sgf: A Case Study in being banned

[armyvern]

Does one have the option of challenging a ban through direct comms with Mike B or some type of consortium/group? That is there is any doubt or an actual question to perhaps an unobvious reason. Some are quite noticeable and need no explanation.

Yes, and what about mods behaving badly? Not that I am saying some do, but there is always the possibility, that certian topics/personalityclashes may cloud the judgement of someone in the capaicty of authority. Just because one disagrees with a mod, does not, nor should it be greeted with a threat of a warning, or a warning, or a ban. Although in some cases this is warranted.

Speaking of moderators, what about a moderator tenure, say for 6 or 12 months in the mod seat, thus allowing new blood, fresh ideas, and a different point of view for new mods. Call it a breath of fresh air, and cull in you wish. All of course for the betterment of this site. Perhaps having the 'same old same old' breeds a wee tad of some complaciency, and maybe contempt in some cases. I am only generalising, and seeking an opinon from other members, including moderators.

I think after a while one would need a break from such as position. We are all basically people, some of us with families, and being a mod may put pressure on from the home front.

Regards,

Wes

OK.

I'm locking this. Mr. Bobbitt can address that last one from Wes' post quoted above when he gets back online.

When it turns into another post about "bad" or "inappropriate" mod behaviour -- best for Mr. B to answer; And, best it be locked lest one of us mods post something we may regret. And usually when you see that occur in public -- it's precisely because the mods have been dealing with said member privately -- to no apparent effect as per Mr. B's original down below.

Until then, there's plenty of threads already out there on the boards where most of the below questions have been adressed before ... more than once.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff

Edited to include post this responds to.

 

[George Wallace]

I just wanted to add that this discusion is not new.  It has been held several times over the years.  Rules for the site are posted, which also detail the Warning System and how one goes about redressing a Warning or Ban.

Folks,

Armyboi has been banned again. Because of his posting style, failure to heed the Staff's guidance & instructions and generally posting out of his backside we have shown him the door for the last time, there will be no forgiveness again. The Staff have come together on this case and have decided to post this publicly so that there will be no doubt whatsoever in our reasoning behind this ban.

Despite what some may believe, the Staff huddle up and discuss most of the things that do happen on Army.ca and there is normally consensus before we start the Warning Procedures or Bans. There are times we must act very quickly without the benefit of talk amongst the group but that is the exception, not the rule. Even still, I have never seen a user removed from a Warning because of disagreement among the Staff, we all work together and almost 100 percent of the time we all agree.

The Cadet Forums have been much better in the past year thanks to, in no small part, you!! And that is one major reason for this ban, we do not need members dragging this site down by ignoring the directions of the Staff, it just doesn't work well for the site. The Cadet Forum, in the past, has been trouble, major trouble, we will not allow this to happen again.

Armyboi recently drew our attention again because he was posting that the Staff didn't like him and that he was banned for posting about a sniper rifle. It raises my ire to think that someone would flat out accuse me of banning them for no good reason, that's how I interpreted what he had to say. It also came to the Staff's attention that he was running off at the mouth at other forums about why he was banned and he was not exactly honest about it.
When in fact he was banned, the first time, for posting in threads he had no business in and generally not following direction.

If you want to read for yourself why he was banned, just take a look at his profile, it's chock full of examples. Believe me, it was not because he talked about a sniper rifle.
ARMYboi69's Profile Here

Now, Armyboi started appealing his first ban in April by lying and saying that he was never informed why he was banned. Here's a tip: the Staff discuss these sorts of things away from prying eyes and we do have it saved.

In October, with Burrows vouching for him, he was allowed to come back to Army.ca. The Staff decided to use him as a test case and give him the benefit of the doubt, his actions made sure that I will never be as forgiving again and I am sure that the majority of the Staff would agree. In fact, I highly doubt there will be many second chances in the future, we tried to be nice and got burned.

The final ban, well it stems from comments like this:

Bottom line, he was given advice and didn't listen, he'd just argue or ignore it. I tried PMing with him to keep him in his lane and, frankly, am feeling quite angry that I wasted that time. He's gone now, done, finito.

OK, so here's where he went wrong and how I interpreted it all according to the conduct guidelines as well as the warning system.

Army.ca Conduct Guidelines
This means that if you post it and it is wrong, breaks the rules, etc. then you can be held accountable for the post.
Posting "LOL" without adding something to the thread over and over does not endear you to the rest of the membership.
When you are corrected about something by another member or Staff then by God just make sure the problem won't occur again. Don't get whiny or sarcastic or lash out, you were corrected for a reason, be adult, deal with it and move on!
Pretty self explanatory.
Straightforward.

Cadet Forum Guidelines
I think this one explains itself just fine as well.

Now, don't let this serve as a threat to you or your posting habits, if you stay in your lanes and post according to the guidelines then you'll be fine, if you don't then you'll join Daniel in BannedLand. The Staff just wanted to provide some insight into how things worked in this special case and, perhaps, put this up as a learning tool. Call it "How to get yourself Banned......For Dummies"

Thanks for your continued interest in the site and your ongoing cooperation!


And just to further illustrate our new position on allowing formerly banned members a second chance I give you the profiles of:

dylan_infantry

and

frankie_future infanteer

Both a couple shining examples of why we have the ban function who whined and cried until we let them back in only to keep acting like clowns. Sorry to say it but they ruined it for anyone else who has hopes of coming back after a ban, we're pretty jaded towards the whole idea right now.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to PM one of the Staff.

Scott
Army.ca Staff

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Wes,

As a standing rule, if a mod is directly involved with a user or thread, they don't take administrative action on it/them. There are occasions - for example when no other mods are around - where this may not be practical, but it is our SOP.

When mods behave badly (they're people too - it happens!) We deal with it behind closed doors. Heck I've been dealt with behind closed doors when I make a bad call. But no public hangings. We have quietly dismissed mods on a couple of occasions.

Mod tenure is something we've considered... actually the consideration was more that it be 12 on 6 off or something similar. The problem with that is if you're given a set time when you're in the mod seat, there's a much stronger expectation that you'll do the job on a regular, consistent basis. That's counter to our volunteeristic "Army.ca Staff takes a back seat to life" approach. Whenever a new mod comes on, I make it clear that family, jobs and general life must take priority, and Army.ca must not interfere.

In fact, the reality is that most mods do find themselves taken away from the site for extended periods of time. Whether it be deployments, a new job, or changed in their personal life. However the door is always open for them to return when life calms back down again. So in effect, we have an ad-hoc system in place already.

I stand by this "low pressure" approach as a good way to allow Army.ca Staff to back off when they feel they need it, not based on a strict schedule.

Hopefully this all makes sense, and again hopefully it highlights that internally, these are all concerns we've discussed at length. As a staff cadre, we truly are interested in the best for the site. Sometimes we get it wrong but if we do it's a mistake, not an attempt to circumvent or undermine.


Cheers
Mike

(unlocked)

 

[leroi]

Hi All,

As a newbie I'm very impressed with the high level of moderation here.

From what  I've observed the Mods seem to give everyone a fair chance to rectify errant behaviour.

To be a Mod here seems to require the patience of Job, the wisdom of Solomon and the skin of a rhinocerous ... 

( I guess beer would help, too!! ;D)

leroi

 

[Jarnhamar]

I offered to be SGF's assisting officer should army.ca charge her but she politely declined, I believe she wanted to represent herself.

Clearly the wrong choice

 

[kratz]

FD's post adds some fun and a smile to the case study. While banning is a serious issue, the statement is still worth a +1  ;D

 

[1feral1]

Wes,

As a standing rule, if a mod is directly involved with a user or thread, they don't take administrative action on it/them. There are occasions - for example when no other mods are around - where this may not be practical, but it is our SOP.

When mods behave badly (they're people too - it happens!) We deal with it behind closed doors. Heck I've been dealt with behind closed doors when I make a bad call. But no public hangings. We have quietly dismissed mods on a couple of occasions.

Mod tenure is something we've considered... actually the consideration was more that it be 12 on 6 off or something similar. The problem with that is if you're given a set time when you're in the mod seat, there's a much stronger expectation that you'll do the job on a regular, consistent basis. That's counter to our volunteeristic "Army.ca Staff takes a back seat to life" approach. Whenever a new mod comes on, I make it clear that family, jobs and general life must take priority, and Army.ca must not interfere.

In fact, the reality is that most mods do find themselves taken away from the site for extended periods of time. Whether it be deployments, a new job, or changed in their personal life. However the door is always open for them to return when life calms back down again. So in effect, we have an ad-hoc system in place already.

I stand by this "low pressure" approach as a good way to allow Army.ca Staff to back off when they feel they need it, not based on a strict schedule.

Hopefully this all makes sense, and again hopefully it highlights that internally, these are all concerns we've discussed at length. As a staff cadre, we truly are interested in the best for the site. Sometimes we get it wrong but if we do it's a mistake, not an attempt to circumvent or undermine.


Cheers
Mike

(unlocked)

Thanks for the insight Mike.


Cheers,

Wes

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

My pleasure Wes, it's a discussion I think is long overdue.


Cheers
Mike

 

[Jaydub]

Most people stay Banned for good. There is a slight chance the Ban will be revoked but you can bet that person is watched a little more closely. Unfortunately we have revoked the Ban on some people only have it bite us on the ***.

Here's something I've always wondered about...

Scenario:

Some recruit, fresh out of high school, comes here and gets himself banned.  10 years later he's at the MCpl or Sgt level, has actual life experience, and has matured considerably.  He wants to come back to the site and actually contribute.  Is it ever possible to come back if the banned individual has genuinely changed?

 

[George Wallace]

Here's something I've always wondered about...

Scenario:

Some recruit, fresh out of high school, comes here and gets himself banned.  10 years later he's at the MCpl or Sgt level, has actual life experience, and has matured considerably.  He wants to come back to the site and actually contribute.  Is it ever possible to come back if the banned individual has genuinely changed?

In all honesty: Yes.  Not that it would really matter.  After 10 or so years, 'our young High Schooler' has matured quite a bit (one would hope ) and has moved away from his original home and High School computers.  New Life.  New IP address.  New Screen Name.  New outlook on Life.  As far as we would be concerned, a whole new person.  If, however, they should revert to their prepubescent ways, a little research and they would soon be off the Ramp.