Impeachment

[digglahhh]

Since there was an issue in a recent thread about one of the members making a statement that acutely offended another, who suggested the moderators ban the offensive poster, I started wondering.

What is the criteria used when moderators consider banning a member, and is it possible that members can indict other members who they feel are offensive, inflamatory or negative contributors to the site?

This is basically out of curiosity.

I understand that extending the authority of calling for the impeachment of fellow members to every member here could easily lead to the abuse of power by reactionaries quibbling over frivolities. I tend to have enough faith in the membership as a whole to not inundate this arena with petty disputes. In fact, I would posit that such a motion to impeach would be sought rather infrequently.

However, I can think of a couple of posters who have spent considerable time here who were wildly dispresctful, acted as provocatuers for its own sake and or added nothing of "SLAPS" value to the site. Two in particular, I believe have been banned.

I would assume a member would have to present substantial evidence of another's offenses.

Does the opportunity to oust other members exist here, or is it reserved for the discretion of a mod? Can it be done in this forum? Must discussion be relegated to PMs, just curious. I'm not planning on inciting a coop or anything.

[Mattingly]

What's the link to that thread where someone wanted another forumer banned?

Basically, if you know a Mod, then you can report another user’s infraction. It will then be at the various Mods’ thoughts as to whether that former will actually be banned.

I just don’t think we should have people recommending each other for banishment too often, or any disagreement will result in this.

[johnny]

Since there was an issue in a recent thread about one of the members making a statement that acutely offended another, who suggested the moderators ban the offensive poster, I started wondering.

What is the criteria used when moderators consider banning a member, and is it possible that members can indict other members who they feel are offensive, inflamatory or negative contributors to the site?

This is basically out of curiosity.

I understand that extending the authority of calling for the impeachment of fellow members to every member here could easily lead to the abuse of power by reactionaries quibbling over frivolities. I tend to have enough faith in the membership as a whole to not inundate this arena with petty disputes. In fact, I would posit that such a motion to impeach would be sought rather infrequently.

However, I can think of a couple of posters who have spent considerable time here who were wildly dispresctful, acted as provocatuers for its own sake and or added nothing of "SLAPS" value to the site. Two in particular, I believe have been banned.

I would assume a member would have to present substantial evidence of another's offenses.

Does the opportunity to oust other members exist here, or is it reserved for the discretion of a mod? Can it be done in this forum? Must discussion be relegated to PMs, just curious. I'm not planning on inciting a coop or anything.

As pointed out by yourself this could quickly spin out of control. That 'revolution' you reference in your tagline could become a Robspierre type of thing which did not end well. So I am wondering if the posts that you find offensive rise to the level that it is something to risk starting a s#@%-storm that could result in most of us losing our heads...

[johnny]

then again...

[Mattingly]

I was hurried before, so let me explain further now.

If you're a good forumer, treat others with the respect you'd like to receive yourself, then you basically will get a good reception if you're posting something directly to one of the Mods about a user's infraction. Basically, instead of worrying about what will happen as a result of your PM, please just tell us what happened and we'll follow through on this.

We can't be there to see all posts, as not every single thread do we all watch. However, if you notice something unusual out possibly uncouth, whether you're active in that thrad or merely skimming, then please do mention this to us.

As to outright banishment, the easiest ways for this to be done is constant use of 4-lettered words, as this site is designed to be strictly PG-rated, advertising products, especially after having been warned, or constantly being very boorish in nature towards others. Everything else is pretty much a judgment call.

Either case, we the Mods depend upon the regular forumers to let us know what's going on at BBF from your perspective. I find it to be a good and quality working relationship when both sides communicate and co-operate with one another.

-Matt

[digglahhh]

Johnny,

I don't have any particular members in mind that I want ousted. I was just curious because I have seen that people have been banned before. There was a recent thread in which a forumer used a racial slur and another took substantial offense. The exchange piqued my curiosity about the criteria and process used to determine whether a particular poster should be banned outright.

This an inquiry regarding BBF civics, if you will.

[johnny]

Johnny,

I don't have any particular members in mind that I want ousted. I was just curious because I have seen that people have been banned before. There was a recent thread in which a forumer used a racial slur and another took substantial offense. The exchange piqued my curiosity about the criteria and process used to determine whether a particular poster should be banned outright.

This an inquiry regarding BBF civics, if you will.

Actually, as I thought about your posts your making a good point that if the rules were kind of out front for all to see beforehand it would make any subsequent impeachment more tolerable. Strong light and clean air is a great antiseptic to any infection.
I mean, you and I have traded posts before but we always kept it above board and I found it to be interesting/educational. You give and take a shot well but don't flame. Much appreciated.
The poster with the racial slur was something I don't think -if I have the right one in mind- one that he intended as such but obviously was taken by at least one other party to be one. In that matter, I think it would be helpful to have the past history of the poster, listen to him/her explain exactly what was meant, and willingness to engage the aggrieved party in an honest dialogue. Reasonableness and good manners should be key.

[BristolBoy]

Johnny,

I don't have any particular members in mind that I want ousted. I was just curious because I have seen that people have been banned before. There was a recent thread in which a forumer used a racial slur and another took substantial offense. The exchange piqued my curiosity about the criteria and process used to determine whether a particular poster should be banned outright.

This an inquiry regarding BBF civics, if you will.

For what it's worth, I was on the end of a racial, well not slur, but remark that was unnecessary on a fair few occasions in one certain thread a few months ago. Don't know what happened to the poster though, although it could serve as a precedent for the future. Just thought I'd mention.

[digglahhh]

Johnny,

Thanks, I like to debate, the more impassioned and knowledgable the adversary the better, but civility is a must.

I also tend to agree that the slur was not intended as such, at least it appears that way on the surface. However the poster didn't seem to care how it was taken by the other. If I wanted to, I could accuse the Brewers organization of acting niggardly in their yearly negotiations with players. It's a real word and it just means to be cheap, but why not try to avoid the miscommunication in the first place. The user in question isn't particularly gracious about taking any sort of responsibility for the interpretations of what he says. His attitude is, it's not my fault that you took it the wrong way.

Really? It's not your fault that you called a black guy a coon and he got offended? C'mon that's nonsense. If you aren't trying to effectively communicate to people why bother writing anything at all? I always feel bad when somebody misinterprets something I said the wrong way because that means they took time to think about and compose a response to something I didn't mean to suggest; I wasted that person's time and effort so I feel responsible. Again, I'm not advocating banning anybody in specific. It would be nice to see a people be a little more considerate and less defensive though. When you make a comment that can easily be construed as racist you should at least be cordial about apologizing when somebody takes it that way, were it not your original intent. The lack thereof adds credence to the possibility that the taken reaction was the intended context.

[2Chance]

digglahhh,

I usually run into just the opposite around here, which is nice.

Most of us are very sensitive about offending somebody and go way out of their way not to. More than once I have sent somebody a message using my self-deprecating sense of humor (non-racial...usually something like "I'm a fool"), and one person in particular will return a PM saying something like "I didn't mean to insinuate thus and so." So I have to send another back saying, "no, you didn't offend me. Those were my words, not yours. Just kidding."

The civility and due respect at BBF is one of the main reasons several of us have continued to stick around.

[digglahhh]

2 Chance,

In general yes, but there are some notable exceptions, it is most common when people first join the site. I called somebody a "nutjob" in one of my first posts and got berated for it, but changed quickly. Once you have an established rapport with somebody it becomes a little different, your comments are textured and there's an understanding of the other's personality along with an undercurrent of respect. Many of the regulars call ElHalo nuts all the time, but there's a dynamic there and its punctuated by mutual respect.

[trosmok]

You can't yell "Theater!" in a crowded fire

One of the best ways to exile an unwanted antagonist is to ignore them. If someone repeatedly posts with no further replies, they tend to slink off to more slimy sites that abound on the web. I think it was about Joseph McCarthy that someone encouraged all others to simply ignore his particular brand of mischief; that above all else attention is what he craves.

I think the mods do a spot on job of keeping things lively and civil, without needing to have impeachments or banishments. If someone persists in vulgarity, name calling, personal attacks, etc. after being warned, yeah, they get their plug pulled posthaste.

Good natured ribbing goes on all the time, particularly in the bitter rivals thread, in case you haven't visited there in a while. Or maybe you are like King Arthur's knights in the Python's Holy Grail; in which case "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries." nudge nudge, knowhatimean, eh?