Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 22, 2014, 10:09:41 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 635756
  • Total Topics: 48233
  • Online Today: 240
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 6
Guests: 149
Total: 155

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Banning and the loss of voices  (Read 23685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Finnboy

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #50 on: September 13, 2008, 03:25:02 PM »
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.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,371
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #51 on: September 13, 2008, 03:27:06 PM »
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.

I understand you -- and agree, to a point.  The fact remains that those banned had a choice to modify their behavior to avoid it.  Everyone knew the rules -- which probably should be amended, but have not been as yet.  maybe they had mitigating issues, but we don't have the luxury of trials and evidence etc (I don't mean that to sound flip -- really I don't) what we do have is the judgement of the moderators -- who have far more "evidence" than we all do.  I know that I would not want their jobs.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #52 on: September 13, 2008, 03:40:48 PM »
First off, I am a total chimp when it comes to the features on this site. But here goes an effort:

Mike, you said:
Quote
but again, they have chosen their path with full knowledge.

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.

David NC wrote:

Quote
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.

Well spake, sir. Well spake indeed.

Emeraldize wrote:

Quote
The comment was born of the condescension observed in the way new members and other members were treated over a long period of time.

To the best of my understanding, there has not been harassment of any kind in the "Just tested Positive" Forum. No tough love, no correcting the mode of HIV transmission, just support. I was under the impression that the "Living with HIV" forum WAS a different place than the "Just Infected" forum, for precisely the reasons you state.

That it was and is a place where much franker discussions can take place. Even calling people out on their denial/delusions/what-have-you. because those delusions, denials, and the what-have-you's are a FAR greater threat to a person's survival with HIV than stress. Moreover, they often perpetuate stigmas we are so valiantly working to overcome.  Had incidents occur ed in the "I Just tested Poz" forum, trust me, I'd be in the same boat as you.

But if Living With is supposed to be the same "kid gloves" forum as "I Just Tested Positive," then why have different forums for the two? I agree, we are ALL, from diagnosis to death, living with HIV. I though that placing a gentler, kinder forum for those newly infected was specifically to allow a person time to adjust to their situation and the realities of HIV before moving to the harsher realms of what is surely a lifetime, chronic illness with no regard for sensibilities.

Quote
How is it that you decide a sweet, well meaning person has nothing substantive to offer?

I do not. And I did not. I was using examples of extremes to make a point. Please do not parse semantics like that.

Some of the most knowledgeable people here and anywhere are the sweetest, kindest people in the world. And some of the people with zero to offer of any substance are the loudest voices. This is why discipline (or punishment) should be decided on a case by case, member to member basis.

I totally understand the "ignore" feature, and having posts/posters to whom my eyes roll. I tend to avoid posting in those threads, because, well sometimes if you have nothing nice to say, it's better not to say anything at all. The same, of course, can apply to the acerbic and ill-thought-out posts of members. And yes, sometimes, some members will not be able to help themselves, and put something particularly mean or inappropriate in a thread I get that. And when that happens, at the very least, a warning should be given, in public and/or via PM. Banning someone for having a lousy day and lousy timing is not the answer. Banning someone who has seven lousy days in a year (or a lifetime of membership to AM) and lousy timing is also rather draconian.

We're not talking about X number of offenses over X amount of time. We are talking about X number of offenses EVER. And the better these drugs get, the longer us long-timers will be around. Frankly, I am a huge fan of a yearly clean slate. Something like a Holiday gift to the members.

Even the ones I don't like. Even the ones you don't.

because this illness is a LOT more complicated than many others. And it involves MANY factors which are often not taken into consideration when determining discipline.

Finally. to Peter:

I cannot access your quote, but I did not at all intend to hurt your feelings. I am very glad you found someone to help out in the Research thread. I can tell you had your hands totally full there for the longest time. It will, I suspect, take some time to restore it to it's original intent. Wild suppositions and near-denialism have to be dealt with on a case by case, often a member by member basis. And with so much information (and such a dearth of real scientific knowledge or willingness to follow through with claims or information gathering) it can seem, form the outside, overwhelming. It needed the extra help, and I am glad you got it.

You know I respect you and especially the LESSONS you and Tim Horn have laid out more than anything.  At my doctor's week before last, she actually took one of the pieces of advice I was given by you when I was really sick, and said (half to herself) "I was just about to suggest that." But she didn't. I did, because you did.

If I am to survive, I am going to need to pester the best and the brightest. I am also going to need to stay smart, and keep reading, and above all, not waffle on the important issues like meds, and health, and whether or not I deserve to live. If I learned anything from two weeks in the hospital (aside from the fact that the food is rank) it's that existentialism must give way to pragmatism at some point. Navel gazing is great... just make sure you still have a navel to gaze at.

But I digress.

And I miss many of the departed, and so does this forum, whether it knows/acknowledges it or not.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline Texan38

  • Member
  • Posts: 686
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #53 on: September 13, 2008, 03:42:39 PM »
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.
I have to admit, I enjoyed Mattys twisted sense of humor. He has a wicked tongue but has a heart of gold.
No one should feel hesitant or reluctant about posting their opinions here.
Does this have anything to do with what everyone here is talking about? No. But that's the point. It's my opinion and voice it here.
The moderators are doing a great job!

Just my thought.
In Hollywood an equitable divorce settlement means each party getting fifty per cent of publicity.
~ Lauren Bacall

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #54 on: September 13, 2008, 03:45:07 PM »
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.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #55 on: September 13, 2008, 04:19:39 PM »

I took almost a nine months off. and have come back. Maybe I am exceptional. Mom thinks so.



I've also taken months and months between visits. But I always know where to find AM.

Bucko... I miss you!!!

Give the damned one ALLLLLLL my love..

Will do, darl.

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.


"Family" is a dangerous meme, because it's highly misleading.

In my family, we don't mince words and we don't wear gloves. But we love each other unconditionally. This is not a family. It's a business, and all good businesspeople keep the bottom line first and foremost. To do otherwise is fatal to their investment and livelihood.

Don't anyone think otherwise.
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2008, 04:44:16 PM »
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.  

Peter

Before responding to your and other posts, there is something I wanted to say to you personally ... What you achieved in building AIDSMEDS and these forums has been enormously valuable to me and all of us so quick to offer our opinions.  As I read through the thread responses I realized that I should have, but did not, state that upfront in the first post -- please believe me that it was implicit if unstated.  Thank you from me and, I suspect, from all of us.

Back to the thread:

To respond to your question, I think this thread makes it clear that most of the long term members are concerned about the loss of new members.  The mods get the brunt of this in one on one situations, but many respondents to this thread have commented on the need to protect vulnerable members of the community.  And even as a relatively new member I've seen it currently and in the back threads and talked with disaffected new members on and off the site.  And I don't think my experience is unique.  

But I'm not sure banning established members is necessarily the only or best response to the needs of new members.  I think new members want to feel that they are protected against attack -- but that does not automatically imply that they wish those who attack them to be permanently banned -- they just want it not to happen.  And new members can also be put off by the discussions of timeouts and permanent bans.  Part of what people are looking for is community, and the idea of permanent bans on former major contributors in itself makes the community feel less welcoming.

Perhaps new members would be better protected by an absolute ban (with automatic timeouts) for sarcasm in mental health and just tested forums -- or perhaps there are other alternatives.

Several of the moderators have commented on how hard it is to ban a long time member -- but they have expressed no such problem with banning trolls etc.  Moderating discussions, particularly ones where you have an opinion as well, is hard work and I respect the work the moderators put in.  But sometimes, when implications of a policy feel particularly difficult to enforce that can be a sign that the policy is almost, but not quite, on target.  A penalty can be so severe that it is applied later than it should be -- many organizations have found that better compliance is attained with less stress on the managers of a policy by making penalties marginally less punitive and applying them with less judgment.  Perhaps some of the stress on the moderators could be alleviated by applying bans to the trolls and a different policy to members of the community.

Finally, having some distance (and the advantage of too much time to read back issues of the forums) I think that the number of banned members may feel like a larger percentage of the conversations to new members than might it might feel like when you are actually living through them:

As backup (and because numbers are easier for me than words) I offer the following: Total posts on the site are a little under 300,000 (293,163 at the time of typing).  If you sort the member list by posts the top 60 posters contributed about half of the material (146,000).  But some of the banned members do not show up on the sorted list so the weighting of the posts by frequent posters is probably even heavier.  Counting just 6 of the banned member posts generates over 13,000 posts.  Thus, in total, banned members are probably responsible for between 5% and 10% of the posts on the site -- which is to say between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 messages.  That's a significant number and, in conjunction with those who leave for other reassons, a noticeable one.

Finally, I'd like to address the question of whether people change -- I think people do change and grow -- sometimes in a month, often in 6 months and very often in a year of two. And sometimes, as jkinatl points out so well, people go through times of crisis.

Well -- 10 people have posted while I was writing this so I will go back to reading.

But again, thanks for these forums and for the opportunity to offer suggestions.

Respectfully

Assurbanipal


5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline Texan38

  • Member
  • Posts: 686
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2008, 05:15:02 PM »
Well, Bucko, that's in your family. Not everyone's family is like that but that's the beauty of this place, a difference of opinion. You see things one way, I see things another. The one thing I do agree with you on is:
But we love each other unconditionally.
In Hollywood an equitable divorce settlement means each party getting fifty per cent of publicity.
~ Lauren Bacall

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,371
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #58 on: September 13, 2008, 05:40:05 PM »
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).

To be clear -- I am very much onboard with reviewing and revamping the permanent ban part of the TOS for reasons you and others have pointed out -- but until it's changed it is what it is.  If the moderators have bent over backwards to help someone avoid a ban, but it isn't working -- well rules are meaningless if they aren't enforced.  Just because it isn't "easy" for a moderator to enforce a rule, does not (as suggested) mean the rule is questionable -- it usually means that the moderator(s) care for the person and hate to do what must be done.  Ask any parent if it isn't "hard" to dole out punishment to their children at times.  I am a parent and I'll tell you - it sucks -- but sometimes it has to happen.

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).  At the end of the day -- whether changes are made or not -- we all know that everyone won't be happy. 

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2008, 06:06:39 PM »
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).

The irrefutable logic of your post is difficult for any reasonable entrepreneur to dispute.

Just, please, remember that any display of emotion from Mr Spock was lethally toxic. 
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #60 on: September 13, 2008, 06:11:49 PM »
Quote
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.
"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline DanielMark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,475
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #61 on: September 13, 2008, 06:15:06 PM »
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
MEDS: REYATAZ & KIVEXA (SINCE AUG 2008)

MAY 2000 LAB RESULTS: CD4 678
VL STILL UNDETECTABLE

DIAGNOSED IN 1988

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,371
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #62 on: September 13, 2008, 06:23:04 PM »
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.
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
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #63 on: September 13, 2008, 06:50:51 PM »
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 have repeated several times that I appreciate how, from a business perspective, this decision makes absolute sense. I really don't understand why you feel the need to qualify what you said. It's absolutely sound fiscal policy.

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

See? here's another satisfied customer right here.
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #64 on: September 13, 2008, 07:02:02 PM »
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).

As I said above, we'll likely be discussing this, as a group, once everything appears to have been said on the subject. All of the moderators have been following this thread very closely today -- trying very hard not to take any of it personally, might I add. Anyway, once we've talk this through, we'll most definitely chime in with our "official" thoughts on the matter.

Again, there are some salient points here and this discussion has been very useful, I believe, to everyone. I assure you that we're not ignoring what's being said here.

Tim Horn
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 07:04:00 PM by Tim Horn »

Offline Lis

  • Member
  • Posts: 593
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #65 on: September 13, 2008, 07:11:55 PM »
As I sit in my cow path of a town... trying to figure out how to swallow all the pills.. (no I NEVER could do 8 inches) Im left to think, what exactly is this site about.. I had an oppertunity to maybe meet a person like me only 2 hours away... that is HUGE for me... but now I feel like because Im old, Dieing and cranky that I should just shut up shuttin up!!!!  I would hope that folks would read what is written, and not read more into any given post then is really there.. 

thats on them.. not me

lis
poz 1986....

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #66 on: September 13, 2008, 07:34:17 PM »
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.


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?
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline Lis

  • Member
  • Posts: 593
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #67 on: September 13, 2008, 07:41:41 PM »
oops.... :-*
poz 1986....

Offline NycJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 241
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #68 on: September 13, 2008, 08:02:10 PM »
I think being a moderator must be a thankless job.  You do what you think is in the best interest of the forum overall and you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.  I appreciate all of the efforts that have gone into making this a safe place.   It is BECAUSE of the great job that has been done by the moderators to keep this place in check that I continue to come back and recommend this site to others.  I am an adult and do not need to be warned over and over again to not be an asshole to others on this site.  If I am asshole to someone on here because I am having a bad day/week then I get warned and wake the fuck up realizing that, gee..I don't want to lose my privileges to come on here.  It is all very simple.  So kudos to the moderators and don't let all the criticism get to you.

Offline Lisa

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,240
  • Formerly known as sweetieweasel/Joined Nov. 2004
    • http://www.myspace.com/lisanowak58
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #69 on: September 13, 2008, 08:08:32 PM »
Oh man, I have so many things to say, but unfortunately will forget about 50% of it before I get to everything.
To those who insist upon using the business model as an illustrative point: The boys went for as long as they could to keep from allowing ANY advertising on this site. This originally having been a smaller site, they felt allowing any advertising compromised the integrity of the site. As we grew, and evolved, they were no longer able to keep the bills paid via the original means. It was a long and laboured decision to allow advertising here(and if I remember, there was a bit of consternation from the masses, as well as a smattering of tacky "sell out" comments at the time)in order to pay the bills, to keep the site going. Not only are they not necessarily obliged to these companies for anything, they still have a heavy say about what they will, and will not allow here.
 The focal point of this community has always been on it being a place to come and share, or read. They have always striven for it to be a safe place, but those those rules of flow have had to evolve like everything else here.
 If this were the dictatorship some purport it to be, then we wouldn't have all of the staff and mods wanting to listen to, and participate in the discussion.
This place has grown so much over the last four years since I first began posting.
It was simply a place of information, a place for the positives to have a place to discuss stuff, and for those who had questions about a risk assessment.
Then we discussed and implemented a new forum where it was OK for the negs. and pozzies to have fun, and interact. We didn't used to have an Off Topic forum. Strictly business(sort of), and with that change came a whole new sense of community. We could banter, and joke around, and discuss not so serious things. Now we have a plethora of fora, with each intended to be a safer population for a target group of people.
 When we first moved into these new forums/website/servers a couple of years ago, there was a disciplinary discussion held in the forums, and we more or less voted, or stated what we thought would work the best at the time.
 The staff, and mods(who work tirelessly, and thanklessly) do not, and never have taken banning people lightly. They know this is a support forum, and no one wants to have to exclude anyone from the specific type of caring and community this place has given refuge to.
When we first had the disciplinary discussions, I never felt like perma banning was a good idea, for all of the reasons stated here by everyone.
For the entire period it took me to read this thread(which was considerable, what with the dementia etc.) I kept thinking of one certain person who always advocated for prudence when we were dealing with someone who was a bit out of control.
As has been stated many times, we don't know what may be going on in each persons life, on the other side of the screen. Maybe they just pulled their head out of the porcelain throne, maybe the buffalo hump has been hurting their back for over two weeks, and they are becoming a bit cranky, maybe someone is in pain physically, or mentally.
And sometimes we just have really shitty days. I can't count the times I have been in a totally foul mood, and not even really known why. I do try to moderate myself, and not be short with others, but ask my kids what a bitch I can be sometimes. ::yes, I know I sound all sweetsie here, most of the time, but I have days that I could take your head clean off in one bite::
Pain, depression, substance abuse, chronic sickliness, just recovering from a bad spell, all manner of things can make us inhospitable on any given day.
I still vote to add the six mo. ban, but I also like the two year clean slate idea.  That way, no one would ever have to be completely, and permanently banned from the site. I just can't bring myself to even think of any member going away forever, unless it is to the other side.
I still wonder about many of our banned members, and I think about how they are doing, how their health is. I worry about them.
I do agree with the business about the denialists, snake oil salesmen, puppets, and solicitors though.
No Fear  No Shame  No Stigma
Happiness is not getting what you want, but wanting what you have.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #70 on: September 13, 2008, 08:12:51 PM »
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.

Keyite

That's what I was (not too articulately ) trying to propose. As Allopathologistic points out, it offers a policy that might be more transparent to members and potentially easier on the moderators (although they are the best arbiters of that).  

The hope is that by having a less drastic policy that is less painful for all parties to apply, discipline would be seen to be enforced more often without losing the sense of community that some find to be important.

A
5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 24,562
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #71 on: September 13, 2008, 08:29:28 PM »
Dear All,

I just want to assure you that your voices, feelings and opinions are being heard. I know that we will be discussing among the AM staff what's been said here. I'm grateful for this kind of quality conversation about a not simple matter that is very important to all of us.

As a brief aside, Kom, I want to mention that quite a while back people were asked not to post large pictures in any other part of the Forums than Off Topic because they somehow seemed to screw up some people's computers. I can't explain the technical stuff about it but I know that Ann and others had problems with big pictures. Thanks for your cooperation.

Meanwhile I want to say thanks to all who have spoken here.

Abrazos,

« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 08:32:22 PM by Andy Velez »
Andy Velez

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #72 on: September 13, 2008, 08:36:21 PM »
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 are far more eloquent (and sexy) than I.  I've read most of your old posts and I'm excited to see you posting again in the forums.  And I'm sure that personal ties make this a particularly trying topic for you (I hope its clear that I, like just about everyone else on here, wish all the best to MtD).  So, I'm hesitant to take this up ...

But...

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
5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,371
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2008, 08:55:58 PM »
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?

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
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline atlq

  • Member
  • Posts: 518
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2008, 10:17:10 PM »
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). -Mike



Regardless of what I think  about the incident that triggered this discussion, in the interest of the forum I would like to cast my "vote" for some sort of tiered, and limited TO schedule, as Philly originally suggested  and Mike has outlined above. Egregious conduct cannot be allowed to dissuade anyone from coming here to seek help, but when it comes to applying the "death penalty" to someone here, extenuating circumstances, intent, and character should also be taken into account.


 
ďKeep up the good work....   And God bless you.Ē
  --  Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008

Offline bmancanfly

  • Member
  • Posts: 560
  • Medicare For All !
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #75 on: September 13, 2008, 10:19:51 PM »
I normally don't post here very often but I feel like I need to weigh in.  I live in a small town and have very little contact with anyone gay and even less with other HIV+ people.  So this place is invaluable to me.  Even though I don't say much I have been helped by the information, support and sense of community here.  I look forward to coming here every day.  As a matter of fact I had dinner tonite with a friend and couldn't wait to get home so I could get back to this tread to seeing how it was progressing (I know, pretty pathetic life).

But this idea of permanantly banning a contributing member, even a crusty one, really offends my sensibilities.  Whatever happened to the belief in redemption?  I don't think any contributing member (excluding the denialists, salesmen etc) should ever be permanently banned.  A six month ban is a serious penalty.  If that person comes back and on the first day behaves badly, another six month ban.  Eventually, they're going to change their behavior or stop coming back.  

This place should be a community where even the unpleasant are welcome - but expected to behave.  When you tell someone they can never come back, regardless of how much they change, you have diminished that sense of community.

Peter this place is an amazing creation and i can't thank you enough for it.  
I have the utmost respect for the moderators of this forum - they do a great job.  But there is a certain authoritarian quality to this process that is making me uncomfortable.  The locking of the thread in the "Off Topic" forum and the threat to lock this one has an oppressive feel.  You're going to permanantly ban one of the most prominent members of this site and not allow anyone to comment on it directly - even in the Off Topic forum !?  It seems a bit oppressive.  "Just be quiet we know what's best,  lest we silence you too".  

Too your credit this thread has continued with the additional encouragements from the mods for feedback.  That has a much more democratic feel.

I found this place,  almost by accident,  shortly after my diagnosis.  I spent many an hour reading the posts here with tears of sadness running down my face.  But in time i became more at peace with my situation because of the help I found here.  Later I found myself reading some of the "banned ones" posts and laughing out loud.  I've come so far thanks to so many different people.  I'd hate to think that we would turn our backs, FOREVER, on any contributing member.

Please consider changing the TO policy.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

 Bertrand Russell

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #76 on: September 13, 2008, 10:24:16 PM »


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

A-

I have no doubt that there is a level of altruism involved in keeping this place going. I know at least two of the moderators here are unpaid (or were when last I knew). I have no doubt that the people who founded this had high hopes, many of which have been realized. They deserve my congratulations and gratitude for what they've been able to accomplish.

But--

With every respect I have to say that there has been a sea-change here, and it's not just the march of progress. I applaud the new fora added over the last two years: the Women's space and the LTS area most especially. I was there when the Activism forum was opened in response to a highly provocative post on The Spin Cycle. I've always said that anything that stops growing starts dying.

But there is a decided chill here, and the absence of so many, so very many, of the veterans here is keenly felt by me. When i have needed the added support of a friend off-boards, I found it in large number by men and women who are no longer part of AIDSmeds. These are good people, caring and compassionate people who live with great stresses but who found the time to make sure that I knew I wasn't alone in this fight.

Some were banned outright, most simply understood that AIDSmeds was only as powerful as its membership and walked away in frustration, and we've lost some powerful voices. Why? What terrible crime did a man in his 60s who could no longer walk, with diminishing eyesight, flagging energy and chronic pain possibly commit to be barred permanently from making his opinions known, his experience shared and supporting those in need?

I'm told that rules are required or else anarchy will ensue. Really? So now AIDSmeds is so enormous, the population so immense, that without some standards applicable to all we'd have the onerous task of judging each member separately and on the individual basis of his or her merit? We do that already. There's not a soul on this board who doesn't agree completely that trolls, spammers and denialists are unwelcome. Absolutely everyone else is here at the discretion of the management, who set and enforce the rules.

And of course, we're all equal. Really?  Each of us contributes equally? Each of us has the same relationship with other members of the board? Each of us is in equal health? How are we all equal, then?

I say we're all exceptional. I say that because we're all exceptional, we're all to be judged differently and based on who we are and what we contribute and to what extent we depend on AM for our peace of mind. It seems obvious to me that missywho78 who sticks in Women's and Lipo and never raises a peep obviously doesn't need to be told what's appropriate. And I really don't think that the member who was banned for calling out various members as part of a "Jewish Cabal" cared when he wrote it that he'd not be welcomed back. It's all fucking obvious and universal.

Ultimately this isn't about any one member. I know how to reach those whom I love; we have the operations all in place and are, to a large degree, no longer dependent on AM to be able to communicate. I enjoy sharing here, but if I'm looking over my shoulder at every post to make sure that I haven't offended a fuckwit then I'd really rather not bother.  

Reading how grievous the process of banning is strikes me as crocodile tears. We all know that the internet is not a democracy, it's a collection of fiefdoms. The powers that be hold all the cards. As I've written above, we're all here at their discretion. We know it, they know it. I'm reminded of parents who say that there's no other way of handling their unruly children except for beating them. We know this is untrue because we all know that some parents don't believe in corporal punishment and, somehow, they manage to get their kids through high school. In most cases, kids are slapped not because of what they do (because they're kids and it's what kids do), it's because the parents have reached a boiling point and in their frustration lash out.

That's understandable. It's one of the reasons why I'll never have kids (they're kinda hard to conceive doing what I do anyway). But those who do make the commitment are not allowed such luxuries of doubt. It never hurts the parent more than the kid...not really.

To those who want to pick on my analogy about kids and responsibility: You're right. This isn't about punishment, it's about restitution and vengeance. The death penalty always is.  

 

 
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline Bucko

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,947
  • You need a shine, missy!
    • The Spin Cycle
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #77 on: September 13, 2008, 10:33:48 PM »
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 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!
Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

Blathering on AIDSmeds since 2005, provocative from birth

Offline atlq

  • Member
  • Posts: 518
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #78 on: September 13, 2008, 10:42:22 PM »
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

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...
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 11:26:26 PM by atlq »
ďKeep up the good work....   And God bless you.Ē
  --  Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008

Offline Lis

  • Member
  • Posts: 593
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #79 on: September 13, 2008, 11:25:49 PM »
And I thought that I was the only one that needed bunnies and cotten candy!!!

just kidding... there are never any perfect ways to talk to people you dont know.. and will never know.. I always found that sarcasim REALLY makes me laugh.. (at myself and this bug)  But there are others that take it too seriously... what are ya gonna do?  we are who we are
poz 1986....

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,371
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2008, 12:02:17 AM »
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!

Clearly you write much better than you read -- I've stated in a number of posts in this thread that the permanent ban rule should be rethought.  So take a deep breath, read it all again and then tell me how that shows I am in agreement OR where I have spoke about anyone whom I found personally distasteful.  All I see is you putting words into my mouth and I don't appreciate it.  Not sure why you are directing your anger at me - quite baffling actually.   ???

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #81 on: September 14, 2008, 12:43:34 AM »
As much as I respect and admire those who run the site, today I am deeply, deeply disappointed in the moderators and owners for their decision. And I am disgusted beyond words at those who applaud it.

And honestly, that's my final word on the matter.

I think I need to back way, way, way off.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline DanielMark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,475
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2008, 05:19:25 AM »
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 donít 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 itís really very simple. Internet forums function better when civility is expected and kept. They just do. Thereís 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 isnít 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
MEDS: REYATAZ & KIVEXA (SINCE AUG 2008)

MAY 2000 LAB RESULTS: CD4 678
VL STILL UNDETECTABLE

DIAGNOSED IN 1988

Offline atlq

  • Member
  • Posts: 518
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2008, 06:24:13 AM »
I hesitate to respond to that because I donít 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 itís really very simple. Internet forums function better when civility is expected and kept. They just do. Thereís 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 isnít 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

Daniel,

Thanks for the helpful writing tips.....( they were meant to be helpful right?...cause they felt kind of, you know, condescending... :)).

I agree totally with you on this however; time (yours, mine...) is valuable and  I , at least, have made my feelings on this topic known; so I am also withdrawing from this arena.

I thank the moderators for continuing to provide me (and others) the space to engage, debate,have a laugh,and occasionally even learn something (scoffing and all).

Now where are those damn coffee filters....


All the best.


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!... :)









« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 08:51:21 AM by atlq »
ďKeep up the good work....   And God bless you.Ē
  --  Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2008, 07:59:21 AM »
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

5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline SteveA

  • Member
  • Posts: 174
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #85 on: September 14, 2008, 08:35:02 AM »
Wow! I don't even know where to start! Let me just say that even though I never was on MtD's good side, I NEVER asked for him to be banned. I just wanted him to lay off of doing shit like posting my personal information that he scoured the net for in threads here. He never showed me his helpful side once, just his vindictiveness. Still, rather than ask that he be banned, I just stopped posting almost all together and peace ensued. I agree that there should be a tiered level of Timeouts, probably all the way up to a 1 year TO.

I won't be a hypocrite and say I'll miss him, but I wouldn't wish PermaBan on Anyone who needs the support given here. Not even MtD. I will enjoy the peace and quiet of his absence for a while though.

Offline SteveA

  • Member
  • Posts: 174
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2008, 08:40:53 AM »
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

I don't think "Post Counts" should be used as a guideliine at all. I've been a member just a few days shy of MtD's membership and I've hardly written a fraction of the posts he has. As far as I'm concerned, anyone affected by HIV is a member of this community. Always have felt that way and always will.

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,286
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2008, 08:42:21 AM »
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.

Offline DanielMark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,475
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #88 on: September 14, 2008, 09:35:41 AM »
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!... :)


Thanks rethinking your words atlq. Apology accepted.

Daniel
MEDS: REYATAZ & KIVEXA (SINCE AUG 2008)

MAY 2000 LAB RESULTS: CD4 678
VL STILL UNDETECTABLE

DIAGNOSED IN 1988

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,952
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2008, 10:28:04 AM »
I haven't talked to Matty about his ban, but when I do, I can assure one and all he'll say is something along the line of, "aw Dox, I shot my mouth off once too often and received the proper caning." No crying or moaning from my mate Matty. Not from that one. I figured the usual suspects would use this thread to cloak themselves in piety, but in reality are saying, "I'm glad the SOB got banned." Typical.

I've had the rare privilege to get to know Matty over the years. Without a doubt a better person does not exist among forum members. Not one. I've watched him hold the hand online of more than one dying member. Raise and protect a kid from predators, that yes roamed these very forums. Come to the defense of many of those "baby seals" described above. He's been the sole voice of defense for forum members loathed by one and all (Eldon ring a bell?) and I include myself in that. Why, because Matty on his own took the time to talk to the guy and realized, the guy suffered from severe emotional and mental problems and could not defend himself. Sure Matty didn't suffer fools gladly, and we all bear the sting of his honest words. But cruelty? not on your life.

So, where do we go from here? Couple a years ago, I started a thread asking for a definition on timeouts and banning. We had a long, drawn out, protracted discussion and some guidelines were set. However, there was the caveat that all decisions would ultimately come down to the moderators. That's what I mean when I describe the forum as a party. Yes, we've been invited, but you can be asked to leave at any time.

One more thing and I am through here. There's a bit hypocrisy involved from the top to the bottom in threads like these. I hope people realize that.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 11:11:29 AM by Dachshund »

Offline ademas

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,151
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #90 on: September 14, 2008, 10:47:22 AM »
I can't read this entire thread...it's just not in my mindset for today.

There are some of us, though, who read more than we participate here, and we have connections, and friendships, and feelings, for the more prolific posters, because they share more, and we relate to them.

We don't keep in touch with them by phone, or email, or PM, and when they are banned from this site, they simply disappear to us.  Our friends.  Our support.  Our extended family.

Call me melodramatic, but it takes me back to pre-HAART days in a way.  Here one day, gone tomorrow. 

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #91 on: September 14, 2008, 10:52:59 AM »
Keyite

That's what I was (not too articulately ) trying to propose. 
 


Hi Assurbanipal. It's a compassionate "ejection idea" because in essence we'd all be sitting on "ejector seats" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejector_seat with the exception of the Moderators but at the same time no one would ever feel "banished". 

However, one odd thing about the idea might be this: Technically you can see a person post for a day and then they suddenly vanish for 6 months (ejected), then come back for a week, then get ejected again. For newer members, a member like this would take on a "Greta Garbo" quality, in the sense that you rarely get to see the person. Older members would know it's the net effect of updated policies.

RapidRod: I want to say thank you for your post. It's very insightful.

Offline Iggy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,435
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #92 on: September 14, 2008, 11:44:37 AM »
I appreciate the last thing any of the moderators are interested in (and what they most detest) is moderating personalities. This critical point, I think, is being lost in the discussion, and yet is central to what needs to be considered for both this instance and a possible compromise in future moderator actions.

Unfortunately the majority of the most controversial and emotional (for the board) time-outs and disciplinarian decisions (including bannings) have their origins in posters who cause strong emotional responses in people, and which by nature is going to have those either strongly in favor or against the person in question; it also repeatedly results in a debate of whether a banning is fair, and sometimes followed by an unnecessary conspiracy theory based on questioning the motivations of the board moderators/owners/site with whispers of corporate greed playing a role.

The bottom line is that with the exception of banning of posters who purposefully come to the board to insert denialist claims, sell products or intentionally disrupt the flow of the community via purposeful racism, sexism and other prejudices as an m.o., moderators will continue to face this issue and subsequent uproar every time there is a banning of a member.  To assume otherwise or to think there is a complete solution is to misunderstand the very basis of the outrage being felt right now by some.

I also think that the argument for the idea of a 6 month ban, followed by a 12 month ban as a replacement for a permanent ban is a bit of a false argument in this debate as I can see the potential for this whole scenario being raised again the first time someone is placed on a 6 month or 12 month ban. 

That said I would rather take a chance on this compromise then  to void it before it is given an opportunity.  I also agree with most that I do not like the idea of anyone (minus that group of denilalsts et al mentioned above) being banned from these boards.

While I think that the individual can not come before the group (and I fear that the whole individual vs. group argument on the board is becoming a code for  "group think"  or "group sensibility" vs group of individuals) I do feel that by nature of being a community we have to make allowances for the individuals that comprise us...however that  also requires a reciprocal agreement by the individuals to be willing to make allowances for the community as a whole.

With this in mind, and to return to my opening point of removing the moderators (as far as possible) from the role of moderating personalities I am in favor keeping the current time out structure supplemented with an additional 6 month and then twelve month penalties; these penalties however should be issued by the moderators without discussion or notice to the board members in general when they are issued on an individual.  There would be no open debate on such decisions.

In other words, if we want to remove arguments about hurt feelings, need for thicker skins, being adults , etc, when it comes to the rationale for disciplining a member then we must equally be adults when it comes to the rules and remove the emotional and public lobbying when the moderators decided to enforce the regulations. 

On a related note, moderators should not invite such cans of worms to be opened by publicly discipling members or announcing such decisions:  Automatic use of penalties with a pm sent for explanation alone should be the standard.  This will allow the moderators to continue to remove themselves from personality clashes while simply enforcing board rules.  It also keeps such clashes out of the flow of public board discussions.

I do want to add that I am in favor of wiping away the current bans on ny member and offering a clean slate for those who wish to return; Not wanting to add the burden to the moderators regarding the logistics of separating denlialists et all from others, I do however suggest that is done based on the respective member sending an email to the AIDSmeds team requesting reinstatement - this will allow the moderators to confirm the new rules with the respective member.

Finally with the change of the way the penalties are enforced with the personality based issues of the board, I do add my support to the calls that the energy and time on disciplinary actions would be better spent with a more critical eye in the Research, Nutrition and Treatment forums.  While I agree that this board has an excellent group of moderators and members who do counter many false theories being battered about in those areas, there has been an embarressing allowance of a small minority of posters to continually overrun such forums with multiple postings that discredit legitimate science, and real information. 

Frankly if we want to protect the community (including the community who lurk whether members or not,) then we must primarily protect the information that is coming out of this site as legitimate and based in real debate and study.   Flooding the forums with harmful pseudo-science and misinformation about current therapies  causes far more damage to this board and the community of those with HIV in general then any individual member no matter what his personality could ever do.


Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #93 on: September 14, 2008, 11:47:42 AM »
It may sound to some folks here that we are trying to defend this one person - no doubt this ban is very personal to me - but if it isn't for the fact that I have invested a lot of my feelings in these forums I would not have participated in this thread. Set aside my personal feelings toward Matty, I want these forums to be great, and being great means it should have a diversity of styles.

Look, I have only seen an outpouring of supports whenever I needed them, and it's the same to everyone. No one new and/or in crisis has been treated cruelly with menace. I have said it before and will say it again that the AM has been life-saving, and a great number of you have made it so for me. I can't even begin to comprehend how could anyone see it otherwise. 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.

Perhaps that was why it has to come this painful decision that our mods have to make. I can definitely see how difficult it must have been, but at the end is it really about our banning policy? Daniel said something about the need to make this place even more safe as the real world is messy enough - I love you Daniel but any attempt to do so will only backfire. If you want to do so you might as well change these forums into the Ask-the-Expert selection of body.com. Human interactions entail unpredictability, which to some may already be too brutal to face.

At the end on one is irreplaceable in this world, let along an online forum. Like a few of us have said before, discussions like this thread in the past have made this community even stronger. And I second David's plead that let's rid of the perma ban - make it six months.
Aug 07 Diagnosed
Oct 07 CD4=446(19%) Feb 08 CD4=421(19%)
Jun 08 CD4=325(22%) Jul 08 CD4=301(18%)
Sep 08 CD4=257/VL=75,000 Oct 08 CD4=347(16%)
Dec 08 CD4=270(16%)
Jan 09 CD4=246(13%)/VL=10,000
Feb 09 CD4=233(15%)/VL=13,000
Started meds Sustiva/Epzicom
May 09 CD4=333(24%)/VL=650
Aug 09 CD4=346(24%)/VL=UD
Nov 09 CD4=437(26%)/VL=UD
Feb 10 CD4=471(31%)/VL=UD
June 10 CD4=517 (28%)/VL=UD
Sept 10 CD4=687 (31%)/VL=UD
Jan 11 CD4=557 (30%)/VL=UD
April 11 CD4=569 (32%)/VL=UD
Switched to Epizcom, Reyataz and Norvir
(Interrupted for 2 months with only Epizcom & Reyataz)
July 11 CD=520 (28%)/VL=UD
Oct 11 CD=771 (31%)/VL=UD(<30)
April 12 CD=609 (28%)/VL=UD(<20)
Aug 12 CD=657 (29%)/VL=UD(<20)
Dec 12 CD=532 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
May 13 CD=567 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
Jan 14 CD=521 (21%)/VL=UD(<50)

Offline Alain

  • Member
  • Posts: 680
  • I am.
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #94 on: September 14, 2008, 12:19:00 PM »
6 months ban will not change the behavior of some members, no matter who they are.

You are basically asking for the person to change, only they can do that.

The making of Matty, is what and who he is, as a person.

You either accept members as they are or you just ignore them; it's that simple.

And that is not addressing the rules, which in the end we all know what they are.

Then, we make our choices.


Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,995
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #95 on: September 14, 2008, 12:25:59 PM »
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.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #96 on: September 14, 2008, 12:35:09 PM »
Some of you here need to learn to listen to warnings from the moderators.

How about this -

Look, I have only seen an outpouring of supports whenever I needed them, and it's the same to everyone. No one new and/or in crisis has been treated cruelly with menace. I have said it before and will say it again that the AM has been life-saving, and a great number of you have made it so for me. I can't even begin to comprehend how could anyone see it otherwise. 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.

Daniel said something about the need to make this place even more safe as the real world is messy enough - I love you Daniel but any attempt to do so will only backfire. If you want to do so you might as well change these forums into the Ask-the-Expert selection of body.com. Human interactions entail unpredictability, which to some may already be too brutal to face.

At the end on one is irreplaceable in this world, let along an online forum. Like a few of us have said before, discussions like this thread in the past have made this community even stronger. And I second David's plead that let's rid of the perma ban - make it six months.

.. and add that ..

We don't need more sense of finality and banishment - on one is trying to change no one - a 6 month ban and immediate re-ban for any out-of-line behaviors would have been enough.



Aug 07 Diagnosed
Oct 07 CD4=446(19%) Feb 08 CD4=421(19%)
Jun 08 CD4=325(22%) Jul 08 CD4=301(18%)
Sep 08 CD4=257/VL=75,000 Oct 08 CD4=347(16%)
Dec 08 CD4=270(16%)
Jan 09 CD4=246(13%)/VL=10,000
Feb 09 CD4=233(15%)/VL=13,000
Started meds Sustiva/Epzicom
May 09 CD4=333(24%)/VL=650
Aug 09 CD4=346(24%)/VL=UD
Nov 09 CD4=437(26%)/VL=UD
Feb 10 CD4=471(31%)/VL=UD
June 10 CD4=517 (28%)/VL=UD
Sept 10 CD4=687 (31%)/VL=UD
Jan 11 CD4=557 (30%)/VL=UD
April 11 CD4=569 (32%)/VL=UD
Switched to Epizcom, Reyataz and Norvir
(Interrupted for 2 months with only Epizcom & Reyataz)
July 11 CD=520 (28%)/VL=UD
Oct 11 CD=771 (31%)/VL=UD(<30)
April 12 CD=609 (28%)/VL=UD(<20)
Aug 12 CD=657 (29%)/VL=UD(<20)
Dec 12 CD=532 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
May 13 CD=567 (31%)/VL=UD(<20)
Jan 14 CD=521 (21%)/VL=UD(<50)

Offline Jerry71

  • Member
  • Posts: 955
  • {Lexiva, Norvir, Complera} Still Breathing!!!
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #97 on: September 14, 2008, 12:55:54 PM »
For one that does not come to this site anymore but sits back in the sidelines and just watches what happens to the site for any new topics. I can say we have had our feelings poured out here in this topic.

Timeouts are good in a way and bad in a way. I can see giving a child a timeout for being mean but come on this is the WORLD WIDE WEB.

Banning someone for running his/her mouth off I really don't see the need for banning that person. Unless they are really threat the individual. There is also the Ignore feature here which most of the new people that come to the site never use or don't know how to use. You people think this place is your only place you can come to vent. All I can say is there is a whole other world out there besides this place. There are some of you that come on here every day and there are others that just read the site and never log on.

Well it just takes one person to open there mouth here and start a thread like this one and the place livens up again.  This will soon boil over and everyone will go back to what they were doing and the people or should I say our friends that get banned from the site will be forgotten. I have seen it many times before and I have been here since 2005. I miss the ones that have got banned from the past and I have got to personally meet some of them in person they are just like all of us.

We all have our bad days we all have our good days. Give it a rest.

WE ALL HAVE AIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offline SteveA

  • Member
  • Posts: 174
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #98 on: September 14, 2008, 02:08:41 PM »
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.

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.

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.

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.

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,952
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #99 on: September 14, 2008, 02:17:31 PM »
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.

The perfect example of a banned member not being able to defend against personal attack that is absolutely not true.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 07:26:30 AM by Dachshund »

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.