banned member status

[gll99]

Bazooka's last viewable post appears normal but his status is banned

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1388509#1388509

Is this someone who left willingly by mofifying his email contact information,
was banned and the topic moved and therefore not available to others,
or did he just pull another name change (wasn't it gitreel before ?)

Thanks

[Bodyslide]

I think the mods cleaned house on people who had been banned, And then re signed up for another account. I might be wrong. There was a thread up about it and I can't locate it.

[TooLFooL]

is he really banned, or is he just playing with his member status?

[thecoalman]

I think the mods cleaned house on people who had been banned, And then re signed up for another account.

That was different though, he requested the gitreel account be banned. He wasn't exactly hiding the fact when he changed it either...

[jimmalenko]

Is this someone who left willingly by mofifying his email contact information

You are still an active member if you do this.

was banned and the topic moved and therefore not available to others

That's a distinct possibility.

or did he just pull another name change (wasn't it gitreel before ?)

I would have thought there'd be a thread advertising this if it were true.

I think the mods cleaned house on people who had been banned, And then re signed up for another account. I might be wrong. There was a thread up about it and I can't locate it.

In this case you're wrong, as Bazooka requested that the Gitreel account be banned as he was abandoning it. Baldrick adjusted Bazooka's post stats to reflect his earlier life as Gitreel. The thread you talk about has since been moved to closed topics, as myself and a few other people asked for an explanation of what exactly Bazooka was banned for, since Baldrick had supported the change of name at the time and so it couldn't have been for that we didn't think. Unfortunately no-one was prepared to answer

is he really banned, or is he just playing with his member status?

If you can make your member status turn red, please tell me how


The banter at The Pub suggests that he was forcibly banned.

[ROF]

As with most forums, I'd imagine Banned status is not something for valid discussion amongst the membership in open forum.

[smearbrick1]

As with most forums, I'd imagine Banned status is not something for valid discussion amongst the membership in open forum.

Why? It's perfectly normal for someone to be curious when they see a user has been banned. What increases that person's curiousity is when the offending post has been moved or deleted. Not that I am complaining, but this is why you get topics like this. Of course, by moving or deleting the offending post, you also don't have to argue your reasons for banning.

As Jimmalenko stated, I don't think Bazooka's banning was a request on his part.

[ROF]

That's just the point. The moderation staff at most forums does not have to offer their reasoning why someone is banned. Obviously it was because of a violation of the forum rules. Banned status is a matter to be handled between the person banned and the person who banned. All commentary in between is simply third party banter.

[ZAPPER]

As with most forums, I'd imagine Banned status is not something for valid discussion amongst the membership in open forum.

Out in the open is exactly where it belongs. All of the behind the closed door stuff (real or imagined) is what I think causes a large amount of the personal conflicts at these sites. Don't get me wrong, I am sure that there are times in the open forums that dictate a warning or banning. I seem to recall a time when Bazooka had a temper of sorts but I didn't see any flare ups at or about the time of the banning. (Maybe I missed it) It seems that these things tend to come and go in spurts. Too bad. I hate to see anyone get banned or feel that they need to quit.

[gll99]

gll99 wrote:
Is this someone who left willingly by mofifying his email contact information

Jim wrote
You are still an active member if you do this.

Jim I was under the impression that if you changed your email to one that is invalid your membership status became inactive. I also thought that I read that there was only one status indicator for inactive accounts and that was "banned". I guess I am probably wrong but if a mod could clear that up it would be great.

As far as discussing this openly I don't see the problem. I didn't ask for the details only the method just as when I saw that a mod had a banned status recently it looked like a joke and it was.

Anyone who is very active and suddenly is not heard from would attract a bit of curiousity (the red status tag sure helps). I have spent only a small amount of time in the OT in the last few months so may have missed something obvious to others.

[Faustus]

Jim I was under the impression that if you changed your email to one that is invalid your membership status became inactive. I also thought that I read that there was only one status indicator for inactive accounts and that was "banned". I guess I am probably wrong but if a mod could clear that up it would be great.

Not sure but I can find out.

[offtopic]

test

[Faustus]

^^^^

Nope, inactive does NOT show as banned.

[offline]

FYI gll99, I banned Bazooka. He was on a short leash since I last canceled his yellows and gave him a final chance to behave. Sadly it was not long before he broke this trust by causing a thread to be closed. I did not want to see him go but there are only so many chances you can give and not be accused of favoritism.

As far as ban's go. Everyone is free to discuss or question what they like so long as the rules are not broken or a mod feels there is sufficient reason against it. I should think most of the mods are happy to provide details if asked.

[Supreme2k]

That's the trouble with paranoia: sooner or later, it's justified. Eh, offline?

[ROF]

Good point offline, but I know I've always felt that moderators shouldn't have to feel forced to justify their reasoning to the masses. Bannings are a detriment to any site to begin with. Open forum topics asking for or discussing those reasonings further degrade the site by allowing the masses to voice their opinions. Banning involves two people. The person banned and the person who banned. If anyone else feels the need to know or stick their nose in others business, for the good of the site, such discussions should take place in private messages. Of course that's just my take on the subject.

[Supreme2k]

Open forum topics asking for or discussing those reasonings further degrade the site by allowing the masses to voice their opinions.

God Forbid we have a discussion on a discussion board

You have to add into the equation that a mod may go off their meds and unjustifiably ban or card someone (which has a few times here in the past).

[ROF]

Discussion is great, but discussion of detrimental subjects such as bannings which only involve two people is not good for any site. There are times when moderators make mistakes or pull drunken pranks. They are only human afterall except perhaps that one moderator.

[Supreme2k]

In my experience here, bannings rarely involve only two people. Often you have a baiter, a reactionary, and a mod.

It's natural curiosity to want to know why (someone was banned). Sometimes it's just a question of "Could it happen to me?"

[jdizzy40]

It will happen to you. The plan is to force all away from this site so that only the moderators will communicate with each other. They are afterall the "God's of Video".

[jimmalenko]

... or it's a matter of " .... Well I'll make sure that I don't do that then ... "

It's not about being a sticky beak - it's for informative purposes as far as I'm concerned.

[ROF]

In my experience here, bannings rarely involve only two people. Often you have a baiter, a reactionary, and a mod.

It's natural curiosity to want to know why (someone was banned). Sometimes it's just a question of "Could it happen to me?"

I've never seen a banning here that didn't include the moderator who banned the person and usually a deletion or edit of a post which caused the banning. For the benefit of all, if you are curious about someone elses business it would be much better for the entire site to just PM the moderator or other party involved and ask them why someone was put in time out. That's certainly better than opening topics about such negativity in open forum.

[Shadowmistress]

......

[gll99]

^^^^

Nope, inactive does NOT show as banned.

Thanks for testing that. I must have misinterpreted a statement (I believe from Baldrick) I read a while back.

@offline
Thank you for volunteering the information.
I've always appreciated your candor. (Webster definition 2 : freedom from prejudice or malice : FAIRNESS)

I only "knew" Bazooka through some banter over his name change a while back. I must have missed the threads in question.

I agree with some that in certain cases "discussion" could be disguised criticism but it should be fairly easy to spot and dealt with it accordingly so I would see no need to ban the subject itself from broad discussion.

[offline]

That's the trouble with paranoia: sooner or later, it's justified. Eh, offline?

Had to laugh at that but I'm sure there is an element of truth there.

It's natural curiosity to want to know why (someone was banned). Sometimes it's just a question of "Could it happen to me?"

Excellent point. We all know places were mods lord it over other users and their word is omnipotent. That is not the idea here. Our role is to help. The police bit is secondary but, of course, it gets highlighted.

Not everything is perfect and there are grey areas or different views on things and the right decision is not always made.

I agree with some that in certain cases "discussion" could be disguised criticism but it should be fairly easy to spot and dealt with it accordingly so I would see no need to ban the subject itself from broad discussion.

Very true. I agree in most circumstances. But there are some topics that only cause trouble and those are quickly moved to closed topics. Nothing is deleted btw.

[MackemX]

Excellent point. We all know places were mods lord it over other users and their word is omnipotent. That is not the idea here. Our role is to help. The police bit is secondary but, of course, it gets highlighted.

you can say that again as have you been over to the Deleted forums

please don't shit stir

moderatorffline

[MackemX]

But there are some topics that only cause trouble and those are quickly moved to closed topics. Nothing is deleted btw.

damn that was quick modding :P but I thought you said nothing got deleted?


Careful! I could always abuse myself under your name and then act all shocked and suprised before pushing the button. I'd just tell everybody you'd gone nuts - and they would believe me. :P
/Mod Offline

[Supreme2k]

Careful! I could always abuse myself
/Mod Offline

Hey! This is a family-friendly site!

[Nelson37]

First, I feel no need to "disguise" criticism. This is not a police state. I like to think of it as a benevolent dictatorship. I am not aware of any rule which states that we the users cannot object to or question the decision of a mod. We have no vote, or power to change this, but we sure as heck can make known our opinion.

As for the bannings and discussion - if I am at a social gathering, and see someone pee on the rug, and is then politely escorted out the door, I see and perceive this as a correct action, reinforcing my own rules of conduct.

However, if I see someone, apparently minding his own business, and particularly someone with whom I have had several reasonable conversations, and this person is suddenly thrown through a plate glass window, for no obvious reason, by people who are in authority, I begin to seriously question the environment I am in and whether or not I should seek the exit. Particularly when no explanation for this action is given. It is quite possible that the action was justified, also possible that it was excessive. (I have personally witnessed such an incident)

There is a very good reason that police and court actions should be public. Rules of conduct should be known and re-inforced, so that individuals are assured that these rules are in accordance with those they personally follow and believe in.

[dvdguy4]

I think the mods cleaned house on people who had been banned, And then re signed up for another account. I might be wrong. There was a thread up about it and I can't locate it.

I thought they they can keep tabs on that with peoples IP address.