Tulpa Forums
A New System for Banning - Printable Version

+- Tulpa Forums (https://community.tulpa.info)
+-- Forum: Tulpa.Info Forums (https://community.tulpa.info/forum-tulpa-info-forums)
+--- Forum: Forum Announcements (https://community.tulpa.info/forum-forum-announcements)
+--- Thread: A New System for Banning (/thread-a-new-system-for-banning)

Pages: 1 2 3

A New System for Banning - Kiahdaj - 10-11-2016

We have had an issue for a while now with chronic problem users slipping through the cracks of legalese, and even inter-moderator disputes. This means that while we might agree that the user in question causes repeated problems in general, we may disagree on what action they take constitutes the "final straw", or even whether what they did in a particular case is worth moderating at all. It seems reasonable to me to judge and punish a user based on what they do in specific instances, but it has become apparent that this simply does not work in some cases.
It has led to users that we (the staff) may unanimously agree are bad for the channel (or forum) and the community, but are somehow able to continue to skirt the edge of the rules, continuing to make the community a worse place, because the moderators are too busy disagreeing over minute details.

To address this, we are putting forth a new system whereby users who are regularly the source of trouble/toxicity/rule-breaking, etc in the chat may be discussed among the staff, and if a large majority of us agree that the user needs "a break", they will be banned from the consensus, rather than simply waiting until they finally do something "bad enough" for everyone to have agreed to ban them through the regular course of action. The length of the ban will be determined based on past offenses, but will likely have a minimum of around a month, to give them ample time to reconsider their behavior in general.

Forum users, let it be known that this will affect you practically none at all. This system is mostly to address trouble IRC users, as it is another beast entirely. In the past few years, I suspect there might only have been two or three users who would have even entered our radar to the extent that it would be worth putting them up for discussion through this system. However, we are still putting it on the table in case we ever decide that it is something that needs to be done here, as well. If a user is ever banned this way, we will document it in the Moderator Reports thread, along with our reasoning. There will be no mysterious disappearances.

As for IRC users, this won't affect the average user, either. This will be implemented exclusively on the handful of users who are the source of trouble so consistently that it becomes unreasonable for us to allow it to continue, despite how they have managed to slip past the rules and moderation so far.

As has been stated, this is nothing that will affect you, the average user—and something that will have almost no implementation on the forum. We just thought that we should inform users of this new policy, in the interest of transparency.

RE: A New System for Banning - Nobillis - 10-11-2016

(10-11-2016, 02:49 AM)Kiah Wrote: we are putting forth a new system whereby users ... will be banned from the consensus

Well done! This has been needed for a long time.

RE: A New System for Banning - KarlYoshimura - 10-11-2016

And what, pray tell, comprises "trouble/toxicity/rule-breaking", if one does not break rules or utilise exceptions/loopholes? I think it is infinitely more noxious to impart a selective hug-box, rather than actually judge a user by the merit of their work or basis of their interactivity. If anything, I find this policy to be abused quite easily by moderators who wish to get rid of certain users for what-ever petty reasoning they provide while producing no evidence what-so-ever for their decisions.

As you have admitted, there are disputes between moderators, most likely based upon the concept that it is a moderator's discretion as to when and how to apply the rules. If this is such an issue, why not revise the rules to have no room for such needless interpretation, or at least an agreement upon several key points to ensure fair and concrete operation? I think it is repulsively counter-intuitive to further silence and shame users just because a moderator takes their position too personally or can't keep their regulars from foaming at the mouth over the smallest disagreement.

RE: A New System for Banning - Luminesce - 10-11-2016

Well, he did say banned by consensus. A single moderator can bring them up, but it takes general agreement among them to actually ban someone.

RE: A New System for Banning - KarlYoshimura - 10-11-2016

Consensus is an irrelevant matter herein. Most, if not all forum moderators are organised into cliques that piggy-back one another's decisions, especially if they feel they may curry favour with a superior by advocating their conclusions or they have their own bias to manifest. Seeing how the initial post fails to identify which staff members would be eligible to decide upon what is to be done, and to where their decisions are to be applied, a "consensus" may very well be decided between two or three persons rather than the entirety of their group(s).

RE: A New System for Banning - Corazón - 10-11-2016

This isn't a good thing.
Laws and rules are meant to be clearly stated, to define where the "punishable" is. This kind of decision makes laws blurry, therefore leaving room for affects and feelings to decide punishments.

If someone isn't breaking the rules, they aren't punished. It is how this world works.
This decision was clearly made to give more "freedom of punishment" to the staff, which is a bad thing. Seems pretty nazi to me.

If laws aren't strictly written and crystal clear, this leads to interpretation and lets people bend them at will, to do what they want.

Bad, bad bad baaaaad idea !
You guys are big meanies trying to be seen as angels !
*sticks her tongue out, drawing her lower eyelid down*

RE: A New System for Banning - Floh - 10-11-2016

This isn't fooling anyone. It's obviously aiming at particular persons (Who said Karl?) that you don't like.

I don't understand what the problem is with Karl. I saw the free violence directed towards him on IRC (Like he DCs and instant "yeah he's gone thank god" pop everywhere.. Really ? ) I say people harassing others like that are the ones that should be banned. He is a nice person. Maybe he's a bit "special", with border-line jokes and sometimes spiky mood, but we never attacked him and he is always nice to us. Maybe he's tired of being attacked, thus becoming spikier and defense-oriented ? Maybe the general hatred towards him makes the staff think it's normal. Well let me tell you IT IS NOT !

Justice cannot be blurry. Things are either legal, or they aren't. No consensus can be called justice. This is bullshit.

I guess us saying this will put us in your crossbar, but well, if you state we are "toxic" to the chat, that would make me laugh a loooot. Cora is always nice and having fun there. Anyway i wouldn't want her to grow in such an environment. She doesn't need this passive agression and lack of justice.

Reading the OP again, imma add this: YES this affects us. First because Cora and I really enjoy chatting with Karl (who was banned for apparently no "good" reason). Second because I don't wanna evolve and discuss under some kind of totalitary government.

RE: A New System for Banning - Luminesce - 10-11-2016

I actually don't know any of the four chat moderators, so I guess I can't speak for their virtue. But it is the Staffs' choice if they believe someone is causing enough of a problem that they should be banned (temporarily from what I heard?).

No offense guys, but the biggest complaint I hear about the tulpa.info Staff is how indecisive they are and how little action they take. So I can't support not supporting this "Let's actually get things done" change. If a single person is causing that much trouble that they're making the chat a less inviting environment, it might just be best for them not to be there.

(Are they talking about you-Karl, Karl? Sorry about that if so, this is about the system, not you)

RE: A New System for Banning - Floh - 10-11-2016

(10-11-2016, 11:26 AM)Luminesce Wrote: If a single person is causing that much trouble that they're making the chat a less inviting environment, it might just be best for them not to be there.

My (our?) point is that if nothing clearly states what is "that much trouble", this could lead to abusive punishments, driven by feelings, preferences and connivence.

RE: A New System for Banning - KarlYoshimura - 10-11-2016

Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you read. Allegedly, staff members like Kiahdaj and Vosaiu can and do moderate, however, their actions here on the forums are only apparent to one if one's posts, profile or other effects have been tweaked in accordance with their rules. They do provide messages to denote changes regarding threads and I would imagine otherwise give indications for other items to a user individually, aside from more obvious designations like "moved" or "split" threads. In light of such maintenance, I can assert that the staff does something within their designated positions, at least at the forum.

As for one's allegiance on this matter...doing something may appear favourable amidst seeming decay and inaction, yet I think it's what one chooses to do that makes such action worthy to begin with. Just because a leader can make the trains run on time doesn't mean he didn't apply the cudgel or the barrel of a gun to do so.

I thank Floh & Cora very much for their support, yet it is not my intent to derail this thread into an argument about what may or may not have been applied to me personally by the ratification of this new policy. I visited and appealed to this thread to discuss the particulars and implementation of what has been provided in the initial post, hence my choosing to criticise my current understanding of this policy and not, say, what relationship I may share with the upper echelons of the tulpa.info I.R.C. channel and forum.