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, 07:49:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 631628
  • Total Topics: 47814
  • Online Today: 283
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

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 23103 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #150 on: September 15, 2008, 12:27:54 PM »
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.

If a change to our current ban policy is made, it will be enacted retroactively. Do keep in mind, however, that not everyone will be given a reprieve -- we will be discussing the various circumstances and their outcomes.

I do want everyone to keep something in mind -- what goes on publicly, in the Forums, doesn't often reflect what goes on behind the scenes. For example, we sometimes have to deal with extremely combative, harrassing -- and sometimes threatening -- behavior from members, including those who have been warned or given a TO. (No, I am not speaking of any one person in particular.) This is -- and always will be -- absolutely forbidden and immediate grounds for a ban. Please understand that not every situation is a cut-and-dry as is being described here.

Tim Horn  

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,873
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #151 on: September 15, 2008, 12:35:34 PM »
Clearly nobody should be allowed to return that didn't respect their time outs -- as in the rather large group of banned individuals who attempted to immediately create a new user name either with or without a proxy server IP.  And of course, it should be clear that denialists and such sorts are not allowed to return.

There have also been some cases of underage sexual predator issues that should be addressed.
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #152 on: September 15, 2008, 12:38:09 PM »
There have also been some cases of underage sexual predator issues that should be addressed.

And it has been... necessarily in the quietest manner possible. Again, there are some situations that arise behind the scenes that cannot, nor should not, be a matter of public debate or even public record.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 12:40:12 PM by Tim Horn »

Offline Peter Staley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Founder & Advisory Editor, AIDSmeds.com
    • AIDSmeds.com
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #153 on: September 15, 2008, 12:42:13 PM »
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.



Ahh -- now you're listening to the conversation going on in my head since this thread started!  Basically, all bannings are not alike, and there are some we could be talked into revisiting, and some we could not.

Yes, the quick bans of trolls and spammers and denialists are easy, but we've also banned some long-term members (LTMs) that we will not under any circumstances let back in.  For instance, some banned LTMs practically became stalkers to one or more moderators, and made our lives hell, in retaliation for their bans.  We don't advertise these situations, but they exist, and it's horrible when it happens.

We also have LTMs that were banned after we realized they were closet bigots of one sort or another, and typically they exposed even more of this bigotry in response to the ban (I've got lots of shocking emails still saved from these situations).  I would rather not let someone back in that called me a "fucking faggot," thank you very much.

I'm saying all this just to point out that I think ANY new policy must maintain discretion for the mods to issue permabans.  We still need this tool, for our own sanity (and yours).

This leaves one final category of banned LTRs -- those that got banned for constantly pissing-off a significant number of members (often to the point of us losing those members), simply by the way they interacted with members.  They don't fall into the categories I've listed above.  They weren't easy permabans for us -- they weren't easy calls.  They're not bigots, and they didn't go crazy on us after their bans or TOs.

So I want to keep the permaban, and I hope folks will agree there are times we need it.  But should we have another system for this last category?  That's the question on the table now.

And guess what, when looking at the list of our currently banned LTRs, almost all of them fall into the "there's-no-way-we're-letting-them-back-in" categories.  So with any new policy, we're actually talking about an extremely short list of possible reprieves (we've just started looking at the whole list, but it might only be two LTRs!).  [please don't use this post as a reason for listing any usernames for us to review -- I haven't, and this thread should continue to discuss policy, not specific members]

Just sayin.

I just noticed Tim posted something similar to what I was typing.  grrrr.  He always beats me to the punch.   ;)


Offline atlq

  • Member
  • Posts: 518
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #154 on: September 15, 2008, 01:01:59 PM »
Ahh...the sweet smell of a ripening consensus....no wait, that's Carpet Fresh!... ;D
“Keep up the good work....   And God bless you.”
  --  Sarah Palin, to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, 2008

Offline Iggy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,435
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #155 on: September 15, 2008, 01:05:06 PM »
In light of Peter's last post with further detailing of the categories of banned people, I would like to amend my earlier request for clean slates and allowing all banned to be able to return which I no longer support.

I'll stick with the idea of an additional 6 month and/or 12 month timeout penalty though.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #156 on: September 15, 2008, 01:08:29 PM »
Clearly nobody should be allowed to return that didn't respect their time outs -- as in the rather large group of banned individuals who attempted to immediately create a new user name either with or without a proxy server IP.  And of course, it should be clear that denialists and such sorts are not allowed to return.

There have also been some cases of underage sexual predator issues that should be addressed.

Why shouldn't those who didn't respect their timeouts be given a second chance after 6 months if they were not denialists, sock puppets, trolls etc.  ?  Presumably that means they had a lot to say? and they may have learned their lesson not to make up two identities.

(Note, I had typed up a long post suggesting we should talk about who the policy would apply to -- and then, voila   there were 4 posts talking about it ... I think I need to learn to type faster :))
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 manchesteruk

  • Member
  • Posts: 630
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #157 on: September 15, 2008, 01:11:34 PM »

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)


This seems like a fair solution to me.   A permanent ban for someone other than a troll, denialist etc seems too harsh to me.  You have to consider as well that a 6 month ban is a pretty harsh punishment.  Has a forum vote been considered on this at all?  The complexities of a new banning policy would be too difficult do in a single vote.  But maybe a vote could be taken on whether permanent bans should continue.  If the vote is against permanent bans the moderators could come up with a new policy after consulting the members of the forums.  I think it would be fair that way because it is the moderators who would have to enforce it.
Diagnosed 11/05

"Life is too important to be taken seriously" Oscar Wilde

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,873
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #158 on: September 15, 2008, 01:11:36 PM »
Why shouldn't those who didn't respect their timeouts be given a second chance after 6 months if they were not denialists, sock puppets, trolls etc.  ?  Presumably that means they had a lot to say? and they may have learned their lesson not to make up two identities.

Probably for the same reason that the moderators won't let back in someone who sent them abusive emails after a time out.  It's seen as abusive of the moderator's judgement, etc.
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline dad1216

  • Member
  • Posts: 135
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #159 on: September 15, 2008, 01:20:09 PM »
The rules here are very clear….you do something wrong and you get warned…keep it up and you get timed out , not just once but a few times…and if you still keep it up you get banned….pretty simple to me…if a person still causes trouble after all the warnings and time outs…what makes anyone think that a 6 month ban will straighten them out…they can just take the 6 months and plan their next attack…the biggest majority of people who break the rules will always break the rules…if that’s not true our jails and prisons would have no return inmates…the moderators here have a hard enough time doing their jobs…and it is very evident that they do not ban people just for the hell of it….now you want them to have to deal with those that make trouble over and over again…within time they will be doing nothing but chasing down those people and giving them another 6 months…over and over again….now granted there are some that will learn their lessons….but that number will be less than those that don’t….a person has no one but themselves to blame for being banned….they knew the rules…they broke the rules…now they must deal with the consequences…it’s life….do you think you can keep breaking the rules at work and only get fired for 6 months…or keep getting caught driving drunk and not lose your license for life…there are many people on here who have never even had a warning and have been here for years….apparently they understand the rules…and know how to abide by them…
23 years HIV+ (Oct 88)
11 years AIDS (March 00)

CD4=83  VL=47,000  (May 2011)
CD4=63  VL=78,470  (Oct 2010)
Prezista..Norvir..Truvada

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,873
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #160 on: September 15, 2008, 01:31:15 PM »
…if that’s not true our jails and prisons would have no return inmates…

You'll have a hard time convincing me that incarceration rates in the US are not excessive.  The same thing applies here, and only to a couple of individuals as the moderators just said.
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline newt

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,877
  • the one and original newt
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #161 on: September 15, 2008, 01:37:06 PM »
As anyone who's had the misfortune to visit a chain bar will know, volume encourages conformity & mitigates against diversity.

In my experience the most annoying, most useful and most (HIV) experienced people are often in the crowd that values diversity, and sometimes this means rubbing chalk and cheese in a nutmeg grater.

The mods have to deal with the dust.  Good on yer folks for stepping up to the grater. It's not a nice job most of the time.

But cheese sauce with no cheese or nutmeg? hmmm

The benchmark for me would be not are new (old) people annoyed by Poster X per se, but on balance does the poster contributemore than they discommode (<< good word that), and especially does s/he bring particular knowledge and/or experience. Being annoyed when it's a question of personal style is just such a hard call.

I would be in favour of a sanction for said annoying people which included reducing people's posting rights to their own threads. ie they can't reply (therefore annoy) other people.

Furthermore, perhaps some kind of apology for due cause system. If your tripping off your head on Sustiva and get banned cos you dropped a tissue on someone's patent leather sandal, you should be excused with appropriate explanation (I say).

- matt
"The object is to be a well patient, not a good patient"

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #162 on: September 15, 2008, 01:42:58 PM »
Probably for the same reason that the moderators won't let back in someone who sent them abusive emails after a time out.  It's seen as abusive of the moderator's judgement, etc.

I hear ya ... But ...
- I think people posting here are sometimes under enormous short term pressures and illness burdens and that things can change dramatically in 6 months
- This is an online support group -- and (as some guy named philly267 pointed out first  :)), there's not a lot of other options on the internet for HIV support.  



I'd encourage any new policy to be as forgiving as possible to those who are living with the disease and have been contributing members of the community.  In fact, given the limited alternatives I'd argue for as broad and forgiving a policy as we can stomach.  After all, if you let the wrong person back in and they act up they can always be thrown back out. Letting someone back in is only on terms and conditions that are well understood and violation can be quickly disciplined. So what's the risk?

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%

Online Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,873
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #163 on: September 15, 2008, 01:48:59 PM »
So what's the risk?


Like both Peter and Tim said up above, there are things that have happened behind the scenes that none of us know about.  And since you've only been on the board for a rather short time, I'll also add that there are plenty of situations you aren't familiar with either.

We're probably doing to have to trust their judgement on this.

However, I do understand what you're getting at, and it's a fine line and tough call admittedly.
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline allopathicholistic

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,258
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #164 on: September 15, 2008, 01:54:23 PM »
I can see no particular need for a reset,

I don't even understand the "reset" thingy but it doesn't sound like something I would back. It sounds like extra fru-fru and Peter emphasized simplicity

(I also wanna repeat this: I don't think banned members should have the benefit of warnings. They know alllllllllll about warnings baby. They know about warnings like they know the skin on their own noses. Don't let them sit on the Italian leather sofa, let them sit on the Ejector Seat. And I mean ex-banned people who are invited back)
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 02:05:50 PM by allopathicholistic »

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #165 on: September 15, 2008, 01:57:43 PM »
I hear ya ... But ...
- I think people posting here are sometimes under enormous short term pressures and illness burdens and that things can change dramatically in 6 months
- This is an online support group -- and (as some guy named philly267 pointed out first  :)), there's not a lot of other options on the internet for HIV support.  

I'd encourage any new policy to be as forgiving as possible to those who are living with the disease and have been contributing members of the community.  In fact, given the limited alternatives I'd argue for as broad and forgiving a policy as we can stomach.  After all, if you let the wrong person back in and they act up they can always be thrown back out. Letting someone back in is only on terms and conditions that are well understood and violation can be quickly disciplined. So what's the risk?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The moderators are as forgiving as possible, especially when we know someone is in experiencing an acute crisis. But even under such circumstances, people need to be accountable for their actions. And when we have individuals threatening or harrassing moderators (or other members) -- it happens more than you think, I assure you -- immediate (and permanent) removal is necessary to protect the safety of the moderators and Forums members. This IS what happens in support groups.

This is not about "respecting" the moderators. We often get e-mails from individuals who have been warned or timed out, wanting to discuss the matter further -- and this is fine. But when threats are leveled, or harrassment ensues, all bets are off.  

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #166 on: September 15, 2008, 02:03:56 PM »
(I also wanna repeat this: I don't think banned members should have the benefit of warnings. They know alllllllllll about warnings baby. They know about warnings like they know the skin on their own nose)

I disagree with this. Only in extremene circumstances -- such as those discussed thus far in this thread -- do we go straight to a ban or TO. Most often, we give a warning to those who are in danger of embarking on yet another TO or, indeed, a ban. Sometimes this happens publicly in the Forums... other times its via PM. Warnings are vital... and they always will be... ESPECIALLY when we're dealing with someone who faces significant time away from the Forums if he or she doesn't come back around quick.

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,493
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #167 on: September 20, 2008, 06:16:39 PM »
I'll throw in my vote to review the permanent ban policy and add the six month ban option, but I am replying to present a very unique perspective.  Many of you know me, since I joined AM in 2002 and I enjoyed many years within these very forums.  I know I made a difference and really enjoyed the atmosphere when we were smaller and even after we merged with S&S.  Unfortunately I also suffer from severe depression and anxiety and occasionally have to "re-balance" my psych meds.  It was during one of those times that I had my one and only run in with the TO policy, in effect at the time.

I will not rehash old wounds, but I cannot stress how important it is that whatever policy is decided, it must be followed as closely as possible, otherwise you may get unintended consequences.  During my drug adjustment I displayed behavior that was inappropriate for this forum and I was rightfully given a 3 day TO.  However that TO was then converted into a 7 day TO and that was that.  Again, let me be clear here, I am not pleading not guilty, just asking for consistency, because what that change told me was that even though there are "stated policies", does not mean there are not unspoken policies.

During my TO, I had time to reflect on my behavior, but more importantly, on my interaction with AM.  Up until that point, I had never even considered that I could be removed from these very forums, with the flip of a switch.  An entire support system was ripped from me, which was bad enough, but after 3 days, the banning became revenge in my eyes, because I deserved to be banned for 3 and not 7 days.

The result of this is I have stayed away from posting, because it did not seem to matter whether I was here or not.  My feelings were deeply hurt by what happened, but the fault will always remain mine.  And after 6 months, people can and do change and so I also vote for you to rescind any permanent bans, even if it's only two members. 

We need all the help we can get and even with the occasional turmoil, you still have, by far, the best game in town. 

(edited because it appears I am having trouble making complete sentences.)
« Last Edit: September 20, 2008, 06:24:04 PM by killfoile »

Offline the trebmeister

  • Member
  • Posts: 98
  • Fame is fleeting ... obscurity is forever.
    • daddy, you bastard
Re: Banning and the loss of voices
« Reply #168 on: October 04, 2009, 07:22:50 PM »
does this thread help explain why i'm here now?

the inquiring mindless want to know
Your friends may say that I’m a stranger
My face they’ll never see no more
There is but one promise that’s given
I’ll sail on God’s golden shore

 


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.