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.
July 23, 2014, 02:00:18 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 631522
  • Total Topics: 47804
  • Online Today: 244
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 7
Guests: 165
Total: 172

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 23086 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #100 on: September 14, 2008, 02:23:21 PM »
I really don't want to lock this thread, but will if this happens again.

No one should discuss the specifics of the latest banning, of offer praise or criticism of Matty here.  Steve's post is out of bounds, but so are those posts that kept asking for specific evidence of Matty's misdeeds, implying the mods aren't being completely honest in what went down.

Stop it all now.  Stick to our banning policy in general.

Offline SteveA

  • Member
  • Posts: 174
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #101 on: September 14, 2008, 02:30:28 PM »
I really don't want to lock this thread, but will if this happens again.

No one should discuss the specifics of the latest banning, of offer praise or criticism of Matty here.  Steve's post is out of bounds, but so are those posts that kept asking for specific evidence of Matty's misdeeds, implying the mods aren't being completely honest in what went down.

Stop it all now.  Stick to our banning policy in general.

Sorry but I was responding to a post asking for specific evidence and I gave it. It won't happen again.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 02:32:06 PM by SteveA »

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #102 on: September 14, 2008, 03:13:17 PM »
Ideally, there would be no need for moderators ('cept to filter out the riff-raff that come here to disrupt the forums, sock puppets, denialists, etc).  Since we do appear to need moderators and some method for them to enforce the forum rules and policies, I'd like to see some changes.

1) TO's and warnings reset after a set period of time... say, one year.  People DO (sometimes) change.  Perhaps it's when their situation and needs change.  Perhaps it's when they realize how much they've lost by being prevented from posting for 6 months, but I think we have seen changes in members posting behavior.

2) Perhaps there would need to be less leniency in issuing them, too.  Examples:  When a PM that was clearly not intended for public viewing is posted, that would result in a warning.  Warnings should be given publicly so others, mainly newer members, will know what is not acceptable.   

3) After warnings and the 7- and 30-day TO's, a 6-month TO would follow.  After 6 months, the member would be allowed to begin posting.  At this point, there would be no warnings for 'infractions'.  There would only be 7- and 30-day TO's followed by another 6-month TO.

4) Thread locks and warnings - I'd like to see moderators send a PM requesting that a offending post be edited.  Generally, the poster is still online and will receive the warning.  If the post isn't edited in some set period, a warning or other disciplinary action would then be issued.

5) Permanent bans - These would be reserved for members who post to disrupt, sock puppets, etc.  It's obvious these members have no intent on participating, only causing problems. 

It is important that people feel comfortable and safe posting here.  Many folks lurk and read the forums long before they join and actually start posting.  If we turn them off from the beginning, while they're still in 'testing the waters', how likely are they to return and participate?  On the other hand, we don't want to lose valuable members whose input and support are an important part of these forums.  By implementing something like what I've suggested above, I don't see us having much to lose but possibly a lot to gain.

David
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 03:15:43 PM by David_NC »
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #103 on: September 14, 2008, 03:18:54 PM »
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?

Wow.  Just...  wow.

Do you guys really think I think like that?  Do you really think I'm worrying about Gilead and GSK when all the moderators are IMing back and forth trying to make these decisions?

I could give a flying fuck what big pharma thinks about these forums -- feel free to send the URL of this post to the heads of their HIV marketing divisions -- I've met them all, and they won't be surprised I said this -- trust me. 

These forums make me feel proud each and every day.  The fact that I had a hand in building them, along with many others (including many long-term members, who I consider partners in this effort), fills me with pride.  I know the other mods feel the same way.

I'm sorry for the highjack, but I just can't let statements like this slide, lest others start to think there's some truth to them. 

You really don't know me, Bucko.  I have never questioned your motives here.  Please stop questioning mine.  I'm guessing they are actually the same.

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #104 on: September 14, 2008, 03:23:45 PM »
Ideally, there would be no need for moderators ('cept to filter out the riff-raff that come here to disrupt the forums, sock puppets, denialists, etc).  Since we do appear to need moderators and some method for them to enforce the forum rules and policies, I'd like to see some changes.

1) TO's and warnings reset after a set period of time... say, one year.  People DO (sometimes) change.  Perhaps it's when their situation and needs change.  Perhaps it's when they realize how much they've lost by being prevented from posting for 6 months, but I think we can see changes in members posting behavior.

2) Perhaps there would need to be less leniency in issuing them, too.  Examples:  When a PM that was clearly not intended for public viewing is posted, that would result in a warning.  Warnings should be given publicly so others, mainly newer members, will know what is not acceptable.   

3) After warnings and the 7- and 30-day TO's, a 6-month TO would follow.  After 6 months, the member would be allowed to begin posting.  At this point, there would be no warnings for 'infractions'.  There would only be 7- and 30-day TO's followed by another 6-month TO.

4) Thread locks and warnings - I'd like to see moderators send a PM requesting that a offending post be edited.  Generally, the poster is still online and will receive the warning.  If the post isn't edited in some set period, a warning or other disciplinary action would then be issued.

5) Permanent bans - These would be reserved for members who post to disrupt, sock puppets, etc.  It's obvious these members have no intent on participating, only causing problems. 

It is important that people feel comfortable and safe posting here.  Many folks lurk and read the forums long before they join and actually start posting.  If we turn them off from the beginning, while they're still 'testing the waters', how likely are they to return and participate?  On the other hand, we don't want to lose valuable members whose input and support are an important part of these forums.  By implementing something like what I've suggested above, I don't see us having much to lose but possibly a lot to gain.

David

(second attempt at posting this.  The first time it disappeared)
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,334
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #105 on: September 14, 2008, 03:46:16 PM »
I could give a flying fuck what big pharma thinks about these forums -- feel free to send the URL of this post to the heads of their HIV marketing divisions -- I've met them all, and they won't be surprised I said this -- trust me. 

Big pharma is thrilled such a site exists and for reasons aside from their own bottomlines.

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,334
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #106 on: September 14, 2008, 04:02:34 PM »
Ideally, there would be no need for moderators ('cept to filter out the riff-raff that come here to disrupt the forums, sock puppets, denialists, etc).  Since we do appear to need moderators and some method for them to enforce the forum rules and policies, I'd like to see some changes.

Edited to add: In order to make such a revamp of rules fair, then a slate wiping as Iggy suggested (I think) in an earlier post would be appropriate and invite back all of those members who've been banned (save for those that have been detailed as not belonging...denialists, snakeoil folks, etc.). Let everyone start anew with new rules in place.

1) TO's and warnings reset after a set period of time... say, one year.  People DO (sometimes) change.  Perhaps it's when their situation and needs change.  Perhaps it's when they realize how much they've lost by being prevented from posting for 6 months, but I think we can see changes in members posting behavior.

2) Perhaps there would need to be less leniency in issuing them, too.  Examples:  When a PM that was clearly not intended for public viewing is posted, that would result in a warning.  Warnings should be given publicly so others, mainly newer members, will know what is not acceptable.   

3) After warnings and the 7- and 30-day TO's, a 6-month TO would follow.  After 6 months, the member would be allowed to begin posting.  At this point, there would be no warnings for 'infractions'.  There would only be 7- and 30-day TO's followed by another 6-month TO. Edited to add:These would not be posted publicly.

4) Thread locks and warnings - I'd like to see moderators send a PM requesting that a offending post be edited.  Generally, the poster is still online and will receive the warning.  If the post isn't edited in some set period, a warning or other disciplinary action would then be issued. Edited to add:This one could be difficult to enforce because the poster could post and dash off for breakfast or out of town for days. Is there a way to put an individual post in limbo, or mask it, until the poster's communicated with a mod about it?

5) Permanent bans - These would be reserved for members who post to disrupt, sock puppets, etc.  It's obvious these members have no intent on participating, only causing problems. 

It is important that people feel comfortable and safe posting here.  Many folks lurk and read the forums long before they join and actually start posting.  If we turn them off from the beginning, while they're still 'testing the waters', how likely are they to return and participate?  On the other hand, we don't want to lose valuable members whose input and support are an important part of these forums.  By implementing something like what I've suggested above, I don't see us having much to lose but possibly a lot to gain.

David



Offline keyite

  • Member
  • Posts: 514
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #107 on: September 14, 2008, 04:16:06 PM »
It is important that people feel comfortable and safe posting here.

For me that remains the overriding concern. I accept that the benefit of the doubt needs to be acknowledged by having one or more 6 or 12 month TOs, but I think the possibility of a perma ban needs to be retained even for established members, i.e. when mods determine, at their discretion, that there is no hope left of modified behaviour. A line has to be drawn somewhere. To really get the participation from less strong members I think it's essential on a psychological level that they can trust that people they experience as persistently abusive or bullying won't be returning - ever.

If behaviour is indeed modified then I can see no particular need for a reset, and certainly not after such a short time as one year.

Offline Desertguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 183
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #108 on: September 14, 2008, 05:10:02 PM »
I think that we all need to try to remember when we all 1st found out that we were HIV+.
I was scared shitless, was a total mess.  I didn't know where to turn, no one to talk too, thought I was going to die within a week!!!

I found this site and was able to ask and read lots of post that helped me out.  Yes Ann I did make the mistake and posted on the Woman's Forum 7 paid for it also.

In several of my postings I was treated with sarcasm, and like I was a stupid retard because I was asking what they thought were stupid questions.

It was not just from the person in question on this thread but there were and are others here that like to treat people bad.  I think it helps there ego or something.

We need to remember what this site is for!!  I thought it was for getting support and questions answered from our peers and long term survivors!!   Being able to communicate with others that are in the same situation as all.  We never ask for HIV but we all have it and need to show commpassion to the others on this site.

I am approaching my 1 year anniversary of being diagnosed with HIV and still scared and need support.  I don't visit this site as much as I used to because of the subject we are talking about now.

We really need to think of the new members and how they feel and why they are on this site asking questions and help.

This site has many people that are full of knowledge & great advice & compassion for others.  I have appreciated the help & advice I have gotten from others but have not appreciated the sarcasm that some have.

This is a great site & I hope that it stays that way if you are a new member hang in there & get Thru the sarcasm that some give.

Dennis


Offline LordBerners

  • Member
  • Posts: 415
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #109 on: September 14, 2008, 05:36:22 PM »
I must say that the existence of the banning policy inhibits me greatly from commenting on same.  However, I have summoned the courage to do so, come what may.

I have generally found in my lengthy career of internet participation that long term contributors banned on internet forums are usually some of the most interesting.  Also I have read in numerous postings in this thread that one goal we share on this forum is to 'get to know' each other, and to build relationships.  It is difficult to see how we can really get to know each others' personalities if we are limited to platitudes, pablum, and a strict orthodoxy.  

I realize the import of insisting that people treat one another decently and with respect, but I think it is easy to underestimate what is lost through the inevitable chilling effect.  Given that most forums have an 'ignore' feature, I would suggest that this might be adequate to guard the sensitivities of the milquetoasts without losing the valuable contributions of the acerbic.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 06:09:30 PM by LordBerners »
Please, just call me Berners.. or Baron.

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,357
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #110 on: September 14, 2008, 05:39:50 PM »
Wow.  Just...  wow.

Do you guys really think I think like that?  Do you really think I'm worrying about Gilead and GSK when all the moderators are IMing back and forth trying to make these decisions?

I could give a flying fuck what big pharma thinks about these forums -- feel free to send the URL of this post to the heads of their HIV marketing divisions -- I've met them all, and they won't be surprised I said this -- trust me. 

These forums make me feel proud each and every day.  The fact that I had a hand in building them, along with many others (including many long-term members, who I consider partners in this effort), fills me with pride.  I know the other mods feel the same way.

I'm sorry for the highjack, but I just can't let statements like this slide, lest others start to think there's some truth to them. 

You really don't know me, Bucko.  I have never questioned your motives here.  Please stop questioning mine.  I'm guessing they are actually the same.
Peter-
I never intended my comment to reflect on you in ANY WAY.  I apologize for causing you that discomfort.  Frankly, I was simply trying to gather as many points as I could to try and let folks understand why (in my opinion) this can't be a "Wild Wild West" sort of site.  On reflection, the corporate sponsor point probably could have been left out.
This site has been very important in my adjusting to living with this virus -- I simply can't thank you enough for it.
As I hope I've made clear through this thread -- I have much respect for all the moderators and think that you all do a great job here -- a job that I would not want!

Again -- I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

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 Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #111 on: September 14, 2008, 06:02:43 PM »
Mike -- no problem.  Frankly, I'm a little embarrassed now as I reread my post.  I was angry, and sort of overreacted.

We're good.  Same with Bucko.  We're all good.

xoxo

Peter

Offline WellHungarian

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #112 on: September 14, 2008, 06:04:36 PM »
Well, I've seen people on this site banned for less so I have to say that this truly comes as no suprise.  I'm glad to see though that the moderators went ahead and did the appropriate thing in this situation rather than continuing to make exceptions for a prolific poster with something of a fan base on this here messaging board.

Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,302
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #113 on: September 14, 2008, 06:16:30 PM »
Well, I've seen people on this site banned for less so I have to say that this truly comes as no suprise.  I'm glad to see though that the moderators went ahead and did the appropriate thing in this situation rather than continuing to make exceptions for a prolific poster with something of a fan base on this here messaging board.

Yeah, I kinda gathered that based on this post yesterday:

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=23080.msg293569#msg293569

and your "one person I don't like....ha, ha, ha" sig line.

-thunter34

(who dutifully stayed out of this thread all this time...and who now backs right back out of it)
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 06:19:13 PM by thunter34 »
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,941
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #114 on: September 14, 2008, 06:35:36 PM »
Well, I've seen people on this site banned for less so I have to say that this truly comes as no suprise.  I'm glad to see though that the moderators went ahead and did the appropriate thing in this situation rather than continuing to make exceptions for a prolific poster with something of a fan base on this here messaging board.

Was I dreaming, or didn't Tim Horn lock this thread? I could have sworn he did. 

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,872
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #115 on: September 14, 2008, 06:36:22 PM »
Yeah, I kinda gathered that based on this post yesterday:

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=23080.msg293569#msg293569

and your "one person I don't like....ha, ha, ha" sig line.

-thunter34

(who dutifully stayed out of this thread all this time...and who now backs right back out of it)

definitely confirms some suspicions many have had, that's for sure
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline RAB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,895
  • Joined March 2003
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #116 on: September 14, 2008, 06:40:52 PM »
I think there has been two entirely different conversations going on here.  One disguised within the other.

Peter, while I respect your repeated attempts to encourage members to not comment on the most recent ban, but instead focus on the larger discussion of the policies, let's be honest. 

This discussion wouldn't be happening otherwise.  It's naive to assume otherwise.

There has been (and I suspect will continue to be) a lot of emotion invested in the posts of members on both sides of this issue.  Simply because of the intensity of the current moment.

Neither side is absolutely right or wrong.

Personally, I support David NC's suggestion. 

It allows for a "meaningful" way for dealing with repeated behaviour that some/few/many/none (?) have found offputting.  It also doesn't close the door to the reemergence of banned members who obviously have devoted friends or grateful recipients, and respects the input that has been a significant part of these forums.  While neither side will be ultimately happy with whatever the moderators decide to do, David's options offers a compromise that I think could help calm the current storm.

The  only other possibility I can offer, assuming no immediate announcement, is that you put any decision on hold for a couple of weeks.  Giving time for emotions to settle down, giving time for a thoughtful decision based upon reflection of what the moderators feel is best, not based upon the intensity of the moment. Believe me, when I've made decisions in my life based upon the intense pressure of the moment, it has almost always come back to haunt me. 

This just needs to be moved  forward in as calm and rational manner as possible.

RAB

Edit to add:  I'm as guilty as any other member here of reacting to the emotion of the moment. I think it's part of being human. 



« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 07:09:05 PM by RAB »

Offline Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2008, 07:37:45 PM »
Well, I've seen people on this site banned for less so I have to say that this truly comes as no suprise.  I'm glad to see though that the moderators went ahead and did the appropriate thing in this situation rather than continuing to make exceptions for a prolific poster with something of a fan base on this here messaging board.

Because of this, his sig line (now deleted), and another thread he started, WellHungarian has been given a 7 day Time Out.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #118 on: September 14, 2008, 08:07:15 PM »
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee..."    John Donne, Meditations upon Emergent Occasions 1624

For the record, the original post was initiated by the banning of an additional member, not by the specific member banned.





It is counterproductive for this thread to generate additional bans, so please focus comments on whether and how you think the policy should be changed, rather than on how it is enforced, the reason the thread was posted etc.  

(edit typos not caught by spell check)
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 08:08:57 PM by 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 Jacques

  • Member
  • Posts: 171
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #119 on: September 14, 2008, 11:15:56 PM »
For those that are relatively new to the forums you need to know that when a banning does happen it's not from one or two warnings that you have seen in the public forums. Most warnings are given in PMs to the member which none of you actually see. What you actually see is the final result of a member not heeding the warnings that have been given. And yes, if one is banned it's because we didn't heed the warnings. I consider Matty as a very good friend of mine and yes I'll miss him, like I do Tim, but we all know if we don't following the policies and guidelines lines what the out come will be. Most of the members that have been here for years can remember we were the ones that asked for the policies and guidelines because the forums were way out of control. Now that the policies are in place we all need to abide by them.

The voice of the reason.


thanks to the the moderators for their good job.

Jacques
Jacques
Living positively since 1987
latest lab :july 2010
Undetectable Cd4 1080
43% on Reyataz/Norvir/Truvada

Offline Robert

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,643
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #120 on: September 15, 2008, 01:34:33 AM »
The voice of the reason.


thanks to the the moderators for their good job.

Jacques

I second both thoughts (jacques' and Rod's)
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 01:36:18 AM by Robert »
..........

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #121 on: September 15, 2008, 05:38:35 AM »
Maybe AM is just following the trend of our modern society in general, in which individuals' sensibilities and feelings have to be protected and respected at all costs. Too much freedom leads to chaos and feelings being hurt, so lets make some rules to penalize those who refuse to adhere to this ground rule.

And after reading some of the posts here the image of Helen Lovejoy (from the Simpsons) keeps popping up in my brain..



Who can say no to such simple and reasonable request as to asking people to adhere the rules and be civilize? Like who can say no to protect our children from harm, while you stand on such moral high ground.

The mods have a thankless task and just for that you have my complete respect. But just think for a moment the signal this ban is sending out? And just look at the comments from one of those who is insisting nothing short of a total ban for the sake of keeping order:

Quote
If behaviour is indeed modified then I can see no particular need for a reset, and certainly not after such a short time as one year.

I won't say more on how I feel about this statement because it will definitely come off as being vindictive to them.
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 joemutt

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,039
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #122 on: September 15, 2008, 09:31:57 AM »
This place should feel safe for people searching for help and not be the domain of the wisecracking few.

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,941
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #123 on: September 15, 2008, 09:38:03 AM »
One man's wisecrack is another man's wisdom.

Offline SteveA

  • Member
  • Posts: 174
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #124 on: September 15, 2008, 10:21:04 AM »
This place should feel safe for people searching for help and not be the domain of the wisecracking few.

I agree completely! Unfortunately I think you're going to be drowned out by the wise crackers here.

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #125 on: September 15, 2008, 10:23:48 AM »
Guys, I believe the point of this thread is the ban / TO policy in general.  FOCUS
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #126 on: September 15, 2008, 10:25:06 AM »
Guys, I believe the point of this thread is the ban / TO policy in general.  FOCUS

Alrighty then!

Here I go:

I just wanna say to anyone reading this that it takes a fast minute to temper one's words and tone. Example: Just the other day I had crossed the rudeness line and a Moderator sent me a "PM" giving me a piece of his mind.

So I said to myself:

Self, do you think this PM is because people are reporting me? (Yeah) And do you think it's a good idea to take a few deep breaths and temper your point while maintaining your point? (Yeah) And do you think it's a courtesy to get a "raw" PM from the Moderators who genuinely work hard to see both points of view? (Absolutely yes!)

*** So that's why Rod's post helped open my eyes. ***

At this point I think David NC's idea is the middle ground everyone is hoping for. although some of it makes me think of "duplication of effort" (read = more work for the Moderators) if 100% clean slates are awarded to the banned. How about 90% clean slates for the banned?? heck, they've received plenty enough warnings to know what's going to trigger a warning.

So in my interpretation of David's post, a clean slate would look like this:

Warning,
7-day timeout,
Warning,
30-day timeout,
Warning,
6-month timeout,
7-day timeout,
30-day timeout,
6-month timeout,
6-month timeout,
6-month timeout, (repeats)


As for the 90% clean slate:

7-day timeout,
30-day timeout,
6-month timeout,
7-day timeout,
30-day timeout,
6-month timeout,
6-month timeout,
6-month timeout, (repeats)
(same as above minus the warnings)(the ejector seat idea)

And to Shaun. Of all the posts you've written so far, your most recent one has the most clarity. Thanks. I'm not in agreement with you.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 10:37:38 AM by allopathicholistic »

Offline sharkdiver

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #127 on: September 15, 2008, 10:29:17 AM »
I agree completely! Unfortunately I think you're going to be drowned out by the wise crackers here.

AIDS is HARSH and still DEADLY.  Worrying about someone saying something that hurts my feelings is the LEAST OF MY WORRIES.

There is always the IGNORE BUTTON.


Sharkie

Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,302
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #128 on: September 15, 2008, 10:30:49 AM »
I agree completely! Unfortunately I think you're going to be drowned out by the wise crackers here.

Why not just stick to using the Ignore button?

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=17051.msg216490#msg216490

PLEASE stick to topic.

Ahem.

Sorry but I was responding to a post asking for specific evidence and I gave it. It won't happen again.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 10:33:37 AM by thunter34 »
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #129 on: September 15, 2008, 10:35:27 AM »
Thanks for getting this back on focus, David and AH.

I don't want to sound like I'm stifling the suggestions here, but please realize any new system has to be simple, if only because it's already hard for the mods to keep track of all the TOs and bans.

At this point, I'd be hard pressed to consider a clean-slate system.  However, the actual mechanics of a 6-month repetitive TO, vs. a permaban, and WHO each of these would apply to (when are permabans still used?), would all have to be considered.

Offline Florida69

  • Member
  • Posts: 428
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #130 on: September 15, 2008, 10:47:13 AM »
These is a really long thread, and please forgive me for not reading everyoneís post, as it is very time consuming and exhausting.   Most of the time, my time is limited so my responses are quick and to the point.  I do not mean to disrespect anyone by not reading all of this thread, but I am sure before the day is over, I will go back and read it.  I am in agreement that this should not be an argument thread, but unfortunately the tide is moving that way, I have seen other members banned and no one came to their defense and their voices where silenced.  I choose to be a member of this forum, and I also choose to follow the policies that manage the forum.  In my opinion the regulations are set up in this forum for a reason, to govern the forum as a whole, and to show respect and admiration for those that are coming here for support for the first time.  When you are infected or affected by anything, at first you do feel like a victim, it takes some time to be able to handle life stresses, much less the adding more anxiety to an already touchy life altering experience by people belittling you from what brought you here in the first place in search of a crutch to hold yourself up while you are healing.  Once you own it you can remove the victim status and become a champion of your own life.  If this would have been my first source for support, I do not know what I would have done.  Maybe it would have been a better experience for me, but maybe it would want to make me drink Clorox, I can not say, as this was not my first online support forum.  Although I do not agree with a person getting a permanent ban, but following the rules is imperative on this forum.  When I first joined this forum, I was invited by friends I had met in other support forums on the net.  This was their forum of choice, and I respect that, and this is normally where I can find them, and I am very grateful for this forum, being that consistent place where I can catch up with them and share my thoughts, feelings and struggles with them.  I have met some great friends here, but I have also found my fair share of foes here as well, of course I love chatting up my friends, and I enjoy not having to read, by using the ignore function of those that have spoken ill will of me and have made malicious lies about my postings in other forums.  Those are their issues and not mine; I can only handle my own.  I have suggested this forum to others, and a couple responses have been that this is a closed forum, and honestly I can not disagree. 

However, I am not a person that can be bullied by anyone, and I have never been one to hide from a fight, coming to terms with my status is just proof that I do not easily admit defeat.  What this forum has made me is tougher, against adversity and corruption that exists even here, whether I like it or not.  What we all must do is accept what has happened and move on; those voices are silent only here.  Those folks that have been banned from this site, but they still have the love, admiration and support of their true friends.  I am sure that if you want to stay in touch with them there are other means, which do not involve this particular forum.  Take care, D
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge

Offline komnaes

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,893
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #131 on: September 15, 2008, 11:07:04 AM »
Quote
However, the actual mechanics of a 6-month repetitive TO, vs. a permaban, and WHO each of these would apply to (when are permabans still used?), would all have to be considered.

I would definitely plead the mods to consider the options of 6-month ban in lieu of a perma-ban, and while you guys are at it please also consider applying it retroactively if (and only if) the perma-ban is lifted.
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 Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,941
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #132 on: September 15, 2008, 11:14:18 AM »
Get your licks in while you can guys. I'm sorry, but I just can't let people continue to post accusations without confronting them. I'm sorry for the hijack Peter, but like you I get pissed when people continue to suggest things that just aren't true. Especially when two of the most vehement accusers posting in this thread invited others to join another forum trashing AIDSMEDS. Quit trying to settle old scores fellas by hiding behind this thread. It's transparent and everyone knows it.

Once again, sorry for the hijack.

Offline Jeff G

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 10,705
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #133 on: September 15, 2008, 11:15:30 AM »
I would definitely plead the mods to consider the options of 6-month ban in lieu of a perma-ban, and while you guys are at it please also consider applying it retroactively if (and only if) the perma-ban is lifted.

This sums up how I feel nicely .  
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 11:17:37 AM by jg1962 »

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,872
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #134 on: September 15, 2008, 11:33:08 AM »

Self, do you think this PM is because people are reporting me? (Yeah)

Incorrect assessment if you're implying that was me.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline woodshere

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,477
  • ain't no shame in my game
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #135 on: September 15, 2008, 11:36:05 AM »
If I am reading David's suggestion correctly the basic change in the current policy would be to do away with a permanent ban and add 6 mth TO level.  After reaching that level and serving the 6mt TO if an offense to the policy occurs again that that person would just receive another 6mt TO rather than a permanent ban.  If that is the jest of the suggestion, then I would agree.  Of course eventually someone will receive a 6mth TO and this will all be revisited.  Which I guess isn't such a bad thing, as all policies need to be flexible enough to be changed as needed.  

I do believe a level of trust should be given to moderators of any type of online forum or group to determine how best to follow policies.  Based on comments made by moderators in this thread decisions to issue a ban are not entered into lightly or individually but as a group.  I would think that same framework would be used in issuing a 6mt TO.  If only one person made such serious decisions I would have a problem, but I think a group of moderators would be able to have a discussion in which different views are brought to the table and then reach a decision that is best for the whole.  
"Let us give pubicity to HV/AIDS and not hide it..." "One of the things destroying people with AIDS is the stigma we attach to it."   Nelson Mandela

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,872
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #136 on: September 15, 2008, 11:42:51 AM »

I don't want to sound like I'm stifling the suggestions here, but please realize any new system has to be simple, if only because it's already hard for the mods to keep track of all the TOs and bans.

At this point, I'd be hard pressed to consider a clean-slate system.  However, the actual mechanics of a 6-month repetitive TO, vs. a permaban, and WHO each of these would apply to (when are permabans still used?), would all have to be considered.

I don't think it would be hard -- not many folks get to that point.  Most that do are sockpuppets/trolls who wouldn't qualify anyway.  And I even wonder how many 6-month potential banned personalities would return.

I'd also like to submit that there is value in resolving this.  We should all keep in mind that HIV is going to be around for a LOOOOOOOONG time, so then so will this board.  Probably longer than anyone here was actually considering when they first formulated these banning rules.  Many here seem to think "Oh, the internet is a big place so the perma-banned can just go elsewhere"  Well, actually in the case of HIV specific web boards it ain't so big.

What I'd really like to ask people to do (and I shouldn't have to ask this) but please separate yourself from the "MtD factor" and picture either yourself or someone you're close to here getting permanently banned, and imagine that it's because they went on some new anti-depressant or something and went a bit crazy.  The "6-month" repeated T.O. proposal, as I previously stated, is meant to prompt the individual into seeking professional "real world" help. 
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,872
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #137 on: September 15, 2008, 11:45:59 AM »
Although I do not agree with a person getting a permanent ban, but following the rules is imperative on this forum. 

I don't understand this line of reasoning, which has been put forward by several board members.  In the real world laws get modified or scrapped ALL THE TIME if it's shown they were not well considered in the first place, by consensus.
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,872
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #138 on: September 15, 2008, 11:47:12 AM »
If I am reading David's suggestion correctly the basic change in the current policy would be to do away with a permanent ban and add 6 mth TO level.  

PLEASE NOTE: I suggested this first, and Miss_NC repeated it.  I demand proper credit and recognition :)

Of course eventually someone will receive a 6mth TO and this will all be revisited.  Which I guess isn't such a bad thing, as all policies need to be flexible enough to be changed as needed. 

I doubt it would be raised again.  The issue isn't the particulars of a banning, it's the issue of PERMANENTLY banning anyone (with the exception of sockpuppets/trolls).

Basically the 6-months is like going to jail.  What folks are saying is that in the context of HIV there should not be an equivalent of death row.  Jailed aidsmeds members should do their time, but then be released but still be on parole.  If they screw up when they're on parole, they go back in the slammer for another 6-months.  No appeals.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 12:00:19 PM by philly267 »
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline woodshere

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,477
  • ain't no shame in my game
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #139 on: September 15, 2008, 11:52:17 AM »
I would definitely plead the mods to consider the options of 6-month ban in lieu of a perma-ban, and while you guys are at it please also consider applying it retroactively if (and only if) the perma-ban is lifted.

I am going to have to disagree on this one.  The mods at the time they issued any type of ban followed procedures set forth at that time.  If the policies change I don't think it is appropriate to go back and say "Well you didn't observe previous policies, we have changed them and now want to offer you the opportunity to come back provided you follow the new policy."  I am all for giving people a second chance as well as a firm believer that people can change (no matter how often I have been proven wrong), but I believe that if a you allow some to come back then you need to allow all to come back.  If you believe a certain person that has been banned deserves a second chance or that a banned individual can change and follow new policies, then doesn't that same belief hold true for all banned members regardless of what they were banned for?
"Let us give pubicity to HV/AIDS and not hide it..." "One of the things destroying people with AIDS is the stigma we attach to it."   Nelson Mandela

Offline SteveA

  • Member
  • Posts: 174
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #140 on: September 15, 2008, 11:55:48 AM »
What I'd really like to ask people to do (and I shouldn't have to ask this) but please separate yourself from the "MtD factor" and picture either yourself or someone you're close to here getting permanently banned, and imagine that it's because they went on some new anti-depressant or something and went a bit crazy.  The "6-month" repeated T.O. proposal, as I previously stated, is meant to prompt the individual into seeking professional "real world" help. 

Even not putting MtD aside I have not argued to keep the permaban thank you very much. Some people here who keep spouting lies however need to think before they type. My post that was called "Out of Bounds" wasn't called "Out of Line" and when I asked Peter in a PM if I should edit any part out I got no reply so I can only assume that because it happened and was true he saw no need for it to be edited out. Anyone who thinks I'm lying about the occurrence can ask Jan who had the offender edit out my personal information from his postings.

As for the second chance thing, if, and that's a BIG IF, anyone get's a second chance from PermaBan,, they should still be required to wait out the 6 month TO period of the new policy. Letting them just come right back would show that the policy meant nothing to begin with.

Offline Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #141 on: September 15, 2008, 11:58:14 AM »
Steve -- consider yourself warned.  Don't post in this thread again.

Peter

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,334
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #142 on: September 15, 2008, 11:58:33 AM »
Edited to add: In order to make such a revamp of rules fair, then a slate wiping as Iggy suggested (I think) in an earlier post would be appropriate and invite back all of those members who've been banned (save for those that have been detailed as not belonging...denialists, snakeoil folks, etc.). Let everyone start anew with new rules in place.

Regarding the recordkeeping of warnings and TOs, etc. why not set up a simple excel sheet (accessible to all Mods) with column headers of the offenses and names running down the sides? While I have no way of knowing how many warnings are handed out privately via PM to date, nor sum total of bans for that matter, I can't believe there are that many people who end up requiring such recording. One shared form (folks do this all the time in business) becomes the tally board and simplifies it.

Offline woodshere

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,477
  • ain't no shame in my game
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #143 on: September 15, 2008, 12:03:21 PM »
PLEASE NOTE: I suggested this first, and Miss_NC repeated it.  I demand proper credit and recognition :)

So given.  It's a long thread that I have spent all morning at work reading since I have been without power at my home for the past 24 hrs thanks to Hurricane Ike's winds.  
"Let us give pubicity to HV/AIDS and not hide it..." "One of the things destroying people with AIDS is the stigma we attach to it."   Nelson Mandela

Offline David_CA

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,245
  • Joined: March 2006
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #144 on: September 15, 2008, 12:04:30 PM »
PLEASE NOTE: I suggested this first, and Miss_NC repeated it.  I demand proper credit and recognition :)

Sometimes it's not how much one speaks but how one says it that makes the difference.   :P

I agree that it shouldn't be all that difficult to figure out who to unban, if we get to that point.  Members can email the moderators and ask to be allowed to return.  If they're still interested in these forums, they will likely read this or another thread and know the procedure for requesting reinstatement.  No system is perfect, and I'm sure some folks will not know that there's a possibility of returning.  However, as it is now, nobody has that possibility.

I also don't see how it can be much more difficult to keep track of things if we change than it is now.  Once somebody receives a 6-month TO, I'm sure all the other moderators will know about it.  From then on, this individual receives 6-month TO's. 

If we don't go to 6-month TO's instead of perma-bans, I would again suggest that members' records be wiped clean of warnings yearly.  It's easy to post something that generates a warning, especially for somebody who's going through a particularly rough time, for example. 

David
Black Friday 03-03-2006
03-23-06 CD4 359 @27.4% VL 75,938
06-01-06 CD4 462 @24.3% VL > 100,000
08-15-06 CD4 388 @22.8% VL >  "
10-21-06 CD4 285 @21.9% VL >  "
  Atripla started 12-01-2006
01-08-07 CD4 429 @26.8% VL 1872!
05-08-07 CD4 478 @28.1% VL 740
08-03-07 CD4 509 @31.8% VL 370
11-06-07 CD4 570 @30.0% VL 140
02-21-08 CD4 648 @32.4% VL 600
05-19-08 CD4 695 @33.1% VL < 48 undetectable!
08-21-08 CD4 725 @34.5%
11-11-08 CD4 672 @39.5%
02-11-09 CD4 773 @36.8%
05-11-09 CD4 615 @36.2%
08-19-09 CD4 770 @38.5%
11-19-09 CD4 944 @33.7%
02-17-10 CD4 678 @39.9%  
06-03-10 CD4 768 @34.9%
09-21-10 CD4 685 @40.3%
01-10-11 CD4 908 @36.3%
05-23-11 CD4 846 @36.8% VL 80
02-13-12 CD4 911 @41.4% VL<20
You must be the change you want to see in the world.  Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #145 on: September 15, 2008, 12:05:29 PM »
I am going to have to disagree on this one.  The mods at the time they issued any type of ban followed procedures set forth at that time.  If the policies change I don't think it is appropriate to go back and say "Well you didn't observe previous policies, we have changed them and now want to offer you the opportunity to come back provided you follow the new policy."  I am all for giving people a second chance as well as a firm believer that people can change (no matter how often I have been proven wrong), but I believe that if a you allow some to come back then you need to allow all to come back.  If you believe a certain person that has been banned deserves a second chance or that a banned individual can change and follow new policies, then doesn't that same belief hold true for all banned members regardless of what they were banned for?

I think that the proposal is to change the policy only for those that were not denialists, sock puppets, trolls etc.  Since the policy would not change for them,  why should they be offered an opportunity to return?  

It simply says we are refining the initial policy and for those who would have been differently affected had the new policy been in place we are offering (and many of us are hoping) for them to return.  People wound up in the "banned" bucket for different reasons, some of which we now believe should be rethought , but others we all (so far) agree should have been banned.  Basically we are potentially changing our thinking around what constitutes "appropriate" grounds for banning -- fairness does not require that those who were appropriately banned be returned under both definitions of "appropriate", only those where we would not now consider the grounds appropriate.

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 Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,872
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #146 on: September 15, 2008, 12:09:12 PM »

If we don't go to 6-month TO's instead of perma-bans, I would again suggest that members' records be wiped clean of warnings yearly.  It's easy to post something that generates a warning, especially for somebody who's going through a particularly rough time, for example. 

David

I thought that happened already.  Is that not the case?
"Iíve slept with enough men to know that Iím not gay"

Offline Florida69

  • Member
  • Posts: 428
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #147 on: September 15, 2008, 12:14:04 PM »
Edited to add: In order to make such a revamp of rules fair, then a slate wiping as Iggy suggested (I think) in an earlier post would be appropriate and invite back all of those members who've been banned (save for those that have been detailed as not belonging...denialists, snakeoil folks, etc.). Let everyone start anew with new rules in place.


I have to say that I agree, if one person gets a second chance then everyone should be invited back under the new rules and guidelines.  D
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge

Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,302
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #148 on: September 15, 2008, 12:21:20 PM »
I have to say that I agree, if one person gets a second chance then everyone should be invited back under the new rules and guidelines.  D

Paging IzPrince and Carolann.
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Dachshund

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,941
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #149 on: September 15, 2008, 12:25:29 PM »
Even though I admire and love some of the banned, I'm not sure a blanket amnesty would be wise. I could be convinced otherwise.

 


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.