I'm assuming so. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
A line through a person's name means they're currently banned, yes?
Posts
Total:
43
Yes that's correct.
Thanks.
-->
@K_Michael
Think of 'strikethrough' instead of 'blank space' and listen to this song:
Affirmative
-->
@K_Michael
It has the effect that everyone knows THAT someone is banned but no-one knows WHY.
-->
@keithprosser
That is to protect the privacy of the banned user.
-->
@Castin
How does it protect the privacy of a banned menber to publicly flag that they are banned?
Its no more protecting privacy than sending everyone a PM saying "Yoo hoo X is banned everybody!!!"
it's even worse than that - the present system is something out of Kafka or Orwell - after a few days you notice X has gone quiet, only to find "X has been made an 'unperson' - do not ask why".
The only privacy being protected is that of the banning decision process.
-->
@keithprosser
It's reasonable to have some indication that a user has been banned, just so members know when they're talking to someone who isn't here anymore. But why the user was banned is considered private information to the banned user, at least to the extent that bish doesn't want to publicly advertise the dirty details for all to see. But the information is still available on request. You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.
It really is amazing how people can turn a dinky internet forum into a sinister Orwellian dystopia or Game of Thrones. We all have a flair for the dramatic. Maybe we should be honest with ourselves and admit we all just secretly want more e-drama.
-->
@Castin
You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.
So it's not private.
-->
@keithprosser
He won't tell you because he hasn't told me.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Never mind. I'm sure it was fully justified - whoever it was and whatever it was for.
-->
@keithprosser
Based on faith rather than something tangible.I'm sure it was fully justified - whoever it was and whatever it was for.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
When I hear two people on a bus discussing what Supaduz said to SecularMerlin I'll start giving a hoot.
-->
@keithprosser
Doesn't really answer what I said since you gave a hoot enough to say what the moderators do is fully justified whereas you don't give a hoot about whether it is based on faith or something tangible.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My mistake - I thought you had noticed the irony in #12.
DA is a cheap pass time while I'm laid up, nothing more.
-->
@keithprosser
Okay.
-->
@keithprosser
You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.So it's not private.
That's why I said "at least to the extent that bish doesn't want to publicly advertise" it. He'll inform you in a discreet PM, but he is against putting it on display or yelling it through a megaphone.
Originally his convictions about member privacy were such that he didn't even have a "PM me and I'll tell you" policy. He relaxed his stance on that at the appeal of myself and others.
-->
@keithprosser
it's even worse than that - the present system is something out of Kafka or Orwell - after a few days you notice X has gone quiet, only to find "X has been made an 'unperson' - do not ask why".The only privacy being protected is that of the banning decision process.
Every banned member gets at least one hour to post a protest thread telling their side of the story. If a banned member does not choose to create a protest thread in this time, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume they did not want their trouble advertised to everyone? And shouldn't the mods proceed accordingly, in respect to their wishes? Some people want everyone to hear what happened; others don't want to be a public spectacle.
If bish and Virt were just protecting the privacy of their banning process, I imagine they would never allow banned members to shout their defiance and criticism from the mountaintops like that. It's a terribly impolitic policy that invites constant scandal and headache; no Orwellian government would ever permit it. They also probably wouldn't let us freely post moderator PM's whenever we want, without even having to ask permission.
I think they're quite willing to have their decisions exposed. They're just often too discreet in the name of privacy, and it can come across looking shadowy and sinister to some people.
-->
@Castin
That is no way near enough time to give them a chance to respond. I will go on a limb that people would be viewing this site on specific time. Some at 7 some at 12, some at 3. This should be increase to 24 hours in order for everyone to have a chance to respond. Yes people who are simply ill for the day would not be able to respond but my proposal would definitely reduce the amount of people not giving their side.Every banned member gets at least one hour to post a protest thread telling their side of the story.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'd use one of those general notice things and say "X is banned for being a dick. Anyone who disagrees can PM me and I'll ban them too."
-->
@keithprosser
I'd use one of those general notice things and say "X is banned for being a dick. Anyone who disagrees can PM me and I'll ban them too."
I rather it be "A broke X rule and refused to change his way which is why A is permanently banned."
-->
@TheRealNihilist
On kpdebate.org the CoC would be 'Don't be a dick'. It has a sort of pleasing symmetry of innuendo.
-->
@keithprosser
They would have to define what a "dick" is in order for people to understand what not to do.On kpdebate.org the CoC would be 'Don't be a dick'. It has a sort of pleasing symmetry of innuendo.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Not knowing what 'being a dick' is is being a dick. I'm banning you from the non-existent (and never will exist) kpdebate.org.
But i'm adding extra rules: you can be banned for spelling 'lose' as 'loose', using the wrong form of there/their/they're, and omitting the u in colour.
-->
@keithprosser
Not knowing what 'being a dick' is is being a dick. I'm banning you from the non-existent (and never will exist) kpdebate.org.But i'm adding extra rules: you can be banned for spelling 'lose' as 'loose', using the wrong form of there/their/they're, and omitting the u in colour.
Thankfully this isn't KPD and you aren't in charge.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That is no way near enough time to give them a chance to respond.
It is one hour after they have logged in after the ban notification was sent. So yes, it is sufficient time to respond.
-->
@bsh1
Castin missed "after they have logged in" detail.It is one hour after they have logged in after the ban notification was sent. So yes, it is sufficient time to respond.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I did, that's my bad. I forget some people aren't as familiar with these details.
I'd use one of those general notice things and say "X is banned for being a dick. Anyone who disagrees can PM me and I'll ban them too."I rather it be "A broke X rule and refused to change his way which is why A is permanently banned."
A public ban log -- something saying "A broke X rule and was banned" -- has been something we've gone back and forth on from the beginning, debating the pros and cons. The mods recently put the matter to a vote, iirc. It didn't win by a wide enough margin. I want to say like 55% of the votes were for a public ban log and 45% were against it.
I would much rather we had one. I've grown weary of the cries of tyranny and conspiracy every time someone is banned without the reason why being plastered on a billboard or something. The unknown always makes people suspicious.
-->
@Castin
I did, that's my bad. I forget some people aren't as familiar with these details.
Okay.
A public ban log -- something saying "A broke X rule and was banned" -- has been something we've gone back and forth on from the beginning, debating the pros and cons. The mods recently put the matter to a vote, iirc. It didn't win by a wide enough margin. I want to say like 55% of the votes were for a public ban log and 45% were against it.I would much rather we had one. I've grown weary of the cries of tyranny and conspiracy every time someone is banned without the reason why being plastered on a billboard or something. The unknown always makes people suspicious.
I am suer you already bsh1 doesn't want it because it would cause mobs or something so I guess you would have to make a convincing argument to him or debate him if you really feel like you have the better position if that is allowed. I would like a public ban log myself but guess it would be too much hassle for Virtuoso and bsh1 to deal which is why they are opposed to it and of course mobs starting to form insulting banned members or who were not permanently banned but I don't really see that problem when I insult people who don't understand what they are talking about.