LOL @ disagreeing with my agreement to someone else @aubreymcfato . I don't agree with them in your opinion? I think I do! But more on topic: Do you think the site should talk about why they banned a member, without the banned member having a chance to respond? Seems like we'd only get one side of the story. If the banned person (in this case @neroden) wishes to share, that's completely his right. But the site should not share info, imo, unless it's in a conversation with the person involved.
I think that if an offense was bad enough to ban someone over, then it would be good for others to know what not to do in order to avoid the same fate. As an analogy, if people around me start being vaporized due to something they said, I'd love to know how to avoid being vaporized. Without some knowledge of the offense, others either leave in fear or shut down and refrain from talking in an effort to remain a solid. I know, it's a corny analogy, but I think it gets my point across.
At least that's more information than NO side of the story. The fact that he was banned DOES give us "one side of the story", but we have to just blindly trust that there was a "TOS violation". We also don't know if the ban is permanent. If I had to wager a guess, neroden personally insulted a mod after what he saw as heavy handed moderation and deletion of content that took neroden quite some time to put together, without giving him an opportunity to at least copy it so that it could be reused in a more appropriate thread (possibly reformatted to address moderator concerns). I happen to also be a moderator of other fora, so I've been there before (on both sides). What I do know is that it's best for the moderator team to give a short statement as to their side of the story, but not one that is open to challenge (in the other forum we gently told people to take their whinging about a pârticular moderator decision, which was by then collective, in a FaceBook group they could make, which the complainers then indeed did create -- and I was accepted as a member there ;-) ).
Exactly. He cannot respond here. I would be uncomfortable with only one side of the story being told. On the other hand, Neroden does have other social media accounts. I imagine we'll see him sharing his opinion in no time.
Yes, I know that you do ;-) Well, how can he? He's banned and cannot reply. My disagreement with mods/owners is more both in the method and the thing itself: a permanent ban on a community is the most serious action a mod can do there was no involvement whatsoever of the community when a mod told me privately about the ban (as a courtesy) he told me explicitly I could not talk about this with anyone when I "disobeyed" and published a post about this they deleted my post and all the replies You see the catch-22? Theoretically a mod could ban anyone and then the community could not "have the right" to talk about that. FWIW, I appreciate the fact that we talk now here, though I don't understand if it's a deliberate decision (I think and hope so).
Bottom line, it's the policy of this site not to share details on why someone has been banned, permanent or temporary. They're consistent on that. I happen to agree with that policy. Sure, there are times I'd love to know the prurient details, but that's just gossip. I know the boundaries here & I'll bet all of you do, too. From what you've written, a moderator asked you not to betray his trust & you did it anyway. It's not that they stopped the community talking about what happened to neroden, it's that they removed your post that was in direct conflict with something they shared with you in confidence. Clearly your decision and your right to betray - but not a surprise that the mod removed something that was meant to be confidential.
So a couple things that I think are important to distinguish: Breaking a moderator's trust is almost never a great idea, unless there's a damn good reason for it... ...but trying to hide whether a long-time, prolific user is banned from the site is an even worse idea.
We should know at least if the ban is permanent or not. Don’t understand why that detail should matter either way. Is Neroden permanently banned from TMC?
He said the following to me in a PM, “Mods have now banned me from posting,” We had been communicating in a thread that for some reason was shut down - I wasn’t clear on why that was. It was related to service issues, and did discuss posts being removed, and the word “censured” was used. Don’t know if that is a trigger. I just reviewed the t’s and c’s, and perhaps my last post in that thread which asked if there were other Tesla forums, could have been construed as an attempt to encourage others to leave; it was not in fact - it was a question, which has also been asked upthread here. I value the exchange in this forum, but remain perplexed about what happened here. Lest someone accuse me of violating a private message, neroden asked me to convey that he was banned, if/when appropriate, which I have. A simple statement of fact.
Speaking as a moderator uninvolved with neroden's situation (I moderate subforums that he rarely or never participated in), and certainly not making any specific statements about his status, I will say the following. Permanent bans on this site typically come after multiple warnings and repeated breach of the Terms. Typically, other tools such as probation (posts must be approved by a moderator first) and temporary bans are the first steps. And depending on the severity of the actions, permanent bans can take from a few infractions to many infractions to eventually be issued. Finally, permanent bans are at the sole discretion of the admins of the site, not the moderators. Moderators may recommend, discuss, and weigh in after reviewing reports, but in the end, it's the admins who make the call. If someone has received multiple temporary bans, warnings, and the like, they have ample opportunity to share their side of the story prior to a permanent ban. They also are given opportunities to stay within the Terms - that's the point of a warning. If <insert your favorite ultimate do-good public figure> does wonderful things, but gets caught drinking and driving every night, he or she is going to jail. The positive contributions are appreciated, but rules are rules. Again, none of this is specific to neroden, but will hopefully aid in understanding that there is a lot going on behind a permanent ban.
Damn. I appreciated nerodens perspective and will miss his viewpoint. One of my favorite posters on this crazy thread. FWIW.
Thanks for your input. For me the issue is it seems that some folks can go on and on with nonsense and never get banned. I am a lurker in the Climate change/Global Warming Discussion thread. Your back and forth with jrad is a perfect example. IMHO he is a troll and add's nothing to the forum. Yet he post's over and over again. Of course I don't know all the details ....but from the cheap seats it looks pretty lopsided to ban a member that has added a ton of worthwhile post's and leave a obvious troll alone.
I suppose the reason is that CC/GW doesn't get near the number of posts, and most just ignore the trolls.
Take an look at that toxic for sale thread P90DL, doxing, name calling, talk about a ban worth thread.
Thanks for sharing this. First time I've heard it stated. If you're willing and comfortable sharing, what's the longest temporary ban power available to moderators?
There are going to be inconsistencies with moderation anywhere. Ideally there are none, but we have different individuals with different personalities each volunteering to enforce the rules of the site the best they can. Different forums here have significantly different dynamics, and may require different moderation styles. Heck, I bet I vary in my moderation style week to week despite trying my best to be consistent. Recency bias and all the rest play into it. In some cases, moderation is almost nonexistent since the moderator assigned to the forum might not be a regular here anymore, so it falls on the lead moderator to review all reports. As Jerry noted, post volume matters as well. A forum with a higher post volume gets more moderators. I reject plenty of reports in Model 3 and Y, where I moderate. I'm sure the person reporting the post thinks I'm unfair for rejecting it, and if I moved or deleted the post, the person who posted it would think I was unfair. And observers will agree with one or the other, depending on their stance on the issue or on moderation in general. This is why it's a losing effort in many ways - it's rare to make a decision that doesn't upset at least one person. "Assume best intentions" is the best advice I can give anyone when it comes to how things are moderated. We're really trying our best to help out the community.