Truth and fact versus innuendo and speculatiion

[silly_slut]

Originally Posted by Blue_eyed_shy_guy

...a 'police blotter' of Mod disciplinary actions?

Actually, yeah. If the mods tied seabounds post signed as Hunter to ip addresses from Hunter posts, why not just state that? Hunter banned for having the same ip as seabound's posts? Obviously, it is easy to mask an ip but at some point they will cross with a fairly low likelyhood of occurrence.

Ty you for some actual thought on this.....I relish more productive input

[SpiceItUp]

Originally Posted by Blue_eyed_shy_guy

...a 'police blotter' of Mod disciplinary actions?

Originally Posted by silly_slut

Actually, yeah. If the mods tied seabounds post signed as Hunter to ip addresses from Hunter posts, why not just state that? Hunter banned for having the same ip as seabound's posts? Obviously, it is easy to mask an ip but at some point they will cross with a fairly low likelyhood of occurrence.

Ty you for some actual thought on this.....I relish more productive input

Mods are not permitted to discuss the details of disciplinary actions. It's that way by design. Yes it leads to speculation and such but there's a method to the madness that few seem to appreciate.

In the old ASPD days it was not so, and bans were sometimes (selectively) announced publicly often leading to the ostracization of offenders. Also, all of the details were rarely able to be put forth and much of the context was lost...and, trust me, it's rarely black and white. The problem with that approach of public shaming is that it does not allow the offender to make a mistake and then put it behind them in the future and be a valuable site contributor thereafter.

And that's exactly what happens in 95%+ of cases where someone is banned. They learn from it, don't do it again, and life goes on. When the mob mentality gets involved it's simply not possible. So when this site was set up the determination was made to do things differently and allow members every opportunity to be "rehabilitated".

People will look at this explanation and cite the extremes as evidence that the system currently does not work but it actually works as intended the vast majority of the time. Well over 95% of members who get banned never cause any issues when they return.

So no, we will not discuss disciplinary actions. It's between that member and the staff, and rightly so..

[Blue_eyed_shy_guy]

I can't really think of a downside to that. Would it be technically feasible to create a 'bot that posts logs of member bannings and perhaps a short multiple choice explanation of why the banning took place? I.e. blue_eyed_shy_guy banned 12/31/16 duplicate ip address & browser header shared with Sockpuppet69, and posted to city based threads where only the 'bot has post access and everyone else is read only?

[Blue_eyed_shy_guy]

Eh,n/m. Perhaps another avenue of discussion should be making account creation more difficult for the recividists.

[Gamer]

Originally Posted by moonshiner

Absolutely not because I couldn't give two fucks about you.

Originally Posted by Whispers

Every response you give him proves you care

Whispers is a harsh mistress.

[Whispers]

But......

Hunter was behind the seabound handle....

JadeRose was Travelerman and has a few others

Claire has had dozens and still posts here

Plainvanillaatx is here in case you hadn't noticed.

Chelsea Bean is around.....

KittyBunnyFuck said she was done but is still here......

You are someone hiding behind a handle and want transparency?

A lot of stuff presented and unbelievable to many here can easily be proven but proving it brings real world information to the board.and that's not allowed.

You tended to feel that things could be changed in your last incarnation. I don't know why you fail to understand that the board is privately owned and ran to the owner's wishes.

[David.Douchehurst]

All y'all needs ta pull yer haids outta yer asses. No matter witch side o' tha fence yer on, 'xpectin' truth an,' integr'ty onna HOOKER BOARD, dedimahcated ta an ILLEGAL, soshuhmally IMMORAL activity is laik 'xpectin' French Vanilla ice cream ta cum outta mah BUTTHOLE! Now, Ah mite be able ta hook all y'all wif sum Dutch Chok'lit, but it mite be Tin Roof. Ah had a lotta goober peas today! An sum korn niblets, tew! Eat up, folks! DeeeSsert is serv'd!

[Toyz]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

Mods are not permitted to discuss the details of disciplinary actions. It's that way by design. Yes it leads to speculation and such but there's a method to the madness that few seem to appreciate.

In the old ASPD days it was not so, and bans were sometimes (selectively) announced publicly often leading to the ostracization of offenders. Also, all of the details were rarely able to be put forth and much of the context was lost...and, trust me, it's rarely black and white. The problem with that approach of public shaming is that it does not allow the offender to make a mistake and then put it behind them in the future and be a valuable site contributor thereafter.

And that's exactly what happens in 95%+ of cases where someone is banned. They learn from it, don't do it again, and life goes on. When the mob mentality gets involved it's simply not possible. So when this site was set up the determination was made to do things differently and allow members every opportunity to be "rehabilitated".

People will look at this explanation and cite the extremes as evidence that the system currently does not work but it actually works as intended the vast majority of the time. Well over 95% of members who get banned never cause any issues when they return.

So no, we will not discuss disciplinary actions. It's between that member and the staff, and rightly so..

Good.

If it's between member and the staff I have made formal requests.to know why I was banned the latest time.

I feel it was retaliation for a post I made on the national board.

The stooges manufactured that one and its just one of the many RR bandles he is allowed to use across multiple forums. For some reason the mods cant or wont, ban his continously manufactured fake handles.

How do I get a formal response on the justified reason for that ban? And which MOD did it...

Do I need to send a request to St Christopher with a outline of what happened?

[dodger]

fine to say "i think coed should be more provider and newbie friendly, fewer personal attacks" ... and stop there. btw ... not gonna happen. but easy enough to ignore or block offenders. then ... post your own good shit.

[SpiceItUp]

Originally Posted by Toyz

Good.

If it's between member and the staff I have made formal requests.to know why I was banned the latest time.

I feel it was retaliation for a post I made on the national board.

The stooges manufactured that one and its just one of the many RR bandles he is allowed to use across multiple forums. For some reason the mods cant or wont, ban his continously manufactured fake handles.

How do I get a formal response on the justified reason for that ban? And which MOD did it...

Do I need to send a request to St Christopher with a outline of what happened?

Send whatever you like to whomever you like. Just know that it was:

1) justified, I would have banned you for it also
2)not manufactured, and not possible to manufacture
3)at least one admin was involved as well

Whatever narrative you're trying to propel regarding some kind of moderator malfeasance or retaliation is off the mark here my man. Sorry.

If you'd like to discuss the details feel free to shoot me a PM, I'm not at liberty to discuss them publicly.

[Toyz]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

Send whatever you like to whomever you like. Just know that it was:

1) justified, I would have banned you for it also
2)not manufactured, and not possible to manufacture
3)at least one admin was involved as well

Whatever narrative you're trying to propel regarding some kind of moderator malfeasance or retaliation is off the mark here my man. Sorry.

If you'd like to discuss the details feel free to shoot me a PM, I'm not at liberty to discuss them publicly.

PM sent...

And sorry...the history of how these forums have been moderated in the past predate you.

Maybe they've changed, and we all hope for that.

[Whispers]

Originally Posted by Toyz

I feel it was retaliation for a post I made on the national board.

You have always been a "special" child here in Austin and......truthfully....... I asked staff to try to be understanding of you here.....

My "influence" (as you suggest is present) does not extend very far from home and when you wonder away as you did there you will find mean and intolerant people that look at you differently.

In the future please stay closer to home where we can look after you.

[Toyz]

Originally Posted by silly_slut

Interesting thoughts. I was thinking less about rw Id or pay subscription and more along the lines of more transparency from the mods, aka so and so banned for having duplicate accounts as named accounts.

I agree that there is a balancing act legally that must be maintained.....hmmmmm

Has no basis under legalities. It's a private chat board, doesn't fall under ammendment rights of "free speech". Owner/operator is free to exercise penalties as he/she/they feel is fitting.

Obviously a set of rules give a semblance of non corruption to give the participants some peace of mind.

The problem is you have manipulators and alliances formed with the executors of the loosely written rules. That leads to corruption over time.

And it's the primary reason I think we need:

1). Moderator term limits
2). Moderators NOT moderating in the geographical area they hobby in.

[Whispers]

I know TOys... We all know.....Now go draw us some more pretty pictures and watch some more daytime television......

[Toyz]

Originally Posted by Whispers

I know TOys... We all know.....Now go draw us some more pretty pictures and watch some more daytime television......

Who's "we" stooge? You realize no one wants you speaking for them right?

Go clean out your manflap...little Ricky's sick from the odor.