Voting to ban members

I haven't been around long enough to comment on this particular case, but in general, how does banning even work? Sure, an account can be disabled. But what's to stop someone from just creating another account? Doesn't the anonymity of an online community make banning someone rather pointless?

lightscribe wrote: I haven't been around long enough to comment on this particular case, but in general, how does banning even work? Sure, an account can be disabled. But what's to stop someone from just creating another account? Doesn't the anonymity of an online community make banning someone rather pointless?

Sometimes ... but truly we are on the honor system of ya wanna get actual. Hope- if ya wanna call it that. We hope people act right but some times they don’t. Rules rules rules. I remember my dad telling me “a thief will do what’s needed to steal regardless of deterrents.” Some times we are at the mercy of one another. Some times that’s a hard truth some times it’s a great truth. Depends on the day - time- activity - and a lot of small things that CAN play a factor but for the most part yea - your right about some one just logging on as some one different- happened in the past and will prolly happen in the future.

Lightscribe, people have been caught (and banned) using multiple accounts from the same IP address.
Sure there are ways around it, but ultimately the work required to get around security each account iteration is most likely not worth whatever rush someone gets from using this site's services.

I didn't realize it was based on IP address. I'm used to the kind of banning that happens when you report harassment on social media, which is often insufficient and easy to get around. I've experienced severe harassment and threats of violence online that weren't met with adequate action, so I think I brought those emotions into this situation without knowing all the facts. I apologize. Thank you for clarifying.

lightscribe wrote: I didn't realize it was based on IP address. I'm used to the kind of banning that happens when you report harassment on social media, which is often insufficient and easy to get around. I've experienced severe harassment and threats of violence online that weren't met with adequate action, so I think I brought those emotions into this situation without knowing all the facts. I apologize. Thank you for clarifying.

Think on this...

If they are unable to locate you physically and if they do not possess enough of your personal data to harm you, whatever they say is just that. However, if they do have your data, who gave it to them?

lightscribe wrote: I haven't been around long enough to comment on this particular case, but in general, how does banning even work? Sure, an account can be disabled. But what's to stop someone from just creating another account? Doesn't the anonymity of an online community make banning someone rather pointless?

Seems like banning should be restricted to cases of extreme behavior: bullying, harassment, etc. Unfortunately, it seems to be handled differently depending on one's friends and connections. I'm still trying to understand the apparent inequity myself. I thought I would have been contacted by mods about the situation I was in and none of them did.

I am all for thoughtful discourse, especially on this site. But let me make one thing very clear: harassment and threats are never the victim's fault. What I do or do not share online does not give anyone the right to harass or threaten me. Period.

It depends. If you 'share' things people don't like they can, and have on occasion every right to:

- Repeatedly ask you to stop (which can be perceived as harassment)
- Make numerous threats ranging from 'ignoring you' to 'taking you to court'.

Point is, what constitutes threats and harassment is a matter of opinion.

Ren, I'm happy to discuss this topic with anyone who wants to participate, but I think we should take that conversation to a separate thread.

The result of a vote (to ban) literally is 'popular opinion'. Discussing opinion is on-topic.

ren wrote: The result of a vote (to ban) literally is 'popular opinion'. Discussing opinion is on-topic.

Which is exactly why I don't personally support banning people based on popular vote. Mob rule makes terrible government.

What would you have instead? The issues discussed here, those being voted on, are matters of record. Matters of record in a legally-recognized non-profit organization that has to be able to produce documentation every time it collectively wipes its ass.

Why should banning not be based on popular vote at that point? Especially in cases of repeat offenders? And especially when most bans around this place aren't permanent enough to really make a difference?

steamboat28 wrote: What would you have instead? The issues discussed here, those being voted on, are matters of record. Matters of record in a legally-recognized non-profit organization that has to be able to produce documentation every time it collectively wipes its ass.

Why should banning not be based on popular vote at that point? Especially in cases of repeat offenders? And especially when most bans around this place aren't permanent enough to really make a difference?

When I ran places, I had a council. They decided everything by vote. The members had no say, other than the one making the appeal.

We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

Sounds like typical politics to me.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

Can u - and feel free to use ME for that purpose any time. I am almost 100 percent avalible anytime.

steamboat28 wrote: We have routinely petitioned for one or more representatives on the council that represent the common interest of members, and all of those propositions except one was shot down. The one they allowed us, they stripped power from those people, and when those representatives got burnt out, the Council refused to replace them.

We tried to get the members a voice. Repeatedly. It's just not allowed here for some reason.

There is an entire forum, a council secretary, other councillors to whom members can make requests. I don't receive many, and neither did the previous secretary.

And all three of you have amazingly missed the point. With at least two of you, it's habitual. Might want to gander at that.

Well - at any time - if anyone feels they need an advocate or a shoulder or some one to listen - by all means feel free to contact me ANYTIME for any reason. It is my joy and duty to serve the Temple. If you feel you need some on on your side or you need to voice a concern - or even you have suggestions - I - myself - am a click away. Offer stands from now until I log off for the last time. ( which will probably be for a long while- hopefully)

If ya need me I’m here. If ya don’t - well - I’m still here.
The truth no one says is this -
Banning sucks. Flat out. It hurts every one. There’s no ... easy way or magic words or even promise we -or I -or even any one can make to ease that fact. It should be a last result and after years and years (12) we still hurt after a banning or a threat of it. If there’s a better way - come out with it. I don’t use the word often but I HATE when people get banned. It shouldn’t be. We as humans should be aware and available mentally enough to know our limits and those around us.
Jedi teaching 3
Jedi are aware of the future impacts of action and inaction and of the influence of the past, but live in and focus on the Now. We let ourselves flow like water through the events around us. We embrace the ever changing and fluid world, adapting and changing as it does.
Jedi teaching 7.
Jedi understand their limitations. We recognise, and take responsibility, for our failures and develop a level of modesty about them. We respect the right for others to disagree and understand that they themselves are not perfect.


... and neither are we.

Tempest Nox wrote:

ren wrote: The result of a vote (to ban) literally is 'popular opinion'. Discussing opinion is on-topic.

Which is exactly why I don't personally support banning people based on popular vote. Mob rule makes terrible government.

Can you point me to a successful government system that is not based off popular vote?