They all lived in Thailand for a while?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
People who are banned
- Thread starter Joe Nerve
- Start date
They all lived in Thailand for a while?
I think a ban list would be educational. It is good to learn from the mistakes of others. I don't read the poopy rules. It is just dumb shaging luck that I haven't been banned yet. Does anyone actually read the shaging rules? I can post some shaging poopie when I get shaging drunk.
Points for your answer.
Don't know about Nobody living in Thailand though, anyone?
Hint: I was going for something more related to the thread subject.
Anyone else?
I'll weigh in on a few things related to the subject of this thread. In no particular oder:
- Moderator actions with regard to any specific member are private and confidential. The only people who can see any user's history of warnings/rule violations are the users themselves and the moderator staff. This is by design and makes perfect sense: if I have been warned/reminded about a rules violation, the point of it from the POV of the site and its moderators is not as a punishment, but rather as a reminder that certain behaviors - as outlined by the site rules that every member agrees to abide by when signing up, and which are readily available at any time via a single click - are not allowed on the site. These reminders/warnings are kept private because no one who has received one should feel like they have to wear their history on their sleeve, or as a sort of online "scarlet letter" on their forehead.
- This same principle applies to bans. Whenever a member is banned, all that can be inferred is that site rules were broken either seriously enough or enough times that the system triggered a ban, like points on a drivers license. Anything beyond that is speculation that has no place in the public forums.
The most common reasons that users end up with a ban in general are repeatedly violating the following three site rules:
- Disrespect, both of other members and/or the moderator staff (self explanatory)
- Trolling, including both personal trolling, topical trolling, and inability to refrain from divisive topics such as politics and religion in the open forums
- Commercial behavior, including repeatedly pushing a particular commercial agenda, brand, or abuse of the endorser tag that tends toward spamming the products endorsed
In every case, the way the rules are written keeps the specific reason for bans confidential between the site and the user. What can always be inferred is that a user who has been banned has broken the site rules often and/or seriously enough that either the warning system triggers a ban after a series of strikes, or that a single egregious event caused one of the moderators or admins to determine that it was time for the user in question to stop posting here because of a refusal to accept the rules of the site. 99% of the time, it is a series of events rather than a single one.
- Moderator actions with regard to any specific member are private and confidential. The only people who can see any user's history of warnings/rule violations are the users themselves and the moderator staff. This is by design and makes perfect sense: if I have been warned/reminded about a rules violation, the point of it from the POV of the site and its moderators is not as a punishment, but rather as a reminder that certain behaviors - as outlined by the site rules that every member agrees to abide by when signing up, and which are readily available at any time via a single click - are not allowed on the site. These reminders/warnings are kept private because no one who has received one should feel like they have to wear their history on their sleeve, or as a sort of online "scarlet letter" on their forehead.
- This same principle applies to bans. Whenever a member is banned, all that can be inferred is that site rules were broken either seriously enough or enough times that the system triggered a ban, like points on a drivers license. Anything beyond that is speculation that has no place in the public forums.
The most common reasons that users end up with a ban in general are repeatedly violating the following three site rules:
- Disrespect, both of other members and/or the moderator staff (self explanatory)
- Trolling, including both personal trolling, topical trolling, and inability to refrain from divisive topics such as politics and religion in the open forums
- Commercial behavior, including repeatedly pushing a particular commercial agenda, brand, or abuse of the endorser tag that tends toward spamming the products endorsed
In every case, the way the rules are written keeps the specific reason for bans confidential between the site and the user. What can always be inferred is that a user who has been banned has broken the site rules often and/or seriously enough that either the warning system triggers a ban after a series of strikes, or that a single egregious event caused one of the moderators or admins to determine that it was time for the user in question to stop posting here because of a refusal to accept the rules of the site. 99% of the time, it is a series of events rather than a single one.
I read them. I'm a rules freak.
Doesn't mean I always follow them though.
If you know the rules, you can find the loopholes.
IMHO, rule #12 for instance, needs a lot of work.
I was banned once, maybe more in the future after this.
My issue seemed to hinge on my "intent".
Moderator was the one who decided.
Not sure why the Moderator thought they knew my intent better than I did, a little Totalitarian for me.
The subject was manufacturing competition from offshore.
No profanity or bashing was involved.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching...... Rule Three?
Everybruce: No Pooftas!!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Four, now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not drinking..... Rule Five,
Everybruce: No Pooftas!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO ... Rule Six!... Rule Seven,
Everybruce: No Pooftas!!
Fourth Bruce: Right, that concludes the readin' of the rules, Bruce.
Invalid Link Removed
Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abbos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching...... Rule Three?
Everybruce: No Pooftas!!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Four, now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not drinking..... Rule Five,
Everybruce: No Pooftas!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO ... Rule Six!... Rule Seven,
Everybruce: No Pooftas!!
Fourth Bruce: Right, that concludes the readin' of the rules, Bruce.
I had a similar thing happen once. Won't say where though.
My intentions were good, nay I say honorable and in the defense of another poster.
But after a warning from a mod and after we discussed it, AND after I re-read the rules, (Rules Freak) I was clearly in violation and the warning was well deserved in spite of my intentions.
You know what they say about the road to hell?
It leads straight to Albany?.....
Well, first I guess I'll repeat that it would be a bad idea in "thread" style, but not so much in the members section. Just information. No discussion. The information need not be detailed or include any opinions. So and so was banned for violation of (the rule) from his/her posts in the thread (insert thread). Or for subsequent violations of the whatever rules. It would also include whether it was a permanant ban, or temporary, and for how long. I don't see how that would cause any more problems or humiliation that the current crossed out name, and "banned." I think it would actually make things easier on everyone. It would put an end to threads like "Why was KBD banned," also.
It would also be helpful in that people would see that the rules are actually enforced, and members would have a better understanding of what gets people banned.
I think it could also benefit by what @jmattbassplaya said here, but I didn't mention cuz I didn't want to complicate the already complicated.
I do think it would be a good idea for banned members to have the option of leaving contact information. There are a few people here who I feel I've gotten close to, who's contact info I don't have. If they suddenly disappeared for getting too drunk one night or something, I'd feel bad. And I'd want to know what happened. Or even better maybe, a way for members to be able to send contact info ONLY to the banned member. A box for email addresses only, or something like that.
I think this would put Talkbass above all the rest as far as moderation goes. Not that this is a competition
Just knowing the rules might help but not knowing the specific meaning, again "intent"? Sort of hard to define, one of those, I know it when I see it things.
Like the idea of some type of contact to the individual.
Solution - don't post on here whilst under the influence of any substance (illegal or otherwise, although presumably caffeine would be considered safe - if not, I'd have been banned years ago).
All ex-services?
All lefties?
All barred from Madame Fifi's Massage Parlour just across the road from the Rainbow in Vegas?
The problem with that is, once a person is already under the influence of a substance, he is not in a good position to make the decision of abstaining from talkbass posting. It's completely unavoidable. No possible solution! *hic*
OH so close on 1 and 2 unless you weren't.
As far as 3 is concerned, we won't speak ill of the dead, physically dead or just dead to us.
Next hint:
Pbassmanca
In the pocket n' thumpy. So woody, so greasy...
I'm under the influence of caffeine as we speak!
