- Reaction score
- 424
- Points
- 1,410
All,
It's not uncommon for me to receive questions about why a particular user was put on warning or banned. Answering those is certainly part of my role here, but I've come to realize that we (as the Staff) don't do a very good job of communicating the motivation for some of our actions. At times, this lack of information can result in incorrect conclusions.
Let's take a look at a recent user ban as an example. Yesterday, sgf was banned, which was duly noted in her warning thread. However to a user reading this thread, it sure sounds like Bruce had a political disagreement with sgf, and brought his mod powers to bear on her as punishment. I'll admit it: given the public information, I'd have concluded the same thing too. I'm not the only one, as I had a concerned user approach me on the issue.
Let me share my reply, in the hopes that it will shed some light on the "back room" activities happening on a continuous basis here.
Thanks for the message, and I do see where you're coming from. It's certainly easy to work under the assumption that Bruce banned sgf based on a political disagreement. The reality is, sgf has been given many chances and many warnings leading up to this, all for undesirable posting habits or breaches of the Conduct Guidelines. Certainly not for having an opinion. We recognize that banning someone because you disagree with them is begging for trouble, and trust me: that's the last thing we want to bring to our own doorstep.
When someone is banned, there's plenty that goes on in the background, it's not a simple "one man decision." In this case, we have 6 pages of discussion around sgf in the Staff board, and we've weighed each move carefully and collectively before taking it. Obviously we'd prefer to have a contributing member over a banned user any day. The former is an asset while the latter is a drain on our limited resources, so we try as much as possible to guide rather than simply smack someone down. This guidance typically goes on behind the scenes - in part because it would be a disruption to the flow of discussion to do it in public posts but mostly because quite frankly, it's nobody else's business. (A public dressing down is much less effective than private guidance.)
In addition to the internal discussions and private guidance, 31 of sgf's posts have been removed all together. These were posts that were clearly counter to the Guidelines, or added nothing to the conversation. (Or worse, actually worked to derail a well-flowing discussion.) Hopefully you can start to see a picture forming here... what you saw as a hair trigger response to a opinionated post is actually the culmination of 3 months (as of yesterday) of Staff work.
Once again, I'll reiterate that we don't take bans lightly and see them as an option only when all other avenues have been exhausted. Because we respect the privacy of our users - even the ones we end up banning - we deliberately hide much of the mentoring, clean-up work and strategizing that's involved in such a decision. I realize that this often serves to shoot us in the foot, especially on occasions like this, but it's a necessary evil.
Hopefully this helps clarify the situation, but if you have further questions, I encourage you to ask.
Cheers
Mike
Likewise, if anyone has any comments or questions about how we operate, please let me know. There's a tangible benefit to being transparent in our processes as much as possible.
Thanks
Mike
It's not uncommon for me to receive questions about why a particular user was put on warning or banned. Answering those is certainly part of my role here, but I've come to realize that we (as the Staff) don't do a very good job of communicating the motivation for some of our actions. At times, this lack of information can result in incorrect conclusions.
Let's take a look at a recent user ban as an example. Yesterday, sgf was banned, which was duly noted in her warning thread. However to a user reading this thread, it sure sounds like Bruce had a political disagreement with sgf, and brought his mod powers to bear on her as punishment. I'll admit it: given the public information, I'd have concluded the same thing too. I'm not the only one, as I had a concerned user approach me on the issue.
Let me share my reply, in the hopes that it will shed some light on the "back room" activities happening on a continuous basis here.
Thanks for the message, and I do see where you're coming from. It's certainly easy to work under the assumption that Bruce banned sgf based on a political disagreement. The reality is, sgf has been given many chances and many warnings leading up to this, all for undesirable posting habits or breaches of the Conduct Guidelines. Certainly not for having an opinion. We recognize that banning someone because you disagree with them is begging for trouble, and trust me: that's the last thing we want to bring to our own doorstep.
When someone is banned, there's plenty that goes on in the background, it's not a simple "one man decision." In this case, we have 6 pages of discussion around sgf in the Staff board, and we've weighed each move carefully and collectively before taking it. Obviously we'd prefer to have a contributing member over a banned user any day. The former is an asset while the latter is a drain on our limited resources, so we try as much as possible to guide rather than simply smack someone down. This guidance typically goes on behind the scenes - in part because it would be a disruption to the flow of discussion to do it in public posts but mostly because quite frankly, it's nobody else's business. (A public dressing down is much less effective than private guidance.)
In addition to the internal discussions and private guidance, 31 of sgf's posts have been removed all together. These were posts that were clearly counter to the Guidelines, or added nothing to the conversation. (Or worse, actually worked to derail a well-flowing discussion.) Hopefully you can start to see a picture forming here... what you saw as a hair trigger response to a opinionated post is actually the culmination of 3 months (as of yesterday) of Staff work.
Once again, I'll reiterate that we don't take bans lightly and see them as an option only when all other avenues have been exhausted. Because we respect the privacy of our users - even the ones we end up banning - we deliberately hide much of the mentoring, clean-up work and strategizing that's involved in such a decision. I realize that this often serves to shoot us in the foot, especially on occasions like this, but it's a necessary evil.
Hopefully this helps clarify the situation, but if you have further questions, I encourage you to ask.
Cheers
Mike
Likewise, if anyone has any comments or questions about how we operate, please let me know. There's a tangible benefit to being transparent in our processes as much as possible.
Thanks
Mike
