Petition to ban Bishadi
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2012, 12:28 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
I've seen no Bishadi BS. He ban hammered or just stop posting?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2012, 12:29 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
(12-09-2012 12:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I've seen no Bishadi BS. He ban hammered or just stop posting?

He got banhammered.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2012, 12:42 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
(12-09-2012 12:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I've seen no Bishadi BS. He ban hammered or just stop posting?
Hahahahaha. Laughat

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
12-09-2012, 03:45 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
Sorry to revisit this when everyone is moving on, but it seems to me we’ve only kicked the can down the road.

I’m not sad Bishadi was banned. It’s clear from his history he’s an unstable character who gets weird satisfaction out of joining forums, acting like an ass, and provoking people to the point he’s kicked out. He was trashing the forum. I’m glad he’s gone.

The reason he was banned is spam: he was nailed for violating one of the Big Four No-no’s: Porn, Nudity, Threats, and Spam. According to our rules as I understand them, those are the things—and only the things—that will get you banned from TTA.

Was Bishadi a spammer? That depends on your definition of spam. Is an explicit definition stated anywhere on the forum? If not, I would think it should be, since members should know what the rules are. I checked several definitions of spam online. From what I’ve seen, it’s not clear to me that posting similar content in thread after thread is what people typically mean by the word, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. So far so good: Bishadi spammed, he’s gone.

But what about the next Bishadi? What happens when the next member joins who’s clearly out to trash the forum—and they’re clever enough not to violate any of the Big Four? It’s not hard to imagine how someone could do that. What do we do then? Seems to me that under the present policy, the only mechanism we have is to hope they’ll slip up and commit a Big Four violation. Maybe we can provoke them into making a threat, say, in which case we breathe a collective sigh of relief and congratulate ourselves that we can finally ban the jerk. But unless and until we can nail the person in this way, we have to tolerate their toxic presence.

What Erx said in announcing Bishadi’s ban is significant:

Erxomai Wrote:In the end, we decided the health of this forum is more important to us than interpretations of specific rules. But, in keeping with the rules, we came to the decision that he had been warned not to flood the forum with threads of the same topic. As Logica so well summarized, he continued to do what he was asked not to. [Emphasis added.]

That, I think, hits the nail on the head: what trumps all other considerations should be the health of the forum. The thing that concerns me is that if we stick exclusively to the current mechanism for banning, we may not be able to protect the forum’s health down the road.

That said, I’m not claiming to have the answer. A fifth category for “people who are clearly up to no good” presents obvious problems. All I’m saying is that I don’t think we’re done with this. We still need to discuss how we can curtail or remove individuals who are clearly a detriment to the forum but who have not violated the existing rules, while we continue to maintain the openness and freedom of expression that we value.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
12-09-2012, 04:59 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
(12-09-2012 03:45 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Sorry to revisit this when everyone is moving on, but it seems to me we’ve only kicked the can down the road.

I’m not sad Bishadi was banned. It’s clear from his history he’s an unstable character who gets weird satisfaction out of joining forums, acting like an ass, and provoking people to the point he’s kicked out. He was trashing the forum. I’m glad he’s gone.

The reason he was banned is spam: he was nailed for violating one of the Big Four No-no’s: Porn, Nudity, Threats, and Spam. According to our rules as I understand them, those are the things—and only the things—that will get you banned from TTA.

Was Bishadi a spammer? That depends on your definition of spam. Is an explicit definition stated anywhere on the forum? If not, I would think it should be, since members should know what the rules are. I checked several definitions of spam online. From what I’ve seen, it’s not clear to me that posting similar content in thread after thread is what people typically mean by the word, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. So far so good: Bishadi spammed, he’s gone.

But what about the next Bishadi? What happens when the next member joins who’s clearly out to trash the forum—and they’re clever enough not to violate any of the Big Four? It’s not hard to imagine how someone could do that. What do we do then? Seems to me that under the present policy, the only mechanism we have is to hope they’ll slip up and commit a Big Four violation. Maybe we can provoke them into making a threat, say, in which case we breathe a collective sigh of relief and congratulate ourselves that we can finally ban the jerk. But unless and until we can nail the person in this way, we have to tolerate their toxic presence.

What Erx said in announcing Bishadi’s ban is significant:

Erxomai Wrote:In the end, we decided the health of this forum is more important to us than interpretations of specific rules. But, in keeping with the rules, we came to the decision that he had been warned not to flood the forum with threads of the same topic. As Logica so well summarized, he continued to do what he was asked not to. [Emphasis added.]

That, I think, hits the nail on the head: what trumps all other considerations should be the health of the forum. The thing that concerns me is that if we stick exclusively to the current mechanism for banning, we may not be able to protect the forum’s health down the road.

That said, I’m not claiming to have the answer. A fifth category for “people who are clearly up to no good” presents obvious problems. All I’m saying is that I don’t think we’re done with this. We still need to discuss how we can curtail or remove individuals who are clearly a detriment to the forum but who have not violated the existing rules, while we continue to maintain the openness and freedom of expression that we value.
Welcome to my world dude..........

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2012, 05:13 PM (This post was last modified: 12-09-2012 05:29 PM by DeepThought.)
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
(12-09-2012 03:45 PM)cufflink Wrote:  Sorry to revisit this when everyone is moving on, but it seems to me we’ve only kicked the can down the road.

I’m not sad Bishadi was banned. It’s clear from his history he’s an unstable character who gets weird satisfaction out of joining forums, acting like an ass, and provoking people to the point he’s kicked out. He was trashing the forum. I’m glad he’s gone.

The reason he was banned is spam: he was nailed for violating one of the Big Four No-no’s: Porn, Nudity, Threats, and Spam. According to our rules as I understand them, those are the things—and only the things—that will get you banned from TTA.

Was Bishadi a spammer? That depends on your definition of spam. Is an explicit definition stated anywhere on the forum? If not, I would think it should be, since members should know what the rules are. I checked several definitions of spam online. From what I’ve seen, it’s not clear to me that posting similar content in thread after thread is what people typically mean by the word, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way. So far so good: Bishadi spammed, he’s gone.

But what about the next Bishadi? What happens when the next member joins who’s clearly out to trash the forum—and they’re clever enough not to violate any of the Big Four? It’s not hard to imagine how someone could do that. What do we do then? Seems to me that under the present policy, the only mechanism we have is to hope they’ll slip up and commit a Big Four violation. Maybe we can provoke them into making a threat, say, in which case we breathe a collective sigh of relief and congratulate ourselves that we can finally ban the jerk. But unless and until we can nail the person in this way, we have to tolerate their toxic presence.

What Erx said in announcing Bishadi’s ban is significant:

Erxomai Wrote:In the end, we decided the health of this forum is more important to us than interpretations of specific rules. But, in keeping with the rules, we came to the decision that he had been warned not to flood the forum with threads of the same topic. As Logica so well summarized, he continued to do what he was asked not to. [Emphasis added.]

That, I think, hits the nail on the head: what trumps all other considerations should be the health of the forum. The thing that concerns me is that if we stick exclusively to the current mechanism for banning, we may not be able to protect the forum’s health down the road.

That said, I’m not claiming to have the answer. A fifth category for “people who are clearly up to no good” presents obvious problems. All I’m saying is that I don’t think we’re done with this. We still need to discuss how we can curtail or remove individuals who are clearly a detriment to the forum but who have not violated the existing rules, while we continue to maintain the openness and freedom of expression that we value.

This


My intention with the naughty forum was as a mechanism for dealing with people who don't fit cleanly into the big four rules. That said - even the big four are subjective. Bishadi's spam wasn't commercial in nature so some might say he hasn't spammed and is just mentally ill and genuinely believes the shit he posts. Maybe we are twisting ourselves into a knot trying to make people fit the label spammer, etc, due to lack of mechanisms to deal with these people.

Someone mentioned the solution is add him to the ignore list. Problem solved.

I disagree. First of all it's unrealistic to expect everyone in the forum to do this and secondly his toxic rubbish still shows up for any public visitors browsing the site. In a small way the content of the forums reflects something on our community. Bishadi was there with a pocket knife slashing our furniture, smashing the vases and shitting on the carpet.

IMO that needs to be contained elsewhere. I think the current mechanism is broken because we have no fuzzy middle ground. We have a mechanism for banning people permanently but no mechanism for containing bullshit.

If I run my scenarios - imagine if TheArcticSage had been contained temporarily in a 'naughty forum'... 2 things could happen. He leaves (same result as being banned), or he cleans up his act and becomes a regular member again.

Bishadi - in naughty forum. He gets to fuck around in there or he gets bored and leaves. In the naughty forum he's not bothering anyone.

A fuzzy middleground between banning and running rampant could be useful.

Even with this idea there are a number of issues. In a case like Bishadi it was pretty clear cut.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeepThought's post
12-09-2012, 05:31 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
Quote:(All rules subject to change without notice or reason.)

Copied from the rules.

Perhaps we should add something like, "the administration reserves the right to ban, delete, or edit memberships at their discretion."

It supplies that "out" when circumstances get foggy.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
12-09-2012, 05:37 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
(12-09-2012 05:31 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
Quote:(All rules subject to change without notice or reason.)

Copied from the rules.

Perhaps we should add something like, "the administration reserves the right to ban, delete, or edit memberships at their discretion."

It supplies that "out" when circumstances get foggy.

I like this idea. To be honest I know it's kinda unfair to lump you with the responsibility but I have full trust in you to make a judgement call when necessary. We don't necessarily need a specific rule for people to break. We welcome everyone but when someone becomes an issue you call it either way.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
12-09-2012, 05:44 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
My intent isn't even to have me or Erx be able to ban. We would still approach it as a staff decision. The only deciding we would do is to decide if a ban represents what the forum team wants in general.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2012, 05:47 PM
RE: Petition to ban Bishadi
(12-09-2012 05:44 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  My intent isn't even to have me or Erx be able to ban. We would still approach it as a staff decision. The only deciding we would do is to decide if a ban represents what the forum team wants in general.

That's kinda what I meant. One of the reasons I think it's a good idea to essentially put all power in your hands is that you take that approach. You've never had to involve anyone else in decision making yet you do. It's part of what makes you such a good admin in my eyes.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: