Banning/Suspending Posters

[Jeff Lebowski]

The CUF Committee has been debating whether to implement a procedure for banning and/or suspending posters. We have discussed various options ranging from a community-wide voting process to oversight by a single "banning czar". In the end we did not come to a consensus and (to be honest) we got a little bored with the topic. We have decided that the committee will handle banning/suspensions on a case-by-case basis. Banning/suspension will only occur when there is clear evidence that a poster is engaging in conduct "detrimental to the community". We expect that banning will be an extremely rare event. If you struggle with certain posters, we encourage you to use the ignore feature.

[Sizzle]

The CUF Committee has been debating whether to implement a procedure for banning and/or suspending posters. We have discussed various options ranging from a community-wide voting process to oversight by a single "banning czar". In the end we did not come to a consensus and (to be honest) we got a little bored with the topic. We have decided that the committee will handle banning/suspensions on a case-by-case basis. Banning/suspension will only occur when there is clear evidence that a poster is engaging in conduct "detrimental to the community". We expect that banning will be an extremely rare event. If you struggle with certain posters, we encourage you to use the ignore feature.

Ignored.

[SoCalCoug]

The CUF Committee has been debating whether to implement a procedure for banning and/or suspending posters. We have discussed various options ranging from a community-wide voting process to oversight by a single "banning czar". In the end we did not come to a consensus and (to be honest) we got a little bored with the topic. We have decided that the committee will handle banning/suspensions on a case-by-case basis. Banning/suspension will only occur when there is clear evidence that a poster is engaging in conduct "detrimental to the community". We expect that banning will be an extremely rare event. If you struggle with certain posters, we encourage you to use the ignore feature.

Everyone knows we have an "ignore" feature in our brains, right? The one where we don't pay attention to people or things that annoy us?

I've never used the "ignore" feature on any board, except for once. Ironically, it was against exUte for a day - he was making so many posts it was difficult to sort out everyone else's from his.

[RobinFinderson]

OK, so poor JL got banned. I have no idea why, and I'm not posting here to defend or defame poor JL, or to decry the decision. I believe that communities are served by openness and discussion, so EC members, what is the story?

[beelzebabette]

EC members, what is the story?

We've been discussing, you know, in between attacks of employment and all.

[RobinFinderson]

OK, so someone PM'd me and told me that JL had been mocking a fellow CUF person's physical appearance. I think a bit of that can be tolerated, especially if the ribbing is done in good humor, and if it is received in good humor. But this was clearly not the case. If this accurately describes the reason for Lingo's ban, then I support it. CUF members should not have to endure public ridicule of their physical appearance in a 'friendly' community, and I appreciate attempts by the EC to keep the tone of this place 'friendly.'

[TripletDaddy]

OK, so someone PM'd me and told me that JL had been mocking a fellow CUF person's physical appearance. I think a bit of that can be tolerated, especially if the ribbing is done in good humor, and if it is received in good humor. But this was clearly not the case. If this accurately describes the reason for Lingo's ban, then I support it. CUF members should not have to endure public ridicule of their physical appearance in a 'friendly' community, and I appreciate attempts by the EC to keep the tone of this place 'friendly.'

I am not on the EC, btw, but everything that went down with JohnnyLingo was in the public domain (his misdeeds, specifically). There shouldn't be a need to rehash everything that was already once public.

Like any other current event....sometimes you are there, sometimes you miss it.

I would suggest next time that a PM be sent to a fellow Cuffer, rather than a public call for an explanation.

I know of no message boards that offer explanations for board discipline.

just a thought.

[Babs]

OK, so someone PM'd me and told me that JL had been mocking a fellow CUF person's physical appearance. I think a bit of that can be tolerated, especially if the ribbing is done in good humor, and if it is received in good humor. But this was clearly not the case. If this accurately describes the reason for Lingo's ban, then I support it. CUF members should not have to endure public ridicule of their physical appearance in a 'friendly' community, and I appreciate attempts by the EC to keep the tone of this place 'friendly.'

Robin,

It's not generally kosher to share publicly the contents of PMs.

Let the committee deal with the current lingo spamfest, and I'm sure they'll apprise the board of the situation, to whatever degree is necessary and appropriate.

Also bear in mind that the board is yet young and the details of behavioral expectations and discipline procedures are still being ironed out.

[RobinFinderson]

I am not on the EC, btw, but everything that went down with JohnnyLingo was in the public domain (his misdeeds, specifically). There shouldn't be a need to rehash everything that was already once public.

Like any other current event....sometimes you are there, sometimes you miss it.

I would suggest next time that a PM be sent to a fellow Cuffer, rather than a public call for an explanation.

I know of no message boards that offer explanations for board discipline.

just a thought.

I think I saw a bit of the public exchange. Not much, since I don't seek out Lingo posts. If the root of the problem runs deeper than what I saw, then the ban makes a lot of sense. I think CUF needs to be a safe place to share one's POV, and I appreciate when people feel comfortable enough to give up a bit of their anonymity for the sake of making this place more interesting. If Lingo abused a poster's openness, then he deserves a ban. I'm also hoping that Hallelujah will do something similar.

As for whether or not such a choice should be hashed out in public or private is a different matter. The choice is obviously up to the EC, but the ramifications of any ban affect all of us, and are therefore worthy of public discussion. Obviously that discussion isn't going to happen if no one else engages it, and that is fine by me, but I think we just disagree about whether or not the banishment of community members is worthy of public discussion.

Robin,

It's not generally kosher to share publicly the contents of PMs.

Let the committee deal with the current lingo spamfest, and I'm sure they'll apprise the board of the situation, to whatever degree is necessary and appropriate.

Also bear in mind that the board is yet young and the details of behavioral expectations and discipline procedures are still being ironed out.

The custom of sharing publicly the contents of PM's is one that I support. I left many details of the PM out of my public post, and I hope that the PMer doesn't consider it a breach of confidence. If the PMer feels differently, I would hope s/he would let me know.

Yes, the board is young, and for the most part I have greatly appreciated the efforts by the EC to create a friendly civil tone. I think the only place where I disagree with anyone here is over whether or not banning members is worthy of public discussion.

[TripletDaddy]

You of all people know full well.....if you behave in a manner that is civil and endear yourself to the community, you can probably expect to live a long, fruitful existence.

If you misbehave and act poorly against the community, esp repeatedly, there is no community to call your own.

There will likely never be a day when we all sit down and plot the course of our collective future. This isn't a democracy. It is a republic. Soliciting the inputs of every member seems impractical and unnecessary.

these are my own opinions, btw. I am not speaking for the Executive Committee.

[Pheidippides]

There will likely never be a day when we all sit down and plot the course of our collective future. This isn't a democracy. It is a republic. Soliciting the inputs of every member seems impractical and unnecessary.

these are my own opinions, btw. I am not speaking for the Executive Committee.

I agree with this (especially the last part). However, I do think a brief statement of "poster X was given a suspension for Y days because of Z infraction" helps to foster good will among those of us who are not involved. I recognize this is not common practice in other forums and would be impractical in a place where we have more posters or penalties. I view "the Rules" here as sort of a common law developed to deal with unique situations, and a statement of judgment from the Judges is helpful.

[DU Ute]

OK, so someone PM'd me and told me that JL had been mocking a fellow CUF person's physical appearance. I think a bit of that can be tolerated, especially if the ribbing is done in good humor, and if it is received in good humor. But this was clearly not the case. If this accurately describes the reason for Lingo's ban, then I support it. CUF members should not have to endure public ridicule of their physical appearance in a 'friendly' community, and I appreciate attempts by the EC to keep the tone of this place 'friendly.'

Does this mean we can no longer mock the pictures of you from Burning Man?

[Fiyero]

FWIW, Lingo did not have any knowledge of what went down a few months ago in the Lemons --> Lemonade thread, which took place on a floor of the temple that he does not have access to. So I hope that the earlier incident was not used as justification to give him the boot.

[TripletDaddy]

JohnnyLingo was banned for the image. He made a dupe account. he was banned for that. he made a second dupe account to post again. Banned again.

Adios, JohnnyLingo.

Seems like his punishment was made infinitely worse for his subsequent actions, not his initial infraction.

[DU Ute]

JohnnyLingo was banned for the image. He made a dupe account. he was banned for that. he made a second dupe account to post again. Banned again.

Adios, JohnnyLingo.

Seems like his punishment was made infinitely worse for his subsequent actions, not his initial infraction.

Is he gone for good. Is this one of those 36,500 day CB bans?