Proposed Revisions to Time-Out/Banning Policies and Procedures

[Tim Horn]

First off, I’d like to thank everyone who spoke up in the “Banning and the Loss of Voices” thread started on September 12th, as well as those who communicated privately with us via PM and e-mail regarding their thoughts on the matter.  There were so many thoughtful and salient points—many in favor of a change to our ban/time-out policy; some in favor of keeping things as they are—and we have decided to make a few important changes.

Going forward, we will be implementing a new time-out policy for members participating in any of the sections other than the “Am I Infected?” and “Estoy Infectado?” forums. The stepwise procedure will be:

     1)  Public or private warning
     2)  One-week TO
     3)  Public or private warning
     4)  One-month TO
     5)  Public or private warning
     6)  Three-month TO
     7)  Public or private warning
     8 ) Six-month TO
     9)  Public or private warning
     10) Subsequent six-month TOs

Note:  as before, all warnings are at the discretion of moderators.  Time-outs can be issued without prior warnings for extreme and/or repeated violations of our posting guidelines.

In response to requests asking that we “wipe the slate clean” after a period of time has passed, we have decided that this is not in the best interest of the Forums. Fact of the matter is, if we have long-term members who don’t haven't developed the necessary temperament for getting along with others in an online environment – anyone who has reached the punitive level of six-month TOs has been given plenty of opportunities to control his or her behavior in light of acute personal or emotional problems – returning them to seven-day TOs achieves nothing. This would also be a cumbersome record-keeping endeavor for the moderators and would be prone to errors.

With the new time-out policy and procedure in place, fewer members will be subject to banning. However, we must maintain a banning policy and procedure for some individuals, as there are some members who clearly overstep efforts to maintain basic safety in the Forums. Members subject to permanent banning will be those who meet any of the following:
 
     1) HIV/AIDS denialists. Any member who posts denialists propaganda – including direct links to information produced by denialist entities or language encouraging members to research denialism -- will be banned immediately. More benign questions or comments about denialism, especially when raised by a long-term member of the Forums, will be handled on a case-by-case basis. 
     2) Overt marketing of a proven or unproven modality for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. New members will be banned immediately; older members will be warned first.
     3) Duplicate accounts and sock-puppetry.  Warning first to individuals with an open existing account; an immediate ban issued to individuals who are timed out and attempt to create a second account.
     4) Threatening or harassing the moderators of the Forums. Immediate ban. 
     5) Any threatened legal action against the moderators and/or Smart+Strong, or any of the staff at Smart+Strong. Immediate ban.
     6) A physical threat leveled at any member of the Forums. Immediate ban.
     7) Sexual harassment of any member or moderator. Warning for first offense; immediate ban for subsequent offenses.
     8 ) Extreme and/or repeated expressions of intolerance of racial, national, gender, sexual and religious differences. Warning for first offense; immediate ban for subsequent offenses.

These new policies and procedures are retroactive and will be applied to current banned members who do not meet any of the criteria specified above. If you know currently banned members who might wish to return under these new policies and procedures, please have them e-mail me at editors@aidsmeds.com. The moderators will review each request on a case-by-case basis.

We would very much like to finalize these revised policies and procedures by early next week. And while we cannot feasibly put these revisions to a vote, we are open to your comments and questions at this time.

Thanks everyone,

Tim Horn

[bocker3]

Tim,

I think this is a fine revision of the policies.  It is great to see that the community can and does have an impact on our little piece of the internet. 

I want to thank all the moderators for approaching this issue with such open minds.  As I've said many times over the years, the moderators all do a fantastic job in what is often, thankless situations.  I am glad they are here and willing to make the tough calls day in and day out -- not to mention their never ending willingness to offer their, not insignificant, experience on living with this virus.

Thanks again,
Mike

[Assurbanipal]

Tim

Thank you for being so open to revising the prior policy retroactively. I second all of Mike/Bocker3's comments on the great job done by you and the rest of the moderators.

... and I hope some of those passionate voices will rejoin the forums.

Assurbanipal

[David_CA]

Tim,

I think that's a good plan.  The one thing I would like to see, but probably won't, is 'wiping the slate clean' after a certain time has passed.  For example, a new member might have issues when he / she first joins and receive a warning.  A year (or more) later this same members has another incident.  They would then receive a TO.  I'd like to see that first warning be wiped out after such a long time.  Otherwise, it sounds good!

David

[gerry]

Hello Tim,

Just wanted to ask if unsanctioned solicitations (specifically monetary) from other members is considered an offense?  I believe there was one member who was banned as a result of this. This is just a clarification rather than a request.  Thanks.

Gerry

[Tim Horn]

Thanks for the support and feedback thus far.

David (and everyone) -- I just realized that I left out an important step in the TO policy: a one-month TO after a one-week TO and before the three-month TO (I have edited my original post accordingly). We felt this necessary, as the leap from a one-week TO to a three-month TO is significant.

As for revisiting the "clean slate" for newbies, I do want to reiterate that we issue warnings before TOs are given, and this almost always nips the situation in the bud immediately, especially when the forums member knows that they'll be looking at a one-month TO instead of a one-week TO (knowing that the consequences are higher for repeated difficult behavior seems to be an effective deterrent). Plus, if we implement clean slates for some but not all members of the Forums -- newbies vs. veterans, for example -- this is an additional layer of subjectivity that the moderators will need to consider on top of everything else. To keep things simple -- and fair -- we really do believe that "clean slates" will only lead to confusion. But we'll talk about this.

Gerry -- Unsanctioned solicitations are definitely problematic. Fortunately, we haven't heard much of this in recent years. While we ended up banning one member who was soliciting funds from forums members, this person was actually guilty of a number of offenses and had received several TOs prior to being banned. We'll definitely discuss this -- it will need to be included if we've overlooked this as an offense worthy of a ban. As unsanctioned solicitation often takes place via PM, we do have the option of preventing certain members who repeatedly abuse private messaging privileges from using the AIDSmeds PM function (although here we rely on members to report PM abuse to the moderators directly) -- we've done this before.

Keep the comments coming,

Tim

[LatinAlexander]

I like it.

Alex

[keyite]

Excellent outcome. Like Mike, I think mods do a great balancing act.

[atlq]

Well done.

[Lisa]

I say brava, as well as thank you.
There is just one other small issue that I didn't see addressed, and it will inevitably come to the fore. You may wish to add an honorable mention to the "sock puppet" community, or those who create fake persona to stay within the community. We all fairly understand that it goes without question, but if not addressed directly there will come a time.........."I don't see that in the rules anywhere."
You may want to think of a place to publish these for all to see when entering the forums, as it may be helpful for the rest of us to help police the place by using direct quote.
Otherwise.....wonderful job!......OH, and I still would love to see some form of forgiveness program over a period of time. I do understand your thought process concerning this area, but if one has behaved well for a lengthy period of time they should deserve the opportunity to be re-edified in good standing. How about an every two year clean slate?

edit/ or a once a year team meeting to review each case individually.

[Peter Staley]

Lisa -- see #3 in the list of bannable offences in Tim's first post above.  Sock-puppetry is explicitly listed.

Peter

[Lisa]

Whoopsie Peter!  I haven't finished my coffee yet. Never mind.  

[Iggy]

I add my thanks for the moderators hearing the board's concern about permanent bannings and their willingness to revisit the issue.  I think you all struck a perfect balance here.

I have one observation/request for clarification though on the categories of people who are subject to permanent bans:

     2) Overt marketing of a proven or unproven modality for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. New members will be banned immediately; older members will be warned first.

Can this catergory serve as the basis for a revisiting of the posting guidelines (Welcome Thread) in the Research Section, as well as an implementation of a similar Welcome thread in the Nutrition and Treatment forums?

Modified:  Also would you consider posts in the Research section that though are not outright denalist, but strongly (and have a consistent history) of trying to disprove proven ARV therapies as something under this category?

[Tim Horn]

Can this catergory serve as the basis for a revisiting of the posting guidelines (Welcome Thread) in the Research Section, as well as an implementation of a similar Welcome thread in the Nutrition and Treatment forums?

Yes. Absolutely.

[water duck]

Saying NO;

Some will praise you, because you are assertive.

Some will curse you, because you are a bitch.

If we observe the dress code of a restaurant, then i think observing the code of civility around here is just a piece of cake.

There are so many different forums, choosing the right one to post save us all the unpleasantness.  My bitchness will not permit me to go down to 'Am I Infected ' , i know i will get banned in a minute, therefore i keep them for Hermie  who has the intelligence and generosity spirit to laugh with it.

[Tim Horn]

water duck:

Your response is confusing me a bit.

Are you saying that you'd prefer that our banning policy be left as is?

Tim

[dixieman]

Thanks for posting. I never knew there was much of a problem... it seems relative to me that a warning would be sufficent to give someone who over-stepped boundries... but, I really had no idea how some people have interacted behind the scene. So... I want to thank you for posting the new policy. John

[bmancanfly]

A Solomonic decision.

Thanks for listening to all the voices here regarding this policy change.  Your efforts are appreciated.

[AlanBama]

Excellent!

I think this is a very good revision to the rules and regs.    Thank you Peter, Tim and Moderators.

hugs,

Alan

[water duck]

Tim ,

Please do what must be done to keep this a safe harbour that peter created !!

It is a very hard job you all doing, i take my hat off to all of you.

[pozniceguy]

I think this strikes a nice balance that allows enough leeway for people with strong opinions to express themselves but keeps the really rowdy ones on their toes.... I agree with the definitions of all the "no tolerance" issues.....who needs that crap....

Good job folks!!!!

Nick

[emeraldize]

Thank you, all of you.

[Florida69]

This sounds very feasible, I think it is a change in the right direction.  It is a great step toward equality among board members.  It would make me want to be a more active member on the boards, as I like most here, am very opinionated.  I am grateful for the change, and look forward to being a more enthusiastic member.  Thanks for listening, D

[Peter Staley]

Thanks for everyone's input!  The new policies are now in place.

Two previously banned members, Moffie65 and skeebo1969,  requested we review their bans, and those bans have been lifted. 

Note:  Any members who have their bans lifted will not return with clean slates.  They will be subject to 6 month Time-Outs if warnings are ignored.

[Robert]

Well that's typical of me.  I didn't even know Tom (skeeboi) was banned.  I just figured he went off and got married and lived happily ever after...


Welcome back Tom and Moffie.  Good to see you.

robert