The opinion of banned members has no worth?

reply to post by Doomzilla

I commend you for being here 6 years and still being a sane decent guy lol

I 2nd that motion, that is a true feat only accomplish-able by a man/woman of true spirit and integrity.

Originally posted by Doomzilla
Being here from 2005 as you have you must have seen it all ! lol
You certainly have an interesting job ," hey honey youll never guess what this guy claimed at work today "

I'd rather not reference a previously-coined/used phrase here, but...

It's Not a job, It's an Adventure

Cliche, yes ... but descriptive and actual nonetheless ... for me, at least.

Can't say that a day's gone by over the past several years where I didn't learn of, realize, come to understand or be made to see something from a different vantage point.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apologies to WhizPhiz for the subsequent and somewhat off-topic thread distraction/derailment ...

NOW back to ...

The opinion of banned members has no worth?

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


I keep looking for the 'Opportunities' tab here so I can forward my resume, but I think since the 2010 redesign, SO forgot to add it back in

Question: Can someone please assist me? How do I get banned, then get a spitload of stars during my PostBanned status? It has always been my life's ambition to achieve such a goal, cementing my CT legacy.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

How do I get banned

If you can't figure out that much, well your legacy may never be fulfilled.
Seriously though, don't do that crap. You can't get stars after being banned now anyway.
Why would you want to do such a thing anyway, that's why crap like this is implemented in the first place!

EDIT: Oh, and trust me, you'd need a hell of a profile for members around here to even give you a second glance upon banning. You'll just be forgotten about and no one will be there to support you when the time comes - you'll just blow away in the wind like you'll never here.

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
maybe if some sort of slight explanation was given when very popular members get banned

Easy enough. Everyone who has ever been, or will ever be banned finds themselves thusly situated for violations of the site Terms and Conditions. It's no secret.

Some are banned after repeatedly violating it overandoverandover again for more minor infractions like off-topic posting or incivility, but refuse to comply with repeated attempts to correct their behavior through private messaging and post-banning. Others go out in a temporary blaze by committing really egregious, over the top violations that are so heinous, no remedial efforts are attempted.

But that's it. No other reasons exist.

Popularity is by no means insulation from action. Not for the general membership, not for the staff. Play nice, be civil, stay on topic, don't lie, don't steal, don't be a jerk. Sounds simple, and isn't anything the average kindergartner doesn't know. Unfortunately, it's apparently easier said than done for some.

I think that this response lacks the depth and insight that was being asked for by WhizPhiz. I think its pretty obvious that what is being requested is a transparant process where the exact reasons for each ban are made public, perhaps a board for this would be appropriate. It is not adequate to merely say " The poster was banned for violations of T&C.". Thats almost as ridiculous as saying that a person has been arrested because they have commited an offence against the law. It offers no explanation whatsoever. Tempting as it would be to say "No, no explanation has been given, and there wont be in the future either" that also is unacceptable. Theres not alot the mere users can do about it, but like it or not, the situation of posters being banned without details of EXACTLY the circumstances of that ban either being made available on request , or on a board dedicated to the topic, is not right, and should be changed.

reply to post by TrueBrit


members get banned for all kinds of infractions. We've had pedophiles, criminal activity discussions, porn postings etc. Constant refusal to adhere to the terms and conditions, such as continual personal attacks, refusal to post on topic, etc are usually the reason. There are cases where a member decides he wants to leave in a manner that, in their eyes, will impress their friends, thus they intentionally break as many rules as possible and we've had folks who have, politely, requested that their account be banned.

Many times, a member will post something that results in moderator action of some sort. This can range from plagiarism to merely a change in forum and the member, for whatever reason, cannot handle the action and they go off the rails, insulting the moderator that tagged. We do our best to talk them down but, from time to time, their ego gets the best of them, they start verbally abusing the staff, and they are banned.

Lastly, we've got the hoaxers. They get banned for knowingly hoaxing the site and their bannings are, usually, understood and accepted by the members.

reply to post by Crakeur


I understand that there are myriad causes for bans , but what I am saying is that perhaps rather than a blanket ban on the mere discussion of reasoning behind such bans, that a forum be opened which details the banning of individual members and the reasons for those bans.
I understand that there are occasions where a members ban might be the result of behaviour which is criminal and might attract negative attention from other users, and random forces unseen on the internet. Obviously these cases would be difficult to outline without potential risk to the user in question,and discretion in that instance would of course be understandable.
However, I still feel that a case by case report on most bans, placed in a forum specificaly dedicated to that information, would go some way to assuaging some of the issues that remaining members have with what can appear to be unusual or strangely timed bans. I know that the moderators and staff of ATS have an awful lot to do, and are dedicated and motivated people, and I appreciate thier work, but I also know that some people are just inherantly mistrustful, and it is for that increasingly vocal section of the posting public here, that I feel this feature could do the most good.
Is there any particular reason that you can think of, why such a forum should not exist?

reply to post by TrueBrit


discussing the bannings would only create unwanted drama on the boards.

reply to post by Crakeur


But when members get banned out of the blue without any official explanation it only results in rumour mongering and at times wild accusations in addition to increased suspicion and mistrust of the site owners and their 'agenda'.
A simple post giving the bare bones behind the banning could be beneficial for both members and Staff / Admin.

Slightly off topic and I've already mentioned this but, can we have the red warn tags back please?

Originally posted by Freeborn
But when members get banned out of the blue without any official explanation it only results in rumour mongering and at times wild accusations in addition to increased suspicion and mistrust of the site owners and their 'agenda'.

If someone is inclined to rumor monger and be distrustful of the owners and their 'agenda', then no explanation will suffice. What it does, is generate even more drama for something that is between the site and the member involved. We understand, people love the drama (not referring to you, here) and some go way above and beyond to instigate it, or magnify it, wherever possible. We prefer to focus on the topics we're set up to discuss, not the individual personal situations which frankly, are no one else's business.

It would be so cool to have a running notification of banned members. I have had the luck to catch last postings from a couple of members who, writing like a last gasp in a dirty pond for air, were upset that management had warned them repeatedly to stop with the cant in their postings/threads, and they were gone. My u2u may have gone unsent as it appeared the member was disgruntled enough to warrant a ban, while, in fact, this poster was voluntarily leaving. The farewell thread was deleted, immediately.

I am able to see through stars, or the absence of them, to see the value of a person's postings. Flags are of greater value. The truth is that there are so many good threads presented daily that one really has no time to surf the many mediocre ones. Giving stars takes time. I don't think it's nice to remove a person's stars since it took time on behalf of the star giver's to give them.

reply to post by yeahright


I can see both sides of the arguement and fully understand and respect the current policy.

But in a time when we are starting to demand more and more transparency from those in positions of authority and responsibility is it not fair to wish for the same here?

I know there have been instances in the past where members of previous good standing and whom I had gained respect for have been mysteriously banned for no obvious reason and it has caused ill feeling and resentment.
Of course I am aware that things would hav most likely been happening behind the scenes and that banning is usually a last resort.

I can recall someone getting banned and quite a few members were shocked.
Posts were sent back and forth and it got pretty heated.
It eventually transpired that the member had been abusive, possibly sexually if I recall correctly, in chat and only the small handful of members who were in chat at the time knew about it.
If even just the bare bones of the facts had been known by all from the outset of the banning then no-one would have tried to defend him and it would have stopped a lot of animosity and saved the Mods from a lot of hassle and grief.

Friendships are forged on these boards and it is understandable that people wish to know what has happenned to their friends / associates etc.
Glib dismissals of their concerns does no-one any favours.

reply to post by Freeborn


more often than not, when a member such as you describe, gets banned, it's a result of their being incapable of having the staff action anything they do. They get actioned for something, whatever it might be, and their ego takes over and they start berating the staff, calling them names, threatening to take their stellar intellect, and all their friends elsewhere etc. End result, they get themselves banned and, more ofthen than not, the original infraction is minor but the ego cannot handle the concept that they are not perfect.

Now, when this happens, do we need to tell the members that Freeborn, who has put up some incredible work, acted like a two year old when we moved his thread from aliens and ufos to general news? Does it serve any purpose to announce to the members that Freeborn decided that he was better than the staff, called the staff names that we cannot print, threatened the staff etc?



Edited to add - for the record, Freeborn has done none of these things. Just trying to personalize it so that, perhaps, it makes a bit more sense.
It doesn't serve any purpose to do that so we keep mum.

If we talk about anyone's banning, other than the obvious hoaxers, we have to talk about all of them.

thus, we don't discuss them.

reply to post by Freeborn

By 'transparency', do realize that tptb are going exactly that route, and this is what it means:

YOU will be made transparent, x-rayed, infrared rayed, microwaved, mind read, as well as having a see-through house and all you electronic doo dads are basically an open book to prevent rebellion against the slave-state.

Off topic, to be sure. I specialize in integration.

Then, tptb will be as opaque as ever. fume.

Here's one way it looks like they are trying to bring it on. It looks like (in the future) it may be that anyone using a cellular is probably a narc or state spy. Being cancer causing microwave producing devices means they'll have to give them away, get police to rely on them, and make sure to offer incentives for reporting. The signs are blatantly obvious, just a matter of time.

reply to post by Freeborn


Don't think the staff doesn't talk about this, constantly. One of the most difficult things to do is to pull the plug on a member. We've all developed relationships here, and knowing how hurtful it can be to terminate a membership, it's nothing ever done lightly.

It's also our desire to respect privacy. No matter how abhorrent the behavior was, we feel it's just bad form to share that publicly about a member. Maybe they're going through a rough patch. Maybe who knows what personal issues. Maybe there are people here who know them personally. It's the kind of thing we're just not going to disclose. Whether they "deserve" it, or not. At the end of the day, it's about violating some fairly basic rules that aren't all that difficult to follow. That may be the glib response, but it's the honest one.

You don't have to agree, and I respect anyone who has enough genuine concern for the site and the members to voice their views. But I can tell you with the utmost confidence, the general policy about not discussing specific member bannings isn't going to change.

reply to post by Crakeur


your reasoning sounds like pure logic to me, and some of the arguments here feel like someone is trying to get banned... i understand the T&C, although there are always loopholes, and sometimes some may fall through, but i see most do not, and i do not question the privilege i was given to be able to interact with others on this site, and gain knowledge...

i think deny ignorance pretty much sums it all up, if you are ignorant, you can come here to learn, but do not try to put your ignorance on others, or you can say bye bye to the privilege of being here...

i am not trying to brown nose, anyone who knows me knows that is FAR from my personality... it just seems some of the responses to the OP here, although not necessarily breaking the T&C are pushing a little too much, and i just wonder why...

i am not banned, never have been, hope never to be, good luck to the rest of you as well... i guess it's not luck though... but the few hoaxers i have encountered here, as well as a few other civility and decorum rebels that i just happened across a post or two of before they were removed and banned... well, i guess, i'm just saying i really don't have any question as to why any of those that i have seen banned were...

maybe just add... don't look a gift horse in the mouth... or don't bite the hand that feeds you... i think those are plenty reason...

reply to post by yeahright


That's fair do's and as I said previously I fully understand and respect the reasoning behind the policy.

I think both viewpoints have valid arguements, just pleased I don't have to make the call on it!

And though it may not seem like it my comment about 'glib dismissals' was not directed at you but rather some of the responces I have seen previously when this topic has arisen.

Thanks to both you and Crakeur for taking the time to explain.

I would like to clarify a couple little things here.

On Stars, Flags and all the other little extras. Because that is what they are after all, extras. This was copied from a banned member's profile. You will see most of the same stats in their mini-profile in all their posts.

ATS Points: 86,886
Flags: 1,288
Stars: 7,085
WATS Index: 63
Post Count: 3,428
Applause: 128

Those stats, if you will, are better than mine. In some categories, a whole lot better than mine. Does that make that person a better candidate for being a moderator? Does that make that person a better contributer to ATS? Does know the star count of his last few posts make a difference? Does the ability to be able to star his posts make a difference? If you answered "No. Maybe (Yes or No). No. No." then congratulations, you understand that that each member is a person and not a statistic.

If you can understand that part then this part should make sense as well.

The staff here at ATS doesn't look at members as just members. We see everyone as people. Sure I could give to very good recent examples of that fact, but that would be an invasion of their privacy. What was said before by other staff is very true. No one has been permanently banned from ATS for reasons other than not following the T&C's. And usually it is not the T&C violation but the inability or the unwillingness by the member to resolve the problem.

The staff does not vindictively banned people either. Yes, I have actioned people with the Off Topic button and other ones. And yes, I have placed a few on post bans and even temporary bans from chat. Yet, the majority of those were worked out within 72 hours maximum. And in the end, quite a few have said "Thanks, Ahab."

Do staff deal with things they are morally to the core opposed? Yes. And each staff member has the ability to say, "I would rather not deal with this because..." and other staff members will deal with it. This is especially true if the staff member thinks that the subject itself would cause them any sort of prejudice.

Are the staff able to look at things objectively? Yes. Best example was a few years ago there was a very large thread that discussed the end of all drug talk on ATS period, even conspiracies. That thread was an absolute hornets nest of some very strong opinions and members that spoke up about what they felt was a poor decision. The fact that there is a forum at all will tell you that things can be discussed objectively but I want to add my personal experience.

In that thread was a post of mine that SO himself applauded. It was very short and actually off topic. I asked that the staff be asked not to moderate the thread, even personal attacks, in order to preserve the discussion in its entirety so people in the future could look back on the thread and have the whole story of how things came to be. So here you have a post, in a thread that SO started, asking for the T&C to be ignored and for the staff to back off for what could be an insignificant reason on a topic that was to be completely abolished. For some people that would be the ultimate slap in the face. Now I did not intend it to be and I still don't know if it was looked that way or not, but SO read it and applauded it.

The fact that SO looked at a subject objectively that he was opposed to and decided to discuss what was already decided to have ended earned him a level of respect that can't be bought, bribed nor coerced. My response was to make him the first member on the site that I hit the friend button on. You can see from my profile that is a very short list. Each one made it for their own reasons, one of which is a banned member and will not be removed from that list for the reasons they made it on the list. It is a matter of my personal integrity.

On the question of having public explanations of why a member was banned. My vote would be a very strong no due to it being a private matter between the individual person and the staff. There have been exceptions in the past and I am sure there will be exceptions in the future to that rule. But to make it a general rule of thumb and establish a forum for it... I would step down first.

That is the level of my integrity on protecting a persons privacy. I am very certain that the majority of the membership, moderators, super moderators, administration and owners feel exactly the same way. It is that respect for each other which make ATS a community.

And here is one of the best links on the subject, How Not To Be Banned From ATS Pretty simple, really.

So I did as suggested earlier in this thread and did an internet search for ATS banning. I would just like to say that for anyone who reads this and decides not to join ATS it is probably for the best. A large group of obvious malcontents whose attitudes and manner of speech made their reason for banning obvious.

It hasn't been brought up here but the only good reason I could see for a brief explanation of each ban would be that the silence leaves the door open for wild accusations. Removing the stars only enforces those accusations. I think if any explanation is offered for a banning it should be nothing more than a user name and the section of the T&C that was violated. This would abate some suspicion and not violate personal privacy in my opinion. After that: No more discussion.

In my opinion anyone that spends time on the boards and gauges the different topics and behaviors should find it obvious there is no genuine intellectual censorship happening here. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I do not want to participate on a board with intellectual censorship and will immediately leave if anyone can prove to me it is occurring.

No matter what anyone says; this is the concern and the reason behind anyone wanting to discuss bannings, lost stars, or anything of the sort. The concern is that there may be intellectual censorship happening.