It's sad that there's so much love and care in these forums that some of us were not able to feel it just because it wasn't sugarcoated.
I'm of two minds on the matter. On the one hand, I've never cared for forum bans in general, and have never complained to a moderator about a member on any forum.
On the other hand, this isn't a typical internet forum. Some of us here are in desperate straits and rely on the forum for support. Caustic remarks such as those that triggered this brouhaha are plain wrong, and I for one will not miss the recently banned member.
I guess I'd like to see more flexibility on the part of the forum management. Permanent bans should be reserved for only the most extreme cases. I say that not because the voices of the jerks should be heard, but out of compassion for everyone afflicted with this cursed virus. A rigid "three strikes and out" rule seems like too much of a Republican concept. We can do better than that.
And a little off-topic here, but I've noticed that most of the problem posts originate from a handful of irascible members with high post counts. How about thinking twice before hitting that "post" button?
Sadly, some people have innocently arrived here and been bashed like a baby seal following its mother.
If those 'voices' can't express themselves in a civil way, even after countless warnings and TOs, then no, I won't be missing them. There is a way to disagree and get your point fully across without stepping across that line - it's not all that hard either.
Expecting those that are newly diagnosed or otherwise in crisis to grow a thicker skin just so that minority of 'voices' can be accommodated is plainly wishful thinking.
Expecting those that are newly diagnosed or otherwise in crisis to grow a thicker skin just so that minority of 'voices' can be accommodated is plainly wishful thinking.
We do take these things into consideration. However, when the person making the complaint is very new to the site, well, they're unlikely to have any sort of axe to grind.
The subject was the timeout and banning policy and I was referring to that, rather than any one individual. For the policy to make any sense I think it must be applied without too much favour or prejudice (as it happens it probably gets applied with quite a liberal amount of discretion and I have no problem with that).
Except that this voice was overwhelmingly civil and helpful to many people who were newly diagnosed or in crisis.
The proof of that is available for all to see.
The subject was the timeout and banning policy and I was referring to that, rather than any one individual. For the policy to make any sense I think it must be applied without too much favour or prejudice (as it happens it probably gets applied with quite a liberal amount of discretion and I have no problem with that).
Frankly, I'd rather see a TO for someone who advocates dangerous or frivolous medical treatment than for someone who is acerbic or sarcastic.
I trust all of the Ban Warriors in this thread plan on taking up the slack of The Banned One in Am I Infected, because frankly I don't have the patience. I kind of doubt that will be happening though.
And yeah, that's an important point.
Frankly, I'd rather see a TO for someone who advocates dangerous or frivolous medical treatment than for someone who is acerbic or sarcastic.
Yet the subject of the thread is that very policy, specifically the "perma" ban aspect -- the question basically is that instead of a "perma" ban that there be something still very strict, but still not permanent -- say 6 months.
Can't we keep this thread discussing this proposal by the OP?
Very true. But if seven days and 30 days didn't make a difference then why would six months?
I implore folks not to turn this thread into a venting about one specific ban, or we'll have to lock the thread. Let's keep it about our banning policy in general, and how these forums are moderated.
Very true. But if seven days and 30 days didn't make a difference then why would six months?
aids has never shown much respect for my comfort levels.
aids don't have an ignore option. or a report to moderator option. or a ban option.
ditto life, real world etc
Very true. But if seven days and 30 days didn't make a difference then why would six months?
The thing that I see missing in the discussion is personal responsibility. This idea comes up in many threads here -- i.e. everyone is responsible for their own safety, etc. Whether you agree or disagree with the current TOS -- they are what they are. Every member that I've seen banned since I joined has been given chances to change and abide by them -- both public and private. The fact that they have not is why they have been banned.
Now, an open discussion of whether bans should exist is a great idea (I actually like the 6 mos TO as at least an addition, if not a replacement to bans) -- but everyone who has been banned to date has been given a choice and they have all chosen their own paths. Does it make me sad? Have I missed some? Yes to both -- but again, they have chosen their path with full knowledge.
Mike
Philly, David_NC - I take those points and can now see some merit to a lengthy TO - but I think if it's to work then there has to be zero tolerance after the six months, i.e. further transgressions result in another lengthy TO without further warnings.
When studies show that something like 60% of HIV patients have mental health issues, I tend to err on the side of compassion. Your argument would hold more water in a world absent of something like HIV though. I'm trying to seek a middle ground with my stance on a 6-month option for the moderators.
And I did agree with you on the middle ground -- I was simply pointing out that "personal responsibility" is thrown around alot in these rooms, and, I think, has some applicability here too.
Mike
I'm not big on the "personal responsibility" line because it always lacks context, which is why it's a shibboleth for right wingers. If I were to really walk the walk with that mantra, then my HIV infection is my own fault and thus I have no right to any HIV meds via ADAP, nor does anyone else (excepting those infected by rape and/or blood transfusions) etc.
Hence why I tried to show how a mitigating factor is useful in this discussion.
but again, they have chosen their path with full knowledge.
Because six months may give that member a chance to get their shit together, so to speak. The loss of the forums for six months may be just the wake-up call they need. There is a current member that messed up his dosing on antidepressants, and what he posted was so out of character that many of us recognized it as such. Some of those who have been banned (not just the most recent ones) weren't always so contrary; it seemed to depend on what sort of legitimate crisis they were dealing with.
The comment was born of the condescension observed in the way new members and other members were treated over a long period of time.
How is it that you decide a sweet, well meaning person has nothing substantive to offer?
I haven't been here long enough to know the personalities, form opinions or understand the politics; but I can't help wondering about this six month ban proposal. One thing I have learnt about the internet is that use is largely based on habit. Break a habit a new habits are formed. Unless they are specifically invited back, I very much doubt that any person who had been banned for six months would even think about returning: they would almost certainly have moved on and formed new internet habits.
I took almost a nine months off. and have come back. Maybe I am exceptional. Mom thinks so.
Bucko... I miss you!!!
Give the damned one ALLLLLLL my love..
There are a lot of people here with strong opinions. Some people get along and some don't and then are those when you feel you need a drink in order to get along. There are going to be agreements and disagreements but there is always going to be respect and love...no matter what afterall, we all have one thing in common. Sounds like a family to me.
But one side of this goes unheard. ... newbies who quit the forums early after feeling abused here.
Are the mods the only ones concerned about the frequent loss of new members?
As for even longer TOs instead of permanent bans, please realize that we have banned very, very few long-term members. With each one, it was only after begging that person for months and/or years to modify their behaviour. With each one, we came to the conclusion that it was like asking them to change their very nature -- it wasn't going to happen, no matter how long the TOs.
But we love each other unconditionally.
Do they always? What about people with chronic, screaming pain? What about people whose minds have been altered by drugs like Sustiva or any of a number of drugs used for HIV and related illnesses. Not to mention people who come here with bipolar and other depressive/manic/psychotic disorders. Often untreated. Often undiagnosed, even. we won't even go into the assortment of substance abuse situations that, given time, might actually iron themselves out. Or burn themselves out, whatever
And some people still develop HIV related dementia. Not a lot. But some.
And some people, diagnosed with One More Thing they can't handle, lash out. I am all for personal responsibility. I really, seriously am. But I am also for compassion. And that sometimes makes me a total hypocrite. I can live with that label. Would rather have double standards for those I love than be so utterly rigid as to shut out people who might, just might, be redirected into better things.
AND.... some people just choose to do as they please. There are always possible mitigating circumstances, I agree -- but you can't build a set of rules and expectations of decorum to manage those. What you CAN do (and I believe the moderators do....) is apply some discretion. Someone has already pointed out one particular instance where it was clear to everyone that someone was simply not right -- if it's the one I am thinking of -- he was highly agitated and aggressive. The forum members rallied around him and supported as best they could -- and he pulled through. No TO, no ban. Now, I know it isn't always that obvious, but again, compassion and discretion are usually applied to individuals, but at some point a decision has to be made based on the CURRENT rules. And really, compassion and discretion can NOT go on forever -- as difficult as they may be to do and/or hear. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one (stolen from Mr. Spock -- I forget which Star Trek movie -- maybe the one with Ricardo Montabaln).
Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one (stolen from Mr. Spock -- I forget which Star Trek movie -- maybe the one with Ricardo Montabaln).
Which was Spock's rationale for his personal sacrifice. However, in Star Trek 2, Kirk and his shipmates stole the Enterprise, went strictly against orders to the newly formed Genesis Planet. They found the regenerated Spock in order to bring him to Vulcan to be reunited with his Katra, his soul, which resided in McCoy.
as was pointed out in the movie, that thinking, that the needs of the one, of Spock, meant more than the needs of the many, was illogical. But even Sarek, Spock's father, noted that "My logic is not always clear where my son is concerned."
Sometimes it is the needs of the many. Sometimes it is the needs of the one.
Gotta side with Kirk on this one.
Holy mother of pearl, I am a geek.
Unfortunately -- by taking just one line without what preceeded it you missed my point.
I said that compassion and discretion was good and necessary (and that I thought the mods have been displaying both), but it can't go on forever. Eventually, no matter what is going on with the individual his or her issue(s) can't allow an indefinite impact on the rest of the individuals (and Bucko's point -- to the bottomline of the company -- because if the sponsor decides to pull the plug -- well, you get the picture.
I just want to say thank you to the moderators for trying to clean up the joint. It will be nice to be able to come here a little more often now without having to see things that help no one and quite frankly are embarrassingly childish to see in a support forum for adults.
Keep up the good work! ;D
Daniel
Now -- I would like to hear what the moderators think of the suggestion around limiting bannable offenses to denialists, dangerous medical advice, sock puppets, etc and a progressively longer TO for the "behavioral" (for lack of a better term) offenses. Maybe add the 6 mos and then 12 mos TO -- perhaps then followed by a ban at that point (this would allow about 2 yrs for someone to address any issues that made "behaving" difficult).
Unfortunately -- by taking just one line without what preceeded it you missed my point.
I said that compassion and discretion was good and necessary (and that I thought the mods have been displaying both), but it can't go on forever. Eventually, no matter what is going on with the individual his or her issue(s) can't allow an indefinite impact on the rest of the individuals (and Bucko's point -- to the bottomline of the company -- because if the sponsor decides to pull the plug -- well, you get the picture.
Philly, David_NC - I take those points and can now see some merit to a lengthy TO - but I think if it's to work then there has to be zero tolerance after the six months, i.e. further transgressions result in another lengthy TO without further warnings.
The more I think about it, the more I see that, really, Bocker, you hit the nail on the head. And with all the back and forth in this thread, that aspect has never been discussed.Bucko
You know, the longer I think about this the angrier I became.
We were promised by Peter Staley that Smart+Strong (and its advertisers) would have no say in what was discussed here or how it was discussed back when the site was purchased.
The more I think about it, the more I see that, really, Bocker, you hit the nail on the head. And with all the back and forth in this thread, that aspect has never been discussed.
Why shouldn't S+S's bottom line be the overriding concern? I'm certain that those banned members living with HIV have found other sources for support, right?
I've worked for organizations that adopted mission statements to fit a business model and changed missions to maximize profits. And I've worked for organizations that had a strong mission and found a business model to support that mission. Every indicator I've seen, including the frequent messages in this thread from the moderators, is that AIDSMEDS is, has been and remains one of the latter.
Respectfully
A
Well frankly -- I NEVER said it was an overriding concern -- you are cooking that one up in your own head, so please don't put it on me. I was making a point that if membership takes a hit because of lack of rules enforcement, then how does one expect this site to remain a going concern. That would be true whether owned by a for-profit company or not.
Mike
Unfortunately -- by taking just one line without what preceeded it you missed my point.
I said that compassion and discretion was good and necessary (and that I thought the mods have been displaying both), but it can't go on forever. Eventually, no matter what is going on with the individual his or her issue(s) can't allow an indefinite impact on the rest of the individuals (and Bucko's point -- to the bottomline of the company -- because if the sponsor decides to pull the plug -- well, you get the picture.
So, I'm not trying to imply that the crowd always trumps the individual -- but eventually that decision needs to be looked at if there is no improvement. It's an important distinction IMO.
BTW -- I've always liked Trek geeks -- I've even discovered that on cbs.com you can see some original episodes in High-definition! ;D
Mike
I just want to say thank you to the moderators for trying to clean up the joint. It will be nice to be able to come here a little more often now without having to see things that help no one and quite frankly are embarrassingly childish to see in a support forum for adults.
Keep up the good work! ;D
Daniel
I obviously don't know what you were thinking, but I do know what you wrote.
You agree with this whole permanent banning thing, especially when it involves someone you find personally distasteful. I disagree. Imagine!
Well Daniel maybe you can send a list of of the "dirty" spots that still need "cleaning"......we'll get this place sanitized for you yet!....
(Since we are in a thread dealing with peoples hurt feelings about posts and the consequences, I guess I will have to point out that the above comment was "goodnatured sarcasm"...Geez)
edited for numerous typos...
I hesitate to respond to that because I don’t want to go too far off-topic but sarcasm rarely works in print because unless someone knows you well, it can be perceived as insulting and condescending. Just so you know.
Scoff if you must, but to me it’s really very simple. Internet forums function better when civility is expected and kept. They just do. There’s enough chaos in the world without having to dread finding it purposely being created in forums that are intended for support, especially on a subject as serious as HIV/AIDS. Not everyone is dealing as well as everyone else with that right?
This isn’t a game to me. Life is short and my time is valuable. If people want to waste time and play head games there are plenty of other forums on the Internet better suited to that.
Carry on.
Daniel
The initial proposal had two or three basic ideas in it:
1) To define members of the community as opposed to trolls, denialists etc. The proposal there was to establish a guideline number of, for instance, 100 posts
2) For those members of the community to replace (retroactively) a ban with a 6 month or twelve month timeout.
Discussion so far has focused on the timeout period, appearing to coalesce around a 6 month period, repeated as necessary. While any decision on changes is of course up to the moderators, are there any comments on how to define a member of the community? Is a post count guideline helpful or is it just obvious to all concerned? And what about "retroactivity" / transition (i.e. that those who have been gone for 6 months or more would be immediately welcomed back). If there are strong views it would probably be helpful to the moderators to know what they are.
Thanks
A
8:45 am-after a morning run and some coffee, I have come back to edit this post. Daniel, I apologize for personalising my earlier response to you (the irony of my doing that in a thread on behavior in the forums just struck me). While I stand by what I have have said in this thread, I need to allow others space also.
The stuff that's not struck out still stands!... :)
Keyite
That's what I was (not too articulately ) trying to propose.
I implore folks not to turn this thread into a venting about one specific ban, or we'll have to lock the thread. Let's keep it about our banning policy in general, and how these forums are moderated.
Thanks,
Peter
Some of you here need to learn to listen to warnings from the moderators.
I have asked folks to give me an example on how other folks were treated like lost "baby seals", no one has given one yet.
So why we are here? The only conclusion I can reach is that this banned member has probably been persistently refusing to yield, i.e. change his "caustic" style that the "baby seals" have claimed to have hurt their feelings, threatening that they would not return unless something is being done about it. Rod's post above seems to confirm this - as it probably explains some of the rather unnecessarily asking-for-trouble remarks this banned member made in the last few days. And of course there have been open accusations that he was being treated favorably - that he was this lovely thug that no one could control.
How do you KNOW that nobody was in Crisis when MtD went after them in the forums? Do you KNOW the Mental/Emotional/Health state I was in personally when he followed the link in my signature at the time and found as much personal information about me as he could, including my full legal name, and reposted it here in the forums for anyone with Google to see? Sure it was available on the net elsewhere, but I never made my full name and location known here. That was done by him out of pure vindictiveness. Don't tell me it was some attempt to help me out in any way.
I was in a health crisis at the time this all happened and made a few posts that irritated him so he made it his mission to plague my every posting here with hostility, so I put him on ignore. He continued trolling my every post even after his ignore status was made known to him. The only "Peace" I got was to walk away and let him have this sand box, only to return when I vitally needed a bit of information from here about a med or a treatment. My leaving AM had nothing to do with his caustic wit or sarcasm. It was his outright hatefulness towards me that drove me off. Period.
Still, I left rather than ask for him to be banned. Nobody should be cut off from support.
Umm... unless I read this thread wrong, MtD WAS Given special treatment in that he had 4 TO's instead of the ruled upon 3 TO's before his banning was made.
In any case, He is still able to read the forums here and email all his friends who trusted him enough to give him an email address. He can also still email the site owners and plead his own case or ask for support from them via email. He's not totally out in the cold.
I really don't want to lock this thread, but will if this happens again.
No one should discuss the specifics of the latest banning, of offer praise or criticism of Matty here. Steve's post is out of bounds, but so are those posts that kept asking for specific evidence of Matty's misdeeds, implying the mods aren't being completely honest in what went down.
Stop it all now. Stick to our banning policy in general.
I said that compassion and discretion was good and necessary (and that I thought the mods have been displaying both), but it can't go on forever. Eventually, no matter what is going on with the individual his or her issue(s) can't allow an indefinite impact on the rest of the individuals (and Bucko's point -- to the bottomline of the company -- because if the sponsor decides to pull the plug -- well, you get the picture.
You know, the longer I think about this the angrier I became.
We were promised by Peter Staley that Smart+Strong (and its advertisers) would have no say in what was discussed here or how it was discussed back when the site was purchased.
The more I think about it, the more I see that, really, Bocker, you hit the nail on the head. And with all the back and forth in this thread, that aspect has never been discussed.
Why shouldn't S+S's bottom line be the overriding concern? I'm certain that those banned members living with HIV have found other sources for support, right?
Ideally, there would be no need for moderators ('cept to filter out the riff-raff that come here to disrupt the forums, sock puppets, denialists, etc). Since we do appear to need moderators and some method for them to enforce the forum rules and policies, I'd like to see some changes.
Edited to add: In order to make such a revamp of rules fair, then a slate wiping as Iggy suggested (I think) in an earlier post would be appropriate and invite back all of those members who've been banned (save for those that have been detailed as not belonging...denialists, snakeoil folks, etc.). Let everyone start anew with new rules in place.
1) TO's and warnings reset after a set period of time... say, one year. People DO (sometimes) change. Perhaps it's when their situation and needs change. Perhaps it's when they realize how much they've lost by being prevented from posting for 6 months, but I think we can see changes in members posting behavior.
2) Perhaps there would need to be less leniency in issuing them, too. Examples: When a PM that was clearly not intended for public viewing is posted, that would result in a warning. Warnings should be given publicly so others, mainly newer members, will know what is not acceptable.
3) After warnings and the 7- and 30-day TO's, a 6-month TO would follow. After 6 months, the member would be allowed to begin posting. At this point, there would be no warnings for 'infractions'. There would only be 7- and 30-day TO's followed by another 6-month TO. Edited to add:These would not be posted publicly.
4) Thread locks and warnings - I'd like to see moderators send a PM requesting that a offending post be edited. Generally, the poster is still online and will receive the warning. If the post isn't edited in some set period, a warning or other disciplinary action would then be issued. Edited to add:This one could be difficult to enforce because the poster could post and dash off for breakfast or out of town for days. Is there a way to put an individual post in limbo, or mask it, until the poster's communicated with a mod about it?
5) Permanent bans - These would be reserved for members who post to disrupt, sock puppets, etc. It's obvious these members have no intent on participating, only causing problems.
It is important that people feel comfortable and safe posting here. Many folks lurk and read the forums long before they join and actually start posting. If we turn them off from the beginning, while they're still 'testing the waters', how likely are they to return and participate? On the other hand, we don't want to lose valuable members whose input and support are an important part of these forums. By implementing something like what I've suggested above, I don't see us having much to lose but possibly a lot to gain.
David
It is important that people feel comfortable and safe posting here.
Wow. Just... wow.Peter-
Do you guys really think I think like that? Do you really think I'm worrying about Gilead and GSK when all the moderators are IMing back and forth trying to make these decisions?
I could give a flying fuck what big pharma thinks about these forums -- feel free to send the URL of this post to the heads of their HIV marketing divisions -- I've met them all, and they won't be surprised I said this -- trust me.
These forums make me feel proud each and every day. The fact that I had a hand in building them, along with many others (including many long-term members, who I consider partners in this effort), fills me with pride. I know the other mods feel the same way.
I'm sorry for the highjack, but I just can't let statements like this slide, lest others start to think there's some truth to them.
You really don't know me, Bucko. I have never questioned your motives here. Please stop questioning mine. I'm guessing they are actually the same.
Well, I've seen people on this site banned for less so I have to say that this truly comes as no suprise. I'm glad to see though that the moderators went ahead and did the appropriate thing in this situation rather than continuing to make exceptions for a prolific poster with something of a fan base on this here messaging board.
Well, I've seen people on this site banned for less so I have to say that this truly comes as no suprise. I'm glad to see though that the moderators went ahead and did the appropriate thing in this situation rather than continuing to make exceptions for a prolific poster with something of a fan base on this here messaging board.
Yeah, I kinda gathered that based on this post yesterday:
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=23080.msg293569#msg293569 (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=23080.msg293569#msg293569)
and your "one person I don't like....ha, ha, ha" sig line.
-thunter34
(who dutifully stayed out of this thread all this time...and who now backs right back out of it)
Well, I've seen people on this site banned for less so I have to say that this truly comes as no suprise. I'm glad to see though that the moderators went ahead and did the appropriate thing in this situation rather than continuing to make exceptions for a prolific poster with something of a fan base on this here messaging board.
For those that are relatively new to the forums you need to know that when a banning does happen it's not from one or two warnings that you have seen in the public forums. Most warnings are given in PMs to the member which none of you actually see. What you actually see is the final result of a member not heeding the warnings that have been given. And yes, if one is banned it's because we didn't heed the warnings. I consider Matty as a very good friend of mine and yes I'll miss him, like I do Tim, but we all know if we don't following the policies and guidelines lines what the out come will be. Most of the members that have been here for years can remember we were the ones that asked for the policies and guidelines because the forums were way out of control. Now that the policies are in place we all need to abide by them.
The voice of the reason.
thanks to the the moderators for their good job.
Jacques
If behaviour is indeed modified then I can see no particular need for a reset, and certainly not after such a short time as one year.
This place should feel safe for people searching for help and not be the domain of the wisecracking few.
Guys, I believe the point of this thread is the ban / TO policy in general. FOCUS
I agree completely! Unfortunately I think you're going to be drowned out by the wise crackers here.
I agree completely! Unfortunately I think you're going to be drowned out by the wise crackers here.
Sorry but I was responding to a post asking for specific evidence and I gave it. It won't happen again.
However, the actual mechanics of a 6-month repetitive TO, vs. a permaban, and WHO each of these would apply to (when are permabans still used?), would all have to be considered.
I would definitely plead the mods to consider the options of 6-month ban in lieu of a perma-ban, and while you guys are at it please also consider applying it retroactively if (and only if) the perma-ban is lifted.
Self, do you think this PM is because people are reporting me? (Yeah)
I don't want to sound like I'm stifling the suggestions here, but please realize any new system has to be simple, if only because it's already hard for the mods to keep track of all the TOs and bans.
At this point, I'd be hard pressed to consider a clean-slate system. However, the actual mechanics of a 6-month repetitive TO, vs. a permaban, and WHO each of these would apply to (when are permabans still used?), would all have to be considered.
Although I do not agree with a person getting a permanent ban, but following the rules is imperative on this forum.
If I am reading David's suggestion correctly the basic change in the current policy would be to do away with a permanent ban and add 6 mth TO level.
Of course eventually someone will receive a 6mth TO and this will all be revisited. Which I guess isn't such a bad thing, as all policies need to be flexible enough to be changed as needed.
I would definitely plead the mods to consider the options of 6-month ban in lieu of a perma-ban, and while you guys are at it please also consider applying it retroactively if (and only if) the perma-ban is lifted.
What I'd really like to ask people to do (and I shouldn't have to ask this) but please separate yourself from the "MtD factor" and picture either yourself or someone you're close to here getting permanently banned, and imagine that it's because they went on some new anti-depressant or something and went a bit crazy. The "6-month" repeated T.O. proposal, as I previously stated, is meant to prompt the individual into seeking professional "real world" help.
PLEASE NOTE: I suggested this first, and Miss_NC repeated it. I demand proper credit and recognition :)
PLEASE NOTE: I suggested this first, and Miss_NC repeated it. I demand proper credit and recognition :)
I am going to have to disagree on this one. The mods at the time they issued any type of ban followed procedures set forth at that time. If the policies change I don't think it is appropriate to go back and say "Well you didn't observe previous policies, we have changed them and now want to offer you the opportunity to come back provided you follow the new policy." I am all for giving people a second chance as well as a firm believer that people can change (no matter how often I have been proven wrong), but I believe that if a you allow some to come back then you need to allow all to come back. If you believe a certain person that has been banned deserves a second chance or that a banned individual can change and follow new policies, then doesn't that same belief hold true for all banned members regardless of what they were banned for?
If we don't go to 6-month TO's instead of perma-bans, I would again suggest that members' records be wiped clean of warnings yearly. It's easy to post something that generates a warning, especially for somebody who's going through a particularly rough time, for example.
David
Edited to add: In order to make such a revamp of rules fair, then a slate wiping as Iggy suggested (I think) in an earlier post would be appropriate and invite back all of those members who've been banned (save for those that have been detailed as not belonging...denialists, snakeoil folks, etc.). Let everyone start anew with new rules in place.
I have to say that I agree, if one person gets a second chance then everyone should be invited back under the new rules and guidelines. D
I would definitely plead the mods to consider the options of 6-month ban in lieu of a perma-ban, and while you guys are at it please also consider applying it retroactively if (and only if) the perma-ban is lifted.
There have also been some cases of underage sexual predator issues that should be addressed.
I think that the proposal is to change the policy only for those that were not denialists, sock puppets, trolls etc. Since the policy would not change for them, why should they be offered an opportunity to return?
It simply says we are refining the initial policy and for those who would have been differently affected had the new policy been in place we are offering (and many of us are hoping) for them to return. People wound up in the "banned" bucket for different reasons, some of which we now believe should be rethought , but others we all (so far) agree should have been banned. Basically we are potentially changing our thinking around what constitutes "appropriate" grounds for banning -- fairness does not require that those who were appropriately banned be returned under both definitions of "appropriate", only those where we would not now consider the grounds appropriate.
Clearly nobody should be allowed to return that didn't respect their time outs -- as in the rather large group of banned individuals who attempted to immediately create a new user name either with or without a proxy server IP. And of course, it should be clear that denialists and such sorts are not allowed to return.
There have also been some cases of underage sexual predator issues that should be addressed.
So in my interpretation of David's post, a clean slate would look like this:
Warning,
7-day timeout,
Warning,
30-day timeout,
Warning,
6-month timeout,
7-day timeout,
30-day timeout,
6-month timeout,
6-month timeout,
6-month timeout, (repeats)
Why shouldn't those who didn't respect their timeouts be given a second chance after 6 months if they were not denialists, sock puppets, trolls etc. ? Presumably that means they had a lot to say? and they may have learned their lesson not to make up two identities.
…if that’s not true our jails and prisons would have no return inmates…
Probably for the same reason that the moderators won't let back in someone who sent them abusive emails after a time out. It's seen as abusive of the moderator's judgement, etc.
So what's the risk?
I can see no particular need for a reset,
I hear ya ... But ...
- I think people posting here are sometimes under enormous short term pressures and illness burdens and that things can change dramatically in 6 months
- This is an online support group -- and (as some guy named philly267 pointed out first :)), there's not a lot of other options on the internet for HIV support.
I'd encourage any new policy to be as forgiving as possible to those who are living with the disease and have been contributing members of the community. In fact, given the limited alternatives I'd argue for as broad and forgiving a policy as we can stomach. After all, if you let the wrong person back in and they act up they can always be thrown back out. Letting someone back in is only on terms and conditions that are well understood and violation can be quickly disciplined. So what's the risk?
(I also wanna repeat this: I don't think banned members should have the benefit of warnings. They know alllllllllll about warnings baby. They know about warnings like they know the skin on their own nose)