Banning/Suspending Posters

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK lol. All this over four days? Nevermind.

Better yet, it is all over 24 hours. That was the length of his original ban before he started creating dupe accounts.

[TripletDaddy]

I remember reading an economic study by Samuel Bowles on the interplay between Adam Smith's moral sentiments and the innate self-interest within all of us.

His focus of study was parental behavior at day care centers. Specifically, why parents engage in seemingly selfish behavior when it comes to day care...dropping their kids off while sick, picking their kids up late, etc.

During the study, the day care noted that several parents were picking their children 5 or 10 minutes late with regular frequency. In order to curb the behavior, the day care began issuing monetary penalties....let's say $5 for every late instance. Surprisingly, the day care found that late-pick ups actually increased as a result of the monetary penalties, as opposed to decreasing.

The reason was simple. Instead of feeling a moral obligation to arrive on time as initially agreed from the outset (Smith's moral sentiments that he believes are within all of us), the parents' innate self-interest was overriding. The parents began to view the fine as a means of rationalization. In other words, the fine was simply a commodity that they could purchase, which the pre-school was selling, that would ultimately justify their bad behavior (late pickups). The price for bad behavior was so affordable, it made more sense to partake than to refrain.

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

[beefytee]

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

I had this explained to me my freshman year by Officer Wayne at freshman orientation as rationalization to why the fine is something like $300 for throwing a snowball. They found that students didn't care even if it was a $50 fine. They would do it anyway and pay the fine.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I remember reading an economic study by Samuel Bowles on the interplay between Adam Smith's moral sentiments and the innate self-interest within all of us.

His focus of study was parental behavior at day care centers. Specifically, why parents engage in seemingly selfish behavior when it comes to day care...dropping their kids off while sick, picking their kids up late, etc.

During the study, the day care noted that several parents were picking their children 5 or 10 minutes late with regular frequency. In order to curb the behavior, the day care began issuing monetary penalties....let's say $5 for every late instance. Surprisingly, the day care found that late-pick ups actually increased as a result of the monetary penalties, as opposed to decreasing.

The reason was simple. Instead of feeling a moral obligation to arrive on time as initially agreed from the outset (Smith's moral sentiments that he believes are within all of us), the parents' innate self-interest was overriding. The parents began to view the fine as a means of rationalization. In other words, the fine was simply a commodity that they could purchase, which the pre-school was selling, that would ultimately justify their bad behavior (late pickups). The price for bad behavior was so affordable, it made more sense to partake than to refrain.

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

That is fascinating. It makes sense.

[Solon]

I remember reading an economic study by Samuel Bowles on the interplay between Adam Smith's moral sentiments and the innate self-interest within all of us.

His focus of study was parental behavior at day care centers. Specifically, why parents engage in seemingly selfish behavior when it comes to day care...dropping their kids off while sick, picking their kids up late, etc.

During the study, the day care noted that several parents were picking their children 5 or 10 minutes late with regular frequency. In order to curb the behavior, the day care began issuing monetary penalties....let's say $5 for every late instance. Surprisingly, the day care found that late-pick ups actually increased as a result of the monetary penalties, as opposed to decreasing.

The reason was simple. Instead of feeling a moral obligation to arrive on time as initially agreed from the outset (Smith's moral sentiments that he believes are within all of us), the parents' innate self-interest was overriding. The parents began to view the fine as a means of rationalization. In other words, the fine was simply a commodity that they could purchase, which the pre-school was selling, that would ultimately justify their bad behavior (late pickups). The price for bad behavior was so affordable, it made more sense to partake than to refrain.

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

I didn't read the real report but saw the summary in Freakonomics.

[PaloAltoCougar]

That is fascinating. It makes sense.

Strongly agree. DDD, do you have a link to an online copy of that study? Excellent stuff.

[TripletDaddy]

I didn't read the real report but saw the summary in Freakonomics.

I think that is where I initially read about it, so I did a little digging to read the actual study because I thought it was interesting.

he did the study in Israel (not sure why....but hey, why not?), so it is good to see that even the Chosen people are lazy sometimes, too!

Here is a link to a bit more on the study. It is a good read, and fairly short. It is NOT the actual study, but I will try to find that.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/06/2...le-hand-need-a

[PaloAltoCougar]

...Here is a link to a bit more on the study. It is a good read, and fairly short. It is NOT the actual study, but I will try to find that...

The summary's good for me; no need to dig up up the whole study for me (although I can follow the links to a service should I change my mind). I follow the SU School of Time Management, preferring summaries over the actual work.

[TripletDaddy]

Here is the abstract and a link to the full text. The study is not overly long but it is interesting. The day care center experiment was one of several.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../320/5883/1605

Also, a direct link to his bio at Santa Fe. Some of his papers look interesting. Might make for a fun read here and there

click on "recent papers"

http://www.santafe.edu/~bowles/

I am actually tempted to contact him and let him know that we are reading his stuff here. It would be interesting to see if there are any socioeconomic studies done in a virtual society setting (message boards). The principles are largely the same, I would think. If not, hey...maybe CUF can be the subject of his next published study.

[SeattleUte]

I remember reading an economic study by Samuel Bowles on the interplay between Adam Smith's moral sentiments and the innate self-interest within all of us.

His focus of study was parental behavior at day care centers. Specifically, why parents engage in seemingly selfish behavior when it comes to day care...dropping their kids off while sick, picking their kids up late, etc.

During the study, the day care noted that several parents were picking their children 5 or 10 minutes late with regular frequency. In order to curb the behavior, the day care began issuing monetary penalties....let's say $5 for every late instance. Surprisingly, the day care found that late-pick ups actually increased as a result of the monetary penalties, as opposed to decreasing.

The reason was simple. Instead of feeling a moral obligation to arrive on time as initially agreed from the outset (Smith's moral sentiments that he believes are within all of us), the parents' innate self-interest was overriding. The parents began to view the fine as a means of rationalization. In other words, the fine was simply a commodity that they could purchase, which the pre-school was selling, that would ultimately justify their bad behavior (late pickups). The price for bad behavior was so affordable, it made more sense to partake than to refrain.

I wonder if this is a similar occurrence. What we are learning is that bad behavior on CUF comes with a price, but the price is fairly inexpensive. Abusive images are trading at 24 hours, repeated willful disregard for rules are going for 6 or 7 days. Seems affordable. Hopefully we don't have too many people interested in purchasing that commodity. And hopefully the likes of JohnnyLingo do not become repeat customers. When you have openly admitted to not wanting to befriend the community, the risk for repeat offenses seems high.

What's wrong with this? Don't blame the folks who conclude it's worth five bucks to have a little more flixibility in picking up the kid. The school did it to itself. Such bargains are the stuff out of which our world is made. The school should just charge more, or convey that this is a matter of integrity for the school. This is why people shouldn't beat themselves up too much about divorce. Society says, you can get a divorce, but here's what it will cost.

But do blame the folks who showed up late choronically before the fine was instituted. This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone. She said, "I think so many poeple sneak through red/yellow lights in Seattle because they are so poorly sincronized." I said, "No, a lot of people just lack integrity." I really believe that. I wouldn't trust a chronic cheater on red/yellow lights to be my lawyer. The school needs to project that they consider this issue a matter of integrity. If it is highly desireable (most are), parents will not push the envelope. This is not a big problem in my kids' preschools and daycares and they don't fine for a few minutes late because it's the rare exception.

[TripletDaddy]

I see that you have started your Friday wine down early again.

This wasn't a study of right vs wrong. There was nothing wrong with what the parents were doing. It was a study to observe that which motivates our behavior and the effect certain motivations have on our moral sentiments. The day care example was one of over 30 different experiments conducted to explore this issue. In the case of the day care, it was observed that a small financial penalty was obviously the wrong motivator.

But good to know that your day care doesn't have this problem. For what it's worth, our day care doesn't have it, either.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm a little behind the times. I'm just now picking up on this and skimmed through this thread.

I actually had a touch of pain reading this thread and especially Lingo's response Babs posted. I was one of the first (maybe THE first) non-troll BYU fan permanently banned from CB. I had invested a lot of time and emotion in that board, even though I wasn't the perfect poster according to Jefe and his mods. I didn't go home and cry and eat a quart of ice cream over it or anything, but it did hurt me and it was actually quite painful reading the message that I was permanently banned and realizing I was cut off forever from a community of BYU fans I had some level of affinity with.

I'm very disengaged from the particulars of this case and have no opinion on whether this banishment was right or wrong, but I'd like to throw it out there generally that I would hope permanent banishment would be a last resort after a well thought through process. I don't think that was the case at CB. I have faith in the board administrators here.

And Lingo, I never knew you that well and I don't know if you deserved it or not, but I sympathize with you. Hang in there.

Santos, this is a very nice post (even if you rescind your point when you later learn that it is a temporary suspension, and not a ban. Lingo had stated from some of his multiple accounts that he had originally thought it was a ban).

Getting banned from a community that you enjoy and care about really sucks. I'm also acutely aware that vicious cycles of bad behavior are not all that uncommon, and I think that we as a community are often needlessly unsympathetic when such cycles begin.

Case in point: wuap, when he first came to the board, rubbed more than a few members the wrong way. For a while there we were getting escalating 'woe is me' posts from wuap, and those in turn were being met with harshness. Well, with some patience and perseverance and the growth of some thick skin, wuap found his footing here, and the cycles were shut down before they went the full-finderson. Wuap deserves a good pat on the back for his efforts there. But wuap wasn't the only one who was contributing to that vicious cycle. All too often, members of the board were willing to pile on and get in their digs. I would encourage us all to resist that urge, and I think we will be better people as a result, and a friendlier community.

[Babs]

Santos, this is a very nice post (even if you rescind your point when you later learn that it is a temporary suspension, and not a ban. Lingo had stated from some of his multiple accounts that he had originally thought it was a ban).

Getting banned from a community that you enjoy and care about really sucks. I'm also acutely aware that vicious cycles of bad behavior are not all that uncommon, and I think that we as a community are often needlessly unsympathetic when such cycles begin.

Case in point: wuap, when he first came to the board, rubbed more than a few members the wrong way. For a while there we were getting escalating 'woe is me' posts from wuap, and those in turn were being met with harshness. Well, with some patience and perseverance and the growth of some thick skin, wuap found his footing here, and the cycles were shut down before they went the full-finderson. Wuap deserves a good pat on the back for his efforts there. But wuap wasn't the only one who was contributing to that vicious cycle. All too often, members of the board were willing to pile on and get in their digs. I would encourage us all to resist that urge, and I think we will be better people as a result, and a friendlier community.

good gravy.

[RobinFinderson]

good gravy.

Not surprising at all, Babs. You were pretty damn cruel to wuap in those early days of his arrival. I've never known you to admit a single fault, and I'm not expecting you to begin now.

[Babs]

Not surprising at all, Babs. You were pretty damn cruel to wuap in those early days of his arrival. I've never known you to admit a single fault, and I'm not expecting you to begin now.

[YOUTUBE]zTcu7MCtuTs[/YOUTUBE]