A Public "Hall of Shame"?

[Peder]

Kookamoor,
Sounds like it's time I read the rules.

Yep!
Just read the TBF rules.

Almost as I expected, there are very nearly the same rules in three widely differing forums. No personal attacks, no profane, vulgar, abusive etc language, say the rules.

And yet with widely, and I mean widely, differing moderator reactions to profanity and personal attacks, ranging from almost anything goes to summary execution and removal of all one's posts.

Go figure!
The answer isn't in the rules,
Peder

 

[Ronny]

When I first looked at this thread I thought "right on". We don't need an entire forum dedicated to making nasty comments about banned members or begging for them to be brought back.

However, I read through the rest of the replies and it made me think. Ultimately it is going to happen whether there is a forum for it or not. Keeping it confined to one area would be better. That way only members can view it, and the members that don't want to don't have to. In my opinion, the most important part of a forum like this would be the way the threads are started. I think the initial posts should be very "just the facts". Emotions and anger shouldn't be a part of it. It should also be very clear why the person was banned. That way there's less "this is crap.." and more understanding as to why an action was taken (regardless of a member's popularity).

I'm with mehastings, I think it would be good for members to know who was banned and why. I think some questions would be ok, if it was for clarification on a point but we don't need to have a lot of emotional responses. While it is shocking and or upsetting that someone gets banned, I don't think we need 3 or 4 threads about it and there's always PMs for mourning your losses or taking up the cause with the mods. I really don't think that we need to have a banning take over the board for the day.

 

[Wabbit]

I think it's a good idea. I agree with kook that not every single banning needs to be posted but only those that were long standing members or those that caused a large amount of trouble.

 

[francesca]

I voted yes, because I think we should have access to who is banned and why. Hopefully it would stop a lot of inane and inaccurate speculation. I would also like to see inappropriate behaviour/language addressed in the thread itself by a moderator before it gets completely out of hand.

 

[jenn]

i voted yes too, as it cuts down rumour and speculation, well ideally.

 

[SFG75]

I think it's fair to say that the choice is very obvious at this point, the membership clearly wants this up. I don't know how much detail should be given. Having been here for over a month now, I can't believe that it would require an explanation. It seems like it would be an awful lot of work to get banned here.

I still believe that we should have a corresponding hall of fame "sticky" that would be for those who are generally helpful on the board and who have contributed to the board. I can think of about three members who would be shoe-ins for this award. It would be a great way to say "thank you."

 

[RainbowGurl]

It would be nice to have an idea of seeing who was banned without giving the personal reasons as to why they were banned as I have noticed in the past that quite a few people would make topics just asking where one perticular member is and later find out they have been banned. So yea, I think knowing who is banned would help out a few people on the forum as to wonder why someone who used to post regular started not posting anymore

 

[mehastings]

It would be nice to have an idea of seeing who was banned without giving the personal reasons as to why they were banned...

That's how we end up with rumors, speculations about unfairness and "Save So And So Threads" though. I think if there is going to be a forum like this you need to give the reasons. Otherwise it's pointless. You can see a member is banned simply by viewing their profile.

 

[RainbowGurl]

I was just meaning not a whole long story as to why they are banned, just a sentance and I did not know that it shows if a member is banned by looking at their profile

 

[mehastings]

I was just meaning not a whole long story as to why they are banned, just a sentance

Oh, I see. Yes, that is understandable. We don't need to know the graphic details, just enough so that it is very obvious why action was taken.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I voted 'yes' for this, as I agree that it will stop rumours and protests etc. starting up because people are ignorant of the reality of why someone was banned.

I don't, however, think that it should be 'read-only', for reasons similar to ones posted already ie discussion will occur anyways, so why not restrict it to the forum to which it relates.

Oh, I see. Yes, that is understandable. We don't need to know the graphic details, just enough so that it is very obvious why action was taken.

I absolutely agree - speculations on fairness and such will continue if it is not made clear as to why the person was banned.

I still believe that we should have a corresponding hall of fame "sticky" that would be for those who are generally helpful on the board and who have contributed to the board. I can think of about three members who would be shoe-ins for this award. It would be a great way to say "thank you."

I think that this is a great idea! I can think of a few people who certainly deserve a public "thank you"

MonkeyCatcher

 

[Stewart]

I think another interesting thing would be revealin the ratio of a vote by the moderators on whether to issue someone with a warning. It has now come to my attention that the warning was not decided by a democratic vote between the moderators but by one moderator who has a known dislike for me yet a relationship with a former moderator.

And, as that former moderator would say: i'm just saying....

 

[Martin]

Quoting me now - I feel so honoured.

I still think read-only is the best option.

 

[lies]

I still think read-only is the best option.

I think that'd defeat its purpose.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I think that'd defeat its purpose.

Agreed. The main purpose of this thread is to dispell curiosity and squash any rumors etc that may start to circulate from the banning of a board member, IMO, and I don't think that this could be done effectively if it was a read-only thread.

 

[Halo]

I think another interesting thing would be revealin the ratio of a vote by the moderators on whether to issue someone with a warning. It has now come to my attention that the warning was not decided by a democratic vote between the moderators but by one moderator who has a known dislike for me yet a relationship with a former moderator.

And, as that former moderator would say: i'm just saying....

What? Stewart, I wonder who you got this information from. It is completely wrong. The warning was not decided and actioned by one person - let me stress that never happens. Your warning was discussed and then decided between the mods on duty at the time.

If you would like to discuss this with me further, I will hopefully be here tonight.

 

[Stewart]

Stewart, I wonder who you got this information from. It is completely wrong.

I didn't get it from anyone. It's only a guess. Testing the water.

Your warning was discussed and then decided between the mods on duty at the time.

Thanks for that. "On duty at the time" is a new addition to what I'd previously read.

If you would like to discuss this with me further, I will hopefully be here tonight.

I think I'll be fine. Thanks for the offer.

 

[SFG75]

Call me nuts, but I'm really looking forward to seeing this option. Any projections as to when the hall will be up? Will there also be a hall of fame? I'd like to nominate some folks.

 

[Wabbit]

It's just an idea being bounced around at the moment. There is no implementation date as far as I know.

 

[Halo]

The moderators have discussed it and have decided that we will not be implementing this idea.