience, what consitutes unacceptable conduct. Therefore, we leave it to the judgement of our readers to determine which sections of the forums they wish to read and participate in.
It is inevitable that some people will persist in annoying and insulting others. We cannot stop this; some offensive comments are the price of free speech.
We value your privacy, and have taken steps to ensure that you can participate in the forums anonymously. Please ensure you follow these steps to protect yourself:
Do not use your real name as your forum handle, or make any reference to your name or personal information (eg. email address or telephone number) in your postings.
Make sure “Hide my email address” is ticked in your personal Expatica profile.
For added protection, you can sign up for the forums using an anonymous account, such as Hotmail.
Do not EVER arrange to meet anyone unless you have taken precautions to ensure that your safety is not an issue, such as taking a friend and meeting in a public place.
If you follow these steps, there is no way that anyone can connect your postings to you personally.
Please remember that the forums are voluntary. You do not have to read any or all of them, nor are you obligated to respond to rude remarks. You should not take offensive remarks personally – the poster doesn’t even know who you are! Often the best course of action is to ignore posts intended to provoke. Certain topics are full of these and can easily be avoided.
Use your judgement before engaging someone in an online discussion. Nine times out of ten, it is very obvious when someone is sincere or when they are potentially abusive. Reading previous posts before starting a new thread or writing a response will give you a good idea of the type of people you’re talking to.
We have designed the forums to promote lively discussion of events and issues relevant to the expatriate community. It is a condition of using the forums that you accept their open nature and acknowledge that Expatica is not responsible for what gets posted. If this is not acceptable to you, if you take offense at certain postings, you are free not to participate.
The vast majority of forum users have proven this a success, and we look forward to continuing to provide this service in the future.
Expatica Admin"
quote[quote]This "official explanation" seems to me awfully vague[/quote]You are right, Tom, this is vague. Very vague. The message I was hoping to communicate was that if a moderator identifies a disruptive member, I’ll probably boot off that member, and ask questions later.
Funny thing that you consider it an “official explanation”. FWIW, any “official” postings from ORIENTED would be posted by the “Administrator” account – and incidentally, I don’t believe I’ve ever used it to post messages.
I realize that most of the times that I have posted on these forums, I am responding with some kind of official capacity. I find this unfortunate. I hope the purpose of my posts will change going forward.
I’m glad that “O’Brian” (sic) posted the Expatica.com guidelines. I especially like this line
quote[quote]It is impossible to define, especially with such a diverse audience, what consitutes unacceptable conduct. [/quote] You can say THAT again! Which comes down to the role the moderators play here. At least the Mod Squad are “somewhat close” to the discussions. I’m counting on them to use their judgement about the topics and people who use their forums.“But isn’t ‘their judgement’ subjective?” Absolutely. The moderators on these forums are as imperfect, flawed and opinionated as the next person (if it makes anyone feel any better, we originally ordered up some greater-than-human, omniscient moderators – but those are currently out of stock).
You may disagree with the moderators. I certainly do, at times. But I’ll be surprised if you doubt their intentions, and their sincerity in keeping these forums as relevant and useful as possible.
Mistakes will be made and opinions will change. By everyone. If anyone (members, moderators, founders) walk away with a new view on something, then I feel these forums would have actually done something.
Caveat emptor
I banned Acintyabedhabedhananda (the member formerly known as Vincent) after a lot of discussion with the team.
Acintyabedhabedhananda espouses views about people that are very unpopular among those who maintain the forums
The other day, I mentioned to Maoman that Segue seems to be becoming less tolerant of extreme points of view. Whether this is good or bad is, as always, subject to one’s opinion (uh, except for Acintyabedhabedhananda’s, I suppose)
Folks, please keep in mind that as much as we would like the forums to be open to the broadest range of views, there are other matters that we take into account: the sentiments of other members and the amount of time the Segue volunteers can (should) devote to this forum.
If you consistently (or is that ‘insistently’) go out of line, you will be noticed and (eventually) action will be taken. I realize that we have very few guidelines – and, for the past 3 years, we haven’t really needed any. But you will be warned when you do go out of line.
I think it’s interesting that Vincent was banned for being critical of the Jews, and yet not a whisper about roq’s advocating that anyone not as provably “Irish” as he thinks he is should be bombed out of Ireland. As far as I can remember Vincent never advocated the wholesale slaughter of Jews. Am I wrong ?
I think hate should not be tolerated on Segue. Simple as that. Anyone advocating hate (and by that I DO NOT mean ribbing the French or the mormons, etc.) should be banned. That’s why I jumped on Vincent’s hate.
However, I’m reluctant to do the same regarding the filth spewed by roq because from the Vincent thing, I appear to be in somewhat of a minority here.
Also, roq might take me in an alley and kneecap me. 
If its any consolation, He … I mean Taiwan beer … I think roq should be banned.
Points of view are one thing. Spreading hate is something else entirely. Just my opinion.
Despite Vincent’s sporadic spouting of hatred and prejudice, I feel banishment was wrong. He is very bright, often provided well thought-out arguments, and certainly gave us fodder for discussion. Nor did he engage in personal attacks, instead favoring a more generalized hatred. Isn’t it good to have to consider intelligent arguments in support of vile propositions, rather than simply parroting pc mantras? Doesn’t dealing with his noxious logic, and determining how and why he is wrong, lead to a better understanding of the issues? Aren’t we grown up enough to be able to handle that? Is this the Hallmark channel, sanitized for our protection? And then there’s the ignore buttons. While I haven’t yet figured what they do, as I don’t want to ignore anyone, can’t they be used to silence him on a one-on-one basis? Isn’t that preferable to depriving all of us the opportunity to exchange views with him.
Does this mean I get the karma I gave him back? 
I agree with MT. But I also agree with gus. Maybe this is a good time for me to say that some guidelines should be made. Even if there as simple as “We’re pretty cool, but don’t piss us off too much or we’ll ban you.” I think the mods put up with a lot with Vincent. Vincent never bothered me, I actually liked him, but if having him in the community is too much work for the mods, I’d agree with a ban. I still think it would be cool to suspend him and take up a vote. That can’t be too much work and it would make people (me) happy.
Ok, I’m finished.
Does this mean we won’t become more like tealit?
It’s a fine line for the moderators. I think banning should be done as rarely as possible, but sometimes it has to be done to keep the site from becoming garbage, and staying (at least sometimes) a forum for decent discussion (and the occasional ribbing).
You guys remember the links someone provided to those Asian-American websites, with all the teenies talking about about how they’re going to beat up the jocks when they grow up, and all the racism spewed throughout those sites? I’d rather Segue not move in that direction if possible.
If the issue is ‘does he piss people off?’ then the above would be the logical way forward. Warnings, followed by suspension for period, with a poll to see whether he comes back.
In Vincent’s case I agree with the arguments that he elicits debate, which is better than some of the other crap I’ve seen here.
Of course, the issue of ‘how much work does he cost the moderators?’ is something else.
Too bad. What he had to say was often interesting and controversial (didn’t say I agreed with him), kind of like non-Euclidian geometry… different logic, perhaps not useful in an everyday day sense, but an interesting sidebar. The anti-semitic stuff I thought was offensive, though I can understand his frustration with the seemingly endless support for Israel in the US, despite holding the record for breach of UN resolutions (might want to check that factoid).
It does seem he went from 6 to 10 warnings in a real hurry, and for what, the tongue-in-cheek George Harrison act?
Good luck to you Vincent, but try to get a hold of the hate thing.
You should have just gave hime his own ‘Political’ thread to moderate and control. I missed a lot of his posts because I just find them soooo f@#$ing boring. If I ever stepped out of line though, I’d hope to get a email detailing why I’m on my last chance, so I’d have time to ship into line.
– Gus
Exactly. “Among those who maintain the forums,” is the operative phrase here. Not “among those who use the forums.”
Among other things I have seen over the past months is a kind of clique or fraternity club evolving among the moderators and administrators of Segue.
Yes, it’s Gus’s right to do whatever he wants; it’s his baby. But when even moderators (in the flesh) say to me that there is a serious ego trip going on among some (read some, not all) moderators, there is some sort of shift going on.
Is Segue supposed to be an oligarchy? Apparently so. I think some in the cyber community thought, or currently misundestand, that it is not a democracy.
Yeah, yeah, the guy was a pain and the bosses decision is final etc.
But I’ve seen some other stuff here that I personally find pretty offensive. And it appears that more than one person has been upset by comments that I’ve made. Why is Vincent somehow deemed to be worse?
I think that permanent banning is a bit extreme, even if the person concerned respects the judgement and doesn’t simply log in with a new name. (This would be in line with his current mania for a belief system that includes reincarnation.)
A temporary banishment gives idiots time to think about their behaviour, and might encourage them to grow up. Sending them away forever is more likely to make them just pop-up at some other site and be just as big a pain.
Sure, we’re not here to train wayward kids. But I think we have a responsibility to make the world into a better place by dealing with problems instead of just passing them on to someone else.
I say let the guy come back.
Comments please.
Does he want to come back?