-
Before posting a question, please check our Frequently Asked Questions page as well as previous threads here. Odds are you aren't the first to ask, and you may find the answer without having to post!
Thread Bans
- Thread starter Grey
- Start date
Grey
Dialectical Hermeticist
So you open a support ticket to dispute it, and/or wait out the temporary thread ban while using the rest of the site. The consequences for a mistake here are significantly lower than permanent warnings and site bans.
The Mechanist
Everyone's favorite cybernetic robot! 🤖
This was interesting to read
fattiest fat cat
*sarcasm*
Yes, but the fact is that if the moderation team is already struggling on this level, giving them even more responsibility could just result in even more instances like this.
Grey
Dialectical Hermeticist
I will concede the possibility it might be excessive additional responsibility for the staff, and I respect your reservations on that count.
I dispute the idea that the staff are struggling - you cite two allegedly botched reports; this is an anecdote, not data. For example, I have never been subject to a mishandled report, and neither has anyone I know on the site; I can call that evidence they are not struggling, but that would be disrespectful of your concerns and intellectually dishonest of me, so please understand I use it here for demonstrative purposes.
If you can show me evidence the staff mishandle a statistically significant number of reports, I will stand right beside you and retract this suggestion.
But as it is, it's not up to us to dictate site policy, I don't know how the staff workload breaks down, and it's ultimately up to the staff and administration to decide the effective limits of their responsibility. I'm just making a suggestion that I believe will serve the site ethos and better support a respectful discourse between users.
Like, if this idea was already implemented, I would have been threadbanned a couple of days ago and I would have unambiguously had it coming.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
I'd just like to say that I know what this thread was in response to, and I know that the creator of the thread knows I know. And I want him to know, that I don't think less of him. But there is a fundamental difference between him and myself.
If I was in his position during the incident that precipitated this thread, I would not have made this thread. If I was the majority and he the minority, I would have still heard him out before I made my objections, and when the encounter was over I would never have dared to suggest that he could not have done what he did. As a member of this community, he deserves the right to say what he feels within the parameters of the rules.
I wish he would extend me the same courtesy. No complaints have been filed against me, as of yet, so as far as I know I have done nothing wrong. It would take an incredibly nïeve person to think that this proposal is not, in fact, a way to avoid dissenting speech. Anyone who claims that others should have the right over who can and cannot participate in a discussion is not worried about other people's feelings or civility, they are concerned with power.
I hope that the good people of RPN and the moderating staff are not fooled by this attempt at control of other people's speech dressed as an appeal to civility and decency.
I want the original poster to know that I respect him intellectually, and as a person, but I cannot respect this proposal in good conscience knowing the true context.
If I was in his position during the incident that precipitated this thread, I would not have made this thread. If I was the majority and he the minority, I would have still heard him out before I made my objections, and when the encounter was over I would never have dared to suggest that he could not have done what he did. As a member of this community, he deserves the right to say what he feels within the parameters of the rules.
I wish he would extend me the same courtesy. No complaints have been filed against me, as of yet, so as far as I know I have done nothing wrong. It would take an incredibly nïeve person to think that this proposal is not, in fact, a way to avoid dissenting speech. Anyone who claims that others should have the right over who can and cannot participate in a discussion is not worried about other people's feelings or civility, they are concerned with power.
I hope that the good people of RPN and the moderating staff are not fooled by this attempt at control of other people's speech dressed as an appeal to civility and decency.
I want the original poster to know that I respect him intellectually, and as a person, but I cannot respect this proposal in good conscience knowing the true context.
fattiest fat cat
*sarcasm*
I'm short on time, so apologies for any sort of miscommunication or lack of proper explanation.
I would just like to counter that silencing people may not be the best policy. The risk is always, regardless of intent or implementation, censorship of those who already struggle to have their voices heard; and I would even argue that this would not solve anything.
Of course, there are some people I wish would keep their mouths shut and not put their nose in places where they have no place being, but the frank truth of the matter is that this system would not solve those matters. I can ban or ignore as many people as I would like to, they will either find other ways to voice themselves, or they will simply return at the earliest convenience (or worse, circumvent bans) and continue where they left off.
I have had many (anecdotal because I dont have time to provide sources, nor do I wish to explicitly affiliate myself with these places) experiences when posting tutorials or even just venting, where people would take what I was saying and decide it "wasn't fair" to them, and they were not in any way interested in an adult discussion. I've even been cussed out while remaining as civil as possible in the face of outright disrespect. Temporarily banning these people from posting somewhere doesn't make them or their opinions go away. It just opens the floodgates for people to say I've somehow wronged them by being unwilling to sit there and take the abuse.
Then, of course, there are concerns about being banned for seeming "irrationally angry." Regardless of whether or not mods are intended to remain impartial, the fact remains that they are just people, and they are all people with their own life experiences who will have their own biases when faced with others whose experiences differ. I can for certain say that a few weeks ago, I was quite angry, and although I still remained as calm as I can manage, my guess is that I would have been banned from that thread if this system was in place, because my life experiences mean that many people would have seen my reaction as an irrational one, and in that case, that would have been censorship.
Again, anecdotal, but my point is simply that life experiences can shape the way people react and moderate, and regardless of intention, censorship would be an inevitability.
Enuky
Status Troll
Last edited by a moderator:
jinkx
amateur sleuth
Are people really getting upset at the idea they can get temporarily banned from one thread because they were abusive to other users? I think it's a good idea.
Inner Power
One Thousand Club
That's what it appears to be unfortunately.
fattiest fat cat
*sarcasm*
Nope.
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
I believe that's a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument.
jinkx
amateur sleuth
Why would I deliberately "misrepresent" an argument? I'm just very confused about why people are upset about a concept like this.
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
I don't know. Why would you deliberately misrepresent my argument?
The Mechanist
Everyone's favorite cybernetic robot! 🤖
Look, people disagree, alright, file a report, let the mods look at it let them decide who is violating the rules that they themselves had created. I think antagonizers should be banned from threads, I also think people should quiet arguing and respect others opinions without getting heated about it. Look this is a roleplaying site, maybe it would be best to take certain topics or discussions somewhere else, off site really. Cuz honestly I agree with grey, certain people should be silenced, even if it's temporary cuz timeouts work.
Accusing someone of deliberately misinterpreting your argument is unfair
Accusing someone of deliberately misinterpreting your argument is unfair
Last edited by a moderator:
jinkx
amateur sleuth
I didn't mean to upset or offend you, @Shireling. I'm sorry you thought I was talking about you specifically, when I wasn't at all.
Meredith
of Fiendish Intent
Currently, if staff see repeated abusive behavior in a thread, it is shut down. It seems that the suggestion is that when consistent abuse is happening, those that are handing out insults and harsh words are (at least temporarily) banned from a thread, instead of the thread being shut down.
I see that as reasonable, and as a staff, we will discuss it as we discuss all suggestions.
A note - the mod team collectively enforces the rules. We are from many walks of life and have differing opinions on pressing issues - so I don't see censorship flying.
Even so, I'd like to ask that everyone remain respectful of each other.
I see that as reasonable, and as a staff, we will discuss it as we discuss all suggestions.
A note - the mod team collectively enforces the rules. We are from many walks of life and have differing opinions on pressing issues - so I don't see censorship flying.
Even so, I'd like to ask that everyone remain respectful of each other.
Swindle
Ozoi
Considering how @Grey actually mentioned himself when referring to people who can't quite keep the lid on, I don't believe it's a matter of power as opposed to civility. Why would someone who outright states (not implies) that they could also be a target of the temporary bans be concerned with power over others?
But anyway, the abuse of power is a real concern. Admittedly, there are much stronger powers of censorship that exist that aren't currently abused, but it's easy to see why people with shorter tempers or approaches to discussion that differ from the social norm would be concerned. I feel like those matters could be worked out, though, since I'd like to hope that the administrative team is transparent.
But anyway, the abuse of power is a real concern. Admittedly, there are much stronger powers of censorship that exist that aren't currently abused, but it's easy to see why people with shorter tempers or approaches to discussion that differ from the social norm would be concerned. I feel like those matters could be worked out, though, since I'd like to hope that the administrative team is transparent.
Enuky
Status Troll
We would always be excluded. This is exclusion painted in pretty colors.
Flooffy
Grungy Forest Saboteur
What people misunderstand here that it's not the argument itself that would get people banned. NOT voicing opinions, but being abusive, insulting or disrespectful. We are not seeking to temporarily seeking to ban people from a single thread to silence them, because we disagree, but because one side of the argument became abusive in a way, which breaks the rules.
Silencing people is not the goal. Stopping the ongoing abusive conversation is.
Silencing people is not the goal. Stopping the ongoing abusive conversation is.
Swindle
Ozoi
@Enuky
Not necessarily. In the case of someone where it would arise out of a misunderstanding, it wouldn't take much effort to undo the wrong involved. As for people with short tempers, it's slightly more difficult, I think, since they shouldn't be excluded from talking and speaking their mind but it can be toxic to everyone around, including themselves.
Not necessarily. In the case of someone where it would arise out of a misunderstanding, it wouldn't take much effort to undo the wrong involved. As for people with short tempers, it's slightly more difficult, I think, since they shouldn't be excluded from talking and speaking their mind but it can be toxic to everyone around, including themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
Thank you for clarifying your position.
Well they might have not done it deliberately, but they did do it.
Yes, but he could be being disingenuous and I suspect that he is.
Ah, yes. I'm just a social pariah. I just dont understand the "social norms."
Swindle
Ozoi
@Shireling
I feel as though you're seeking ill intent where there is none. I never said you were a pariah, and I don't typically mesh very well into a normal conversation either. I used to be very abrasive, so I know what it's like.
And to avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying you're abrasive.
I feel as though you're seeking ill intent where there is none. I never said you were a pariah, and I don't typically mesh very well into a normal conversation either. I used to be very abrasive, so I know what it's like.
And to avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying you're abrasive.
Last edited by a moderator:
jinkx
amateur sleuth
I think Meredith is saying that unless you're outright hurling abuse or disrespecting people's opinions, (basically if you're breaking the rules of RPNation), you wouldn't be banned from the thread. If you don't want to be "banned from a thread"- if the idea was approved by mods at all- just stick within the site rules :smile4:
If you don't break site rules, you have nothing to worry about. It's fine to express an opinion about something but you can't disrespect other peoples' opinions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shireling
A Servant of King and Country
You mean like telling people they're wrong and giving them reasons why?
